A methanol project’s carbon supply needs to be evaluated as a delivered feedstock with a documented emissions history. “Biogenic” and “air-captured” describe origins; neither word, by itself, proves an attractive project cost or a complete climate claim.
Compare the complete delivery chain
A practical procurement sheet should distinguish these questions:
| Question | Biogenic CO₂ | Direct air capture |
|---|---|---|
| Where is the carbon obtained? | A documented biomass-related process | Ambient air |
| What drives site selection? | Source location, volume and continuity | Energy, process needs and delivery infrastructure |
| What must the quote include? | Capture or separation, treatment and delivery | Capture, energy provision, treatment and delivery |
| What requires verification? | Feedstock provenance, source emissions and competing uses | Process energy, lifecycle emissions and measured output |
Fermentation gas and biomass-combustion flue gas are different feedstocks. It is misleading to describe every biogenic stream as requiring only purification. Conversely, access to atmospheric CO₂ does not remove DAC’s constraints on energy, equipment, permitting or infrastructure.
The earlier USD 20–80/t biogenic and USD 400–1,000/t DAC ranges lacked comparable, dated delivery boundaries. They have been withdrawn rather than relabelled as current prices. This revision provides no September 2026 market-price assessment.
Capture for fuel is different from permanent removal
The IEA distinguishes direct air capture with permanent storage from use of captured carbon in products.1 When captured CO₂ becomes methanol that is later burned, the carbon returns to the atmosphere. That use is not, by itself, permanent carbon removal.
The climate result requires lifecycle accounting, including energy and the eventual fate of the carbon. A grid-powered DAC plant is not automatically net-emitting in every location; the result depends on energy emissions, process demand and the full boundary. Equally, capture volume alone does not prove net removal.
The 2022 IEA report is used here for this technical distinction, not as evidence of current DAC prices or operating capacity.
Fuel eligibility requires the appropriate rules
For EU RFNBO and recycled-carbon-fuel emissions calculations, Regulation 2023/1185 explicitly includes air-captured CO₂ and qualifying biogenic sources in its treatment of avoided existing-use emissions. Conditions also address capture energy and double counting.2
Some qualifying industrial-source credits are time-limited: the regulation refers to incorporation before 2036, extended to 2041 for cases other than fuel combustion for electricity generation. These are conditional emissions-accounting provisions, not a blanket prohibition on every industrial CO₂ use after those dates.2
A carbon-removal credit methodology does not establish that a fuel meets its destination-market rules. The buyer and verifier need to confirm the relevant pathway and evidence requirements.
Turn the comparison into a decision
Request a dated specification covering annual and seasonal supply, impurities, pressure, transport, interruptions, emissions documentation and responsibility for rejected material. Compare at the same plant inlet and under the same financing assumptions.
For methanol, test how changes in carbon-delivery cost affect the complete production cost. Do not assume that switching sources automatically preserves the original certification claim or earns a removal credit.
My recommendation is to keep a documented alternative-source assessment where supply continuity is important. Whether a mixed-source design is economic must be evaluated for the specific project; this article does not claim that an unnamed hybrid pilot has already demonstrated it.
Discuss a carbon-sourcing research question →
Sources
IEA (2022), Direct Air Capture 2022 — Executive summary. ↩︎
European Union, Delegated Regulation 2023/1185, Annex, points 10–11. Sources checked 14 September 2026. ↩︎ ↩︎
