I think the benefit of this new source would be that you can integrate these two processes, i.e. SMR and methanol synthesis.

Nonetheless, you raised an important point, because I think the CO2 is not balanced here...

You are absolutely right, the PR is missing a few things:

| process              |             | efficiency |
| -------------------- | ----------- | ---------- |
| SMR                  | CH4 -> H2   | 0.76       |
| methanolisation      | H2 -> MeOH  | 0.88       |
| grey methanolisation | CH4 -> MeOH | 0.569      |

Which leads to an efficiency of grey methanolisation of 56.9 % vs. 88% * 76% = 67 % . The latter does not include electricity consumption needed.

Carbon Balance:

|      | carbon content |
| ---- | -------------- |
| CH4  | 0.198          |
| MeOH | 0.2482         |

which leads to
$$0.198 t_{CO_2} = 1 MWh_{CH_4} * 0.569 \frac{MWh_{MeOH}}{MWh_{CH_4}} * 0.2482 \frac{t_{CO_2}}{MWh_{MeOH}} + process emissions$$
the process emissions being:

$$ process emissions = 0.198 t_{CO_2} - 1 MWh_{CH_4} * 0.569 \frac{MWh_{MeOH}}{MWh_{CH_4}} * 0.2482 \frac{t_{CO_2}}{MWh_{MeOH}} = 0.057 t_{CO_2} $$

I would assume that FOM, lifetime are similar to the green methanol synthesis. Not sure if adding them to the manual_input.csv is necessary though.

I found this source:
Irena Innovation Outlook: Renewable Methanol Table 25
720 - 1440 CAPEX (USD/t/y)
which would translate to using (0.8775 EUR/USD)
631.8 - 1263.6 (EUR/t/y)

$$ 631.8 \frac{EUR}{\frac{t}{y}} / 5.528 \frac{MWh_{MeOH}}{t_{MeOH}} * 8760 \frac{h}{y} = 1 001 188 \frac{EUR}{MW_{MeOH}} $$

Compared to the green MeOH synthesis:

$$ 703 726.4462 \frac{EUR}{MW_{MeOH}} $$