Can the money invested in the “largest ever” methanol project be recovered?

Thread Content

China’s Methanol Industry on the Brink of Collapse – Finance Headlines Network. Source: Finance Headlines Network. Author: Martian. Views: 47,411. Publication date: 11-29-2015, 16:07:38. The title might sound a bit sensational, but let me tell you a story first. There was a man whose family owned a few acres of land. At first, all of that land was used for growing crops, and the harvest each year amounted to several hundred pounds. This was enough to meet the family’s food needs, with some surplus left over as well. They led a self-sufficient life, and it was quite pleasant. A friend, seeing that he had too much grain, suggested to him that he could use it to make wine, as wine is far better than water. [Original News] The bull market isn’t over yet – the opportunities are right now! 【Focus】The title of the Second China Low-Carbon Path (International) High-Level Forum sounds a bit sensational, but let me tell you a story first. There was a man whose family owned a few acres of land. At first, all of that land was used for growing crops, and the harvest each year amounted to several hundred pounds. This was enough to meet the family’s food needs, with some surplus left over as well. They led a self-sufficient life, and it was quite pleasant. A friend, seeing that he couldn’t use up all his grain, suggested that he use it to make wine. Wine is much better than water; drinking it with meals gives a refreshing taste and even a sense of floating as if on clouds. The family was tempted, so they turned all the remaining grain at home into wine. Once they tried it, they became addicted to it. Thus, the following year they used even more grain to make wine, indulging in this delightful nectar of happiness. One day, the family realized that the stock of food they had accumulated in large quantities, enough to last a whole year, was no longer sufficient. They often had to drink alcohol on an empty stomach, and as a result, even the fine wine turned into something bitter. What causes it? Previously, no matter how many different ways we ate grains—such as rice, rice cakes, rice noodles, etc.—they were still just rice. But when it comes to fermenting rice into alcohol, it takes 3 pounds of grain to produce just 1 pound of liquor! Do you see anything wrong? This is the simple law of conservation of energy at work; in chemical reactions, it manifests itself as compliance with the second law of thermodynamics. Any biochemical reaction is a form of energy transfer, and in natural conditions, energy conversion occurs in a specific direction; to reverse this process, additional energy must be invested, to some extent or another. Therefore, the question arises of which form of energy is the best. Just like the food mentioned above, apart from being used for brewing, it can also be converted into biofuels or chemical intermediates. Biochemical processes generally require a large amount of electricity; not only is energy consumption high, but the economic viability of such processes is also a problem. Moreover, converting large amounts of this material to meet industrial needs threatens human food security. As a result, after the initial hype, this approach gradually fell out of use. Is China’s methanol industry also experiencing similar recklessness, blindly venturing into industrial applications it shouldn’t be involved in? What, then, is the optimal development path for methanol? Which of the current popular downstream applications for methanol will gradually be phased out over the years as they are replaced by other simpler and more economical chemical raw materials? Especially based on those non-renewable fossil fuels: oil, natural gas, or coal, which fuel is the most economical for producing methanol? Often, market supply and demand signals can mislead the market; the concept of cost is relative and subject to change. Especially as modern chemical plants become larger in scale, efforts are made to increase production capacity in order to reduce marginal costs and enhance competitiveness. When new, more competitive products emerge, existing markets are disrupted, and it is in this way that the chemical industry continues to evolve. Many industries that were once prosperous have now fallen into silence, yet there are still some sectors that remain vibrant despite having undergone changes over centuries. The underlying principle here is that only those processes that achieve the best energy efficiency are the most viable. There can be hundreds or even thousands of chemical reactions available for producing a given target product, and we can compare the current costs of various raw materials to assess the advantages and disadvantages of different reaction pathways. But ultimately, what matters most is the amount of energy consumed by each reaction pathway, as well as the energy density retained in the resulting product – these factors directly determine the efficiency with which that product can be used in subsequent applications. This is the fundamental logical principle at play. In Europe and the United States, the thermal energy unit MMBtu is generally used to measure the efficiency of utilizing a particular form of energy. This statement is highly practical, as the definition of MMBtu is: the amount of heat required to raise the temperature of 1 pound of pure water by 1°F ； In the energy sector, there’s a very interesting analogy: most of the energy utilized by humans is obtained through “boiling water”. Most people might not believe this, but it’s indeed the case. According to EIA data from 2012, 88% of crude oil is used as fuel, while only about 12% is utilized as raw material for the chemical industry, resulting in textiles, plastics, building materials, as well as skincare products, clothing, mobile phones, electrical appliances, pipes, furniture, and more. Traces of petrochemical products can be found in every common item around us. Yet even with such widespread use, they still represent only a small portion of the overall energy usage; a large majority of crude oil is used to \"heat water\" to produce steam, or to be converted into gas that drives steam/turbines to generate electricity, or as fuel to power vehicles. In short, all this energy is initially utilized by human society in the form of heat energy. Forget about renewable energy; in our lifetime, its role will remain limited. For instance, coal still accounts for about 70% of electricity generation in my country. In the United States, renewable energy accounted for only around 13% of total energy use in 2013. Among global renewable energy sources, those such as solar, wind, and tidal energy that do not make use of steam/turbine power generation account for only a very small proportion. http://www.cj1.com.cn/d/file/yes/2015-11-29/c7b774472645cdddc630d3e94e9649d1.jpg http://www.cj1.com.cn/d/file/yes/2015-11-29/d28f2bbfab7382ea7d01f9bf3e6ed323.jpg Back to the topic of this article — methanol. Following the logic outlined above, we use methanol as a case study to analyze and compare the energy efficiency of its downstream applications and the energy density of the final products. This will help us determine where methanol stands within China’s overall energy utilization system—whether this position is reasonable, and what direction its development will take 1. Regarding the downstream applications of methanol, by comparing the overseas application scenarios of methanol with those in China, it is easy to see that the proportions of methanol converted into formaldehyde, acetic acid, methylamine, etc. are roughly similar in both regions, and the demand for these products remains relatively stable. The main differences lie in the demand for methanol as a fuel and dimethyl ether, as well as the recently emerged substantial demand related to the MTO process for producing olefins. These factors serve as the driving forces behind the explosive growth in methanol demand in China. But why is there such a difference? http://www.cj1.com.cn/d/file/yes/2015-11-29/2eb70c7b409b2cd25a246cdc8035e4b4.jpg http://www.cj1.com.cn/d/file/yes/2015-11-29/176819ea37d36e231496c24654d5ebce.jpg Dimethyl ether, also known as methyl ether and abbreviated as DME, is a colorless gas or compressed liquid at normal pressure, with a slight ether-like odor. Relative density (20°C): 0.666; melting point: -141.5°C; boiling point: -24.9°C. At room temperature, its vapor pressure is approximately 0.5 MPa, which is similar to that of liquefied petroleum gas (LPG). Soluble in water and various organic solvents such as alcohol, ether, acetone, and chloroform. Flammable; the flame emits a slight glow when burning, and its heat of combustion (in gaseous state) is 1455 kJ/mol. At room temperature, DME is inert and does not oxidize easily; it is non-corrosive and non-carcinogenic. However, under radiation or heating conditions, it can decompose into methane, ethane, formaldehyde, and other substances. http://www.cj1.com.cn/d/file/yes/2015-11-29/7b2baed1d665f6a791d995f48f220475.jpg As an emerging basic chemical raw material, dimethyl ether has many uses. Due to its excellent compressibility, condensability, and vaporization properties, dimethyl ether is widely used in various chemical industries such as pharmaceuticals and pesticides on an international scale. High-purity dimethyl ether can replace Freon as an aerosol propellant and refrigerant, thereby reducing pollution of the atmospheric environment and damage to the ozone layer. A major reason why China’s demand for dimethyl ether differs from that in other countries is its use as a substitute for domestic fuel gas. Due to the monopolistic regulation of domestic LPG, gasoline, and diesel prices, private enterprises place great hopes on dimethyl ether as a substitute for fuel gases. In fact, China has been blending dimethyl ether into diesel since a decade ago. Although there are no clear regulations or standards governing this practice, the historically high oil prices have made it financially viable to use dimethyl ether as a replacement for LPG, gasoline, and diesel. Additionally, dimethyl ether can be utilized as a peak-shaving gas for urban pipeline natural gas and as an additive in liquefied petroleum gas. Consequently, the demand for dimethyl ether in China is significantly higher than that in foreign countries. The problem at present is that dimethyl ether is mainly produced from natural gas, coal, or coke oven gas, and there are both a \"one-step method\" and a \"two-step method\" for this process; however, in practice the main reaction still requires the production of methanol first, which is then dehydrated and condensed to form dimethyl ether. The overall energy consumption for producing methanol from syngas in the earlier stage is approximately 46 GJ/kg. The exothermic reaction involved in converting methanol into dimethyl ether releases about 744 KJ/kg, while the heat of combustion of methanol itself is around 19,530 KJ/kg. It is thus clear that in order to obtain dimethyl ether with a heat of combustion of approximately 36,120 KJ/kg, as much as ~50 GJ/kg of energy is lost during the process of synthesizing it from two molecules of methanol. The bottom line is that the end result is not much different from using methanol directly as a fuel ； As dimethyl ether has a calorific value of only about 2/3 that of LPG, it is not advisable to use it as a substitute for LPG in gas distribution networks. LPG is an important chemical raw material; although its energy density is about 2.8 times higher than that of natural gas, natural gas is cleaner and more environmentally friendly, as well as more convenient to use. In the future, natural gas will remain the dominant force in the gas market, so dimethyl ether has little market potential in this area. If dimethyl ether fails to gain a foothold in the fuel substitution market and is even replaced by other raw materials, its overall share of demand will likely decline in terms of its importance within the downstream applications of methanol – and this is a trend that can be observed. 1.2 Methanol fuel: In China, methanol is used as a fuel in two ways. One is by blending it with gasoline to create products such as M15, M30, M85, and M100, which are sold at regular gas stations. The other method is the MTG process, which involves using methanol directly to produce gasoline; this approach has gained increasing interest from the market due to the development of the coal chemical industry. http://www.cj1.com.cn/d/file/yes/2015-11-29/21a7c30bc2a3532cfa3abfac21e67cc1.jpg In fact, according to EIA data, the energy density of methanol is roughly half that of gasoline, and it is inferior to that of ethanol or natural gas. The advantage is an increased oxygen content and cleaner combustion, while the disadvantages are high toxicity and corrosiveness. 1.2.1 Methanol-blended gasoline: Methanol-blended gasoline is currently considered an alternative energy source in China. In 2012, the Ministry of Industry and Information Technology issued a directive to conduct pilot projects in regions such as Shanxi, Shaanxi, and Shanghai, but these initiatives have met with little success so far in those areas. From an economic standpoint, the higher the methanol blend ratio, the more attractive it becomes; ideally, it should be M100. The problem is that the biggest challenge associated with mixing methanol into gasoline is that substances such as formaldehyde and formic acid produced during combustion can cause severe corrosion and wear on the engine, and even the use of expensive corrosion inhibitors and other additives has little effect. Research conducted by the American company Ford found that when methanol-based gasoline is used, the iron content in the engine lubricant is 5.2 times higher than when lead-free gasoline is used. The main forms of engine wear are wear and corrosion of the piston rings and cylinder walls. Additionally, methanol has a high latent heat of vaporization, which leads to poor vaporization and its accumulation on the cylinder walls; this results in the dilution of the lubricant film, severe emulsification, and increased frictional wear of engine components. The research findings of RIPP also indicate that methanol-gasoline mixtures corrode the lead-tin coating on automobile fuel tanks. The hydrophilic nature of methanol makes phase separation likely to occur even in the presence of a small amount of water, thereby affecting storage and the normal operation of vehicles. Moreover, methanol is a typical neurotoxin; it can be absorbed through the respiratory tract, gastrointestinal tract, and skin. It damages the respiratory mucosa and vision, and has the greatest impact on the human nervous system and blood system. The development and application of methanol gasoline began abroad during the second oil crisis in the 1970s. From the perspective of alternative energy sources, countries such as Germany, the United States, and Japan have all conducted research and development on methanol fuel as well as the technologies related to methanol-powered vehicles. As early as the 1970s, the United States focused on developing methanol fuel vehicles specifically designed for use with M85 and M100 fuels. However, statistics show that after 1998, both methanol fuel vehicles and methanol fuel itself declined in the U.S., for various reasons. The disadvantages of methanol as a vehicle fuel, particularly its toxicity, make it unpopular in the U.S. market, where health, safety, and quality of life are highly valued. Meanwhile, alternative fuels such as LNG and electricity are safer and more environmentally friendly, which has led to the gradual abandonment of methanol as a fuel option. Moreover, American and Japanese automakers insist on opposing the blending of methanol into gasoline; the U.S. standard for lead-free automotive gasoline, ASTM 4814, specifies that the methanol content must not exceed 0.3 Vol%. The \"World Fuel Specification\" jointly issued by the World Automobile Manufacturers Organization in December 1998 stipulated that \"the use of methanol is not allowed.\" Even in Europe, although Regulation 85/536/EEC permits the inclusion of up to 3% methanol in gasoline, statistics show that in reality, less than 0.1–0.5% methanol is added to fuels. Since current technology is not yet able to effectively address the issue of metal corrosion caused by methanol-based gasoline, automobile manufacturers such as General Motors and Ford in the United States state clearly in their user manuals that damage to vehicles using such gasoline is not covered under warranty. Experiments on methanol blending are being carried out in some areas of the country, mainly due to the high oil prices over the past few years. In particular, those regions with abundant coal resources that produce large amounts of methanol have the incentive to promote its use in the market. Given the analysis of these foreign experiences, it is unlikely that the Ministry of Industry and Information Technology will approve an expansion of the pilot program in the coming years. Moreover, the proportion of methanol used in mixtures is likely to remain within the current range of 15–85%. As a result, the total amount of methanol in the entire pilot market will not increase, and it is even likely to decline over time as the use of natural gas expands. 1.2.2 Methanol-to-gasoline MTGMTG has developed alongside the growth of coal chemical industry in recent years; from a technological perspective, it represents a relatively mature approach. Strictly speaking in terms of coal types, there are actually two categories. The first is the direct liquefaction of coal to produce gasoline and diesel; this process relies on the Fischer-Tropsch synthesis using syngas. It requires high-quality coal – the ash content should generally be less than 5% – and the coal must have good reactivity and grindability. The lower the content of impurity atoms such as sulfur and nitrogen, the better. Additionally, this process is energy-intensive, which has limited its widespread use in China ； The other method is indirect liquefaction: coal or natural gas is first used to produce methanol, which is then used to make gasoline. This process does not require high-quality coal, and its scale can be adjusted flexibly; it is even possible to carry out this process in coastal areas far from coal-producing regions, as long as imported methanol is available. As a result, this method is very popular in China. The MTG reaction process involves the dehydration of methanol to form dimethyl ether first; subsequently, methanol, dimethyl ether, and water are converted into light olefins (C2–C4) under the action of a catalyst. Finally, these olefins undergo further addition reactions to produce a mixture of longer-chain olefins, n- and iso-paraffins, aromatics, and cycloparaffins. Generally, the raw material consumption is 2.5 methanol per ton of gasoline; the heat released during the process is 1.74 MJ/kg, and the external energy input is approximately 360 KJ/mol. In fact, given that methanol’s energy density is already half that of gasoline, the energy required to obtain gasoline in its final form is equivalent to 16 times the energy needed for methanol. If the high content of p-tertbutylbenzene in MTG gasoline is taken into account, reducing it requires hydrogenation to improve the quality of the oil, which will further increase energy consumption. Therefore, in terms of energy efficiency, MTG remains uneconomical; theoretically, it should only be considered for conversion into gasoline fuel as a supplement when oil prices are high and there is an excess of methanol. 1.3 Methanol-to-olefins processes such as MTOMTO, like MTG, have also developed with the rise of coal chemical industry in recent years. **Following the commissioning of projects such as Shenhua Baotou MTO, Ningxia Coal MTP, and Datang Dolun MTP, various regions were unable to resist the lure of huge profits from polyolefins in the face of high oil prices. Many places began to build similar facilities; even some areas that are not coal-producing regions imported methanol in order to set up MTO plants, all in anticipation of the summary reports on those initial 3 pilot projects. However, to this day, such summary reports have not been made public. Nevertheless, a signal has been given: **the relevant entry conditions are already being tightened, with the thresholds being raised.** For example, in accordance with the target requirements for modern coal chemical demonstration projects set out in the 12th Five-Year Plan, the energy conversion efficiency must be no less than 40%, the coal consumption per ton of olefins must not exceed 5.3 tons (converted to standard coal), and the fresh water consumption per ton of standard coal must not be more than 4 tons ； To reach an advanced level, the energy conversion efficiency must be no less than 44%, the coal consumption per ton of olefins must not exceed 5 tons (converted to standard coal), and the fresh water consumption per ton of standard coal must not be more than 3 tons. I’m not sure what level Shenhua is at; it probably hasn’t reached an advanced level, otherwise it would have been made clear. However, the conversion efficiency of modern coal-fired power generation is around 40–45%, while IGCC is said to be able to achieve a higher rate of about 50%. Therefore, **it is required that the energy conversion efficiency of coal chemical processes be at least similar to that of thermal power generation. So let’s see if this is indeed the case Taking the currently most popular CTO process analysis as an example, the entire process is divided into three stages: gasification (000968, stock forum) to produce syngas, conversion of syngas into methanol, and then conversion of methanol into olefins, namely MTO. Generally, at the current level of mainstream technology, the ratio is around 2.7:1 for coal-to-methanol conversion, and then around 3:1 for methanol-to-olefins conversion. The calorific value of 1 kg of standard coal is 29,306 KJ, that of methanol is 19,530 KJ/kg, while that of polyolefins is around 40,000 KJ/kg, which is comparable to that of fuel. Taking a 600,000-ton/year olefins plant as an example, the energy conversion efficiency is approximately 45% in the first stage and around 70–80% in the second stage; overall, it stands at only about 30%. Therefore, in terms of efficiency alone, CTO/MTO is also a process characterized by relatively high energy consumption and low energy conversion rates. However, when comparing the energy density contained in the final products, differences become apparent. After all, polyolefins are not meant to be burned for electricity generation or added to gasoline to power vehicles; their primary function is to be made into various products used in all aspects of human life. One of the biggest differences between chemical production and energy production is that in energy production, the thermal entropy is ultimately burned to release energy, whereas in chemical production, most of the thermal entropy of the final products remains within those products. From this perspective, in chemical production, as long as recycling is maximized, it is still possible to conserve energy, even though the overall energy conversion efficiency throughout the entire lifecycle remains low. Even if each individual process results in a 20–30% loss of energy, this is still preferable to directly burning the substances to produce CO2 and H2O, after which it becomes extremely difficult to reverse the reaction back into alkanes. Given that chemical products have a high energy density per unit volume, and their energy lifecycle is longer compared to fuels such as gasoline, it doesn’t seem appropriate to outright reject the prospects of MTO. However, there are two key factors that hinder the development of this process: the competition from processes that convert natural gas into methanol and then into olefins, and the actual size of the domestic demand for polyolefins When it comes to the demand for polyolefins, it is primarily driven by China’s large population. Many industry professionals often cite the table below to show that there is still significant room for growth in the domestic polyolefin market. But is that really the case? After all, polyolefins are not yet strategic materials. There is no need for China to recklessly expand large-scale ethylene plants despite the realities of its energy situation, just to achieve 100% self-sufficiency in polyolefins. Importing low-cost polyolefin products from abroad is also a viable option; it can help alleviate domestic energy supply pressures and reduce pollution ； Moreover, the domestic consumption of polyolefins has also approached the world average level. It is unrealistic to expect China’s per capita consumption of polyolefins to reach that of the United States. As can be seen from the two charts below, China may, for a long time to come, bring its energy consumption per unit of GDP in line with that of developed countries, but the gap in per capita GDP will remain roughly the same; in other words, per capita demand for chemical products cannot reach the level of developed countries, at most it will reach the world average. In conclusion, the growth potential of the polyolefin market isn’t as great as one might think! 1. Selection of upstream raw materials for methanol production: From the perspective of chemical reaction pathways, methanol is primarily produced from syngas (CO2, CO, and H2) or CH4. The former is mainly derived from coal processing, while the latter comes from natural gas or shale gas. Many articles have already reached conclusions regarding which is better or worse from perspectives such as cost; here, we will still discuss it from the standpoint of energy use efficiency. Coal-to-methanol production involves converting coal into water gas in a gasifier, adjusting the hydrogen-to-carbon ratio in a shift converter, and then feeding the mixture into a synthesis reactor to produce methanol ； Methanol production from natural gas involves CH4 entering a conversion furnace to be converted into syngas, which is then fed into a synthesis tower to produce methanol. Therefore, whether it is coalbed methane, gasification of coal, coke oven gas, or natural gas, the underlying process for producing methanol remains the same: using syngas containing CO2, H2O, CO, and H2. The difference lies only in the adjustment of the hydrogen-to-carbon ratio before the conversion reactor is used. Theoretically, approximately 23 GJ of energy is required to produce 1 ton of methanol; the energy consumption for producing methanol from traditional natural gas is 29–31 GJ. Since coal-based methanol production does not require frequent adjustments to the hydrogen-to-carbon ratio, its energy consumption is slightly lower than that of natural gas, at around 28–29 GJ. Thus, the difference between the two methods is not significant. Given the scarcity of natural gas resources in our country, large-scale imports will be necessary in the future. Moreover, as natural gas is a clean fuel primarily used for urban heating, in August 2007, the **National Development and Reform Commission issued the ‘Natural Gas Utilization Policy’, prohibiting the use of natural gas for the production of methanol, and restricting its use in the production of synthetic ammonia, acetylene, chloromethane, and other substances. The variables for natural gas come from abroad. Given the abundance of natural gas in the Middle East and North America, along with the difficulties associated with its transportation, it makes sense to convert natural gas into other liquid or solid chemicals. This process requires little energy, and the resulting products have a high energy density, making them suitable for long-distance transportation. At the current level of technology, methanol is the most appropriate choice. Of course, the United States is still exploring this; if CH4 could be converted directly into olefins, bypassing the step of producing syngas through decomposition, it would represent another revolution in the chemical industry! Since reducing the number of reaction steps means lowering energy consumption, and since polyolefins have an energy density twice that of methanol and are solid substances that are easier to transport, in the future, what will be imported from overseas by sea are no longer methanol, but various grades of polyolefins! Recent signs indicate that Siluria, a small American engineering and technology company, held a grand commissioning ceremony at its test facility in Texas, becoming the world’s first company to achieve large-scale industrial conversion of natural gas directly into ethylene. Executives from Siluria have been invited to discuss future energy policies in the United States with the U.S. Department of Energy. The U.S. has realized the strategic value of this new approach for its energy and manufacturing sectors, and is considering formulating policies to foster further development of this industry. According to IEA data from 2012, the main uses of natural gas in the United States are for power generation and heating; these applications account for 77% of total energy consumption, amounting to approximately 21,339,716 TJ. Industrial uses account for only 17%, and this includes needs such as heating in production processes; not all of this gas is used for chemical transformations to produce other chemicals. If an analysis is conducted of the changes in the usage of natural gas for industrial purposes in the United States over the past few years, EIA data shows that this trend is not significant, indicating that a cautious attitude persists toward the use of methane within the country. It is primarily used for power generation and heating, rather than for producing methanol which could then be converted into polyolefins through MTO processes, despite the United States having abundant shale gas resources. http://www.cj1.com.cn/d/file/yes/2015-11-29/81afec1fe9a667e1f66e4c03f6362b13.jpg http://www.cj1.com.cn/d/file/yes/2015-11-29/4dbdd83d06d3ccfa22af45f0c89f5a99.jpg 3. Conclusion In summary, most of the global demand for methanol remains relatively stable, with growth rates staying in the single digits; such rates are not sufficient to support rapid expansion of new methanol production capacity in the future ； It is neither realistic nor feasible to rely on methanol to achieve breakthroughs in fuel substitution and thereby change China’s energy landscape. It seems that only CTO/MTO still has some vitality at the moment, but it’s still not guaranteed. Ancient Chinese military treatises state: \"Encircle three and leave one.\" Before they can find better ways to utilize methane as an energy carrier, those countries need China’s large market to absorb any excess natural gas. Exporting methanol represents that \"one\" left unencircled; moreover, they rarely build or expand MTO facilities of their own. It is clear that they are confident in being able to find better methods for exporting methane beyond LNG and methanol, with direct conversion of methane into ethylene being one such method in the future. By then, once methanol loses its status as a bridge between energy and the chemical industry, how much room for speculation remains? It remains uncertain whether the substantial funds invested in these \"largest ever\" projects can be recovered. Therefore, in this currently booming CTO/MTO market, someone should indeed step forward to pour cold water on things: China’s methanol industry is truly on the brink of disaster! References: 1. Jiang Yunfeng, Deng Shuping. Technical and economic analysis of methanol-to-gasoline processes. Chemical Industry Progress, 2010(29). 2. Huang Qing, Luo Laitao. Current status and economic analysis of methanol and dimethyl ether synthesis processes. Clean Coal Technology, 2006, 12(4). 3. Wang Ying, Ren Shixuan et al. Energy consumption analysis in natural gas-to-methanol processes. Applied Chemical Engineering, 2003, 32(3). 4. Tang Hongqing. Upgrades are needed for coal-based olefin production processes. Nitrogen Fertilizer Technology Reform, 2011(4). 5. Aligoli Amir Nazmi Afshar. Chemical Profile: Methanol, 2011. [Disclaimer] This article represents only the views of the author and is not affiliated with this website. This website maintains neutrality regarding the statements and opinions expressed in it, and does not provide any explicit or implicit warranty regarding the accuracy, reliability, or completeness of the content contained herein. Readers are advised to use this information for reference only, and assume full responsibility for their own decisions.