University of Calgary

Schulich School of Engineering

Department of Chemical and Petroleum Engineering
2500 University Drive NW
Calgary, Alberta, T2N 1N4

October 15, 2019

RE: Design of an Integrated Carbon Capture and Conversion Plant to Produce Methanol
Dear Supervisors,
Attached is a midterm progress report for the “Design of an Integrated Carbon Capture and
Conversion (ICCC) Plant to Produce Methanol” project compiled for the ENCH 511: Chemical
Project Design I course.
The enclosed report is a summary of the engineering analysis completed to date. The end goal of
this project is to develop an integrated process, wherein an electrochemical conversion unit will
be directly coupled with a CO2 separation process, leading to the production of methanol. For this
report, we have performed a comprehensive literature and market survey, identified the industrial
point source of CO2, selected and justified the process for CO2 separation, performed a preliminary
mass balance, and created a Block Flow Diagram and a Process Flow Diagram to demonstrate our
selected process and equipment. A Gantt Chart is included in the Appendix of this report and
illustrates our schedule for the effective completion of the Design Basis Memorandum by
December 6.
If you have any questions or comments, please contact any of us at: jenny.li2@ucalgary.ca,
lucy.huang@ucalgary.ca, varun.bhatt@ucalgary.ca, noelvincent.echano@ucalgary.ca or
vladislav.semyonov@ucalgary.ca. We appreciate you taking the time to read our report and we
look forward to hearing back from you.

Sincerely,

Varun Bhatt, Vincent Echano, Lucy Huang, Jenny Li and Vlad Semyonov
LJV3 Consulting Ltd.

1
 ENCH 511 – Chemical Process Design I

Midterm Report
Design of an Integrated Carbon Capture and Conversion (ICCC) Plant to
Produce Methanol

Authors:
Varun Bhatt - 10172484
Vincent Echano - 10170983
Lucy Huang - 10175312
Jenny Li - 10175286
Vlad Semyonov - 10160918

Instructor:
Dr. Michael W. Foley

Project Supervisor:
Dr. Kazi Sumon

Date of Submission:
October 15th, 2019

2
Executive Summary
This progress report provides a summary of the engineering analysis that has been completed
thus far for the design of an Integrated Carbon Capture and Conversion (ICCC) plant to produce
methanol. Included in this report are the literature and market surveys of potential ICCC processes.
The purpose of this project is to develop a strategy to mitigate the CO2 emissions of industrial
processes, especially due to the combustion of fossil fuels. This project will provide the design and
techno-economic analysis for a process of ICCC via electrochemical synthesis.
The plant designed in this project captures CO2 from the flue gas of a typical natural gas
combined cycle (NGCC) fired power plant in the USA. CO2 is separated from the flue gas in a
molten carbonate fuel cell (MCFC). After heat recovery, purified CO2 is fed to an electrochemical
synthesis unit (electrolyzer) to produce liquid methanol and water. Recycled water undergoes
electrolysis to form H2 and O2 to aid reactions in the MCFC unit. The methanol can be sold for
use in other industrial processes.
Processes that were considered for CO2 separation were chemical absorption, physical
adsorption, and the use of an MCFC. The MCFC approach was selected for its lower
environmental impact and greater economic benefits. Excluding CO2, the MCFC in the plant
design for this project only requires H2 and O2 while generating water, all of which are non-
hazardous chemicals and do not pose an environmental risk. Since the MCFC also generates
electricity that can be used for other processes in the plant, utility expenditures can be reduced,
and carbon emissions can be avoided. Additionally, the CO2 electrolysis unit was extensively
studied. Electrolyzer specifications and configuration are available in detail in Appendix B.
The major achievements of the project have been understanding the different methods of
carbon separation, purification, and conversion, and determining criteria to be used for selecting
the best technology for the separation process. LJV3 has been able to understand and implement
the different technologies to design an electrolyzer system capable of converting CO2 to methanol.
The firm has commenced the integration of the separation, purification, and conversion processes.
In the literature survey, it was identified that CO2 electrolyzers have only been utilized on a
laboratory scale. Using available information, the designed process was able to achieve 10% CO2
emissions reduction while producing 101MT of methanol per year. Significant work needs to be
done to increase the CO2 conversion to reduce CO2 emissions by a greater amount and increase
methanol production. Another challenge was gathering information and understanding the various
auxiliary processes such as nitrogen separation, water deionization, water electrolysis, flash
separation, and distillation. The CO2 separation and conversion processes were focused upon for
this midterm report, so these auxiliary processes will be subject to further research and
development for following reports.

3
1 Introduction
Carbon dioxide (CO2) is a greenhouse gas that is commonly released by industrial processes,
especially due to the combustion of fossil fuels, and is a key contributor to global warming. Based
on data from NASA, the CO2 levels in the atmosphere have surpassed historical levels in the 1950s
and has since continued to increase (NASA, 2019). Global energy demand is met by an increase
in power plant operations and the burning of fossil fuels, with power plant operations contributing
approximately 38% of total electricity generation (Birol et al., 1999). Through the Paris Climate
Agreement, countries worldwide agreed to maintain global warming below 2˚C to slow down the
progression of harmful climate change. However, based on current CO2 emissions, the carbon
budget is expected to deplete in less than three decades (MCC, 2018). Thus, there is a need to
develop strategies to mitigate CO2 emissions.
In this design project, an Integrated Carbon Capture and Conversion (ICCC) plant will be
studied and designed. This plant will extract pure CO2 from a feed of flue gas from a natural gas
combined cycle (NGCC) power plant then will be converted to methanol through an
electrochemical process. This method presents an opportunity to reduce CO2 emissions while
producing a useful product, as well as the potential to be a carbon negative process. Methanol is
often used as a parent compound for chemical derivatives and as an energy source in many
industrial processes worldwide. It is a compound with a demand of 75 million tons a year (MI-1,
2019), creating many economic opportunities.
2 Literature Survey
2.1 History of Methanol Synthesis Processes
The success of methanol synthesis dates back to “1857 by dry distillation of wood” (Din et
al., 2019). In 1923, the commercialization of methanol synthesis emerged when BASF used
“syngas on zinc/chromia based catalyst” (Din et al., 2019). High pressures were required for this
process but this was overcame in 1960 when the catalyst was replaced by highly active Cu/ZnO.
Since then, the industry has evolved to mainly perform methanol synthesis by using Cu-ZnO/Al2O3
catalyst in a syngas and CO2 mixture. In 2011, the first plant to produce methanol by CO2
hydrogenation was introduced. This process also uses Cu-ZnO/Al2O3 catalyst, however, it operates
at lower temperature and pressure (Din et al., 2019).
2.2 Carbon Separation
2.2.1 Chemical Absorption by Monoethanolamine (MEA)
The MEA process for CO2 separation is a chemical absorption technology with significant
commercial application. The process consists of using a chemical solvent, MEA, in amine
scrubbing. MEA scrubbing requires three primary components, an absorber, a heat exchanger and
a stripper. For this application, the flue gas enters the bottom of the absorber, and the MEA solvent
enters from the top simultaneously (Jung et al., 2013). Through an exothermic reaction, the MEA
solvent selectively absorbs the CO2. This CO2 rich solvent then drains through the bottom of the
absorber and passes through the heat exchanger to be preheated (Jung et al, 2013). The heated
solvent then proceeds to enter the top of the stripper and desorbs the CO2 at high temperature
conditions. CO2 is captured at the top of the stripper and the remaining solvent drains to the bottom
and is cooled for recycling back into the top of the absorber (Jung et al, 2013). This process has

4
been widely applied to various companies and among continuous research and experience, the
benefits of this system include the high reactivity for even low CO2 concentrations in flue gas. As
well, it is more attractive compared to advanced separation methods such as membranes and
pressure-swing adsorption because of the lack in compression work required (Harvey & Heyne,
2013). However, the economic cost is significant. The MEA process costs consist of a surplus
amount of heat energy necessary in solvent regeneration, electricity consumption for CO2
compression and the cooling necessities for solvent cooling (Luis et al., 2016). Further, MEA
scrubbing generates abundant liquid waste with limited safe handling and disposal methods for
such large quantities. MEA is subject to oxidative and thermal degradation and the waste is harmful
to public health and environmental ecosystems (Zhou et al., 2012).
2.2.2 Physical Adsorption
Adsorption processes are a popular alternative to absorption for overcoming the energy and
subsequent cost challenges in carbon separation (Yu et al., 2012; Songolzadeh et al., 2014). In
physical adsorption, CO2 adheres to the surface of the solid adsorbent through weak van-der-Waals
forces (Ben-Mansour et al., 2016). To recover the CO2, a pressure swing (PSA) or temperature
swing (TSA) may be performed. In PSA, CO2 is adsorbed at a high pressure, and released in
another chamber by swinging to a low pressure. In TSA, adsorption occurs at a low temperature
and a swing to a high temperature by injection of hot air or steam releases the CO2 (Leung et al.,
2014).
Common physical adsorbents for carbon separation includes zeolites, activated carbon and
metal organic frameworks (MOF). While zeolites are inexpensive and have a high surface area for
adsorption, its selectivity for CO2 is low (Ben-Mansour et al., 2016; Yu et al., 2012). Activated
carbon is widely available and cheap. However, they can only be applied to high pressured gases
and low temperatures (Ben-Mansour et al., 2016). The use of MOFs in carbon separation is
relatively novel and expensive but has gained significant interest due its very high surface area and
selectivity for CO2 (Ben-Mansour et al., 2016; Yu et al., 2012). Although physical adsorption
provides substantial benefits for energy and economic savings, there are many drawbacks for the
currently used adsorbents. As a result, there is a need for better adsorbents with high CO2
selectivity and adsorption, as well as high stability in moisture and changing temperatures (Ben-
Mansour et al., 2016).
According to the safety data sheets for the above adsorbents, zeolite is identified as non-
hazardous (Sigma-Aldrich et al., 2019); whereas, activated carbon has potential health effects but
is not classified as an environmental hazard (Sorbtech et al., 2019); and finally, the health and
environmental impact of MOFs vary from non-hazardous to very hazardous depending on the
structure type.
2.2.3 Molten Carbonate Fuel Cell (MCFC)
MCFC is a novel technology which has been gaining the interest of researchers over the past
few years. Multiple papers have been published with regards to using MCFC as a separation tool
of CO2 from a power plant exhaust or flue gas stream (Milewski & Lewandowski et al., 2012;
Rexed et al., 2015; Discepoli, et al., 2012). A major advantage of MCFC is that in addition to
separating CO2, it generates electricity, which could then be used elsewhere in the chemical
process or plant. A flue gas stream or a mixture of air and CO2 is usually fed into the cathode of
5
the MCFC, while fuel gas is fed into the anode. “Any gas containing H2, CH4 and CO can be used
as fuel for MCFC” (Rexed et al., 2015) depending on proximity, composition, and price.
At the cathode, O2 and CO2 react to form the intermediate carbonate ions (CO32-). Whereas
at the anode, the H2 from the fuel gas reacts with the carbonate ions to produce CO2 and H2O.
Electricity is required at the cathode, while the anode produces it (Rexed et al., 2015). “The MCFC
is a high temperature fuel cell operating at 650˚C” (Rexed et al., 2015) and another paper states
approximately the same operating range (Veziroglu et al., 2005). Overall, the CO2 is being
separated by moving from the cathode into the anode side of the MCFC.
The CO2 emissions reduction using MCFC varies depending on the composition of the inlet
flue gas or plant exhaust, operating conditions of the MCFC, and how much CO2 enters the
cathode. However, the maximum value achieved in most cases is 70% (Milewski & Lewandowski,
2012; Discepoli et al., 2012; Samanta & Ghosh, 2016). Although most papers conclude that more
research into MCFC is needed due to its promising nature and comparative advantages to
conventional MEA-based processes, a major disadvantage of MCFC is its lack of commercial
testing. Research has almost exclusively been done in a lab-based environment or using
simulations. Hence, there is some uncertainty in expecting that similar results could be achieved
on a pilot plant scale.
2.3 CO2 Conversion and Methanol Synthesis
There are several pathways to produce methanol from CO2. Hydrogenation, which is the
most established and industrialized methanol synthesis pathway, is an exothermic reaction where
CO2 and H2 are reacted over a catalyst bed. Thermodynamically, this reaction benefits from low
temperatures and high temperatures, but is kinetically limited below 200˚C. (Nieminen et al., 2019)
Thus, this process is typically operated at 200-250 ˚C and 30-50 bar. Different catalyst types have
been used in methanol hydrogenation such as active metal catalysts, Silver based, Palladium based,
and Copper based catalysts, with a Cu/ZnO/Al2O3 configuration being the most utilized catalyst
system for methanol synthesis. (Israf et al., 2019)
Methanol can also be synthesized from CO2 through a photoelectrochemical process. Like
electrochemical synthesis, this method utilizes an exchange of electrons, but uses light energy and
semiconductors instead of an external source of electricity to develop electron flow. By directly
using a renewable source of energy, this method produces virtually no emissions. In one example
of a photoelectrochemical system, a homogeneous visible light chromophore is used in place of an
electrode, and sacrificial donors such as ascorbate are used to supply electrons (Boston et al.,
2013). While having the most potential to be a carbon negative process, it suffers from several key
challenges, most notably low yields, short chromophore lifetimes, and expensive photocatalysts
such as nicotinamide cofactor (NADH) (Kuk et al., 2017).
The direct electrochemical reduction of CO2 is a process in which electrical energy is
supplied to establish a potential between two electrodes, allowing CO2 to be transformed into
methanol and other products at ambient conditions (298K, 1 atm). The overall reaction of CH3OH
formation is a combination of a reduction and oxidation reaction at the cathode and anode of the
system, as presented below:

6
 Cathode: CO2 + 6H+ + 6e- ↔ CH3OH + H2O
Anode: 3H2O ↔ 1.5O2 + 6H+ + 6e-
Overall: CO2 + 2H2O ↔ CH3OH + 1.5O2
The electrical energy supplied to the system is consumed by two reactions: (Albo et al., 2015)
I. Hydrogen Evolution Reaction (HER), in which the energy is consumed to produce hydrogen
through the process of water electrolysis.
II. The reduction of CO2 into CH3OH.
To achieve high selectivity, which is defined by Faradaic efficiency, and high production
rates of desired methanol, an electrode that can suppress the HER is essential, so that most of the
supplied energy is consumed only in the CO2 reduction. At present, the highest current densities
and Faradaic efficiencies towards CH3OH formation are associated with oxidized Cu-based
electrodes, which are also the most studied in the literature (Le et al., 2011).
The conversion process being designed in this project focuses on the direct electrochemical
synthesis of methanol from CO2. This process is desirable as it does not produce any harmful
emissions and can be performed at ambient conditions, with the only energy requirement being
the electricity needed to run the CO2 and water electrolyzers. However, the possibility of pairing
the system with a renewable source of energy such as solar, wind, or fuel cells, can potentially
render this synthesis as a carbon negative process.
3 Market Survey
Methanol is a necessary component in various manufacturing and production processes,
including polymer and major automatics fuel source production (The Essential Chemical Industry,
2017). Alongside an increase in methanol energy applications constituting 40% of methanol
demand, the global demand of methanol has been greatly increased throughout the years. In 2015,
it achieved a demand of 75 million metric tons (MI-1, 2019). Following similar trends, the history
of methanol production demonstrated an increase from 15.9 million tons to 22.1 million tons from
1983 to 1991 alone. Then, from 1990 to 1995, the methanol production was recorded at a growth
rate of 11% per annum (Sogani, 2016). This continual growth of methanol production in attempts
to meet the methanol demand clearly indicate the necessity of stronger development in methanol
production. In large part, this increasing demand is also fueled by methanol’s competitive prices.
The price for methanol made from natural gas is $1.13 per gallon, (MI-2, 2019) whereas the price
for gasoline is $2.65 per gallon (EIA, 2019). This significant difference is another key factor
driving the growth in methanol production investment.
4 Process Selection
4.1 CO2 Separation from Flue Gas
The post-combustion carbon separation processes that were considered in this report were
chemical absorption by MEA, physical adsorption by specific adsorbents, and MCFC. While MEA
has been widely applied in industry for its high reactivity and the lack of compression work that is
required compared to other separation methods, the material costs and energy consumption for the
unit operations are significant. Furthermore, harmful wastes are generated in MEA scrubbing. In
regard to physical adsorption, the low energy and cost requirements to regenerate the CO2 are the
greatest benefits of the process. However, through the literature survey, it was identified that the
current adsorbents used in physical adsorption carry major drawbacks, such as low CO2 selectivity

7
or low stability in moisture or temperature. MCFC was chosen to be the CO2 separation process in
this case since it provides high CO2 emissions reduction and produces electricity that can be
utilized in the electrolyzers. Most importantly, it does not have any harmful pollutants or products
exiting the system (such as in MEA-based processes). It is relatively safe compared to its
alternatives and does not require exotic or expensive chemical species which can lead to toxic
waste and increased material cost.
4.2 CO2 Conversion to Methanol
Due to the lack of industrial scale CO2 electrolyzers, the electrolyzer used in this process
will be designed and modelled as a typical polymer exchange membrane fuel cell (Verma et al.,
2016) to simplify engineering design and economic analysis. Further information including a
sketch of the electrolyzer configuration is provided in Appendix B.
Cell Configuration: Typical two-compartment electrolytic cell is used with a Nafion 117 cation
exchange membrane that allows H+ ions to migrate to the cathode side and inhibits HCO3- ions
from going to the anode side to prevent faster degradation of the Iridium catalyst (Luc et al., 2017).
100 electrolytic cells are combined to form a cell stack, and 70 stacks are merged into one
electrolyzer (Verma et al., 2016). An average current density of 500 mA/cm2 will be used in this
electrolyzer (Kaczur et al., 2018; Heuer et al., 2013).
Electrode and Catalyst: Gas diffusion electrodes (GDE) are utilized in this process to increase
gas solubility and catalyst contact. The cathode for the process is prepared by electrodepositing
Cuprous oxide (Cu2O) thin films on stainless steel substrates. Direct reduction of CO2 to CH3OH
at these electrodes is demonstrated at rates up to 11.9 x 10-6 mol·m-2·s-1 and Faradaic efficiencies
up to 38% in lab scale electrolyzers. These rates and efficiencies are remarkably higher than other
oxidized or anodized Cu electrodes alternatives (Le et al., 2011). Since the transformation of CO2
to CH3OH requires 6e-, the reduction reaction is kinetically slower, thus Iridium – a highly active
catalyst with excellent structural stability under neutral environment was selected for the process
(Luc et al., 2017).
Electrolyte and pH: CO2 does not survive in basic solutions; hence neutral or slightly acidic
media are ideal. However, if too acidic the HER is preferred in comparison to the reduction of
CO2. Furthermore, CO2 reduction leads to the formation of OH- ions, making the pH near the
electrode higher (Albo et al., 2015). As high pH conditions do not favor CO2 reduction, our process
uses an aqueous 0.5 M KHCO3 electrolyte that has buffering properties, as it supplies anions that
can serve to reduce the pH changes occurred during the reaction at the electrode surface.
5 Process Description
Flue gas is obtained from an adjacent NGCC power plant. Flue gas composition is available
in Appendix A.2. The MCFC is fed with a stream composed of N2, CO2, O2, and H2O at the cathode
and H2 at the anode. The MCFC is operated at 650˚C and 1 atm and has a removal efficiency of
CO2 of 50% (Discepoli et al., 2012). CO2 is reduced at the cathode to produce a CO32- ion which
passes through the membrane to the anode and reacts with H2 to form CO2 and H2O. A heat
recovery unit such as a HRSG system is needed to extract heat from the MCFC products. The
cathode products (unreacted CO2, O2, N2, and H2O) are first sent to a condenser where liquid water
is separated and then to a membrane N2 separator where N2 is vented to the atmosphere. The
remaining gas is recycled back to the MCFC feed. The MCFC anode products (CO2 and H2O) are
sent to a condenser where liquid water is separated and is fed to the water electrolyzer, while CO2
is sent to the CO2 electrolyzer.
8
 The CO2 electrolyzer is operated at ambient conditions (25 ˚C and 1 atm). The purified CO2
and KHCO3 electrolyte enters the cathode side of a cell stack, while deionized water enters the
anode side. Water is oxidized producing O2, protons, and electrons. Protons migrate from the
anode through the Nafion 117 membrane to the cathode and react with CO2 to produce methanol
and liquid water. Gaseous products include oxygen and unreacted CO2 which can be recycled back
to the MCFC feed. The liquid products include methanol, water, electrolyte, and any gases which
dissolved into the liquid. Dissolved gases will be separated using flash separation, followed by a
distillation to separate the desired methanol and water/electrolyte solution. The electrolyte solution
will then be recycled back to the electrolyte tank. To prevent water accumulation and maintain the
concentration of electrolyte in the CO2 electrolyzer, a capacitive deionization unit will be utilized
to remove ions from this water before being fed into the water electrolyzer. A portion of this water
is sent back to the deionized water tank.
The water electrolyzer is similar in design to the CO2 electrolyzer. Deionized water
undergoes electrolysis to produce O2 and H2. The H2 is then fed into the MCFC anode and the O2
is vented to the atmosphere. A Block Flow Diagram of the designed process is shown below:

6 Conclusions and Future Work

LJV3 was able to conduct a literature and market survey to begin the process of designing an
ICCC plant to produce methanol. Flue gas from a NGCC power plant was chosen as the feed.
Various CO2 separation and purification methods were investigated and the MCFC process was
chosen due to its low environmental impact and ability to produce electricity contributing to
economic benefits. A conceptual design of the CO2 electrolyzer was developed based on a typical
polymer electrolyte membrane fuel cell. A preliminary material balance was created based on the
developed PFD, and a Gantt chart was also created to outline project schedule.
The next steps are to conduct further research into temperature and pressure management in
the overall process as well as the various auxiliary processes required. A feasibility analysis to
include a Heat Recovery Steam Generator (HRSG) after the MCFC will be conducted to maximize
heat integration and safety. Separation processes that need to be investigated further include the
Membrane Nitrogen Separator, Flash Separator, Product Distillation, and Water Deionization. An
investigation to develop ways to increase the CO2 conversion within the process will also be done.
Lastly, a rigorous economic analysis will be performed to compare the novel MCFC and
electrolyzer process to traditional, negative NPV processes.

9
Appendix A.1: Preliminary Process Flow Diagram and Material Balance

10
Stream No. → 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11
kg/ s Assumptions: 1. All separ ator efficiencies at 100%
CO2 52.800 0.000 52.800 26.400 26.400 26.400 0.000 26.400 26.400 0.000 48.180 2. 100% methanol distillation
3. No dissolved gases in CO2 Electr olyzer
H2O 41.760 0.000 41.760 41.760 10.800 41.760 41.760 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000
Liquid Pr oduct
4. All r eactants fed in stoichiometr ic
O2 25.600 0.000 25.600 16.000 0.000 16.000 0.000 16.000 16.000 0.000 21.040
amounts
Single Pass CO2
N2 327.040 0.000 327.040 327.040 0.000 327.040 0.000 327.040 327.040 327.040 0.000 17.50
Conver sion [%]
Total Methanol
H2 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 Pr oduction/ year 101614.76
[tonnes]
CH3OH 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000
Electrolyte 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000

Stream No. → 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21
kg/ s
CO2 26.400 26.400 0.000 0.000 26.400 21.780 0.000 0.000 0.000 21.780
H2O 0.000 10.800 10.800 0.000 0.000 0.000 21.600 17.820 0.000 0.000
O2 16.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 5.040 0.000 0.000 0.000 5.040
N2 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000
H2 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000
CH3OH 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 3.360 0.000 0.000
Electrolyte 0.000 0.000 0.000 10.800 10.800 0.000 0.000 10.800 0.000 0.000

Stream No. → 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31
kg/ s
CO2 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 48.180
H2O 17.820 0.000 0.000 17.820 7.020 10.800 10.800 0.000 0.000 0.000
O2 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 9.600 21.040
N2 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000
H2 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 1.206 0.000 0.000
CH3OH 3.360 3.360 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000
Electrolyte 10.800 0.000 10.800 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000

Appendix A.2: Typical Flue Gas Composition (Xu et al., 2003)

Flue Gas Composition vol. %
CO2 7.50
H2O 14.50
O2 5.00
N2 73.00

11
Appendix B: Electrolyzer Summary
The proposed electrochemical cell configuration and selections are summarized below:
Summary:
Cathode Cu2O electrodeposited-stainless steel
Anode Titanium with Iridium coating layer
Electrolyte 0.5M KHCO3 used as a buffer to control pH
Catalyst Iridium
Cell configuration Two-compartment/Nafion 117 Membrane
Active area per cell 400 cm2
Faradaic Efficiency 38 (%)
Current density ~400 mA·cm-2
Reaction rate 11.9 x 10-6mol·m-2·s-1
Potential Values -1.10 V vs. SCE
Total number of cells in a stack 100
Total number of stacks in the electrolyzer 70
Total number of electrolyzers 10
Temperature 298 K (25o C)
Pressure 1 atm

The proposed electrolyzer cell configuration is shown below:

12
Appendix C: Gantt Chart

13
 References
Albo, J., Alvarez-Guerra, M., Castaño, P., & Irabien, A. (2015). Towards the electrochemical

conversion of carbon dioxide into methanol. Green Chemistry, 17(4), 2304–2324.

https://doi.org/10.1039/c4gc02453b

Ben-Mansour, R., Habib, M.A., Bamidele, O.E., Basha, M., Qasem, N.A.A., Peedikakkal, A.,

…Ali M. (2016). Carbon capture by physical adsorption: Materials, experimental

investigations and numerical modeling and simulations – A review. Applied Energy, 161,

225-255. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.apenergy.2015.10.011

Boston, D. J., Xu, C., Armstrong, D. W., & Macdonnell, F. M. (2013). Photochemical reduction

of carbon dioxide to methanol and formate in a homogeneous system with pyridinium

catalysts. Journal of the American Chemical Society, 135(44), 16252–16255.

https://doi.org/10.1021/ja406074w

Din, I.U., Shaharun, M.S., Alotaibi, M.A., Alharthi, A.I., & Naeem A. (2019). Recent

developments on heterogeneous catalytic CO2 reduction to methanol. Journal of CO2

Utilization, 34, 20-33. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jcou.2019.05.036

Discepoli, G., Cinti, G., Desideri, U., Penchini, D., & Proietti, S. (2012). Carbon capture with

molten carbonate fuel cells: Experimental tests and fuel cell performance

assessment. International Journal of Greenhouse Gas Control, 9, 372–384. doi:

10.1016/j.ijggc.2012.05.002

Harvey, S., Heyne, S. (2013). Thermo-economic Assessment of Three Different Gas Upgrading

Technologise for the Production of Synthetic Natural Gas from Biomass. International

Journal of Energy Research, 1-12. Doi: 10.1002/er.3038

14
Din, I. U., Shaharun, M. S., Alotaibi, M. A., Alharthi, A. I., & Naeem, A. (2019). Recent

developments on heterogeneous catalytic CO2 reduction to methanol. Journal of CO2

Utilization, 34(April), 20–33. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jcou.2019.05.036

Heuer, M., Bernstein, P. A., Wenske, M., & Styczynski, Z. A. (2013). Results of current density

distribution mapping in PEM fuel cells dependent on operation parameters. Energies,

6(8), 3841–3858. https://doi.org/10.3390/en6083841

Jung, J., Jeong, Y. S., Lim, Y., Lee, C. S., & Han, C. (2013.). Advanced CO2 Capture process

using MEA scrubbing: Configuration of a Split Flow and Phase Separation Heat

Exchanger. Energy Procedia 37, 1779-1783.https://doi.org/10.1016/j.egypro.2013.06.054

Kaczur, J. J., Yang, H., Liu, Z., Sajjad, S. D., & Masel, R. I. (2018). Carbon dioxide and water

electrolysis using new alkaline stable anion membranes. Frontiers in Chemistry, 6(JUL),

1–16. https://doi.org/10.3389/fchem.2018.00263

Kuk, S. K., Singh, R. K., Nam, D. H., Singh, R., Lee, J. K., & Park, C. B. (2017).

Photoelectrochemical Reduction of Carbon Dioxide to Methanol through a Highly

Efficient Enzyme Cascade. Angewandte Chemie - International Edition, 56(14), 3827–

3832. https://doi.org/10.1002/anie.201611379

Le, M., Ren, M., Zhang, Z., Sprunger, P. T., Kurtz, R. L., & Flake, J. C. (2011). Electrochemical

reduction of CO2 to CH3OH at copper oxide surfaces. Journal of the Electrochemical

Society, 158(5), 45–49. https://doi.org/10.1149/1.3561636

Leung, D.Y.C., Caramanna, G., & Maroto-Valer, M.M. (2014). An overview of current status of

carbon dioxide capture and storage technologies. Renewable and Sustainable Energy

Reviews, 39, 426-443. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.rser.2014.07.093

15
Luc, W., Rosen, J., & Jiao, F. (2017). An Ir-based anode for a practical CO2 electrolyzer.

Catalysis Today, 288, 79–84. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cattod.2016.06.011

Luis, P. (2016). Use of Monoethanolamine (MEA) for CO2 Capture in a Global Scenario:

Consequences and Alternatives. Desalination, 380, 93–99.

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.desal.2015.08.004

Mercator Research Institute on Global Commons and Climate Change (MCC). (2018). That’s

how fast the carbon clock is ticking. Retrieved from https://www.mcc-

berlin.net/en/research/co2-budget.html

Methanol Institute (MI-1). (2019). Methanol Institute [Homepage]. Retrieved from

https://www.methanol.org/

Methanol Institute (MI-2). (2019). Methanol Price and Supply/Demand. Retrieved from

https://www.methanol.org/methanol-price-supply-demand/

Milewski, J., & Lewandowski, J. (2012). Separating CO2 from Flue Gases Using a Molten

Carbonate Fuel Cell. IERI Procedia, 1, 232–237. doi: 10.1016/j.ieri.2012.06.036

National Aeronautics and Space Administration Global Climate Change (NASA). (2019). Vital

signs: Carbon dioxide. Retrieved from https://climate.nasa.gov/vital-signs/carbon-

dioxide/

Nieminen, H., Laari, A., & Koiranen, T. (2019). CO2 hydrogenation to methanol by a liquid-

phase process with alcoholic solvents: A techno-economic analysis. Processes, 7(7).

https://doi.org/10.3390/pr7070405

Rexed, I., Pietra, M. D., McPhail, S., Lindbergh, G., & Lagergren, C. (2015). Molten carbonate

fuel cells for CO2 separation and segregation by retrofitting existing plants – An analysis

16
 of feasible operating windows and first experimental findings. International Journal of

Greenhouse Gas Control, 35, 120–130. doi: 10.1016/j.ijggc.2015.01.012

Samanta, S., & Ghosh, S. (2016). A thermo-economic analysis of repowering of a 250 MW coal

fired power plant through integration of Molten Carbonate Fuel Cell with carbon

capture. International Journal of Greenhouse Gas Control, 51, 48–55. doi:

10.1016/j.ijggc.2016.04.021

Sigma-Aldrich. (2019). Zeolite [Material Safety Data Sheet]. Retrieved October 12, 2019, from

https://www.sigmaaldrich.com/MSDS/MSDS/DisplayMSDSPage.do?country=CA&lang

uage=en&productNumber=96096&brand=SIGMA&PageToGoToURL=https%3A%2F%

2Fwww.sigmaaldrich.com%2Fcatalog%2Fproduct%2Fsigma%2F96096%3Flang%3Den

Sogani, V., Singla, N., & Somani, P. (2016). Economic Analysis of Production of Methanol from

Natural Gas. International Journal of Engineering and Technical Research 5(3), 69-72.

https://www.erpublication.org/published_paper/IJETR042158.pdf

Songolzadeh, M., Soleimani, M., Ravanchi, M.T., & Songolzadeh, R. (2014). Carbon dioxide

separation from flue gases: A technological review emphasizing reduction in greenhouse

gas emissions. The Scientific World Journal, 2014. https://doi.org/10.1155/2014/828131

Sorbtech. (2019). Activated carbon [Material Safety Data Sheet]. Retrieved October 12, 2019,

from https://www.sorbtech.com/msds/SDS%20Activated%20Carbon.pdf

The Essential Chemical Industry (2017) Methanol. Retrieved October 8, 2019, from

http://www.essentialchemicalindustry.org/chemicals/methanol.html.

U.S. Energy Information Administration (EIA). (2019). Gasoline and Diesel Fuel Update.

Retrieved October 11, 2019, from https://www.eia.gov/petroleum/gasdiesel/.

17
Verma, S., Kim, B., Jhong, H. R. M., Ma, S., & Kenis, P. J. A. (2016). A gross-margin model for

defining technoeconomic benchmarks in the electroreduction of CO2. ChemSusChem,

9(15), 1972–1979. https://doi.org/10.1002/cssc.201600394

Veziroglu, T. N., Sherif, S. A., & Barbir, F. (2005). Hydrogen Energy Solutions. Environmental

Solutions, 143–180. doi: 10.1016/b978-012088441-4/50008-3

Xu, X., Song, C., Wincek, R., Andresen, J. M., Miller, B. G., & Scaroni, A. W. (2003).

Separation of CO2 from Power Plant Flue Gas Using a Novel CO2 “Molecular Basket”

Adsorbent. ACS Division of Fuel Chemistry, Preprints, 48(1), 162–163.

Yu, C.H., Huang, C.H., & Tan, C.S. (2012). A review of CO2 capture by absorption and

adsorption. Aerosol and Air Quality Research, 12(5), 745-769. doi:

10.4209/aaqr.2012.05.0132

Zhou, S., Wang, S., & Chen, C. (2012). Thermal Degradation of Monoethanolamine in CO2

Capture with Acidic Impurities in Flue Gas. Industrial & Engineering Chemistry

Research 51(6), 2539–2547. https://doi.org/10.1021/ie202214y

18