methanol production, coal gasification

Metadata & sources Methods, scope, reference years, publications, contributors, projects and funding.

Other

Supporting sources:

Christoph Hank, Lukas Lazar, Franz Mantei, Mohamed Ouda, Robin J. White, Tom Smolinka, Achim Schaadt, Christopher Hebling, Hans-Martin Henning (2019). Comparative well-to-wheel life cycle assessment of OME3–5 synfuel production via the power-to-liquid pathway. Sustainable Energy & Fuels, 3(11), 3219-3233. https://doi.org/10.1039/c9se00658c

Background database: ecoinvent / 3.8
Background system model: cut-off
Biosphere database: ecoinvent / 3.8

These are the stored source profiles for this version. Foreground methodology is recorded in Scientific metadata.

External references

Publication DOI: 10.1039/C9SE00658C

Declarations describe this version's foreground inventory. Missing information is not evidence of a particular allocation method or data origin.

Source publication year: Not specified
Inventory reference year: Not specified
Foreground modelling approach: Not specified
Allocated product inventory: Not specified
Allocation or multifunctionality treatment: Not specified
Inventory contributions: Not specified
Projects: Not specified
Funding: Not specified
Methodology notes: Source and compilation
The current reference is adapted from or supplied through the methanol/synthetic-fuel workbook collection citing Hank et al. (2019). That supporting study does not independently validate every later upstream substitution, carbon adjustment, physical supplier or functional-unit convention. Source/model years do not establish an inventory measurement period.

Recorded direct carbon exchanges
Carbon dioxide, fossil: 0.13206758828730655 kilogram. These entries retain their current classification/sign; they do not independently prove net removal or complete carbon closure.
System boundary: Linked methanol synthesis plus finishing steam, capital proxy and recorded direct environmental exchanges. It is not a second independent hydrogen/CO2 synthesis reaction.
Technology description: Current purchases are 1 kg of 'methanol synthesis, hydrogen from coal gasification', 3.5098030277376187 MJ steam and 12.456827894327896 declared construction units per kg output. The legacy overall-production name is retained where used; the actual supplier graph defines this node's finishing scope.
Intended application: Reuse of this exact adapted synthesis, finishing, capital or fuel-delivery reference with its declared supplier, allocation and carbon-accounting convention.
Use limitations: Synthesis and finishing capital ownership may overlap; the declared construction-unit denominator is unresolved. Route names and source agreement do not independently establish physical yield, plant scale or full carbon/water closure. The capital purchases are preserved rather than interpreted as literal complete plants per kilogram.
Data origins: Literature

Other fields not yet completed (6)

Data period start year, Data period end year, Valid until year, Multifunctionality applicable, Process type, Included life cycle stages

Publications (1)

Citation: Christoph Hank, Lukas Lazar, Franz Mantei, Mohamed Ouda, Robin J. White, Tom Smolinka, Achim Schaadt, Christopher Hebling, Hans-Martin Henning (2019). Comparative well-to-wheel life cycle assessment of OME3–5 synfuel production via the power-to-liquid pathway. Sustainable Energy & Fuels, 3(11), 3219-3233. https://doi.org/10.1039/c9se00658c
Title: Comparative well-to-wheel life cycle assessment of OME3–5 synfuel production via the power-to-liquid pathway
Doi: 10.1039/c9se00658c
Url: https://doi.org/10.1039/c9se00658c
Source type: Scientific journal
Publication year: 2019
Relation: Supporting source
Authors: Christoph Hank · 0000-0001-5171-2217; Lukas Lazar · 0000-0001-8200-0722; Franz Mantei · 0000-0002-5241-3523; Mohamed Ouda; Robin J. White · 0000-0003-1265-7301; Tom Smolinka · 0000-0001-8895-6303; Achim Schaadt · 0000-0002-6827-2999; Christopher Hebling; Hans-Martin Henning · 0000-0003-1859-652X

Evidence and qualifications (16)

Target field: publications
Origin: Source import
Source reference: Existing published CLIC inventory documentation
Source location: source
Qualification: Append/deduplicate these references within this version. Preserve original_citation/original_doi and reconcile any existing primary source. Model ancestry is not automatically inventory authorship.

Target field: publications
Origin: Editor verification
Source reference: https://api.crossref.org/works/10.1039%2FC9SE00658C
Source location: Publisher-deposited registry /message/title, /message/published and /message/author
Qualification: Append/deduplicate these references within this version. Preserve original_citation/original_doi and reconcile any existing primary source. Model ancestry is not automatically inventory authorship.

Target field: data_origins
Origin: Source import
Source reference: Existing published CLIC inventory documentation
Source location: source
Qualification: Documented inputs to this compilation/model, not newly measured data. Omitted tags remain unspecified. Literature denotes cited inventory sources.

Target field: technology_description
Origin: Source import
Source reference: Existing published CLIC inventory documentation
Source location: description
Qualification: Only this supplied activity is described; whole-paper life-cycle boundaries not copied onto components.

Target field: technology_description
Origin: Editor verification
Source reference: https://doi.org/10.1039/c9se00658c
Source location: Hank2019 Assessed product system and Inventory for the assessed OME3-5system; exact archived/native node and capital ownership
Qualification: Technical-characterisation review TC-2028. Design capacity: Unspecified. Basis: Specific input intensity, allocation label and scaled capital purchase do not establish a plant capacity, life, utilization or annual output. Construction denominator remains unresolved. Source 20 year life,36kt/year OME design and 100 MW ppark are now explicit source context; exact own plant/equipment-allocation binding remains unverified. Evidence classification: recovered source assumption vs current node scope review. Confidence: high for source context and explicit binding gap. A retained model value is not a measured observation or industrial certification. Source-specific assumptions and detailed technical parameters accompany this plan.

Target field: technology_description
Origin: Editor verification
Source reference: https://doi.org/10.1039/c9se00658c
Source location: Hank2019 Assessed product system and Inventory for the assessed OME3-5system; exact archived/native node and capital ownership
Qualification: Technical-characterisation review TC-2028. Design capacity unit: Unspecified. Basis: Specific input intensity, allocation label and scaled capital purchase do not establish a plant capacity, life, utilization or annual output. Construction denominator remains unresolved. Source 20 year life,36kt/year OME design and 100 MW ppark are now explicit source context; exact own plant/equipment-allocation binding remains unverified. Evidence classification: recovered source assumption vs current node scope review. Confidence: high for source context and explicit binding gap. A retained model value is not a measured observation or industrial certification. Source-specific assumptions and detailed technical parameters accompany this plan.

Target field: technology_description
Origin: Editor verification
Source reference: https://doi.org/10.1039/c9se00658c
Source location: Hank2019 Assessed product system and Inventory for the assessed OME3-5system; exact archived/native node and capital ownership
Qualification: Technical-characterisation review TC-2028. Capacity factor (%): Unspecified. Basis: Specific input intensity, allocation label and scaled capital purchase do not establish a plant capacity, life, utilization or annual output. Construction denominator remains unresolved. Source 20 year life,36kt/year OME design and 100 MW ppark are now explicit source context; exact own plant/equipment-allocation binding remains unverified. Evidence classification: recovered source assumption vs current node scope review. Confidence: high for source context and explicit binding gap. A retained model value is not a measured observation or industrial certification. Source-specific assumptions and detailed technical parameters accompany this plan.

Target field: technology_description
Origin: Editor verification
Source reference: https://doi.org/10.1039/c9se00658c
Source location: Hank2019 Assessed product system and Inventory for the assessed OME3-5system; exact archived/native node and capital ownership
Qualification: Technical-characterisation review TC-2028. Annual production volume: Unspecified. Basis: Specific input intensity, allocation label and scaled capital purchase do not establish a plant capacity, life, utilization or annual output. Construction denominator remains unresolved. Source 20 year life,36kt/year OME design and 100 MW ppark are now explicit source context; exact own plant/equipment-allocation binding remains unverified. Evidence classification: recovered source assumption vs current node scope review. Confidence: high for source context and explicit binding gap. A retained model value is not a measured observation or industrial certification. Source-specific assumptions and detailed technical parameters accompany this plan.

Target field: technology_description
Origin: Editor verification
Source reference: https://doi.org/10.1039/c9se00658c
Source location: Hank2019 Assessed product system and Inventory for the assessed OME3-5system; exact archived/native node and capital ownership
Qualification: Technical-characterisation review TC-2028. Annual production volume unit: Unspecified. Basis: Specific input intensity, allocation label and scaled capital purchase do not establish a plant capacity, life, utilization or annual output. Construction denominator remains unresolved. Source 20 year life,36kt/year OME design and 100 MW ppark are now explicit source context; exact own plant/equipment-allocation binding remains unverified. Evidence classification: recovered source assumption vs current node scope review. Confidence: high for source context and explicit binding gap. A retained model value is not a measured observation or industrial certification. Source-specific assumptions and detailed technical parameters accompany this plan.

Target field: technology_description
Origin: Editor verification
Source reference: https://doi.org/10.1039/c9se00658c
Source location: Hank2019 Assessed product system and Inventory for the assessed OME3-5system; exact archived/native node and capital ownership
Qualification: Technical-characterisation review TC-2028. Annual production volume year: Unspecified. Basis: Specific input intensity, allocation label and scaled capital purchase do not establish a plant capacity, life, utilization or annual output. Construction denominator remains unresolved. Source 20 year life,36kt/year OME design and 100 MW ppark are now explicit source context; exact own plant/equipment-allocation binding remains unverified. Evidence classification: recovered source assumption vs current node scope review. Confidence: high for source context and explicit binding gap. A retained model value is not a measured observation or industrial certification. Source-specific assumptions and detailed technical parameters accompany this plan.

Target field: technology_description
Origin: Editor verification
Source reference: https://doi.org/10.1039/c9se00658c
Source location: Hank2019 Assessed product system and Inventory for the assessed OME3-5system; exact archived/native node and capital ownership
Qualification: Technical-characterisation review TC-2028. Plant or represented-asset lifetime (years): Unspecified. Basis: Specific input intensity, allocation label and scaled capital purchase do not establish a plant capacity, life, utilization or annual output. Construction denominator remains unresolved. Source 20 year life,36kt/year OME design and 100 MW ppark are now explicit source context; exact own plant/equipment-allocation binding remains unverified. Evidence classification: recovered source assumption vs current node scope review. Confidence: high for source context and explicit binding gap. A retained model value is not a measured observation or industrial certification. Source-specific assumptions and detailed technical parameters accompany this plan.

Target field: technology_description
Origin: Editor verification
Source reference: https://doi.org/10.1039/c9se00658c
Source location: Specific embedded originalHank2019article and exact current reference; methanol-remainders-source-reading.json
Qualification: Technical-characterisation review TC-2028. Commercial maturity stage: mature_commercial. Basis: Curator established-route assessment of ordinary non CCS coal-derived methanol production/synthesis/finishing classes. It does not certify the exact adaptedrecipe, upstream scope, physicalgrade or industrial performance and is not an author-assigned TRL. Evidence classification: recovered source scope and explicit curator assessment. Confidence: medium curator judgement. A retained model value is not a measured observation or industrial certification. Source-specific assumptions and detailed technical parameters accompany this plan.

Target field: technology_description
Origin: Editor verification
Source reference: https://doi.org/10.1039/c9se00658c
Source location: Specific embedded originalHank2019article and exact current reference; methanol-remainders-source-reading.json
Qualification: Technical-characterisation review TC-2028. Technology readiness level: 9. Basis: Curator established-route assessment of ordinary non CCS coal-derived methanol production/synthesis/finishing classes. It does not certify the exact adaptedrecipe, upstream scope, physicalgrade or industrial performance and is not an author-assigned TRL. Evidence classification: recovered source scope and explicit curator assessment. Confidence: medium curator judgement. A retained model value is not a measured observation or industrial certification. Source-specific assumptions and detailed technical parameters accompany this plan.

Target field: technology_description
Origin: Editor verification
Source reference: https://doi.org/10.1039/c9se00658c
Source location: Specific embedded originalHank2019article and exact current reference; methanol-remainders-source-reading.json
Qualification: Technical-characterisation review TC-2028. Technological representativeness: 4. Basis: Curator proxy4for hybrid source/refinery/supplier/carbon/heat/allocation assumptions and unresolved exact capital or plant-scale binding. A recovered generic source equipment life is not proof of exact inventory fidelity. Evidence classification: recovered source scope and explicit curator assessment. Confidence: medium curator judgement. A retained model value is not a measured observation or industrial certification. Source-specific assumptions and detailed technical parameters accompany this plan.

Target field: technology_description
Origin: Editor verification
Source reference: https://doi.org/10.1039/c9se00658c
Source location: Specific embedded originalHank2019article and exact current reference; methanol-remainders-source-reading.json
Qualification: Technical-characterisation review TC-2028. Geographical representativeness: 5. Basis: Curator generic/transferredregional3or existing more conservative score. Germanysourceenergy scenarios or country labels do not establish complete sampled regional representation of every adapted coal/DAC/market pathway. Evidence classification: recovered source scope and explicit curator assessment. Confidence: medium curator judgement. A retained model value is not a measured observation or industrial certification. Source-specific assumptions and detailed technical parameters accompany this plan.

Target field: technology_description
Origin: Editor verification
Source reference: https://doi.org/10.1039/c9se00658c
Source location: Specific embedded originalHank2019article and exact current reference; methanol-remainders-source-reading.json
Qualification: Technical-characterisation review TC-2028. Temporal representativeness: 4. Basis: Curator historical/prospective mixed4for2019paper,2018/2050energy scenarios, older background and later engineering adaptations. Neither publication nor model scenario dates establish observation coverage or a measured annual-output year. Evidence classification: recovered source scope and explicit curator assessment. Confidence: medium curator judgement. A retained model value is not a measured observation or industrial certification. Source-specific assumptions and detailed technical parameters accompany this plan.

Technology characterization Scale, utilization, production, lifetime, technology readiness and representativeness.

Commercial maturity stage: Mature commercial

Design capacity: Not provided

Design capacity unit: Not provided

Capacity factor: Not provided

Annual production volume: Not provided

Annual production volume unit: Not provided

Annual production volume year: Not provided

Plant lifetime: Not provided

Technology readiness level

Technological representativeness

Geographical representativeness

Temporal representativeness

Missing exchange uncertainty generation: Requested

Representativeness scores use a 1–5 scale when provided. Lower scores indicate a closer fit to the modeled technology, geography, or time period.

Inventory & impacts 6 exchanges · exchange table, supply-chain graph and environmental screening.

Precalculated screening profile

Environmental impacts

Results per kilogram, using UVEK 2025 and the ecoinvent 3.10 biosphere. Exchange rows are shaded from green to red by relative contribution to the selected indicator.

Exchange impact indicator (EF v3.1)

Climate change 1.74869 kg CO2-Eq / kilogram

Screening result

This screening result uses Brightpath mappings from the source background to UVEK 2025; mapped suppliers are not claims of scientific equivalence.

Show all 16 indicator totals

Acidification 0.0169186 mol H+-Eq / kilogram

Climate change 1.74869 kg CO2-Eq / kilogram

Freshwater ecotoxicity 7.73102 CTUe / kilogram

Freshwater eutrophication 0.000319569 kg P-Eq / kilogram

Marine eutrophication -0.000327905 kg N-Eq / kilogram

Terrestrial eutrophication 0.0102845 mol N-Eq / kilogram

Human toxicity, cancer 5.5310e-10 CTUh / kilogram

Human toxicity, non-cancer 8.4400e-09 CTUh / kilogram

Ionising radiation 1.00948 kBq U235-Eq / kilogram

Land use 7.7291 dimensionless / kilogram

Ozone depletion 1.0290e-07 kg CFC-11-Eq / kilogram

Particulate matter 3.7656e-08 disease incidence / kilogram

Photochemical ozone formation 0.00577054 kg NMVOC-Eq / kilogram

Resource use, fossils 58.1496 MJ, net calorific value / kilogram

Resource use, minerals and metals 9.5066e-05 kg Sb-Eq / kilogram

Water use 1.32011 m3 world Eq deprived / kilogram

Calculation details

Profile uvek-2025-ef-v3-1-4e70d56a85b1 · artifact 4e70d56a85b1 · calculated 2026-09-30 13:57 UTC. These screening results do not replace a reviewed comparative LCA.

Reference flow 1 row Reference production exchanges extracted from the uploaded inventory.

Exchange	Reference / categories	Amount	Unit	Metadata	Climate change contribution
methanol production, coal gasification RoW	methanol	1	kilogram	-	Reference flow

Emissions 2 rows Elementary flows emitted from the dataset to the environment.

Exchange	Reference / categories	Amount	Unit	Metadata	Climate change contribution
Carbon dioxide, fossil	air	0.13	kilogram	-	0.132068 kg CO2-Eq / kilogram 7.6% of total EF biosphere factor
Carbon monoxide, fossil	air	1.67e-06	kilogram	-	0 kg CO2-Eq / kilogram 0.0% of total EF biosphere factor

Technosphere inputs 3 rows Linked foreground or background product inputs used by this dataset.

Exchange	Reference / categories	Amount	Unit	Metadata	Climate change contribution
methanol synthesis, hydrogen from coal gasification RoW	methanol, unpurified	1	kilogram	-	1.25652 kg CO2-Eq / kilogram 71.9% of total CLIC v1.0.0
steam production, as energy carrier, in chemical industry RoW	heat, from steam, in chemical industry	3.51	megajoule	-	0.328081 kg CO2-Eq / kilogram 18.8% of total BAFU:2025
methanol production facility, construction RER	methanol production facility, construction	12.46	unit	-	0.03202 kg CO2-Eq / kilogram 1.8% of total CLIC v1.0.0

Parameters 0 source definitions · values, formulas and uncertainty.

Read-only definitions preserved with this inventory version. Values are supplied by the source; CLIC does not evaluate formulas or recalculate exchange amounts and impact scores from them.

No parameter definitions were supplied with this inventory snapshot.

Versions & changes 1 version · change rationale, release notes and comparisons.

Oldest to newest. Arrows show recorded revision links; each node describes the change introduced by that version.

Version 1.0.0
Published 2026-07-15

First published inventory; no earlier version is available for comparison.
Published · Viewing · Latest

Show full version history table (1 version)

Version	Published	Reason for this version	Link
Version 1.0.0	2026-07-15	First published inventory; no earlier version is available for comparison.	Current view

Back to browse

About this version

First published inventory; no earlier version is available for comparison.

Review & discussion Publication provenance, scientific review and community discussion.

Public review record Curator-led bulk import. Public evidence is shown without participant accounts, assignments, recommendations, or private editor notes. Show review Hide review

Publication route

Curator-led bulk import

This inventory was restored from a public CLIC archive. Its original publication route is Curator-led bulk import; private review and workflow records were not transferred.

Source inventory archive

No public review transcript is available for this version.

Discussion 0 public comments · questions, context and problem reports.

No public comments yet. Start the discussion if you have a question about this inventory.

Report this dataset or version

Use this form to report a problem with this dataset or version. To report an individual public comment, use “Report this comment” beside that comment. To propose better numerical inventory data, use “Suggest an inventory improvement” in the inventory section.

Log in to report content

methanol production, coal gasification

Overview

Description

Dataset details

Keywords

Source

External references

Scientific metadata

Environmental impacts

Supply-chain graph

Downloads & files

Add to download basket

Version history

About this version

Curator-led bulk import

Description

Dataset details

Keywords

Source

External references

Scientific metadata

Environmental impacts

Dataset contents

Supply-chain graph

Add to download basket

Version history

About this version

Curator-led bulk import

Public discussion