Comments on: The “What Happened to the Methanol Economy?” Question

By: davidisaak

davidisaak — Sat, 29 Nov 2014 20:55:00 +0000

I am neither a proponent nor opponent of methanol, but the the “dirty underbelly” of methanol is the potential for pollution of groundwater. Although methanol spills are rapidly degraded in highly aerobic environments, it persists in groundwater. Remember methanol’s close relative, MTBE, that contaminated so many aquifers in California? Methanol is far more soluble than MTBE. Here are the solubilities in mg/liter:
Gasoline: 71
MTBE: 50,000
Methanol: Infinite
Everything has side effects. Methanol is no exception.
Also, if it is made from natural gas (most of it is, and they are building millions of tonnes of new capacity in the US right now), it is extraordinarily energy-inefficient. With a product like LNG, about 93% of the energy in the gas feedstock ends up in the LNG. With methanol, only about 55% of the energy in the gas ends up in the methanol.
That shouldn’t be too surprising. Oxygen is being added to a methane molecule; methanol is methane that has been partially ‘burned.’

By: Say No to Gasoline: Fuel Freedom’s Methanol Cars to Run in Rescheduled Pike’s Peak International Hill Climb - CleanTechnica

Mon, 06 Aug 2012 18:40:26 +0000

[…] Run a racecar with the sustainable fuel methanol and there’s good reason to watch. Next weekend in Colorado, the annual Pike’s Peak Hill Climb takes place and two of its competitors will be driving methanol-powered cars that have been backed by Fuel Freedom, a nonpartisan campaign to check American oil dependency by backing flexible fuels such as methanol, which was used successfully in California until 2005. […]

By: Bob_Wallace

Bob_Wallace — Thu, 07 Jun 2012 19:22:00 +0000

Methane hydrate extraction is a terrible idea. Even more sequestered carbon released into the atmosphere.

It’s not a solution. It’s a continuation of the problem.

By: Thomas Egebak

Thomas Egebak — Thu, 07 Jun 2012 08:12:00 +0000

Good question… I am currently reading Dr. Robert Zubrins book “Energy Victory” and methanol sounds pretty awesome.

By: AB

AB — Wed, 18 Apr 2012 12:32:00 +0000

FYI, the person on the picture is not George Olah, but Vittorio Prodi, Italian Member of the Europen Parliament…

By: Matt

Matt — Mon, 19 Mar 2012 22:15:00 +0000

Most of the items listed in that wikipedia entry are not substantive issues and are often qualified. Low energy density is overcome by higher octane and more efficient combustion, meaning better utilization than gasoline. All liquid fuels for transportation are toxic, and should not be consumed. RVP questions have been identified and addressed (similar to ethanol). Corrosion is not an issue, as is demonstrated by vehicles on the road everyday running on methanol.

By: Jolah

Jolah — Mon, 19 Mar 2012 22:08:00 +0000

Who is that man in the picture? It certainly is Not George Olah

By: Imawhiz

Imawhiz — Mon, 19 Mar 2012 14:26:00 +0000

Thanks for the quick Chemistry lesson. As I said in my earlier post, the comments are at least as informative as the article itself.

________________________________
From: Disqus
To: ljl71504@yahoo.com
Sent: Monday, March 19, 2012 9:13 AM
Subject: [im-cleantechnica] Re: The “What Happened to the Methanol Economy?” Question

Disqus generic email template

Matt (unregistered) wrote, in response to Imawhiz:
There is no mystery to the types of metals and plastics that can be used. Nitrile plastics (buna-N, etc) are all perfectly viable and cost the same as rubbers and sealants used today. Ford and GM both produced methanol vehicles in the 1990’s that were methanol compatible and would also be capabel of running on ethanol, butanol and other higher alcohols – so a truly flexible vehicle where fuels could compete. Link to comment

By: Matt

Matt — Mon, 19 Mar 2012 14:13:00 +0000

There is no mystery to the types of metals and plastics that can be used. Nitrile plastics (buna-N, etc) are all perfectly viable and cost the same as rubbers and sealants used today. Ford and GM both produced methanol vehicles in the 1990’s that were methanol compatible and would also be capabel of running on ethanol, butanol and other higher alcohols – so a truly flexible vehicle where fuels could compete.

By: Imawhiz

Imawhiz — Sun, 18 Mar 2012 12:21:00 +0000

The comments on this article are as informative as the article itself. Use of methanol as a hydrogen carrier for fuel cell powered vehicles makes all kinds of sense. Production of methanol from sources other than coal gives methanol a positive attribute. Leave the coal in the ground (and all the toxic Mercury with it). The auto industry for decades has had a problem with methanol dissolving rubber and some plastic gaskets and seals. Surely some organic chemist can overcome that problem with a better plastic.

By: Glenn Meyers

Glenn Meyers — Sat, 17 Mar 2012 21:24:00 +0000

way too familiar, indeed

By: Glenn Meyers

Glenn Meyers — Sat, 17 Mar 2012 21:23:00 +0000

Thanks for the links

By: Glenn Meyers

Glenn Meyers — Sat, 17 Mar 2012 21:22:00 +0000

Thanks for the info – I will look -Glenn

By: Zachary Shahan

Zachary Shahan — Sat, 17 Mar 2012 20:29:00 +0000

Hmm, why does that sound familiar….

By: Moses Lonn

Moses Lonn — Sat, 17 Mar 2012 16:32:00 +0000

When you figure out whatever happened to the methanol economy, start looking into whatever happened to thorium fission for generating cheap electricity in a reasonably safe, environmentally friendly way. I think you will find at the root of it all are large industrial enterprises – Big Coal, Big Oil and Big Ag – that actively discourage the development and adoption of competitive energy resources. The captains of energy are aided and abetted by an inherently corrupt national ‘political process’ (that would be Congress) that is bought and paid for through the financial mechanism that is known as the ‘election process.’

By: Glenn Meyers

Glenn Meyers — Fri, 16 Mar 2012 13:11:00 +0000

Thanks for this information. I suspect fossil fuel producers don’t approve of the way methanol affects their price/revenue paradigm.
GRM

By: Drewes Hielema

Drewes Hielema — Fri, 16 Mar 2012 11:42:00 +0000

As everyone knows, methanol is something not fitting in the core business of the fossil fuel producers. Oil companies are continually ignoring even shunning methanol.
In the Netherlands, where we have (had) two (2) lines of methanol production units, each producing 450.000 tons/a. It was hard fighting to overcome the demolition of the units, because of interference of the fossil fuel producers.

Methanol is also the best storage of HYDROGEN.
1 M3 of Methanol at ambient pressure and temperature contains 1.660 Nm3 of hydrogen(H2) compared to liquid hydrogen

1 M3 of liquid hydrogen (LH2) at -253°C contains 788 Nm3 of hydrogen (H2)

Source: WPI-080905 (Westerink Procédé Industriël)

Regards:
Soldesa Hydrogen B.V.,
Drewes E. Hielema

By: Glenn Meyers

Glenn Meyers — Fri, 16 Mar 2012 00:31:00 +0000

I look forward to hearing comments from methanol experts! GRM