A comparative techno-economic assessment of renewable methanol production under FuelEU maritime and EU ETS regime and long-term reliability of supply

• Bio-methanol hits fossil parity in 2030 s, staying 3-times cheaper than e-methanol. • 10% IRR requires e- and bio-methanol selling prices of >1713 €/t and 955 €/t. • FuelEU and EU ETS enable premiums for bio-methanol; e-methanol needs support. • Reliability of European renewable methanol supply remains policy-dependent. Renewable methanol is a key option for decarbonizing European industrial sectors, particularly the chemical industry and maritime transport. Despite growing project announcements, large-scale deployment remains limited due to high production costs and investment risks. This study assesses the techno-economic feasibility of renewable methanol production in Europe by comparatively evaluating e-methanol, bio-methanol and import pathways within a harmonized modelling framework. Levelized cost of methanol, net present value and internal rate of return calculations are applied across multiple regional scenarios for Germany, Sweden and Portugal, explicitly accounting for policy boundary conditions under the European Emissions Trading System and FuelEU Maritime. Across all scenarios, bio-methanol approaches cost parity with conventional methanol by around 2030 and consistently outperforms e-methanol in terms of cost levels and economic robustness. E-methanol remains substantially more expensive under current conditions, while imports become competitive only after 2040. In the German Baseline Scenario, selling prices of 1079 €/t for bio-methanol and 2169 €/t for e-methanol are required to achieve a target internal rate of return of 10 %. Although regulatory frameworks increase willingness to pay for renewable methanol in shipping, they are insufficient to enable low-risk e-methanol investments without further cost reductions. Overall, the results indicate that renewable methanol deployment in Europe remains structurally conditioned by cost competitiveness and input cost dynamics. Bio-methanol represents the most viable near-term pathway, whereas e-methanol depends on substantial hydrogen cost reductions and sustained policy support to achieve economic viability.