Modelling and Cost Estimation for Conversion of Green Methanol to Renewable Liquid Transport Fuels via Olefin Oligomerisation
, Harri Nieminen 1, Ahmed Rufai Dahiru 2, Arto Laari 1, Tuomas Koiranen 1, Petteri Laaksonen 3, Ari Vuokila 2 and Mika Huuhtanen 2
Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
In this paper, the authors presented process simulation of methanol to hydrocarbons focusing on the transportations fuels from renewable methanol. It is found that the cost of the resulted fuel is much higher than the currently used fossil fuel. The overall method and results are reasonable and convinced in ballpark figures, however, more details and consistent data are needed to adopt when revising the paper, the following should be taken into consideration.
- The cost of ZSM-5 catalyst is clearly not reasonable, as shown in ref 53 and table 2. This price is clearly chemical agent price, not the commercial catalyst price, also the consumption of the catalyst and others like steam and water per ton products should be given.
- The H2 price in this paper is about 2.5 euro/kgH2, however, the price base for methanol they quoted in ref 50 was 3 euros/kg H2. this could be conflicted each other.
- Also the overall process would be relevant to the catalyst performance and the integration with the refinery. The authors should define the catalyst performance (based on the best results literature), which may show different results.
Author Response
Dear reviewer,
Please see the attachment.
Author Response File: 
Author Response.docx
Reviewer 2 Report
The authors study the production of gasoline, kerosene, and diesel from renewable methanol using methanol-to-olefins (MTO) and Mobil’s Olefins to Gasoline and Distillate (MOGD) syntheses. The authors claim to present a comprehensive process simulation model comprising liquid fuel production and efficient heat integration. Unfortunately, there is no clear description of the effect of heat integration on the overall costs. Moreover, to prove that the economic analysis is significant, the authors should show that the process itself is already optimal, but there is no discussion on this matter. Without the optimal process design, there is no way to prove the profitability and costs are at their best. The way the authors compare the thermodynamic model is arguable. Usually, the thermodynamic model is contrasted with experimental results. The authors compare other thermodynamic models to justify that PENG-ROB is acceptable. There is no proof that the PENG-ROB is representative of the actual operation in this work. The DIST2 column is questionable with 0.012 RR and 0.99 DFR, which means that almost 99% of the feed is distilled at the top with very small reflux. How such a distillation column is feasible in reality? So many design questions are not addressed in this work that is the opposite of the comprehensive model claimed previously.
Typographical error:
There are missing references here and there: Error! Reference source not found.
Author Response
Dear reviewer,
Please see the attachment.
Author Response File: Author Response.docx
Round 2
Reviewer 2 Report
The authors have addressed reviewers' comments accordingly.
