In this work, we perform a techno-economic assessment of the MtJ process for SAF production exploring different methanol production possibilities. The process is modeled and optimized using Aveva Process Simulation. To account for uncertainty of the input parameters, the economic assessment is performed using a Discounted Cash Flow Rate (DCFR) model described in G. Sin’s work [1].
In the MtJ process, green methanol is sent to a Methanol-To-Olefins (MTO) reactor to produce C3 to C6 olefins. Longer olefins are further produced through the Mobil Olefins to Gasoline and Distillate (MOGD) process and sent to hydrogenation to produce kerosene (C8-C16 hydrocarbons). In our process, four co-products are formed alongside kerosene: Liquefied Petroleum Gas (C3-C4 hydrocarbons), gasoline (C4-C12 hydrocarbons) and diesel (C17+ hydrocarbons).
Our first design considers the production process of e-methanol (i.e. from green hydrogen (H2) and CO2) as a source for the MtJ process. The DCFR model gives a Levelized Cost of Operations (LCO) of $8.17±5.25/kg for SAF production, lacking competitiveness with the current price of fossil jet fuel in Denmark ($0.68/kg). Sensitivity analyses highlight the substantial impact of H2 price ($7.04±3.90/kg) on SAF costs, which necessitates exploring alternative renewable feedstocks for SAF.
The Methanol Institute provides the cost of production of different types of methanol such as the one for bio-methanol (produced from biomass-derived feedstocks), more than 2 times lower than the one for e-methanol (respective averages of $0.55/kg and $1.2/kg for the current prices) [2]. Our results show that using bio-methanol purchased at $0.55/kg [2], the LCO of SAF from the MtJ process drops to $0.72/kg, showing potential competitiveness against fossil-based jet fuels.
Surprisingly, the price of e-methanol from the Methanol Institute gives a LCO of $4.59/kg of SAF, almost twice as low as the one considering our designed e-methanol production plant. A recent Bloomberg study mentions the current underestimation of H2 production cost, leading to undervaluation of the cost of production of e-methanol [3]. Hence, we assess the cost of production of bio-methanol by designing a bio-methanol plant, from the biogas feedstock pretreatment to the compression of syngas and production of methanol.
By modeling the process of biogas to SAF, our study shows that bio-methanol’s lower LCO highlights a scalable SAF pathway, challenging e-methanol’s H2 dependency and most importantly offering a viable path for competitive renewable fuel options.
[1] Sin, G., Gernaey, K. V., Neumann, M. B., van Loosdrecht, M. C., & Gujer, W.. Global sensitivity analysis in wastewater treatment plant model applications: prioritizing sources of uncertainty. Water research, 45(2), 639-651; 2011.
[2] Innovation Outlook Renewable Methanol, Methanol Institute, Irena 2021. https://www.irena.org/publications/2021/Jan/Innovation-Outlook-Renewable-Methanol; 2021.
[3] Green Hydrogen Prices Will Remain Stubbornly High for Decades. Bloomberg, Green Hydrogen Prices Will Remain Stubbornly High for Decades; 2024 [accessed 17 March 2025].