e-メタノール製造における可搬型バイオマス炭素キャリアとしてのバイオマス：CO2輸送および直接空気回収との技術経済比較
Biomass as a transportable biogenic carbon carrier for e-methanol production: Techno-economic comparison with CO2 transport and direct air capture (原題)
Sina Namdarpour Naghani, Tansu Galimova, Theophilus Nii Odai Mensah, Tuomas Koiranen, Christian Breyer
🤖 gxceed AI 要約
日本語
フィンランド・ドイツ・スペインを対象に、e-メタノール製造の4つの炭素供給経路（回収バイオマスCO2輸送、バイオマス炭素キャリア輸送、地域バイオマス利用＋CC、DAC）を2030〜2050年にわたり技術経済比較した。セメント部門で輸入バイオマスを用いるケースが2050年に54.6〜75.4 €/MWhと最も安価で、DACは2030年は高コストだが2050年には競争力を持つ。炭素供給は単なる輸送問題ではなくシステム全体の設計課題であると示す。
English
This study compares four carbon supply pathways for e-methanol in Finland, Germany and Spain over 2030-2050: biogenic CO2 transport, biomass as carbon carrier, local biomass with capture, and direct air capture. Cement cases with imported biomass yield the lowest costs (54.6-75.4 €/MWh by 2050), while DAC becomes competitive by 2050. Carbon supply is a system-level design question, not merely a transport problem.
Unofficial AI-generated summary based on the public title and abstract. Not an official translation.
📝 gxceed 編集解説 — Why this matters
日本のGX文脈において
日本はe-fuel/e-メタノールの国産化と海外バイオマス・CO2調達の両面で戦略を練っており、炭素キャリアとしてのバイオマス輸送コスト比較は資源輸入国である日本の調達戦略・GX推進に直接示唆を与える。
In the global GX context
As e-fuels enter ISSB/CSRD-aligned transition planning and EU RED III mandates, this paper clarifies that carbon sourcing architecture—not just transport cost—drives e-methanol economics, informing transition finance and industrial decarbonization strategy in hard-to-abate sectors.
👥 読者別の含意
🔬研究者:炭素供給経路のシステム最適化とコスト配分の感度を定量比較する枠組みを提供する。
🏢実務担当者:e-fuel事業の炭素調達（バイオマス輸送かCO2輸送かDACか）の投資判断に資するコスト目安を与える。
🏛政策担当者:バイオマス炭素の配分ルールやe-fuel支援制度の設計において、輸送コストだけでなくシステム全体での評価が必要と示唆する。
📄 Abstract（原文）
The increasing role of e-fuels in defossilising hard-to-electrify sectors and the growing importance of carbon capture and utilisation require a reliable carbon supply. This study presents a comparative techno-economic assessment of four carbon supply pathways for e-methanol production in Finland, Germany, and Spain for 2030-2050: transport of captured biogenic CO 2 , transport of biomass as a carbon carrier, local biomass utilisation with carbon capture, and direct air capture. Aspen HYSYS and Aspen Process Economic Analyzer were used for CO 2 conditioning and transport, combined with literature-based cost modelling for CO 2 and biomass logistics, biomass power (PP) and combined heat and power (CHP) plants, cement sector biomass use, direct air capture, and e-methanol synthesis. In cement cases, only biogenic CO 2 is allocated to methanol. Results indicate that the cement scenarios with imported biomass have the lowest e-methanol production costs under the stated cost allocation, at 54.6-75.4 €/MWh MeOH,LHV in 2050 in Germany and Spain. The local biomass PP and CHP scenarios cost 73.8-96.0 €/MWh MeOH,LHV . The imported biomass PP can be the least attractive options, costing 92.5-110.8 €/MWh MeOH,LHV . e-Methanol production with DAC remains expensive in 2030 but becomes competitive by 2050 due to technology improvement. Although transporting biomass is considerably cheaper than CO 2 , the latter results in lower total e-methanol costs due to the absence of downstream biomass conversion. Results demonstrate that carbon supply should be treated as a system-level question rather than only a transport problem. Furthermore, beyond acting as a renewable fuel, biomass can serve as a strategic carbon carrier for e-fuel systems.
🔗 Provenance — このレコードを発見したソース
- openalex https://doi.org/10.1016/j.biombioe.2026.110283first seen 2026-11-12 04:37:21 · last seen 2026-11-14 04:41:33
🔔 こうした論文の新着を逃したくない方は キーワードアラート に登録（無料・3キーワードまで）。
gxceed は公開メタデータに基づく研究支援データセットです。要約・翻訳・解説は AI 支援で生成されています。 最終的な解釈・検証は利用者が原典資料に基づいて行うことを前提とします。