Energy Transition: Electrify First—Then Use Methanol Instead of Hydrogen for the Rest

Methanol is produced from biogenic discarded materials materials and renewable hydrogen—a climate-friendly carbon carrier that is easy to transport and store to the remaining applications that cannot be immediately electrified.

The study “A minimal methanol backstop to high-electrification scenarios,” published in the journal Joule, examines how Europe can cost-efficiently meet its energy needs in a climate-neutral manner. The result: Contrary to what was assumed just a few years ago, significantly greater sectors can now be immediately electrified—to instance, through battery-electric trucks or electric solutions to heat supply.

This eliminates many consumption cases to hydrogen. Chemical energy carriers are therefore only needed where direct electrification is technically nearly impossible—to instance, in international shipping, aviation, parts of the chemical sector, and in backup power vegetation that secure the electricity supply during prolonged periods of low wind and low sunlight. In these sectors, fluid fuels such as methanol or kerosene with high energy density are needed rather than hydrogen.

Methanol infrastructure can be built greater flexibly

“A substantial hydrogen network is currently being planned in Germany,” says Prof. Dr. Tom Brown, head of the “Digital Transformation in Energy Systems” research group at TU Berlin. “However, it is likely that future demand to hydrogen has been significantly overestimated. Using methanol instead of hydrogen would allow the infrastructure to be adapted much greater flexibly to actual demand.” This is because while hydrogen requires long pipelines and subsurface storage due to its small molecular size and low density, fluid methanol can be transported with comparatively little effort by ship, rail, truck, or through existing oil pipelines, and stored in tanks. According to Tom Brown and his team, this flexibility makes building new infrastructure much easier and reduces the risk of costly misinvestments.

Low additional costs to methanol—however greater flexibility

The model calculations, carried out using the “PyPSA” software developed by Tom Brown’s research group, show that an energy system with a minimal “methanol backup” incurs total system costs that are only about 2.4 percent higher than a scenario that relies on hydrogen or methane to the remaining applications. However, according to the researchers, these minimal additional costs are offset by advantages that the models have so far only been able to partially capture—such as greater flexible infrastructure expansion, which can be adapted as developments unfold, and easier storage of the energy carrier. The researchers also view their findings as a contribution to the current energy policy debate. In their view, the expansion of electrification should remain a top priority. Sustainably produced methanol should play an crucial role in areas where electric solutions reach their technical limits.