Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews 81 (2018) 1887–1905

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews

journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/rser

Electrofuels for the transport sector: A review of production costs MARK

a,⁎ a a a,b
Selma Brynolf , Maria Taljegard , Maria Grahn , Julia Hansson
a
Chalmers University of Technology, 412 96 Gothenburg, Sweden
b
IVL Swedish Environmental Research Institute, Valhallavägen 81, 100 31 Stockholm, Sweden

A R T I C L E I N F O A BS T RAC T

Keywords: Electrofuels (also called power-to-gas/liquids/fuels or synthetic fuels) are potential future carbon-based fuels
Electrofuels produced from carbon dioxide (CO2) and water using electricity as the primary source of energy. This article
Power-to-gas assesses the production cost of electrofuels through: (i) a literature review, focusing on which steps that have the
Synthetic fuels largest impact as well as the greatest uncertainty; (ii) a more comprehensive review, including the costs and
Electrolysers
efficiencies for the separate production steps, and (iii) calculations to compare the production costs of the
Fuel synthesis
different fuel options in a harmonized way, including a sensitivity analysis of the parameters with the greatest
Cost assessment
impact on the total electrofuel production cost. The assessment covers: methane, methanol, dimethyl ether,
diesel, and gasoline. The literature review showed large differences among the studies and a broad range of
production cost estimates (10–3500 €2015/MWhfuel), which is first and foremost as a result of how authors have
handled technology matureness, installation costs, and external factors. Our calculations result in productions
costs in the range of 200–280 €2015/MWhfuel in 2015 and 160–210 €2015/MWhfuel in 2030 using base cost
assumptions from the literature review. Compared to biofuels, these estimates are in the upper range or above.
Our results also show that the choice of energy carrier is not as critical for the electrofuels production cost as
technological choices and external factors. Instead the two most important factors affecting the production cost
of all electrofuels are the capital cost of the electrolyser and the electricity price, i.e., the hydrogen production
cost. The capacity factor of the unit and the life span of the electrolyser are also important parameters affecting
that production cost. In order to determine if electrofuels are a cost-effective future transport fuel relative to
alternatives other than biofuels, the costs for distribution, propulsion, and storage systems need to be
considered.

1. Introduction energy carriers require using renewable energy sources such as

The transport sector, including road, air, and waterborne transport,
contributes to slightly more than 20% of the global emissions of
greenhouse gases (GHG) [1,2]. The European Union aims to reduce
GHG emissions from transport by 60% by 2050, compared to 1990 [3].
However, in the absence of vital measures, emissions are expected to
continue to increase due to the increasing demand for transport [1].
Reducing GHG emissions and increasing energy security will pose
considerable challenges for the transport sector in the coming decades
[1,3].
GHG emissions from transport can be reduced by decreasing the
total energy demand, the emission intensity of that energy, or both.
This paper focuses on reduced fossil carbon intensity by the introduc-
tion of low-fossil-carbon fuels [1,4]. Potential energy carriers for the
transport sector include liquid and gaseous carbon-based fuels, hydro-
gen, and electricity (Fig. 1). However, producing low-fossil-carbon
biomass, solar, and wind energy.
There is a substantial potential to increase the use of biofuels,
electricity, and hydrogen in the transport sector. For the latter two,
there is uncertainty to what extent batteries and fuel cells are
appropriate solutions in, for example, aviation, shipping, and long-
distance road transport. These new energy carriers also require new
infrastructure [5]. Large-scale use of biofuels produced from biomass
faces sustainability challenges as well. The future contribution of
biofuels seems limited in relation to expected global transport demand
[6–8].
Electrofuels are carbon-based fuels produced from carbon dioxide
(CO2) and water, with electricity as the primary source of energy [9,10].
Electrofuels are also known as power-to-gas/liquids/fuels, e-fuels, or
synthetic fuels.1 They are potentially of interest for all transport modes;
some can be used in combustion engines and may not require
significant investments in new infrastructure. In addition to represent-

⁎
Corresponding author.
E-mail address: selma.brynolf@chalmers.se (S. Brynolf).
1
This study only considers fuels that include a carbon atom, although the literature on power-to-gas fuels typically also includes hydrogen.

http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.rser.2017.05.288
Received 5 July 2016; Received in revised form 23 February 2017; Accepted 30 May 2017
Available online 20 June 2017
1364-0321/ © 2017 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
S. Brynolf et al.
Fig. 1. Simplified schematic of primary energy sources, energy conversion technologies, and energy carriers for different transport modes. DME = dimethyl ether, LNG = liquefied
natural gas, ICE = internal combustion engines, HE = hybrid electric propulsion, FC = fuel cells, BE = battery electric propulsion, PHE = plug-in hybrid electric propulsion.
Fig. 2. Process steps in the production of electrofuels, modified from Urakawa and Sá [29], Graves et al. [30], Ganesh [31], and Grahn et al. [18].
ing a possible future option for transport fuels, electrofuels may allow
for increased biofuel production by using the associated excess CO2
[11] and may contribute to balancing intermittent electricity produc-
tion. Electrofuels are produced by mixing hydrogen and CO2 in a
reactor to form energy carriers such as methane and diesel, see Fig. 2. A
range of liquid and gaseous fuels, including gasoline and diesel, can be
produced. The production process also generates marketable by-
products, namely high-purity oxygen and heat.
Several demonstration-scale facilities have been developed in
Europe in the last decade [12]. For example, Carbon Recycling
International (CRI) in Iceland produces methanol by using geothermal
energy and CO2 from the same source. CRI has operated a commercial
plant since 2011, with the capacity to produce 5 million liters of
methanol per year [13]. Audi AG's ETOGAS has invested in a 6 MW
plant in Germany that uses renewable electricity from wind power and
CO2 from a biogas processing plant to produce methane [14]. In
Germany, a test facility producing diesel from renewable electricity and
CO2 captured from the air has shown that it is possible to produce high-
quality drop-in electrofuels [15].
In addition to the new pilot and demonstration plants, a slew of
papers assessing different aspects of electrofuels have been published
in recent years: electrofuels as a way to balance the increasing share of
intermittent renewable electricity in the energy system (e.g. [16,17]), as
a transport fuel (e.g. [18–23]), and as a way to increase carbon
utilization in biofuel production (e.g. [11,24–26]). However, many
aspects need to be clarified in order to understand the potential role of
electrofuels in a future transport sector with low CO2 emissions,
including the costs of producing electrofuels compared to other energy
carriers. Methodologies and data used for assessments of electrofuel
production costs vary greatly in the literature, as do the resulting cost
1888
Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews 81 (2018) 1887–1905
estimates. For methane, for instance, one study estimates the cost at
10–100 €2015/MWhfuel [27], while another reports 340–640 €2015/
MWhfuel [28].
The main purpose of this study is to assess the production costs of
electrofuels. We perform (i) a literature review of the total cost of
electrofuel production focusing on which steps that have the largest
impact as well as the greatest uncertainty (Section 2); (ii) a compre-
hensive complementary review of costs and efficiencies for the separate
production steps (Section 3); and (iii) own calculations to compare the
production costs of the different fuel options in a harmonized way
(Section 4). The review in Section 2 identifies key parameters and
reveals large differences in assumptions and methodologies. This
literature review shows the need for a more comprehensive review of
the literature on the costs and efficiencies of the individual production
steps, see Section 3. Section 4 assesses the key parameters identified in
Section 2 and includes a sensitivity analysis using the costs and
efficiencies for electrolysers, carbon capture, and fuel synthesis com-
piled in Section 3. The environmental performance (e.g. life cycle
assessment) and environmental costs of the different electrofuels are
not included in the scope of this study but briefly discussed in Section
5.3.
2. Literature review of electrofuel production cost
assessments
This section includes a systematic review of electrofuels based on
primarily peer-reviewed literature ( > 75%) published between 2010
and February 2016, in English or Swedish. A search of online databases
such as Web of Science and Scopus was done, using different
combinations of search terms including power-to-gas (PtG), power-
S. Brynolf et al.
Fig. 3. The number of articles found in Web of Science and the articles and reports assessed in Tables 1 and 2 per year published. The error bar for 2016 represents the prognosis for the
year, given the publication rate as of May 2016. The following search was done in Web of Science: TS = (electrofuel* OR power-to-gas OR power-to-liquids OR power-to-fuels OR
(synthetic hydrocarbons OR synthetic fuels OR hydrocarbon fuels) AND (conversion of CO2 OR conversion of carbon dioxide OR carbon utilization OR carbon recycling)) AND TS =
(economic* OR production costs OR techno-economic OR cost* OR efficiency).
to-liquid, power-to-fuels, electrofuels, synthetic fuels, synthetic hydro-
carbons, electrolysis, fuel synthesis, cost, economic feasibility and
efficiency; snowballing was used as a complement. The annual number
of papers on this topic has increased since 2010 and especially since
2014 (see Fig. 3). The Web of Science search in Fig. 3 cover the
majority of the articles published on electrofuels but gives a clear
indication of the increase.
Studies mainly investigate electrofuels as a (i) technology for
storing intermittent electricity (e.g. [32–36]); (ii) fuel for transport
(e.g. [18–22]); or (iii) means of producing chemicals (e.g. [31,37,38]).
Some of the studies investigate the performance and best configuration
of different parts of the electrofuel chain, such as electrolysis and
catalysts, without performing an economic assessment (e.g. [39–46]).
Our literature review seeks to identify all relevant estimates of
production costs, however cost estimates with unclear units or
insufficient information are excluded (e.g. [19,22,47–49]).
A total of 24 articles and reports on production costs (Tables 1 and 2)
are reviewed in detail in Section 2.1, revealing large differences in
methodology and terminology. To allow for cross-study comparisons, the
following adjustments are made to the original data: (i) costs are converted
to euros and inflation-adjusted to the year 20152 (€2015); (ii) plant costs are
expressed per unit of fuel output, if possible; (iii) plant efficiency and energy
output are expressed in lower heating values (LHVs). Several studies did
not explicitly state if the lower or higher heating value was used when
reporting efficiencies and costs on an energy basis, or if capital costs were
reported for electric input (kWelec), hydrogen produced (kWH2), or fuel
produced (kWfuel). In those cases, we requested clarification from the
authors or made qualified guesses based on the context.
2.1. Description of articles and reports found
Table 1 summarizes the main objectives of the studies included in
the literature review as well as year and country of publication, time
covered, energy carrier, and type of electrolyser studied. The objectives
vary significantly among the studies. For instance, some of the more
technical studies focus on how the design of electrolysers affects fuel
production (e.g [50–52]), while others focus on how electrofuels can
interact with renewable electricity production (e.g [53,54]). Tremel
et al. [55] focus on comparing different synthesis technologies, and
Giglio et al. [27,56] perform a detailed energy and economic analysis of
methane produced from solid oxide electrolyser cells (SOEC) and
methanation regarding heat integration.
Most of the studies evaluate state-of-the-art technologies in today's
situation; however, some consider future developments until 2030 and
beyond (e.g [20,21,53,57]), and some of them include the less mature
fuel cell technology SOEC (see Table 1). Methane, methanol and
2
All currencies are expressed in euros for the applicable years using ONADA
Historical Exchange Rates. All values are then recalculated to €2015 based on the
Harmonized Indices of Consumer Prices (accessed January 19, 2016). If no date is given,
the year of publication for the article is used.
1889
Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews 81 (2018) 1887–1905
Fischer-Tropsch (FT) liquids are the most commonly investigated
energy carriers as seen in Table 1, while only a few studies have looked
at dimethyl ether (DME) and gasoline.
The production of electrofuels can be divided into individual steps,
electricity production, electrolysis to produce hydrogen, capturing of
CO2, and fuel synthesis. Depending on the objective, a study may not
include all production steps even if it gives a total production cost for
electrofuels. Some studies include cost and efficiency for almost all
production steps, e.g., electricity production, carbon capture, and fuel
synthesis (e.g [57,58]). Most studies model the cost of hydrogen
production and fuel synthesis, but a few studies only include fuel
synthesis and instead use a purchase price for hydrogen (e.g. [55,59]).
The plant sizes investigated vary from less than 1 MW to 830 MW.3 For
example, Parra and Patel [51] investigated the cost of producing
hydrogen and methane for six different plant sizes between 0.01–
550 MW.
Plant capital costs are not directly comparable due to the differ-
ences in scope and cost estimation methodology (see Supplementary
Material, Table A.1). Most studies use chemical engineering software
(e.g., Aspen Plus and CEMCAD) to model the system and estimate cost;
some studies follow published cost estimation methodologies (e.g. [61–
63]), and others estimate the capital cost based on data in the
literature. Ridjan et al. [20] use the energy system tool EnergyPLAN
to calculate fuel production costs, which let them include balancing of
the energy system in the calculations.
The reviewed studies include different costs in their fuel calcula-
tions, except for main equipment costs, and it is not always easy to
understand which costs are included. Most studies assess the main
equipment costs using the cost curve method [64] to scale the costs to
the investigated plant size. The cost estimation methodologies used and
the cost items included in the different studies are described in
Table A.1 in the Supplementary material. Cost estimation methods
typically divide investment costs in a number of categories, for
example, direct and indirect costs. Direct costs may include equipment
and installation costs (e.g., the installation factor should cover equip-
ment erection, foundations and minor structural work, piping, includ-
ing insulation and painting, electrical installations (power and light-
ing), instruments and process control systems, offices, laboratory
buildings, storage for raw materials and finished product, and utilities
(steam, water, air, and emergency services))[64]. The total investment
cost for the production facility is calculated as the sum of the direct
investment costs for all the process units multiplied by a factor
representing indirect costs (often a factor of 1–3). The indirect cost
should cover costs for project administration and development, legal
permits, engineering, interest during construction, insurance policies,
working capital, etc. These extra costs associated with electrofuel
production can be more than three times the main equipment cost
3
In Schiebahn et al. [60] total capacity is 47,000MW, but the size per plant is not
reported.
 Table 1
Summary of the scope of the electrofuel production cost literature published between 2010 and February 2016.h

Author/article Country/Year Objective Time horizona Electrofuels assessed Process steps included (conversion Size of plant (MWfuel)
S. Brynolf et al.

efficiency based on LHV in parenthesis)

Atsonios et al. [66] Greece / 2016 Investigate economic viability of different aspects of the Current status of concept Methanol Methanol synthesis (-) –
industrial captured CO2 for methanol production (today)
Becker et al. [50] USA / 2012 (1) Develop and model a system for an SOEC integrated - (unclear) FT-diesel SOEC co-electrolysis (-), FT-synth. (-,ƞsysteme 30
with an FT processing plant, (2) ‘…explore the effect of = 51%)
SOEC operating pressure on syngas composition…’, and
(3) estimate the production cost
Benjaminsson et al. Sweden / 2013 Evaluate technology, economy, and environmental 2013 (today) Methane Alkaline electrolysis (64.8%), catalytic (81%) 1–6.2
[67] performance of catalytic and biological methanation of and biological (81%) methanation
H2 and CO2
Byman et al. [68] Sweden / 2013 Assess the power to gas potential in Sweden - (today) Methane Alkaline electro. (71%), meth. (83%) 1
Connolly et al. [21] Denmark / 2014 Estimate ‘…energy and cost implications of various 2020/2050 (future) Methanol/DME, SOEC (77%), fuels synthesis (82%) –
fuels that could supplement or replace biofuels in the methane
transport sector’’’…’
De Saint Jean et al. France / 2015 Economic assessment of a power-to-gas process ‘… - (today) Methane SOEC (-), methanation (-, ƞsysteme = 68%b), 0.80
[28] combining high temperature steam electrolysis and
CO2 methanation….’
Dimitriou et al. [58] UK / 2015 Estimate fuel production yields and costs of four - (today) FT-liquids Anaerobic digestion (-), CO2 capture (-), heat 0.30–830
different carbon capture and utilization process and power gen. (-), syngas prod. (-), conv. of
configurations in order to establish if the production of CO2 to CO (-) and fuel synth. (-, ƞsysteme = 12–
hydrocarbon fuels is economically viable 17%f)
Fu et al. [52] Germany / 2010 Economic assessment of syngas production via high State-of-the-art (today) FT-liquids SOEC (-), power converter (95%), heat 1.4 MWsyngas (about
temperature steam/CO2 co-electrolysis exchanger, compressor, other components 1 MWfuel)
Giglio et al. [27,56] Italy / 2015 Techno-economic assessment of synthetic natural gas State-of-the-art, target Methane SOEC (steam 76%, co-electro. 81%), heat 8.1,8.7
via integrated high-temperature electrolysis and scen. (today & future) exchanger network, meth.

1890
methanation
Grahn et al. [18] Sweden/ 2014 Estimating production costs to investigate under what - (future) Methanol Electrolysis (80%), methanol synthesis (-) –
circumstances electrofuels can compete with gasoline
as transport fuel
Graves et al. [30] USA, Denmark / Review of possible pathways for recycling CO2 into State-of the art SOEC, FT-gasoline or diesel SOEC co-electrolysis (-), FT synth. (-, ƞsysteme -d
2011 fuels using renewable or nuclear energy conventional FT synthesis = 66%c)
(today)
Hannula [25] Finland / 2015 Economic evaluation of the production of synthetic - (today) Methane, methanol, Alkaline electrolysis (62%), fuel synth. (83%, 200
fuels from biomass residues, CO2 and electricity gasoline 83%, 72%)
Jentsch et al. [69] Germany / 2014 Evaluation of power-to-gas in an 85% renewable energy A future with 85% Methane Electrolysis (-), methanation (-, ƞsysteme = –
scenario for Germany, calculating an economic renewable energy system 62%)
optimum for the PtG capacity as well as an optimized (future)
spatial PtG deployment

König et al. [54] Germany / 2015 Evaluation of the ‘…production of liquid hydrocarbons - (unclear) FT-liquids Electrolysis (-), H2 storage cavern, and fuel 690
from renewable excess power and CO2…’ synthesis plant (68.2%, ƞsysteme = 44.6%)
Mohseni et al. [70] Sweden / 2014 Evaluate economic feasibility of synthesising natural - (unclear) Methane Alkaline electrolysis (-), methanation (-), 1.2
gas through methanation of CO2 and hydrogen from district heating connection, storage (ƞsysteme =
water electrolysis 48%)
Parra and Patel [51] Switzerland / 2016 Investigate the performance-levelized cost and value of 2015–2035 (future) Methane Electrolysis (PEM (51–55%) & alkaline (49– 0.01–550
PtG plants, ‘…depending on the system configuration 52%)), methanation (91%, ƞsysteme = 47–50%, (25 kWelec−1 GWelec)
under the Swiss regulatory context…’ 45–49%)g
Perez-Fortes et al. The Netherlands / Assess the production of methanol, using H2 and - (unclear) Methanol Fuel synthesis (-) 280
[71] 2016 captured CO2 as raw materials, with ‘…techno-
economic and environmental metrics…’
Ridjan et al. [20] Denmark / 2014 ‘Provide an overview of fuel production costs for two 2050 (future) Methane, Methanol SOEC (steam (73%) and co-electrolysis –
types of synthetic fuels’, methanol and methane, in a (77%)), fuel synth.
100% renewable energy system

(continued on next page)

Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews 81 (2018) 1887–1905
 Table 1 (continued)

Author/article Country/Year Objective Time horizona Electrofuels assessed Process steps included (conversion Size of plant (MWfuel)
efficiency based on LHV in parenthesis)
S. Brynolf et al.

Rivera-Tinoco et al. France / 2016 Investigate the production of methanol by the State of the art and future Methanol PEM/SOEC (-), methanol synthesis (-, ƞsysteme 11, 13
[72] hydrogenation of CO2 using hydrogen from electrolysis scenarios (unclear) PEM=45.6%, ƞsysteme SOEC = 54.8%)
Schiebahn et al. [60] Germany / 2015 Evaluate different power-to-gas paths, including - (future) Methane Electrolysis (70%), methanation (80%) 47000j
transformation technologies.
Schmidt et al. [57] Germany / 2016 Evaluate if 100% renewables in transport by 2050 is 2015, 2020, 2030, 2040, Methane, Gasoline, FT- Electrolysis, H2 storage, CO2 capture from air, 9–65i
feasible with focus on energy and cost and 2050 (today & future) liquids fuel synth. (ƞsysteme = 34–58%i)
determinants for future use of combustion engines
Smejkal et al. [59] Germany / 2014 Perform a preliminary economic assessment of - (future) FT-liquids FT synthesis (-) 2, 23, 57, 114, 228
hydrogenation of CO2 for hydrocarbon fuels (i.e. CO2
FT synthesis)
Tremel et al. [55] Germany / 2015 Evaluation of different one-stage synthesis processes in - (today) Methanol, FT-diesel, FT- Methanol synthesis 80%, FT synth. (69%), FT 28–32
terms of technology, economics and acceptance syncrude, DME, methane synthesis to syncrude (75%), methanation
(74%)
Varone and Ferrari Germany / 2014 Outline the possible contribution of surplus renewable 2050 (future) Methanol SOEC (-), methanol synthesis (-, ƞsysteme = 35 (50 MWelec)
[53] electricity combined with PtG and power-to-liquid 70%)
schemes in the 2050 German energy system

a
Expresses the time horizon or time frame as it is explicitly stated in the studies, followed by a classification made by the authors in the categories today, future or unclear. Future represents cases where a future potential system has been
evaluated.
b
Recalculated from an efficiency of 75.8% based on higher heating value (HHV).
c
Calculated from the electricity input and fuel output according to Table 2 in Graves et al. [30]. Unclear if it is based on HHV or LHV.
d
Unclear, but Graves et al. [30] assume mass production of components.
e
ƞsystem represents the total system efficiency, which represents the power-to-fuel efficiency based on LHV.
f
Represents the total energy output (fuels, hydrogen and electricity) divided by the total energy input (sludge, hydrogen, natural gas, and electricity) based on LHV.
g
Calculated from efficiencies based on HHV.
h

1891
The data in the studies are not always reported in a comparable way, and the data presented in Tables 1 and 2 have therefore in some cases been adjusted from the original data found in the studies.
i
See Schmidt et al. [57] for details about the specific cases.
j
Divided by the number of plants.
Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews 81 (2018) 1887–1905
 Table 2
Summary of the literature published between 2010 and February 2016 on production costs of electrofuels, regarding capital cost and other critical parameters.y The sensitivity range is included in parenthesis where available.

Author/article Capital cost Stack O&M CF (%) Depreciation Interest Electricity price (€ Water CO2 H2 price O2 price Heat price Fuel production cost
S. Brynolf et al.

(€ / kWfuel) repl. cost period (years) rate (%) / MWh) price (€ / price (€ (€ / kg)j (€ / t) (€ / MWh) (€2015 / MWh)
(%)l t) / t)

Atsonios et al. [66] – – 5 – – 10 50 – 43.8 3 – – 170

Becker et al. [50] 1630 Yesa 7 40, 65, 90 20 10 14, 36, 43, 63 (0– 0 10 0 – – 170, 200, 250, 80–430
(20–100) 100)k
Benjaminsson et al. 3980-10,480r, – 3 98 11 5 50 1 – 0 – – 150–280
[67] 3120–4120 s
Byman et al. [68] 3339 3 34 15 3 0 – – 0 – – –
Connolly et al. [21] 930, 280q – 3,4m 60 – 3 – – – – – 120, 110
De Saint Jean et al. 7700 Yesb 7 50 30 10 25 (0–50)k 10 0 (0–50)k 0 0, (20– 340–640
[28] 70)k
Dimitriou et al. [58] 1900-122,900t – – 90 20 10 38 – – 5 – – 140–3500
Fu et al. [52] 417 Yesc 4 0 0 9 56 (0–200)k 1.15 160 (20– 0 0 (0–50)k 20, 56x 110–160 (50–120) for
160)k elec. price of 20–60
€/MWh
Giglio et al. [27,56] 560–650 Yesd 2 91 15 3.6 0–80 $/MWh ≈ 0–60 0.80 3 – – – 10–100 (for elec. price of
€ / MWh 0–60 €/MWh)
Grahn et al. [18] 950 Yese 5–95% 25 0, 30, 50 – 7 – – –
Graves et al. [30] – Yes 10n 100%, 20% – – (0–10 US cents / 1 30 0 – – 90–140 (20% capacity
kWh)k factor), 50–120 (100%
capacity factor)
Hannula [25] 1820, 1890, – 4 91 20 10 50 – 40 0 27 28.8 140, 150, 190
2620
Jentsch et al. [69] −0 – 4 0 25 6 0 0 – 0 – – –
König et al. [54] 10,140 Yesf 7 0 30 7 110–180 – 40 – 0, (60)k – 300–510

1892
Mohseni et al. [70] 1820 – 5 91 15 10% 46.8 3.3 – 0 55 31 –
Parra and Patel [51] 220–2290 u, Yesg 2, 5° – – – Modeled by – – – – – –
380–2780 v Swissmod (≈ 40–
60 € / MWh)
Perez-Fortes et al. 720 0 91 20 8% 95.1 0.03 – 3 – – –
[71]
Ridjan et al. [20] 3, 3.5p – – – – – 30 – – – 100, 110
Rivera-Tinoco et al. 1300, 8800 Yesh – 91 – – 50 3 3–10 – – – 250, 400
[72]
Schiebahn et al. [60] 1600 – 3 34 10 8% 74 – – – – – 230
Schmidt et al. [57] 2050–6150z – – – Life span of plant 4% 5–13z,aa – ≈ 300– – – – 220–590z
480z
Smejkal et al. [59] 400–2600 3 91 5 6% 35.4 0 40 4 – – 350–470
Tremel et al. [55] 1000–1540 – 4 0 10 6% 93 – 50 3 – – 180, 200, 170, 170, 170
Varone and Ferrari 1400w Yesi 5 20–80 20 5% 10–70 2 20 – – – 60–200 (two special cases,
[53] 90 and 80)

a
Included in the O & M cost.
b
Every other year.
c
Assumes stack life span of 20,000 h (5000–80,000 h).
d
Considers stack degradation and installed spare capacity to maintain constant fuel output.
e
Every 7th year to a cost of 33% of the purchase cost.
f
Considers reconditioning every 60,000 h equal to 15% of the investment cost.
g
Considers electrolyser life span (alkaline 90,000, PEM 50,000).
h
Considers electrolyser life span (PEM 30,000 h, SOEC 8600 h).
i
Included in the O & M costs.
j
Represents the hydrogen cost for those studies that do not include the electrolyser in the capital cost but instead assumes that hydrogen is purchased.
k
Ranges considered in sensitivity analyses.
l
O & M cost as a percentage of capital costs for all the process steps included in the economic assessment. If different O & M cost are used for different facilities in the plant; all O & M costs are reported.
m
Fixed O & M cost, 3% for SOEC, 4% for fuel synthesis.
Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews 81 (2018) 1887–1905
S. Brynolf et al. Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews 81 (2018) 1887–1905

(e.g. [59,65]) and are therefore key in accounting for the differences in
estimates of electrofuel production costs.
The capital costs vary from below 500 €/kWfuel to above 10,000
€/kWfuel (see Table 2). The huge range can be explained by the
differences in scope and cost estimation methodology among the
studies. Another factor of importance is if and how electrolyser stack
replacement is included. Some studies explicitly mention electrolyser
stack replacement cost (e.g. [18,28,52]), while it is unclear in others
whether this is included in the capital costs. Some others include it
under O & M (e.g. [50,53]). The cost of catalyst replacement is only
explicit included in some studies (e.g. [28,59]); however, it is possible
that others included this under O & M.
The data in the studies are not always reported in a comparable way, and the data presented in Tables 1, 2 have therefore in some cases been adjusted from original data found in the studies.

The cost of electricity is handled very differently in the different

studies. Some studies use an average annual electricity price, assumed
to be representative for all hours of the year that the plant is in
operation. Some studies couple the electricity price with the capacity
factor, as the price can be expected to be directly linked to the annual
electricity utilization [53]. The capacity factor is sometimes varied in
sensitivity analysis, while others select one representative capacity
factor. Other parameters that differ among the studies are, for example,
O & M cost, depreciation period, interest rate, water price, and
assumed revenues for by-products, such as heat and oxygen. These
large differences among the different studies result in a large differ-
ences in the electrofuel production cost estimates, with a range of 10–
3500 €2015/MWh (methane 10–640, methanol 60–400, DME 110–
170, FT-liquids 50–3500 MWh, and gasoline 190–590 €2015/MWh).

2.2. Critical factors affecting the cost of electrofuels

20 € / MWh for low temperature heat and 56 €/MWh for high temperature heat (exact temperatures not specified in the article).

Several studies (e.g [28,30]) find the production cost of hydrogen to

be the main cost affecting the cost of electrofuels. Graves et al. [30] find
electricity cost and capital cost of the electrolyser to be the main
parameters affecting the total fuel cost. The capital costs are especially
significant when operating at low capacity factors [30]. De Saint Jean
et al. [28] suggest that the cost of the electrolyser and its performance
degradation are the two main parameters affecting the total fuel cost.
They consider a relatively low capacity factor, 51%, compared to the
other studies (see Table 2), which increases the relative impact of the
Specifies an O & M cost of $0.5/GJ fuel corresponding to about 10% of the installed capital cost.

capital cost.
Dimitriou et al. [58] find that, if not considering the cost for
producing hydrogen, the main factors affecting the cost of different
ways to produce FT-liquids from sewage sludge and hydrogen are fuel
synthesis capital costs, CO2 removal efficiency of the CO2 capture plant,
Cost for electricity generation, do not include transport, distribution and taxes.

and the CO2 conversion rate (hydrogen was purchased for approxi-
mately 140 €2015/MWh). Mohseni et al. [70] suggest that the electricity
cost is the most important factor affecting the cost of methane
2% O & M cost for electrolyser and 5% O & M cost for fuel synthesis.

production, making off-peak operation cost-effective, while Atsonios

3% O & M cost for SOEC and 3.5% O & M cost for fuel synthesis.

et al. [66] find that cheap electricity available on a regular basis is a

930 €/kWelec for the SOEC and 280 €/kWfuel for fuel synthesis.

prerequisite for a low production cost.

See Schmidt et al. [57] for details about the specific cases.

Dimitriou et al. [58] analyze the impact of scale of the carbon

capture and utilization plant on the capital cost and use the cost curve
method to approximate production cost for a plant producing 16,700
metric tons per day (≈ 800 MW) compared to 1 t per day (≈ 500 kW),
resulting in a cost of about 140 €2015/MWh compared to about 1900
€2015/MWh. This shows that the production scale can have a great
Calculated based on 1000 € / kWel.

impact on the capital cost. Schmidt et al. [57] suggest that electrofuels
For different scales and setups.

costs could be cut in half from 2015 to 2050 and that further cost
reductions may apply to specific projects, especially with regard to
electricity price, capacity factors, and CO2 source. Revenues from by-
Biological methanation.
Catalytic methanation.

Alkaline electrolyser.

products (heat and oxygen) are also shown to have the potential to
PEM electrolyser.

reduce the cost; e.g., selling the oxygen produced, reduces fuel
production costs by about 10% in some studies [52,66].
To summarize, most studies find that the capital cost of the
electrolyser, as well as the stack life span and need for stack replace-
ment, in combination with the electricity price are the main parameters
aa
w
n

u
p

x
v

z
s
°

affecting the production cost of electrofuels. Other factors, such as

1893
S. Brynolf et al. Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews 81 (2018) 1887–1905

Table 3
Electrolyser technologies, costs and performance, averages across studies, ranges in parenthesis [25,60,67,78,80,82,84].

Alkaline PEM SOEC (steam) SOEC (co-electrolysis)

Today 2030b Today 2030b 2030b 2030b

Electricity-to-hydrogenLHV efficiency (%)c 65 66 (50–74) 62 (40–69) 69 (62–79) ~ 77 ~ 81

(43–69)
Electricity-to-heat efficiency (%) – – – – ~ 5% ~5
Minimum part load (% of capacity)a 30 (20–40) 10–20 9 (5–10) 0–5 ~3 ~3
System size (MW)a 1.1–5.3 4.9–8.6 0.10–1.2 2.1–90 0.5–50 0.5–50
Stack life span (1000 h)a 75 (60–90 95 (90–100) 62 (20–90) 78 (60–90) < 90 < 90
System life span [years]a 25 (20–30) 30 20 (10–30) 30 10–20 10–20
Investment cost (€2015/kWelec) 1100 (600–2600) 700 (400–900) 2400 (1900–3700) 800 (300–1300) 700 (400–1000) 700 (400–1000)
O & M cost 2–5% 2–5% 2–5% 2–5% 2–3% 2–3%
a a
Stack replacement cost 50% of investment cost 60% of investment cost Included in O & M cost

a
Based mainly on Bertuccioli et al. [78].
b
The year 2030 is used in this study as a proxy for a time in the future when certain technological improvements and volume of production are achieved.
c
Electricity-to-hydrogenLHV efficiency will depend on how the operation is performed. For example ramping up and down will decrease the efficiency compare to operating on
constant pace.

considering revenues from by-products as well as the scale of the 3.1. Hydrogen production
electrofuels production plant, cannot be neglected. The capture cost of
CO2 and the cost of water are minor shares of the total cost in most There are several ways to produce hydrogen from renewable and
studies. Finally, several of the studies stress that a considerable effort non-renewable energy sources [73,74]. Renewable pathways include
will be necessary in order for electrofuels to be competitive on the electrolysis, thermolysis, and thermochemical cycles. The most mature
global market [55,59,65,66]. process is electrolysis, the focus of this study (for thermolysis and
Based on our review, we select the following parameters for further thermochemical cycles, see e.g. [30,75,76]). Electrolysis uses electricity
assessment in Section 4: type and cost of electrolyser, including stack as the main source of energy. Water is separated into hydrogen and
replacement; size of synthesis plant; electricity price; capacity factor; oxygen by current between two electrodes that are separated and
revenue from heat and O2; interest rate; depreciation time; carbon immersed in an electrolyte to raise ionic conductivity. A diaphragm or
capture cost; and annualized indirect investment costs for the whole separator is used to avoid recombination of oxygen and hydrogen [77].
plant. In order to get a more comprehensive overview of the costs for The most-discussed types of electrolysers are alkaline, proton exchange
the electrolyser, fuel synthesis, and carbon capture, these parameters membrane (PEM4), and solid oxide; the main features of these
are further reviewed in detail in Section 3 without limiting the review to electrolysers are summarized in Table 3. The capital costs mainly
the articles and reports investigating electrofuels only. consist of stack, power electronics, and gas conditioning. For alkaline
and PEM electrolysers, the stack cost typically accounts for about half
the capital cost [78,79]. The O & M costs of all types of electrolysers are
3. Cost review of separate production steps for different in the range of 2–5% per year of the initial capital cost, typically not
electrofuel pathways including the cost of the end-of-life stack replacement (Table 3). The
capital costs for the electrolyser are not shown to be dependent on size
Section 3 presents a broader but also more detailed economic but are part of the operational costs that depend on labor. The O & M
review than Section 2. Here, we include literature assessing electro- costs do not scale linearly with system size, and costs of 2% and 5% per
lysers, carbon capture, and fuels synthesis in their own right, not just in year of the initial capital cost for a 10 MW and 1 MW plant,
the context of electrofuels, in order to further specify the costs and respectively, have been estimated by Bertuccioli et al. [78].
efficiencies displayed in Table 2. Additional search terms include
hydrogen, SOEC, fuel cells, PEM, alkaline, fuel synthesis, methane
3.1.1. Alkaline electrolysers
synthesis, methanol synthesis, DME synthesis, Fischer-Tropsch synth-
Alkaline electrolysers have been used in electrolysis for more than
esis. In order to enable comparisons across studies, the original data
100 years in the chemical and metallurgic industry and for the
are adjusted as described in Section 2. In addition, the fuel synthesis
production of fertilizers [80,81]. The cell consists of two electrodes
costs are adapted to different production scales using the cost curve
separated by a diaphragm immersed in an aqueous alkaline solution
method, an approximate method with an accuracy of ± 50% [64].
(KOH, NaOH, or NaCl). The charge carrier in alkaline electrolysis is
OH-. The operating temperature is typically in the range 60–80 °C [82].
Table 4
Alkaline electrolysis can work either under atmospheric or pressurized
Capture cost for different CO2 sources found in the literature [27,52,72,94,95,98–101].
conditions. The main advantage of using higher pressure is less energy
CO2 capture cost short- CO2 capture cost long- required for production of compressed hydrogen; however, this reduces
midterm (€2015/tCO2) term (€2015/tCO2) the efficiency and purity of the gas [83].
Commercial alkaline electrolyser systems have efficiencies in the
Natural gas power plant 20–60 10–60 range of 43–69%, with costs varying from 600 up to 2600 €/kWelec,
Coal power plants 30–170 10–100 depending on production capacity and efficiency, with most estimates
Petroleum refining/ 60–140 30–90 around 1100 €/kWelec [67,78,80,84]. Capital costs for future alkaline
petrochemical electrolysers have been estimated at 400–900 €/kWelec (see Table 3).
Cement industry 70–150 30–50
Iron and steel production 50–70 30–60
The main advantages of alkaline electrolysers today, compared to
Ammonia production < 20 < 20 PEM and SOEC, are low capital costs, availability of large plant sizes,
Bioethanol production, biogas < 20 < 20
upgrading
4
Ambient air – 20–950 Proton exchange membrane (PEM) is sometimes also called polymer electrolyte
membrane (PEM) or solid polymer electrolyte (SPE).

1894
S. Brynolf et al.
and long life spans, while the disadvantages are low current density and
high maintenance costs (as the system is highly corrosive). The cold-
start times are from minutes to hours, and transient operation is
possible (20–150% of capacity) but can be associated with problems
[85].
3.1.2. PEM electrolysers
PEM electrolysers have not been on the market for as long as
alkaline electrolysers, so there are fewer manufacturing companies,
and they are mainly adapted for lower capacities [77]. Today, PEM
electrolysers at the MW-scale are available [85]. In contrast to alkaline
electrolysers, PEM electrolysers do not have a liquid electrolyte. The
electrolyte is instead a thin polymeric membrane, typically Niafon [77].
The electrodes usually consist of noble metals such as platinum and
iridium [77]. The charge carrier is H+, and the operating temperature is
normally in the range of 50–80 °C [82]. PEM electrolysers can operate
at a higher pressure than alkaline; some models reach 80 bar or more
[77,86]. Pressure configurations permit the cathode (hydrogen) side to
be under pressure, without pressure on the anode side, thus avoiding
the hazards of handling high-pressure oxygen [86].
Current PEM electrolysers have similar conversion efficiencies as
alkaline electrolysers, 40–69% [60,67,78,80,82] but are more expen-
sive, mainly due to the membrane and noble metals [77]. The
investment cost is in the range of 1900–3700 €/kWelec, and the costs
for PEM electrolysers are expected to be reduced to 300–1300 €/kWelec
by 2030 [60,78,80].
The advantages of PEM electrolysers are high power densities, no
corrosive substances, and the possibility of operating at high pressure (
> 100 bar). More dynamic operation is also possible. The cold-start
time is seconds to minutes, the transient operation is better than for
alkaline electrolysers (5%– > 100% of capacity), and dynamic adjust-
ments are possible [85]. The disadvantages are the high costs and fast
degradation [85].
3.1.3. Solid oxide electrolysers
High-temperature SOECs are one of the most recently developed
electrolysis technologies and are still at the laboratory scale but may
enter the market in the near future. A single SOEC is comprised of a
dense electrolyte layer and two porous electrodes. The electrolyte
consists of zirconia (ZrO2) doped with yttria (Y2O3), called YSZ
(yttria-stabilised zirconia) [77], which has good ionic conductivity at
high operating temperatures. The cathode is usually a porous YSZ-
nickel cermet, while the anode is commonly a composite of YSZ and,
for example, strontium-doped lanthanum manganite (LSM)
[77,87,88]. The electrolyte provides a pathway for the charge carrier,
O2-. SOECs operate at temperatures of 600–1000 °C [88,89] which
enables conversion efficiencies above 80% (based on LHV). The high
electricity to hydrogen conversion efficiency is caused by the increased
possibility to supply energy in the form of heat instead of electricity.
This makes using SOECs of special interest in situations in which a high
temperature heat source is available. The SOECs can also be utilized for
co-electrolysis, where the reactions CO2 to CO and H2O to H2 take
place simultaneously, leading to the production of syngas.
The advantages of SOECs are so far mainly the high electricity to
hydrogen efficiency and the possibility of integrating waste heat, while
the disadvantages are the limited long-term stability of the cells and the
limited suitability in fluctuating systems [85]. The costs are uncertain,
in the range of 2500–6100 €/m2 (≈ 500–1200 €/kWelec,2015 at 0.5 W /
cm2) and 400–1500 €/m2 (≈ 100–300 €/kWelec,2015 at 0.5 W / cm2)
for state-of-the-art and future targets, respectively [27,28,30,52].
Rivera-Tinoco et al. [72] report an expected and current investment
cost in the range of 4000–11,000 $/kW. Table 3 lists the data for costs
and performance for the different electrolyser technologies; the data for
SOEC are taken from Mathiesen et al. [80].
1895
Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews 81 (2018) 1887–1905
3.2. Carbon sources and capture
Various point sources and activities that give rise to surplus
capturable CO2 are e.g., biofuel production, flue gases from fossil and
biomass combustion plants, industrial plants, such as iron and steel,
pulp and paper, and cement, as well as geothermal activity, air, and
seawater [134]. The CO2 concentrations in the different sources ranges
from very small (400 ppm in air) up to almost 100% in some biofuel
plants. The highest concentrations can be found in plants producing
ethanol through fermentation of sugar, in plants where anaerobic
digestion of household waste produces biogas, and plants where
gasification of biomass produces syngas further converted into
methane, as well as ammonia plants. By utilizing surplus CO2 from
biofuel production the production of electrofuels is a way to increase
the yield from the same amount of biomass. A study by Mohseni [90]
claims that the yield may increase by 44–136% when producing
methane from digestion or gasification of biomass if investing in new
synthesis reactors that allow CO2 released in the process to react with
added hydrogen. The source of CO2 has to be a non-fossil source in
order to produce a climate neutral fuel [91]. A feasibility study by Trost
et al. [92] identifies a large potential for biogenic CO2 sources in
Germany, such as biogas upgrading facilities, bioethanol plants, and
sewage treatment plants. On the other hand, a study by Reiter and
Lindorfer [93], mapping CO2 sources in Austria found that only a small
share of CO2 emissions are from biogas upgrading and bioethanol
production and that the biggest point sources of CO2 in Austria are
non-renewable such as the iron, steel and cement industries, along with
power and heat plants.
The concentration of CO2 at the point sources affects the capture
costs and efficiencies. Also the choice of capture technology has an
impact. A relatively low capture cost can be achieved in e.g. bioethanol
plants, where the exhaust stream has a high concentration of CO2, and
no extra major purification step or additional energy is needed in the
capture process. The fermentation of household waste into biogas,
leads to a raw biogas that contains methane, CO2 (40%), and some
trace components. An upgrading of the raw biogas to fuel quality,
demand a cleaning step to remove the CO2, and the capture cost from
the upgrading facility has similar costs as for the bioethanol plant. An
extra purification step increasing the capture cost, is needed when
capturing CO2 from industries, such as petrochemical, refinery, ce-
ment, iron and steel, as well as fossil, or biomass combustion plants.
Cost data for CO2 capture for different industries categorized into
short-midterm future (10–15 years) and long term (20 years or more)
are presented in Table 4. For example, a cost of 50–70 €2015/ton CO2
captured may be achieved in short-midterm, in the iron and steel
sector, and in a longer time perspective more advanced CO2 capture
technologies might reduce the cost to 30–60 €2015/ton CO2. Post-
combustion capture is the most likely technology in the short-midterm
with current capture costs above 70 €2015/ton CO2 captured in the
cement sector, while 30–60 €2015/ton may be achieved with future
technologies, such as oxy-fuel or calcium looping [94].
The CO2 capture from air requires 2–4 times more energy
compared to capturing CO2 from flue gases. Strong bases, such as
sodium hydroxide (NaOH), potassium hydroxide (KOH), and calcium
hydroxide (Ca(OH)2), can scrub CO2 out of the atmosphere, but it is an
energy-intensive process to regenerate the bases. More energy-efficient
materials are under development, indicating that the process may be
more cost-effective in future. A wide range of techniques and materials,
for capturing CO2 from ambient air, have been proposed and a
literature overview, of technologies and costs, is presented in
Goeppert et al. [95] presenting a wide cost estimation range from 20
to more than 1000 $/ton CO2. Lackner [96] estimated the current cost
using a moisture swing process to 200 $/ton CO2 and approximately 30
$/ton CO2 in the long-term. Ranjan and Herzog [97] stated that only
the energy cost needed for air capture would be in the range of 250–
1200 $/ton CO2 and therefore suggested that some cost estimates in
S. Brynolf et al.
Table 5
Overview of efficiencies and investment costs in the literature by fuel and type of fuel synthesis.
Fuel Type of synthesis
Methane [25,55,70,84,85] Catalytic methanation
Methanol [25,55,71,109,110] Methanol synthesis
DME [55,109] Direct DME synthesis
FT liquids, e.g., gasoline and diesel Fischer-Tropsch synthesis
[50,55,59,65,109]
Gasoline [25,109] Methanol synthesis and methanol-to-
gasoline process
a
The average, min, and max of the efficiencies found in the cited references.
b
Tremel et al. [55] calculated the maximum efficiency based on lower heating value from the chemical formula. To calculate the actual efficiency, processes associated with simple
upgrading, such as methane and methanol, were multiplied by 0.9, while FT liquids were multiplied by 0.83.
c
Adjustment of cost to different scales is done using the cost curve method C = C0 × (S / S0)k, where C = capital cost, C0 = reference capital cost, S = capacity, S0=reference capacity
and k = individual cost scaling component [64]. For simplicity, k = 0.7 for the calculations done in this article. The data are also adjusted to only include main and auxiliary equipment
costs if possible and not, for example, engineering, construction, and contingency costs.
the literature were significantly underestimated. All air capture tech-
nologies are still at a very early stage of development, and more
research and development are needed in order to better understand
future cost of air CO2 capture.
3.3. Fuel synthesis
Hydrogen and CO2 can be combined to create different energy
carriers in fuel synthesis processes, such as methane synthesis,
methanol synthesis, and Fischer-Tropsch synthesis (see Fig. 2). New
innovative energy carriers may also be produced from CO2 and H2, by
using, for example, methods developed for synthetic fuels produced
from biomass [102] or from hydrogen storage by liquid organic
hydrogen carriers [103,104]. In this study, the focus is on methane,
methanol, dimethyl ether (DME), gasoline and diesel, energy carriers
that are well known and tested.
CO2 can be used directly in some reactors, for example using the
Sabatier reaction producing methane, while other reaction pathways
start from CO as in the Fischer-Tropsch synthesis. CO2 can be reduced
to CO via the reversed water-gas shift (RWGS) reaction, CO2 + H2 +
41 kJ(at 298 K) → CO + H2O. The reaction is endothermic and high
temperatures are beneficial for the reaction [29], which yields almost
full conversion at temperatures exceeding 830 °C [30].
3.3.1. Methane
Methane can be produced from H2 and CO2/CO by catalytic and
biological methanation. The process is used to produce synthetic
natural gas from synthesized gas derived from coal and biomass.
There are three main reactions involved in catalytic methanation, the
Sabatier reaction, CO2(g) + 4H2(g) ↔ CH4(g) + 2H2O(g) + 165 kJ(at 298 K),
the hydrogenation of CO, CO(g) + 3H2(g) ↔ CH4(g) + H2O(g) + 206 kJ
(at 298 K), and the RWGS reaction [79]. The Sabatier reaction can be
seen as a combination of the latter two. It is possible to convert more
than 99.5% of the syngas (mixture of carbon dioxide and hydrogen) to
methane [25,90]. The synthesis process is exothermic, so the highest
efficiency is achieved at low temperatures.
Fixed-bed reactors are typically used for catalytic methanation, but
novel reactor concepts such as three-phase methanation and micro-
reactors are under development [85]. In biological methanation,
microbes substitute for catalysts. This process is of increasing interest
but still under development. Biological methanation can be linked with
a biogas process by adding hydrogen, see for example Bensmann et al.
[105], or it can be set up as a self-sustaining operation. Biological
methanation requires a constant temperature, which reduces the
efficiency of the plant [84].
1896
Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews 81 (2018) 1887–1905
Efficiencies based on LHV (%)a Investment cost (€2015/kWfuel)c
5 MW 50 MW 200 MW
77 (70–83b) [55,60,84,90,112] 600 (100–900) 300 (50–500) 200 (30–300)
79 (69–89b) [55,109] 1000 (600– 500 (300–600) 300 (200–400)
1200)
80 (68–92b) [55,109] 1000 (700– 500 (300–700) 300 (200–400)
1300)
73 (63–83b) [55,109] 1300 (800– 700 (400– 400 (300–700)
2100) 1000)
68 (59–77) [55,109] 1700 (1400– 900 (700– 600 (500–700)
2000) 1000)
The investment costs for catalytic and biological methanation have
been estimated at 30–900 €2015/kWfuel in the literature, for different
plant sizes and technological maturity [25,55,79,84,85,106,107]. The
cost for different scales of catalytic methanation can be seen in Table 5.
As an example, Grond et al. [84] suggest capital costs slightly below
1000 €/kWfuel, HHV for small scale methanation ( < 10 MW) but expect
that the price will drop to 300–500 €/kWfuel, HHV (≈ 350–550 €/kWfuel,
LHV).
3.3.2. Methanol and DME
Methanol is a very flexible alcohol; it can be used both as fuel and in
the chemical industry. A shift from an oil and gas economy towards a
“methanol economy” has been proposed [108]. Methanol can be
produced from CO2 in one or two steps. The two-step process starts
by converting CO2 to CO with the RWGS reaction, followed by
hydrogenation to methanol. In methanol synthesis by direct hydro-
genation of CO2, the one-step process, there are generally three
competing reactions. The direct methanol synthesis from CO2, CO2 +
3H2 → CH3OH + H2O + 40.9 kJ(at 298 K), the hydrogenation of CO, CO
+ 2H2(g) ↔ CH3OH + 90.7 kJ(at 298 K), and the RWGS reaction. The
typical CO2 conversion in a fixed-bed reactor is in the range of 20–40%
without recycling, and CO formation is significant, resulting in the need
to recycle unreacted CO2, CO, and H2 to the feed stream in order to
reach nearly full CO2 conversion and high methanol selectivity [29].
The resulting product is a mixture of methanol and water that needs to
be distilled to yield more pure methanol. The investment costs for
methanol synthesis have been estimated at 200–1200 €2015/kWfuel in
the literature, for different plant sizes [25,55,71,109,110] (see Table 5).
There are two routes for DME synthesis, either direct or two-step by
methanol synthesis and dehydration of methanol. Direct DME synth-
esis is not in commercial use currently but is thermodynamically and
economically more favorable to produce than DME from methanol
[111]. The investment costs for direct DME synthesis have been
estimated at 300–1200 €2015/kWfuel in the literature, for different
plant sizes [55,109] (see Table 5).
3.3.3. Gasoline and diesel
A variety of hydrocarbons including gasoline and diesel can be
produced by Fischer-Tropsch synthesis, 2H2(g) + CO(g) → –CH2 – (l) +
H2O(g) + 165 kJ(at400K), where –CH2 – is part of a hydrocarbon chain.
The chain growth depends on the catalysts and syngas composition as
well as temperature and reactor pressure [30]. It is also possible to
produce higher hydrocarbons by a single step, direct hydrogenation,
CO2(g) + 3H2(g)→ –CH2 – (l) + 2H2O(g) + 125 kJ(at400K). However, this
is still an ongoing field of research, not a mature technology (see Graves
S. Brynolf et al. Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews 81 (2018) 1887–1905

Table 7
Interest rate (%) /depreciation time (years) Additional assumptions used in the reference and sensitivity scenarios.

Parameter Value

O & Mfuel synthesis 4% of investment cost/year

5/10
2030

10/a
Iplant 100% (0–200%) of Ielectrolyser + Ifuel
5/ a
5/ a
5/ a
5/ a
5/ a
5/ a
5/ a
synthesis
Life span of fuel synthesis plant 25 years
Available heat 90% of the heat released in the
process
Water cost 1 €2015/t
Water-to-hydrogen conversion efficiency in 99%
5/10 the electrolyser
2015

10/a
5/ a
5/ a
5/ a
5/ a
5/ a
5/ a
5/ a

et al. [30]). The investment costs for FT liquids have been estimated at
Capacity factor

300–2100 €2015/kWfuel in the literature, for different plant sizes

2030

20%
80%
80%
80%

80%
80%
80%
80%
80%

[50,55,59,65,109] (see Table 5). Investment costs for the methanol-

to-gasoline (MTG) processes have been estimated to about 500–2000
2015

20%

€/kWfuel in the literature, for different plant sizes [25,109] (see

80%
80%
80%

80%
80%
80%
80%
80%

Table 5). A more detailed background table presenting each source's

original data and how these have been scaled to form the ranges
Assumed revenue for heat and O2

presented under Investment cost in Table 5 can be found in the

Supplementary Material (Table A.2).
Summary of the assumptions in the reference scenario and the eight sensitivity scenarios. Changes compared to the reference scenario is marked with bold text.

2030

Yes
No
No
No
No
No
No

No
No

4. Sensitivity analysis of parameters affecting the

electrofuels production cost
The depreciation time is based on the life span of the electrolyser presented in Table 5 and a 25 years life span for the fuel synthesis plant.

This section shows how critical parameters identified in Section 2

impact the cost of different energy carriers produced from CO2 and
2015

Yes
No
No
No
No
No
No

No
No

hydrogen. The analysis is based on the results described in Section 3

and the sensitivity analysis can be seen as a complement to the
Carbon capture cost (€2015/ton)

literature review of the electrofuel costs in Section 2. It includes

synchronized cost assessments for the most commonly discussed
energy carriers, methane, methanol, DME, FT-liquids (gasoline and
2030

500
30
30
30
30
30

30
30
30

diesel), and gasoline (produced by the MTG process).

4.1. Production cost estimation

The total production cost (TC) in €2015 per MWh can be calculated
1000
2015

30
30
30
30
30

30
30
30

in the following way:

Medium scale
Medium scale
Medium scale
Medium scale

Medium scale
Medium scale
Medium scale
Medium scale
Large scale

TC = Ielectrolyser +O & Melectrolyser +Cstack +Celectricity +Cwater +Ifuelsynthesis

+O & Mfuelsynthesis +CCO2capture − Pheat −Poxygen+Iplant
2030
Synthesis plant size

where Ielectrolyser is the annualized direct investment cost of the

electrolyser, O & Melectrolyser is the operation and maintenance cost
Medium scale

for the electrolyser, Cstack is the annualized cost of stack replacements,

Small scale
Small scale
Small scale
Small scale

Small scale
Small scale
Small scale
Small scale

Celectricity is the cost of electricity, Cwater is the cost of water needed for
the fuel production, Ifuel synthesis is the annualized direct investment
2015

cost of the fuel synthesis, O & Mfuel syntheis is the operation and
maintenance cost for the fuel synthesis, CCO2 capture is the cost to
Electricity price (€2015/MWh)

capture CO2, Pheat is the profit from selling excess heat, Poxygen is the
profit from selling excess oxygen, and Iplant represents the annualized
2030

indirect investment costs for the whole plant including for example
50
50
50

50
50
50
50
50
0

engineering and construction, fees, and project contingency costs and

is calculated as a fraction of Ielectrolyser and Ifuel synthesis. Ielectrolyser and
Ifuel synthesis represent the direct investment cost, ideally including
equipment and installation costs (see Section 5.3 for discussion). The
2015

need for stack replacements is calculated from the annual operating

50
50
50

50
50
50
50
50
0

hours, the stack life span and the electrolyser system life span and
Alkaline

Alkaline
Alkaline
Alkaline
Alkaline
Alkaline
Alkaline
SOEC

rounded up to the nearest integer. Cstack is calculated based on the

PEM
2030

share of electrolyser cost and the number of stack replacements

Electrolyser

needed.
Alkaline

Alkaline
Alkaline
Alkaline
Alkaline
Alkaline
Alkaline
Alkaline
PEM
2015

4.2. Scenarios investigated

Table 6

RS
S1
S2
S3
S4
S5
S6
S7
S8

The electrofuel cost is analyzed with a reference scenario (RS) as

1897
S. Brynolf et al.
Fig. 4. Reference scenario (RS) production costs for different types of synthetic fuels in 2015 and 2030.
well as eight sensitivity scenarios (S1–S8) in which different para-
meters affecting the cost of electrofuels are varied, see Table 6. The
costs (€2015) of different synthetic fuels are assessed for 2015,
representing the situation today, and for 2030. Note that the year
2030 is used as a proxy for a time in the future when certain
technological improvements and volume of production are achieved.
Data from Tables 3 and 5 on costs and efficiencies for electrolysers and
fuel synthesis are used to determine the following three cases: base,
low, and high case (calculated for all scenarios). In the low and high
cases, the most optimistic and pessimistic values in the literature are
used for the efficiencies and costs of electrolysers and fuel synthesis,
respectively, while the average data in the literature are used for the
base case. Many studies reviewed in Section 2 assume an average
electricity price of 50 €/MWh. This is also used as the electricity price
in the scenario analysis except for S3 and is further analyzed in Section
4.4. Additional assumptions made but not varied in the sensitivity
Fig. 5. Production costs for methanol for all the scenarios.
1898
Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews 81 (2018) 1887–1905
analysis are shown in Table 7. The analysis is only focused on fuel
production cost. Environmental performance and cost for environ-
mental pollution (e.g. a carbon tax) are not considered in this study.
The RS assumes alkaline electrolysers since this is the most mature
electrolyser technology. The impact of choosing PEM or SOEC is
investigated in S1–S2. PEM is expected to be more suitable to dynamic
operations than alkaline and SOEC electrolysers, while SOEC is
expected to be more efficient and less expensive in the future compared
to alkaline and PEM electrolysers. The potential for decreased cost with
intermittent operation is then investigated in S3, where the capacity
factor of the plant is set to 20% and the electricity price to zero.
Possible impacts of the electricity price on the cost of electrofuels is
further analyzed in Section 4.4. In S4, the size of the synthesis plant is
increased (from 5 MWfuel and 50 MWfuel to 50 MWfuel and 200 MWfuel
for today and 2030, respectively). The sensitivity analysis also con-
siders the cost of carbon capture (S5), the impact of revenues from heat
S. Brynolf et al.
Fig. 6. Total fuel production cost for methanol in A) 2015 and B) 2030 for the reference scenario (RS) and the other investigated scenarios depending on the price of electricity.
and oxygen (S6), the interest rate (S7), and the depreciation time (S8).
A heat price of 30 €2015/MWhheat independent of the temperature is
assumed. The oxygen produced is calculated from the chemical
formulas and the price of oxygen is set to 50 €2015/t.
4.3. Scenario results
The 2015 and 2030 fuel production costs for hydrogen and different
types of electrofuels in RS are presented in Fig. 4, including the base,
low, and high case. In the RS, the electrofuel production costs,
including all the energy carriers investigated, span between 120 and
1050 €2015/MWhfuel and 100–430 €2015/MWhfuel in 2015 and 2030,
respectively. But the base cases are in the range 200–280 €2015/
MWhfuel and 160–210 €2015/MWhfuel, respectively. The electrolyser
costs (i.e., capital cost, stack replacement, O & M cost, and other plant
investment costs) dominate the fuel costs in 2015 for all electrofuels,
while the electricity cost dominates in 2030 (see Fig. 4). Fig. 4 also
shows that the costs for carbon capture, water, investment in a fuel
synthesis reactor, and reactor O & M are a minor share of the fuel
production costs in both 2015 and 2030. Other plant investment costs
stand for a significant part of the electrofuel production cost in the high
cases.
Hydrogen (if used as a fuel itself and not as feedstock for an
electrofuel) obviously has the lowest production cost, followed by
methane, methanol, DME, FT-liquids, and gasoline (from MTG).
Recall that distribution and vehicle costs associated with hydrogen as
Fig. 7. Methanol production costs for A) 2015 and B) 2030 for different capacity factors based on historical and modeled electricity costs in the Danish spot market region 1 (DK1).
1899
Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews 81 (2018) 1887–1905
a transport fuel (fuel cell technologies and more advanced fuel storage
technologies) are not included in the cost assessment and are higher for
hydrogen than for the electrofuel options that can be used in combus-
tion engines. There can also be a difference in distribution costs and
costs for vehicle adaptations among the electrofuels; therefore it is not
obvious which one, methane, methanol, DME, FT-liquids or gasoline,
that might be most cost-effective, when including such costs.
Fig. 5 shows the production costs for the base, low, and high cases
for methanol, for all scenarios S1–S8. Results for S1–S8 for all the
other energy carriers investigated can be found in the Supplementary
Material. Figs. 4 and 5 show that there is a large difference if today's
costs or future potential costs are used and if optimistic or pessimistic
values (low and high cases) are used. This study shows that the choice
of energy carrier are not as critical for the electrofuels production cost
as technological choices and external factors.
The electricity price is found to be an important contributor in the
base and low cases for all scenarios (except S3, in which the electricity
price is assumed to be zero) in both 2015 and 2030. In 2015, the other
plant investment cost, electricity cost and the investment cost of the
electrolyser are the main contributors to the fuel production cost. In
2030, the electrolyser is assumed to be improved compared to 2015,
and the electricity price is the dominant cost for all scenarios which
assumes a capacity factor of 80%. The fuel synthesis investment cost
represents a smaller share of the cost, compared to the investment cost
of the electrolyser. The synthesis plant investment cost is only a
significant part of the cost in S3, in which the capacity factor of the
S. Brynolf et al. Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews 81 (2018) 1887–1905

Table 8
Comparison of current and estimated future production costs in €2015/MWh for fossil, biogenic, and electrofuels.

Current or future production cost estimates found in the literature

Fossil fuel 40–140 [21,119,120]

Estimates for biogenic fuels

Methane from anaerobic digestion 10–180 [121–123]
Methane from gasification of lignocellulose 70–90 [25,120,122]
Methanol from gasification of lignocellulose 30–120 [25,122,124]
Dimethyl ether (DME) from gasification of 90–110 [122]
lignocellulose
Ethanol from maize, sugarcane, wheat and 30–350 [119–122]
waste
Fatty acid methyl ester (FAME) from 10–210 [119–122]
rapeseed, palm and waste oil
Hydrotreated vegetable oil (HVO) from palm 90–190 [119,123]
oil
Synthetic biodiesel from gasification of 50–660 [119,120,122,124]
lignocellulose
Synthetic biogasoline from gasification of 90 [25]
lignocellulose

Estimates for combined production of biogenic and electrofuels

Methane (biomass/biogas hydrogenation) 70–90 [21,25]
Methanol (biomass hydrogenation) 60–100 [21,25,125]
Synthetic biogasoline (biomass 110 [25]
hydrogenation)
Electrofuels Current or future production cost estimates Reference scenario (RS) 2015 Reference scenario (RS) 2030
from literature review in Section 2 including base, low and high case including base, low and high case
Methane 10–641 120–650 100–290
Methanol 60–400 120–680 100–260
DME 110–173 120–690 100–310
FT-liquids 45–3500 130–770 110–340
Gasoline by MTG 185–460 160–1050 130–430

plant is reduced from 80% to 20% and the electricity price is set to zero.
In S3, the base cost is approximately the same as if the plant were run
80% of the year at a more regular electricity price. The life span of the
electrolyser stack is an important factor, determining whether stack
replacements are needed. The cost of CO2 is only significant if air
capture is assumed, as seen in S5.
In S6, which includes revenue from heat and oxygen, all energy not
utilized in the final product is converted to heat (at a 5% loss in the
electrolyser and 10% loss in the fuel synthesis). These assumptions are
similar to those of Benjaminsson et al. [67]. This decreases the cost of
the fuels by 17–22%, with the main revenue coming from heat. The
revenue from heat and oxygen will of course depend on the market
price of these products, which varies geographically and with time of
the year. In northern Europe, with the current heat and electricity
production and consumption, high demand for heat occurs at the same
time as high demand for electricity, namely during the wintertime.
Running the electrofuel production plant during the hours with the
lowest electricity prices and simultaneously selling heat might be
difficult in some geographical areas.
4.4. Impact of the electricity price
Fig. 6 shows how the fuel production costs for methanol depend on
the price of electricity. The capacity factor for the different scenarios
(S1–S8) is 80%, except for S3, when the capacity factor is 20%. As seen
in Fig. 6, even in the scenarios with lowest cost the electricity price
(including taxes and net tariffs) has to be less than 20 €2015/MWh
during 80% of the year in 2015, and less than 40 €/MWh in 2030, for
the fuel cost to be less than 100 €2015/MWhfuel. Fig. 6 also shows that
despite a zero electricity price during 20% of the year the cost for
methanol is still approximately 200 €2015/MWhfuel in 2030.
The electricity price varies both between geographical regions and
with time of day and year, depending mainly on the type of generation
technologies in the region, transmission capacity to surrounding
regions, and the flexibility of the load. The electricity prices on the
Nord Pool Spot (which is the wholesale electricity price excluding taxes
and net tariffs) in northern Europe (Sweden, Denmark, and Norway)
have varied during the last three years in the range 20–37 €/MWh if
including the average electricity price for the hours with the 80%
cheapest electricity prices. But if instead including only the hours with
the 10% cheapest electricity prices and excluding the 90% most
expensive hours the electricity price is in the range 6–27 €/MWh
[113]. The huge variation during the last three years in the Nordic
region is mainly due to 2015 being an extremely windy year. Note that
the cost for net tariffs and taxes might have to be added to the
electricity price on Nord Pool Spot and can, as in Sweden today, more
than double the electricity cost. During the last decade the yearly
average electricity prices in northern Europe have decreased as more
capacity has been built. In Germany, wholesale electricity prices have
decreased substantially as a result of the dramatic increase in more
capacity in the form of solar power (note that the electricity prices
would have decreased even if more thermal or nuclear power capacity
had been built instead of solar power) [114].
How electricity prices will evolve in the future is uncertain and will
depend on a number of factors such as investments in new generation
capacity, climate targets and policies, demand side management
strategies, transition to electricity in other sectors, investment in
transmission and storage capacity, and decentralized or centralized
production and grid. Several of the studies assessing the future cost of
electrofuels (e.g [30,52]) include scenarios with an electricity price of
zero to represent a future with a lot of renewable energy sources with
fluctuating electricity prices. Johnsson [115] and Johnsson et al. [116]
have modeled the development of the European electricity system to
2050 assuming strict climate targets, using a European investment

1900
S. Brynolf et al.
model (ELIN) with an investment period to 2050 as well as a dispatch
model (EPOD) with an hourly timescale (see e.g. [117,118], for a
detailed description of the ELIN and EPOD models). The increasing
costs for decarbonizing the power sector will most likely increase the
weighted average yearly electricity prices in Europe to 40–80 €/MWh
(excluding taxes and grid tariffs) by 2050 [115,116]. But the develop-
ment of electricity prices in both wholesale and retail markets is
significantly affected by the ways in which policy instruments are
designed and introduced in Europe [115,116].
The Danish spot market region 1 (DK1) was chosen to illustrate
how the electricity prices in 2015 and 2030 will affect the production
cost of methanol. In Fig. 7, the production costs for methanol are
shown for the DK1 region in 2015 and 2030. The electricity price used
for 2015 is the spot prices from the Nordic electricity market (Nord
Pool) for 2013. The year 2013 was chosen, instead of year 2015, since
this was an average windy year of the last decade, while 2015 was an
extremely windy year, which affects the electricity prices in Europe. For
year 2030, modeled electricity prices from the ELIN and EPOD models
are used, from a scenario called “Green Policy” [115]. Green Policy is a
scenario focused on the transition to renewable energy technologies in
Europe in order to reach a 95% reduction in CO2 emissions in the
stationary sector by 2050 (based on emissions in year 1990). The
electricity price in Fig. 7 is coupled with the capacity factor since the
electricity price is directly linked to the yearly utilization of electricity.
Additional costs, such as net tariffs, taxes or certificates, are not
included in the electricity price. All other cost parameters than
electricity adding up to the fuel cost in Fig. 7 are the same as in the
RS seen in Tables 6 and 7.
As seen in Fig. 7, the methanol production cost for DK1 is in the
range 170–690 €2015/MWhfuel for 2015 and about half that, 100–390
€2015/MWhfuel for 2030, depending on the capacity factor. It seems to
be most profitable to run the production process of electrofuels at least
50% of the time, both in 2015 and 2030, since a lower capacity factor
causes very high investment costs per fuel unit (despite lower electricity
prices in 2030). A change in investment cost or the efficiency of the
process will have a greater impact on the cost of methanol than lower
electricity prices for a plant running on low capacity. Fig. 7 shows then
that even with a high penetration level of wind power in Denmark in
2030 in the Green policy scenario pushing for more renewable energy
in Europe, the lower cost for methanol in 2030, compared to 2015, has
mainly to do with an assumed reduced cost of the electrolyser in the
future, rather than the lower electricity prices. The same trend has been
indicated for scenarios with modeled future electricity prices in Sweden
and Germany for 2030. In northern Europe, electricity prices close to
zero for more than 10% of the year will most likely be rare and are in
the EPOD model only seen in northern Sweden in a scenario with a
high penetration of wind power (70 TWh) [114]. So the lowest
production cost is of course shown for cases and scenarios with low
electricity price and a high capacity factor of the electrofuels production
plant. However, such a scenario with long periods with really low or
zero electricity prices is not likely in the future even with an electricity
system that is more dependent on renewable energy sources.
5. Discussion
We have reviewed the relevant literature to analyze production
costs for different electrofuels. We used the review data to calculate a
base case, as well as an upper and lower limit, for the total production
costs for a range of electrofuel pathways. In this section, we compare
these cost estimates to those for other transport fuels, including fossil-
based fuels and biofuels, to assess the competitiveness of electrofuels.
This section also addresses assumptions, costs not taken into account
in the analysis, and data uncertainties, as well as the main arguments
for and against electrofuels, the main environmental impacts of
electrofuels, and ideas for future research.
1901
Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews 81 (2018) 1887–1905
5.1. Cost comparison with other fuels
The literature review reveals a diversity of assumptions and
approaches among the different studies resulting in a broad range of
electrofuel production cost estimates, 10–3500 €2015/MWh. However,
our analysis based on data from literature review focused on the
individual steps in the production process resulted in more harmonized
cost estimates for the different fuels, with base-case production costs of
200–280 €2015/MWh and 160–210 €2015/MWh in 2015 and 2030,
respectively. Table 8 includes a comparison of production cost esti-
mates for different transport fuels and time horizons and shows that
most biofuels has the potential to be produced at a cost slightly below
100 €2015/MWh. The same holds for some of the electrofuels in the
low-cost scenarios with the low case assumptions. However, in our
reference scenario assuming low case assumptions, electrofuel produc-
tion costs in 2030 start at 100 €2015/MWh. Thus, the comparison
indicates that the low case assumptions for electrofuel production cost
estimates might be comparable to the production cost of some biofuels
in the upper range. Table 8 further indicates that there are variations
and uncertainty also in the biofuel production costs estimates.
5.2. Critical assumptions
The concept of electrofuels is relatively new, and some of the
production steps are still immature, which makes the cost estimates
uncertain. The results for the low and high case of each electrofuels
type diverge widely. There are multiple reasons for this: varying
assumptions about the future capital costs for the electrolyser and
the synthesis reactor, about stack replacement costs, and about
additional costs that may come when installing new equipment and
on how to interpret the data given in the literature about these extra
costs. The total investment cost for the electrofuel production facility is
calculated as the sum of the investment costs for all the process units
multiplied by a factor representing indirect costs, including, e.g.,
administrative costs and an installation factor. The reviewed publica-
tions are not fully transparent regarding, e.g., indirect costs. The
assumed level of installation factors and indirect costs (representing
the lower or higher end of the range) significantly influences the
results.
It should also be noted that assumptions on depreciation time and
interest rate for an investment may differ between studies. A societal
perspective is used in our analysis. The capital cost of investments are
therefore depreciated over the assumed life span (most often 25 years)
of the investment, using the assumption that the interest rate is equal
to the discount rate (assumed to be 5% in this study). Industries more
commonly use a shorter depreciation time and higher interest rate for
the annualized capital cost, increasing production cost significantly.
This is exemplified in S7 and S8, in which the costs are increased by
about 10–40% for the different fuels and time horizons.
Other potential additional costs have not been considered in this
paper. Distribution costs for hydrogen, CO2, and electrofuels are, for
example, not included in our sensitivity analysis and are not considered
in the majority of the reviewed articles. If hydrogen is not produced
near the synthesis reactor, it can be transported as a compressed gas, a
cryogenic liquid, or a chemical compound, such as a metal hydride, in
order to reduce space requirements. This transport is associated with a
cost. The cost for gas pipelines, liquid tanker truck, and gas tube
trailers are in the range of 0.20–1.4 €/kg hydrogen (≈6–40 €/MWhH2)
depending on plant size and transport distance [66,126]. The transport
of compressed CO2 in pipelines costs approximately 1–20 €/ton CO2
[99,127]. Atsonios et al. [66] suggested locating the H2 production
plant near the fuel synthesis plant to avoid H2 storage and distribution
cost, while the location of the CO2 capture plant has a lower impact on
the overall fuel production cost. Catalyst replacement represents
another possible additional cost. De Saint Jean et al. [28] assume that
methanation catalysts need to be replaced every other year, while most
S. Brynolf et al.
studies assessed in this paper do not include costs for catalyst
replacements or include this in the generalized O & M cost.
5.3. Electrofuels in a future sustainable transport system
The attractiveness of electrofuels in the transport sector will to a
large extent depend on cost-competitiveness and environmental per-
formance (in particular, the GHG impact) but also on the character-
istics of other energy storage and transport options and on how these
develop. The main benefits and challenges of electrofuels as a sustain-
able fuel for transport are summarized below.
Few studies have assessed the environmental impact of electrofuels
in a systematic way. However, von der Assen et al. [128] stress the
importance of using life cycle assessment (LCA) when evaluating the
climate impact of electrofuels. Van der Giesen et al. [129] consider a
range of electricity and CO2 sources to assess the global warming
potential for Fischer-Tropsch liquid fuels produced from CO2 and
hydrogen. They conclude that for some productions paths, the climate
impact is worse than for fossil fuels; a climate benefit requires using
renewable electricity and CO2 sources [129]. Sternberg and Bardow
[130] evaluate electrofuels relative to the case in which the same
amount of CO2 is instead either emitted or stored. They find that
electrofuels can at best only contribute to a small reduction in global
warming impact compared to other available solutions and that using
CO2 emissions for electrofuels is worse from a climate perspective
compared to storing them. It thereby seems difficult to justify conver-
sion of the captured CO2 into a fuel that after combustion will release
the CO2 again. However, no large-scale carbon storage technology is
available, and the technology may not be acceptable to the public
[131,132]. To summarize, the climate impact of electrofuels will
depend on the technologies used and on how carbon capture and
storage (CCS) develops. In comparing electrofuels to other options, a
range of assumptions will also influence the results. As with biofuels,
climate impacts will depend on production practices, which means that
guidelines for how to produce electrofuels in a sustainable manner are
required.
The molecules in electrofuels can be tailor-made to fit into existing
fossil fuel infrastructure, making, e.g., synthetic gasoline or diesel
attractive fuel options. If electrofuels are used as a drop-in fuel
alternative to conventional gasoline and diesel, they may contribute
to a prolonged era of fossil fuels. But this holds equally for the majority
of biofuels. Use in conventional internal combustion engines would
imply a potential for low or no CO2 emissions, but local emissions from
combustion engines would remain (NOx, soot, etc.). These local
emissions could be slightly lower with, e.g., DME, methanol or
methane, than with gasoline or diesel, but never as low as with
hydrogen in fuel cells or battery electric vehicles that can be run
without local emissions. Local emissions are of great concern to human
health in urban environments, and it would be beneficial if city vehicles
were powered by electricity or hydrogen from that point of view.
However, the majority of these local emissions can be reduced with
add-on technology. For traffic outside cities, local emissions are of less
concern for human health, simplifying the use of electrofuels with local
emissions in ships, aircrafts, and long-distance road transport.
The energy balance from well-to-tank for the production of
electrofuels is high (≈30–70% LHV efficiency depending on technol-
ogy). It seems difficult to justify conversion from an energy carrier with
a high exergy value to a fuel at an approximate 50% energy loss, to
thereafter use the fuel in a combustion engine, which has a lower
efficiency than an electric motor. Therefore, for light vehicles, elec-
tricity or hydrogen is preferable from an efficiency point of view, but
battery or fuel cell technologies face challenges for aviation, shipping,
and long-distance road transport.
1902
Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews 81 (2018) 1887–1905
5.4. Further work
Since batteries and fuel cells are still relatively expensive compared
to production costs for combustion engines, electrofuels in combustion
engines may be cost-competitive compared to hydrogen in fuel cells or
electricity in battery electric vehicles. Cost comparisons for electricity,
hydrogen and electrofuels therefore require additional inputs, includ-
ing costs for the propulsion system, storage, and the increased time for
refueling. Such assessments would be interesting for different transport
modes. More assessments of the environmental performance, including
climate change, local emissions, and health aspects of electrofuels are
needed, including LCAs. Other approaches such thermoeconomics (see
e.g. Lucia [133]) and combinations of economic and environmental
analysis are also important in order to understand the potential of
electrofuels.
6. Conclusions
The review of previously published literature of the costs for
producing electrofuels finds a very broad range of cost estimates from
as low as 10 up to as high as to 3500 €2015/MWh for different
electrofuels production pathways. However, our own calculations,
using harmonized data, in a reference scenario (alkaline electrolyser
and a capacity factor of 80%), with base case assumptions, suggests
electrofuels production costs in the range of 200–280 €2015/MWh and
160–210 €2015/MWh in 2015 and 2030, respectively for methane,
methanol, DME, FT-liquids and gasoline. The analysis also shows that
the production costs of electrofuels comes with a high uncertainty
where cost for all scenarios (including low, base and high cases) span
80–2700 €/MWh in 2015 and 50–750 €/MWh in 2030. Methane is
found to be the least costly electrofuel to produce, followed by
methanol, DME, gasoline and diesel. Important to note is that the cost
difference between the individual types of electrofuels are lower than
between the low and high cases for all scenarios. For high capacity
factors, the most important factors affecting production costs are the
electrolyser capital costs, the electrolyser stack life span and the price
of electricity. For low capacity factors, most important factors are again
the electrolyser capital cost, and the electrolyser stack life span but here
also other plant investment costs. If comparing these production cost
estimates with the cost estimates of producing biofuels, these estimates
are in the upper range, or more expensive, than most biofuels.
Comparing costs for hydrogen and electrofuels would require addi-
tional information pertaining to the costs for propulsion and storage
systems.
Acknowledgments
We thank Magnus Fröberg (Scania), Lisa Göransson (Chalmers),
Karin Andersson (Chalmers) and Per Holmberg (Vattenfall) for valu-
able input and fruitful discussions. Financial support from the Swedish
Research Council Formas, the Swedish Energy Agency, the Swedish
Knowledge Centre for Renewable Transportation Fuels (f3), Chalmers
Area of Advance Transport, and AB Volvo is acknowledged. This
publication is partly the result of a project within the Renewable fuels
and systems program (Samverkansprogrammet Förnybara drivmedel
och system), financed by the Swedish Energy Agency and the Swedish
Knowledge Centre for Renewable Transportation Fuels (f3). The f3
Centre contributes, through knowledge based on science, to the
development of environmentally, economically, and socially sustain-
able and renewable transportation fuels, as part of a future sustainable
society (see www.f3centre.se/samverkansprogram).
Appendix A. Supporting information
Supplementary data associated with this article can be found in the
online version at doi:10.1016/j.rser.2017.05.288.
S. Brynolf et al.
References
[1] Sims R, Schaeffer R, Creutzig F, Cruz-Núñez X, D’Agosto M, Dimitriu D, et al.
Mitigation of climate change. Contribution of working group III to the fifth
assessment report of the intergovernmental panel on climate change. In:
Edenhofer O, Pichs-Madruga R, Sokona Y, Farahani E, Kadner S, Seyboth K,
editors. Climate Change 2014. Cambridge, United Kingdom and New York, NY,
USA: Cambridge University Press; 2014.
[2] IEA . CO2 emissions from fuel combustion highlights, 2015 ed. Paris, France:
International Energy Agency; 2015.
[3] European Commission. White paper – Roadmap to a single European transport
area – towards a competitive and resource efficient transport system.
Brussels; 2011.
[4] Wismans J, Grahn M, Denbratt I. Low-carbon transport: health and climate
benefits. Background report to Intergovernmental Ninth Regional
Environmentally Sustainable Transport (EST) forum in Asia. Gothenburg:
Chalmers University of Technology; 2016.
[5] Ball M, Wietschel M. The future of hydrogen – opportunities and challenges. Int J
Hydrog Energy 2009;34:615–27.
[6] Mendes Souza G, Victoria R, Joly C, Verdade L. Bioenergy & sustainability:
bridging the gaps. São Paulo, Brazil: Scientific Committee on Problems of the
Environment (Scope); 2015.
[7] Grahn M, Azar C, Lindgren K. The role of biofuels for transportation in CO2
emission reduction scenarios with global versus regional carbon caps. Biomass
Bioenergy 2009;33:360–71.
[8] Azar C. Biomass for energy: a dream come true… or a nightmare?. Wiley
Interdiscip Rev: Clim Change 2011;2:309–23.
[9] Nikoleris A, Nilsson L. Elektrobränslen en kunskapsöversikt [Electrofuels an
overview]. Lund, Sweden: Faculty of Engineering, Lund University; 2013.
[10] Ridjan I, Mathiesen BV, Connolly D. Terminology used for renewable liquid and
gaseous fuels based on the conversion of electricity: a review. J Clean Prod
2016;112(Part 5):3709–20.
[11] Mignard D, Pritchard C. On the use of electrolytic hydrogen from variable
renewable energies for the enhanced conversion of biomass to fuels. Chem Eng
Res Des 2008;86:473–87.
[12] Gahleitner G. Hydrogen from renewable electricity: an international review of
power-to-gas pilot plants for stationary applications. Int J Hydrog Energy
2013;38:2039–61.
[13] CRI . World's largest CO2 methanol plant. Reykjavík, Iceland: Carbon Recycling
International (CRI); 2016, 〈http://www.cri.is/projects-1/2016/2/14/worlds-
largest-co2-methanol-plant〉, [Accessed 11 April 2016].
[14] ETOGAS. Industrial 6.3 MW PtG plant (Audi e-gas plant). Stuttgart, Deutschland:
ETOGAS GmbH; 2016〈http://www.etogas.com/en/references/article///
industrial-63-mw-ptg-plant-audi-e-gas-plant/〉 [Accessed 11 January 2016].
[15] Sunfire. Sunfire now produces synthetic fuel from air, water and green electrical
energy. Dresden, Germany: Sunfire GmbH; 2015〈http://www.sunfire.de/wp-
content/uploads/sunfire-INTERNATIONAL-PM-2015-alternative-fuel.pdf〉
[Accessed 11 April 2016].
[16] Zhang X, Chan SH, Ho HK, Tan S-C, Li M, Li G, et al. Towards a smart energy
network: the roles of fuel/electrolysis cells and technological perspectives. Int J
Hydrog Energy 2015;40:6866–919.
[17] Zakeri B, Syri S. Electrical energy storage systems: a comparative life cycle cost
analysis. Renew Sustain Energy Rev 2015;42:569–96.
[18] Grahn M, Taljegård M, Ehnberg J, Karlsson S. Utilising excess power: the case of
electrofuels for transport. In: Sanden B, editor. Systems perspectives on renewable
power. Gothenburg: Chalmers University of Technology; 2014.
[19] Larsson M, Grönkvist S, Alvfors P. Synthetic fuels from electricity for the swedish
transport sector: comparison of well to wheel energy efficiencies and costs. Energy
Procedia 2015;75:1875–80.
[20] Ridjan I, Mathiesen BV, Connolly D. Synthetic fuel production costs by means of
solid oxide electrolysis cells. Energy 2014;76:104–13.
[21] Connolly D, Mathiesen BV, Ridjan I. A comparison between renewable transport
fuels that can supplement or replace biofuels in a 100% renewable energy system.
Energy 2014;73:110–25.
[22] Ridjan I, Mathiesen BV, Connolly D, Duić N. The feasibility of synthetic fuels in
renewable energy systems. Energy 2013;57:76–84.
[23] Jensen SH, Larsen PH, Mogensen M. Hydrogen and synthetic fuel production
from renewable energy sources. Int J Hydrog Energy 2007;32:3253–7.
[24] Hannula I. Hydrogen enhancement potential of synthetic biofuels manufacture in
the European context: a techno-economic assessment. Energy 2016;104:199–212.
[25] Hannula I. Co-production of synthetic fuels and district heat from biomass
residues, carbon dioxide and electricity: performance and cost analysis. Biomass
Bioenergy 2015;74:26–46.
[26] Mohseni F, Magnusson M, Görling M, Alvfors P. Biogas from renewable electricity
– increasing a climate neutral fuel supply. Appl Energy 2012;90:11–6.
[27] Giglio E, Lanzini A, Santarelli M, Leone P. Synthetic natural gas via integrated
high-temperature electrolysis and methanation: Part II—economic analysis. J
Energy Storage 2015;2:64–79.
[28] De Saint Jean M, Baurens P, Bouallou C, Couturier K. Economic assessment of a
power-to-substitute-natural-gas process including high-temperature steam elec-
trolysis. Int J Hydrog Energy 2015;40:6487–500.
[29] Urakawa A, Sá J. CO2 to fuels. Fuel production with heterogeneous catalysis. CRC
Press; 2014. p. 93–122.
[30] Graves C, Ebbesen SD, Mogensen M, Lackner KS. Sustainable hydrocarbon fuels
by recycling CO2 and H2O with renewable or nuclear energy. Renew Sustain
1903
Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews 81 (2018) 1887–1905
Energy Rev 2011;15:1–23.
[31] Ganesh I. Conversion of carbon dioxide into several potential chemical com-
modities following different pathways-a review. Mater Sci Forum: Trans Tech Publ
2013:1–82.
[32] Qadrdan M, Abeysekera M, Chaudry M, Wu J, Jenkins N. Role of power-to-gas in
an integrated gas and electricity system in Great Britain. Int J Hydrog Energy
2015;40:5763–75.
[33] de Boer HS, Grond L, Moll H, Benders R. The application of power-to-gas,
pumped hydro storage and compressed air energy storage in an electricity system
at different wind power penetration levels. Energy 2014;72:360–70.
[34] Kötter E, Schneider L, Sehnke F, Ohnmeiss K, Schröer R. The future electric power
system: impact of power-to-gas by interacting with other renewable energy
components. J Energy Storage 2016;5:113–9.
[35] Streibel M, Nakaten N, Kempka T, Kühn M. Analysis of an integrated carbon cycle
for storage of renewables. Energy Procedia 2013;40:202–11.
[36] Vandewalle J, Bruninx K, D’haeseleer W. Effects of large-scale power to gas
conversion on the power, gas and carbon sectors and their interactions. Energy
Convers Manag 2015;94:28–39.
[37] Chen Q, Lv M, Tang Z, Wang H, Wei W, Sun Y. Opportunities of integrated
systems with CO2 utilization technologies for green fuel & chemicals production
in a carbon-constrained society. J CO2 Util 2016;14:1–9.
[38] Perathoner S, Centi G. CO2 recycling: a key strategy to introduce green energy in
the chemical production chain. ChemSusChem 2014;7:1274–82.
[39] Van-Dal ÉS, Bouallou C. Design and simulation of a methanol production plant
from CO2 hydrogenation. J Clean Prod 2013;57:38–45.
[40] Ganesh I. Conversion of carbon dioxide into methanol – a potential liquid fuel:
fundamental challenges and opportunities (a review). Renew Sustain Energy Rev
2014;31:221–57.
[41] Jadhav SG, Vaidya PD, Bhanage BM, Joshi JB. Catalytic carbon dioxide hydro-
genation to methanol: a review of recent studies. Chem Eng Res Des
2014;92:2557–67.
[42] Li C, Yuan X, Fujimoto K. Development of highly stable catalyst for methanol
synthesis from carbon dioxide. Appl Catal A: General 2014;469:306–11.
[43] Al-Kalbani H, Xuan J, García S, Wang H. Comparative energetic assessment of
methanol production from CO2: chemical versus electrochemical process. Appl
Energy 2016;165:1–13.
[44] Stempien JP, Ni M, Sun Q, Chan SH. Thermodynamic analysis of combined solid
oxide electrolyzer and Fischer–Tropsch processes. Energy 2015;81:682–90.
[45] Kazempoor P, Braun RJ. Hydrogen and synthetic fuel production using high
temperature solid oxide electrolysis cells (SOECs). Int J Hydrog Energy
2015;40:3599–612.
[46] Stempien JP, Ni M, Sun Q, Chan SH. Production of sustainable methane from
renewable energy and captured carbon dioxide with the use of solid oxide
electrolyzer: a thermodynamic assessment. Energy 2015;82:714–21.
[47] Pontzen F, Liebner W, Gronemann V, Rothaemel M, Ahlers B. CO2-based
methanol and DME – efficient technologies for industrial scale production. Catal
Today 2011;171:242–50.
[48] Baumann C, Schuster R, Moser A. Economic potential of power-to-gas energy
storages. 2013 In: Proceedings of the 10th international conference on the
european energy market (EEM); 2013. p. 1–6.
[49] Davis W, Martín M. Optimal year-round operation for methane production from
CO2 and water using wind and/or solar energy. J Clean Prod 2014;80:252–61.
[50] Becker WL, Braun RJ, Penev M, Melaina M. Production of Fischer–Tropsch liquid
fuels from high temperature solid oxide co-electrolysis units. Energy
2012;47:99–115.
[51] Parra D, Patel MK. Techno-economic implications of the electrolyser technology
and size for power-to-gas systems. Int J Hydrog Energy 2016;41:3748–61.
[52] Fu Q, Mabilat C, Zahid M, Brisse A, Gautier L. Syngas production via high-
temperature steam/CO2 co-electrolysis: an economic assessment. Energy Environ
Sci 2010;3:1382–97.
[53] Varone A, Ferrari M. Power to liquid and power to gas: an option for the German
Energiewende. Renew Sustain Energy Rev 2015;45:207–18.
[54] König DH, Baucks N, Dietrich R-U, Wörner A. Simulation and evaluation of a
process concept for the generation of synthetic fuel from CO2 and H2. Energy
2015;91:833–41.
[55] Tremel A, Wasserscheid P, Baldauf M, Hammer T. Techno-economic analysis for
the synthesis of liquid and gaseous fuels based on hydrogen production via
electrolysis. Int J Hydrog Energy 2015;40:11457–64.
[56] Giglio E, Lanzini A, Santarelli M, Leone P. Synthetic natural gas via integrated
high-temperature electrolysis and methanation: Part I—Energy performance. J
Energy Storage 2015;1:22–37.
[57] Schmidt PR, Zittel W, Raksha T. Renewables in transport 2050 – empowering a
sustanable mobility future with zero emission fuels from renewable electricity.
Munich, Germany: Ludwig-Bölkow-Systemtechnik GmbH (LBST); 2016.
[58] Dimitriou I, Garcia-Gutierrez P, Elder RH, Cuellar-Franca RM, Azapagic A, Allen
RWK. Carbon dioxide utilisation for production of transport fuels: process and
economic analysis. Energy Environ Sci 2015;8:1775–89.
[59] Smejkal Q, Rodemerck U, Wagner E, Baerns M. Economic Assessment of the
Hydrogenation of CO2 to Liquid Fuels and Petrochemical Feedstock. Chem Ing
Tech 2014;86:679–86.
[60] Schiebahn S, Grube T, Robinius M, Tietze V, Kumar B, Stolten D. Power to gas:
technological overview, systems analysis and economic assessment for a case
study in Germany. Int J Hydrog Energy 2015;40:4285–94.
[61] Steward D, Ramsden T, Zuboy J. H2A production model, version2 user guide.
Colorad: National Renewable Energy Laboratory; 2008.
[62] Peters MS, Timmerhaus KD, West RE. Plant design and economics for chemical
S. Brynolf et al.
engineers. Boston: McGraw-Hill; 2003.
[63] Chauvel A, Fournier G, Raimbault C. Manuel d'évaluation économique des
procédés. Paris: Editions TECHNIP; 2001.
[64] Towler G, Sinnott R. Chapter 7 – capital cost estimating. In: Towler G, Sinnott R,
editors. Chemical Engineering DesignSecond edition. Boston: Butterworth-
Heinemann; 2013. p. 307–54.
[65] König DH, Freiberg M, Dietrich R-U, Wörner A. Techno-economic study of the
storage of fluctuating renewable energy in liquid hydrocarbons. Fuel
2015;159:289–97.
[66] Atsonios K, Panopoulos KD, Kakaras E. Investigation of technical and economic
aspects for methanol production through CO2 hydrogenation. Int J Hydrog Energy
2016;41:2202–14.
[67] Benjaminsson G, Benjaminsson J, Rudberg RB. Power to gas – a technical review
(El till gas - system, ekonomi och teknik). Malmö: Svenskt Gastekniskt Center AB;
2013.
[68] Byman K, Haraldsson K, Jernelius S. Power to gas - Internationell utblick och
potentialen i Sverige. Slutrapport 2013-11-25. Energy Management, ÅF-
Infrastructure AB; 2013.
[69] Jentsch M, Trost T, Sterner M. Optimal Use of Power-to-Gas Energy Storage
Systems in an 85% Renewable Energy Scenario. Energy Procedia
2014;46:254–61.
[70] Mohseni F, Görling M, Alvfors P. The competitiveness of synthetic natural gas as a
propellant in the Swedish fuel market. Energy Policy 2013;52:810–8.
[71] Perez-Fortes M, Schoneberger JC, Boulamanti A, Tzimas E. Methanol synthesis
using captured CO2 as raw material: techno-economic and environmental
assessment. Appl Energy 2016;161:718–32.
[72] Rivera-Tinoco R, Farran M, Bouallou C, Auprêtre F, Valentin S, Millet P, et al.
Investigation of power-to-methanol processes coupling electrolytic hydrogen
production and catalytic CO2 reduction. Int J Hydrog Energy 2016;41:4546–59.
[73] Dincer I, Acar C. Review and evaluation of hydrogen production methods for
better sustainability. Int J Hydrog Energy 2015;40:11094–111.
[74] Gandía LM, Arzamendi G, Diéguez PM. Renewable hydrogen energy: an overview.
In: LMGAM Diéguez, editor. Renewable hydrogen technologies. Amsterdam:
Elsevier; 2013. p. 1–17.
[75] Yadav D, Banerjee R. A review of solar thermochemical processes. Renew Sustain
Energy Rev 2016;54:497–532.
[76] Graf D, Monnerie N, Roeb M, Schmitz M, Sattler C. Economic comparison of solar
hydrogen generation by means of thermochemical cycles and electrolysis. Int J
Hydrog Energy 2008;33:4511–9.
[77] Ursua A, Gandia LM, Sanchis P. Hydrogen production from water electrolysis:
current status and future trends. IEEE Proc 2012;100:410–26.
[78] Bertuccioli L, Chan A, Hart D, Lehner F, Madden B, Standen E. Development of
water electrolysis in the European Union. Lausanne, Switzerland: Fuel Cells and
Hydrogen Joint Undertaking; 2014.
[79] Lehner M, Tichler R, Steinmüller H, Koppe M. Power-to-gas: technology and
business models. Springer; 2014.
[80] Mathiesen BV, Ridjan I, Connolly D, Nielsen MP, Vang Hendriksen P, Bjerg
Mogensen M, et al. Technology data for high temperature solid oxide electrolyser
cells, alkali and PEM electrolysersDepartment of Development and Planning,
Aalborg University. Aalborg; 2013.
[81] Kreuter W, Hofmann H. Electrolysis: the important energy transformer in a world
of sustainable energy. Int J Hydrog Energy 1998;23:661–6.
[82] Smolinka T, Günther M, Garche J. NOW-Studie. Stand und Entwicklungspotenzial
der Wasserelektrolyse zur Herstellung von Wasserstoff aus regenerativen
Energien. Fraunhofer ISE, FCBAT; 2011.
[83] Bhandari R, Trudewind CA, Zapp P. Life cycle assessment of hydrogen production
via electrolysis – a review. J Clean Prod 2014;85:151–63.
[84] Grond L, Schulze P, Holstein J. Systems analyses power to gas: a technology
review. Part of TKI project TKIG01038 – systems analyses power-to-gas pathways.
Deliverable 1: technology review. Groningen: KEMA Nederland B.V; 2013.
[85] Götz M, Lefebvre J, Mörs F, McDaniel Koch A, Graf F, Bajohr S, et al. Renewable
power-to-gas: a technological and economic review. Renew Energy
2016;85:1371–90.
[86] Carmo M, Fritz DL, Mergel J, Stolten D. A comprehensive review on PEM water
electrolysis. Int J Hydrog Energy 2013;38:4901–34.
[87] Yang C, Coffin A, Chen F. High temperature solid oxide electrolysis cell employing
porous structured (La0.75Sr0.25)0.95MnO3 with enhanced oxygen electrode
performance. Int J Hydrog Energy 2010;35:3221–6.
[88] Laguna-Bercero MA. Recent advances in high temperature electrolysis using solid
oxide fuel cells: a review. J Power Sources 2012;203:4–16.
[89] Keane M. Materials interactions and degradation processes in solid oxide
electrolysis cells. University of Connecticut; 2014.
[90] Mohseni F. Power to gas- bridging renewable electricity to the transport sector.
Stockholm, Sweden: KTH Royal Institute of Technology; 2012.
[91] Naims H, Olfe-Kräutlein B, Lafuente AML, Bruh T. CO2 recycling – an option for
policymaking and society? Twelve theses on the societal and political significance
of carbon capture and utilisation (CCU) technologies. Potsdam, Germany:
Institute for Advanced Sustainability Studies (IASS); 2015.
[92] Trost D-W-IT, Horn S, Jentsch M, Sterner M. Erneuerbares Methan: Analyse der
CO2-Potenziale für Power-to-Gas Anlagen in Deutschland. Z Energiewirtschaft
2012;36:173–90.
[93] Reiter G, Lindorfer J. Evaluating CO2 sources for power-to-gas applications–a
case study for Austria. J CO2 Util 2015;10:40–9.
[94] Kuramochi T, Ramírez A, Turkenburg W, Faaij A. Comparative assessment of CO
2 capture technologies for carbon-intensive industrial processes. Progress Energy
Combust Sci 2012;38:87–112.
1904
Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews 81 (2018) 1887–1905
[95] Goeppert A, Czaun M, Surya Prakash GK, Olah GA. Air as the renewable carbon
source of the future: an overview of CO2 capture from the atmosphere. Energy
Environ Sci 2012;5:7833–53.
[96] Lackner KS. Capture of carbon dioxide from ambient air. Eur Phys J Spec Top
2009;176:93–106.
[97] Ranjan M, Herzog HJ. Feasibility of air capture. Energy Procedia
2011;4:2869–76.
[98] Technology Roadmap IEA. Carbon capture and storage. Paris: International
Energy Agency; 2013.
[99] Damen K, van Troost M, Faaij A, Turkenburg W. A comparison of electricity and
hydrogen production systems with CO2 capture and storage—Part B: chain
analysis of promising CCS options. Progress Energy Combust Sci
2007;33:580–609.
[100] Kuramochi T, Ramírez A, Turkenburg W, Faaij A. Techno-economic prospects for
CO2 capture from distributed energy systems. Renew Sustain Energy Rev
2013;19:328–47.
[101] Finkenrath M. Cost and performance of carbon dioxide capture from power
generation. Paris, France: International Energy Agency (IEA); 2011.
[102] Hoppe F, Heuser B, Thewes M, Kremer F, Pischinger S, Dahmen M, et al. Tailor-
made fuels for future engine concepts. Int J Engine Res 2016;17:16–27.
[103] Teichmann D, Arlt W, Wasserscheid P. Liquid organic hydrogen carriers as an
efficient vector for the transport and storage of renewable energy. Int J Hydrog
Energy 2012;37:18118–32.
[104] Teichmann D, Arlt W, Wasserscheid P, Freymann R. A future energy supply based
on liquid organic hydrogen carriers (LOHC). Energy Environ Sci 2011;4:2767–73.
[105] Bensmann A, Hanke-Rauschenbach R, Heyer R, Kohrs F, Benndorf D, Reichl U,
et al. Biological methanation of hydrogen within biogas plants: a model-based
feasibility study. Appl Energy 2014;134:413–25.
[106] E & E Consultant. Etude portant sur l’hydrogène et la méthanation comme
procédé de valorisation de l’électricité excédentaire. Cassel, France; 2014.
[107] Ueckerdt F, Luderer G, Müller-Hansen F. Analyse des klimaschutzpotentials der
nutzung von erneuerbarem wasserstoff und methan; 2013.
[108] Olah GA, Goeppert A, Prakash GKS. Beyond oil and gas: the methanol economy.
Weinheim: Wiley-VCH; 2009.
[109] Hannula I, Kurkela E. Liquid transportation fuels via large-scale fluidised-bed
gasification of lignocellulosic biomass; 2013.
[110] Andersson J, Lundgren J, Marklund M. Methanol production via pressurized
entrained flow biomass gasification – techno-economic comparison of integrated
vs. stand-alone production. Biomass Bioenergy 2014;64:256–68.
[111] Khandan N, Kazemeini M, Aghaziarati M. Direct production of dimethyl ether
from synthesis gas utilizing bifunctional catalysts. Appl Petrochem Res
2012;1:21–7.
[112] Sterner M. Bioenergy and renewable power methane in integrated 100% renew-
able energy systems: Limiting global warming by transforming energy systems:
kassel university press GmbH; 2009.
[113] Nord Pool. Historical market data. Lysaker, Norway: Nord Pool AS; 2016, 〈http://
www.nordpoolspot.com/historical-market-data/〉 [Accessed 8 June 2016].
[114] Sköldberg H, Unger T, Holmström D. El och fjärrvärme – samverkan mellan
marknaderna [Electricity and district heating - interaction between the markets].
Energiforsk; 2015.
[115] Johnsson F. European energy pathways: pathways to sustainable European
energy systems. Göteborg: Alliance Glob Sustain (AGS) 2011.
[116] Johnsson F, Unger T, Axelsson E, Colpier UC. European energy pathways –
pathways to sustainable European energy systems. Göteborg: alliance for global
sustainability (AGS); 2014.
[117] Odenberger M. Pathways for the European electricity supply system to 2050 –
Implications of stringent CO2 reductions. Gothenburg: Chalmers University of
Technology; 2009.
[118] Göransson L. The impact of wind power variability on the least-cost dispatch of
units in the electricity generation system. Gothenburg: Chalmers University of
Technology; 2014.
[119] Festel G, Würmseher M, Rammer C, Boles E, Bellof M. Modelling production cost
scenarios for biofuels and fossil fuels in Europe. J Clean Prod 2014;66:242–53.
[120] International Energy Agency . Technology roadmap – biofuels for transport. Paris:
France: International Energy Agency (IEA); 2011.
[121] Chum H, Faaij A, Moreira J, Berndes G, Dhamija P, Dong H, et al. Bioenergy. In:
Edenhofer RP-M O, Sokona Y, Seyboth K, Matschoss SK P, Zwickel T, Eickemeier
P, Hansen G, Schlömer S, von Stechow C, editors. IPCC Special Report on
Renewable Energy Sources and Climate Change Mitigation. Cambridge, United
Kingdom and New York, NY, USA: Cambridge University Press; 2011.
[122] Börjesson P, Lundgren J, Ahlgren S, Nyström I. Dagens och framtidens hållbara
biodrivmedel - Underlagsrapport från f3 till utredningen om Fossilfri
Fordonstrafik (Today's and future sustainable biofuels - backgroundreport from f3
to the Swedish commission on fossil-free road transport). The Swedish Knowledge
Centre for Renewable Transportation Fuels (f3); 2013.
[123] Börjesson P, Lundgren J, Ahlgren S, Nyström I. Dagens och framtidens hållbara
biodrivmedel– i sammandrag (Today's and future sustainable biofuels – a
summary). The Swedish Knowledge Centre for Renewable Transportation Fuels
(f3); 2016.
[124] Hamelinck CN, Faaij APC. Outlook for advanced biofuels. Energy Policy
2006;34:3268–83.
[125] Galindo Cifre P, Badr O. Renewable hydrogen utilisation for the production of
methanol. Energy Convers Manag 2007;48:519–27.
[126] Yang C, Ogden J. Determining the lowest-cost hydrogen delivery mode. Int J
Hydrog Energy 2007;32:268–86.
[127] Barbato L, Iaquaniello G, Mangiapane A. Reuse of CO2 to make methanol using
S. Brynolf et al.
renewable hydrogen. In: Falco DM, Iaquaniello G, Centi G, editors. CO2: a
valuable source of carbon. London: Springer; 2013. p. 67–79.
[128] von der Assen N, Jung J, Bardow A. Life-cycle assessment of carbon dioxide
capture and utilization: avoiding the pitfalls. Energy Environ Sci 2013;6:2721–34.
[129] van der Giesen C, Kleijn R, Kramer GJ. Energy and climate impacts of producing
synthetic hydrocarbon fuels from CO2. Environ Sci Technol 2014;48:7111–21.
[130] Sternberg A, Bardow A. Power-to-What? - environmental assessment of energy
storage systems. Energy Environ Sci 2015;8:389–400.
[131] Oltra C, Sala R, Solà R, Di Masso M, Rowe G. Lay perceptions of carbon capture
1905
Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews 81 (2018) 1887–1905
and storage technology. Int J Greenh Gas Control 2010;4:698–706.
[132] Dütschke E. What drives local public acceptance–comparing two cases from
Germany. Energy Procedia 2011;4:6234–40.
[133] Lucia U. Econophysics and bio-chemical engineering thermodynamics: the
exergetic analysis of a municipality. Phys A: Stat Mech Appl 2016;462:421–30.
[134] Hansson J, Hackl R, Taljegård M, Brynolf S, Grahn M. The potential for
electrofuels production in Sweden utilizing fossil and biogenic CO2 point sources.
Front Energy Res 2017;5(4). http://dx.doi.org/10.3389/fenrg.2017.00004 http://
journal.frontiersin.org/article/10.3389/fenrg.2017.00004/full.