Hydrogen – methane – methanolWhy methanol? It is liquid at room temperature. The other options are methane and hydrogen. Both are only an option at huge underground storages and far too expensive for decentralized energy systems. Here we are suddenly in the power-to-hydrogen, methane, and methanol debate. Hydrogen has the highest power-to-efficiency because no DAC - Direct Air Capture of CO2 is required. From a pipe in the bathroom comes 10 L of water per minute containing 1.11 kg hydrogen. Very simple. But You have to suck 4,400 m³ air through a filter to capture as much CO2 as containing the 1 kg carbon. This decreases the efficiency. But the higher power-to-hydrogen efficiency comes at the price of far more storage costs, because the existing 25 km³ underground gas storage in Germany would contain only a third of the energy when filled with hydrogen. When this 25 km³ underground gas storage in Germany is not enough, additional storage would be far cheaper with methanol. The 25 km³ underground gas storage in Germany is designed for the fossil energy system: delivery is constant all over the year, but in summer there is less demand than delivery, and in winter there is more demand than delivery. The difference is covered by the 25 km³ gas storage. As the new installation numbers suggest, we are going to a very heavy photovoltaic-oriented energy transition requiring more storage for summer-winter balancing. |












