Influence of RED‐II Calculation Rules on the Carbon Footprint of Methanol E‐Fuel

The carbon footprint of methanol from cradle‐to‐grave is evaluated using three process concepts to capture CO2, i.e., one using CO2 from direct air capture (DAC) and the other two utilizing CO2 from a steel mill's blast furnace gas (BFG). Hydrogen is supplied by onsite electrolysis, or from a German offshore wind park, or an Australian solar park with ammonia as hydrogen carrier. The study is of interest to life cycle assessment (LCA) practitioners, policymakers, and industries’ management who are involved in regulating, planning, implementing, and operating projects which aim to produce fuels using hydrogen from electrolysis (so‐called ‘e‐fuels’). The influence of assumptions in the RED‐II delegated act regarding recycled carbon fuels and renewable liquid and gaseous fuels of non‐biological origin on the carbon footprint results is examined. The RED‐II assumption regarding the credits for captured CO2 after 2041 indicate that DAC‐based concepts are advantageous with respect to BFG, although the LCA results indicate the opposite. Using green hydrogen from nearby locations reduces carbon footprints more than faraway locations due to transport‐related emissions. The RED‐II directive has different assumptions to calculate life cycle emissions of fuels from traditional life cycle assessment. Its influence on the carbon footprint of e‐methanol is examined with the help of three concepts to produce methanol from CO2: (a) CO2 from air, CO2 from blast furnace gas with (b) carbon capture, and (c) water‐gas shift pathway.