Since we have had a number of alternative fuel threads, I wanted to point to one about methanol fuel and the environment. Today most methanol is produced by consuming natural gas, mainly CH4, and carbon dioxide, CO2. It can also be produced from most agricultural waste products, garbage, sewage, and even in a plant in iceland from CO2 and geothermal electricity. If those things run out, you can always make it from coal, but I doubt those things will ever run out simply get more expensive. All the technology including running it in cars has been created. Tailpipe emissions are lower with similar cost emission control equipment. Depending on blend percent evaporation emissions may be higher or lower than E10. Ghg production should be slightly lower than gasoline. If methanol production is done in something like a ccgt power plant, with a steam turbine the extra energy can be used to create electricity, and some of the CO2 can be captured and used to produce the methanol. In otherwords if we reuse the heat to generate electricity, methanol can bring similar ghg reduction as cng cars but use most of today's liquid fuel structure. Is it better for the environment when burned in cars? Of course it is. Fracking or renewable production is much cleaner than getting at the oil sands. As a marginal source of liquid fuels it also does not compete like corn ethanol for food. Cars were produced and sold in california. It seems a flex fuel M85 was found to be optimum at preventing the methanol problems - cold starts, invisible flame, refueling infrastructure. Cars produced are only a little more expensive and since M85 can run at higher compression and advanced spark setting the engines are more efficient than gasoline. The only drawback is larger fuel tanks. What would be needed is adding M85 to the flex fuel definition for auto manufacturers and strengthening it. In the California experiment they found that 10% of gas stations needed to provide the fuel for people to feel comfortable, but making the vehicles flex fuel removed anxiety. The thing that deterred methanol in the california experiment is low gasoline prices. A higher oil tax is the most straightforward way to get blenders and gas stations to invest puting in M85 pumps. At today's prices M85 would be about $3.15/gge or 1.75 gallons, if full state and federal road taxes are applied. A drop in oil prices or rise in methanol prices would deter it again. Blast from the past when bush 41, wanted methanol to reduce tailpipe pollution Researchers Say Methanol May Not Fulfill Clean Air Hopes - New York Times California did the test, and tailpipe emissions were lower like the methanol proponents said.
BTU content of Methanol is 56,800 BTUs / Gallon. Which makes M85: 65,400 BTUs / Gallon. That is equivalent to paying $5.49 / Gallon of (pure) Gas. A Prius would get 28.6 MPG (actual gallon of M85). Might be a hard sell. Look at the complaining we get about E15.
Sorry I wrote that wrong. The $3.15 is for 1.75 gallons of M85 - the equivalent of 1 gallon of E0 gasoline, and includes all the federal and Texas road taxes. Your taxes maybe higher or lower. If a car like the prius allowed for different valve timing and spark when adjusted, the Atkinson engine would be more efficient on M85 so you would likely get just over 30 mpg if you got 50 mpg on gasoline. Toyota might put a bigger gas tank in the car. The other mods, higher volume injectors, different materials for fuel lines, and fuel sensor are straight forward. Problems are that prices of Methanol go up with natural gas, and get more expensive than gasoline.
Where does the hydrogen come from? I haven't come across many independent studies, but with ethanol blends the fuel economy does not drop in a linear slope with btu reduction, and stays higher than predicted. There are more factors involved internal combustion than external that make fuel economy predictions based on btu content a best guess. Alcohol fuels have a cooling effect on the cylinder that allows timing to advance. They are higher octane. One of the many problems with the E85 program was that manufacturers used low compression engines for flex fuel vehicles. Their E85 economy ratings would have been better if a premium fueled engine was used as a starting point.
Methanol is CH4O Ethanol is C2H6O So basically you have more "H2O" in methanol, so less energy for M85. But I do not know anything about designing a car around methanol. Methanol is used for biodiesel manufacture (basically Veggie Oil + Methanol = Biodiesel + glycerol) China makes some methanol from coal. Methanol can be converted to gasoline, more or less taking the water out ahead of the car. With cheap nat gas in the USA, methanol should be cheaper to make, so that is one thing we might see. But LNG *Liquified Natural Gas* (got it right this time) is quickly becoming a major global export market, therefore this is probably the path of least resistance. Using methanol in vehicles could be considered somewhat similar to the Pickens plan, except the nat gas is first converted to methanol. Methanol can in turn be easily partially dehydrated to DME (another alternative fuel sometimes mentioned) or even fully dehydrated to make gasoline. In this manner, we could convert USA to a non-oil import economy. But we do not seem to be heading in this direction, so far. This direction implies mandates that nat gas/methanol be used to replace gasoline in vehicles, rather we seem to be letting the free market choose power generation and other industrial uses of nat gas. This suggests <OMG how could we> we may continue to import oil for use as gasoline and diesel. PS- ...right now USA focus is EV+biofuels as our political winners.
It's all about the money and the "installed" infrastructure. Nazi Germany, during the early stages of the war almost had energy independence. They made synthetic gasoline. That continued, until the Allies started destroying the infrastructure. We can do the same, but imported oil is cheaper on the world market. The other factor is the "installed infrastructure" that has already been invested in the petroleum industry. If that installed infrastructure is easily converted to methanol, that would be the fuel of choice. I really don't see natural gas become widespread in personal automobiles, because the the tank required. It has to be sperical or cylindrical to keep the thickness and weight of the tank as low as possible. A pressurized tank leads to dangerous consequences in a crash and, in the form necessary, takes up a lot of space in a vehicle. Mathanol is liquid and not pressurized. That means the tank can be lightweight and be made to fit in oddly shaped spaces. Natural gas can be transported to a local conversion center and be converted to methanol at a local or regional and easily distributed to local "gas" stations and "pumped" into vehicles in the same way that gasoline is now, For those who assert that methanol has less energy, the simple solution is larger tanks. Plug-in electrics take much more space for the battery, already. As for metanol burning without a flame, that can be easily rectified wit an additive. Natural gas is odorless, but it's the mercaptin additive that makes it detectable. Methanol, NOT LNG will power more vehicles in th future. That's the oil companies' best kepy open secret. It is the fuel "beyond petroleum." If I were a young man, I would invest in those industries that have a future in methanol.
The plant in iceland uses geothermal electricity plus Water and CO2 to make the methanol. 2CO2 + 4H2O + energy -> 2CH3OH + 3O2 We can think of the hydrogen coming from water plus energy This works works in iceland because of different economics. In California with geothermal, the energy would be used to put electricity on the grid. This would displace natural gas from power generation, which can then be used to make the methanol less expensively. I screwed up my original post, M85 would cost about $1.80 a gallon, or $3.15 for 1.75 gallons about the equivalent of a gallon of gasoline. In an atkinson engine, the same as the prius except for input valve range and control and software, M85 or E85 will increase efficiency and torque. The alcohol fuels will burn cooler, and earlier valve closing can happen without detonation. These things increase thermal efficiency and since power can come at lower rpm reduces frictional losses and the need for engine cooling. Earlier valve closing will slightly increase pumping losses, but this is small compared to the gains. The biggest gains are in turbo-charged di engines. Mileage is a strange thing. At today's prices you would get more miles per $ with M85. If you use renewable methanol it would be a little more expensive than E85, but generate less ghg. M85 though has less energy per gallon, which means fewer mpg, you would only go about 75% as far on a tank of fuel. You could still go over 300 miles in a prius, and refill with gasoline. An open fuels mandate for car manufacturers would make the vehicle able to burn e85 to M85 and everything in between.
China is leading the push for metanol cars. It simply needs to diversify away from oil. Methanol has less energy loss when shipped than lng, and it is easier to transport. It is much simpler than Picken's plan. A methanol blend can use current gasoline infrastructure. Methanol was the alternate fuel dejure in the late 80s and early 90s. Higher natural gas prices and low oil prices killed it along with the ethanol lobby. We need to add M85 to the definition of flex fuel. The free market has nothing to do with it. The automobile industry is a regulated oligopoly. There is a public/private rule making group that pushes an agenda. Consumers are not free to choose. California regulators and the Bush 41 administration favored methanol and had an experiment that could have continued. It was sucessful, except for cheap gas. California regulators and the Clinton administration killed methanol in favor of ethanol blended gasoline and BEVs. Their was no technical reason flex fuel was ethanol not methanol, it was pure politics. The government can reverse this bad decision. The biofuels mandate can be changed to alternate fuels mandate. A percent of the methanol can be specified as renewable. I can't imagine that the $1.01 subsidy to make gasoline from coal, or the switch grass mandate helps the environment.
Coal should not be made into gasoline. It's much cleaner to make it into methanol. Burning coal will NEVER be clean. Electricity in vehiles is NOT the way to go, either. The elecric grid won't support its increased use. It's already have a problem supporting the current usage.
The grid needs work regardless of the adoption of BEVs or not. Most BEV charging will be at night when demand is low. Which shouldn't strain the grid.
Yeah, No-one charges their EV during peak hours, and no air polluting coal fired furnace produces the electricity to power the charging stations.
Coal-> Syn gas -> methanol are beginning steps into turning it into gasoline. Since it takes much more energy on the next steps to convert the methanol to gasoline this extra money and energy is wasted. The open fuel standards would allow M85 to be produced, which is better for the environment and less expensive. Natural gas + gasoline -> M85 reduces both cost and pollution at today's prices and technology versus coal or oil or any combination. The original funding for coal to liquids (ctl) came from the ford administration, but was really pushed under carter. It was killed under Reagan, as people realized that A) natural as wasn't about to run out, and B) oil wasn't about to run out. The program was brought back under Bush when natural gas was getting more expensive and we were at war in Iraq with fear of oil interuptions. This was much more environmental as at least 75% of ghg have to be captured to get the $1.01/gallon subsidy. There is no reason for coal today, as fracking has made natural gas less expensive and more plentiful than they imagined. Again, I would favor M85 over methanol->gasoline. This is a thread about methanol, and I would rather keep it on topic. The top plug-in states are projected to be California, NY, Florida, Texas in that order. California needs to fix their power system not for plug-in cars, but for normal users. They have a nuc down, and have discouraged building enough natural gas power plants. That means they are importing electricity, including coal from other states. Plug-in cars do not make the situation worse though, they may actually provide enough incentives for the state government and power companies to fix the grid. They can help ballance. I have no first hand knowledge of NY, but Florida and Texas both have large reserve capacities for summer air conditioning. For the slow growth of plug-ins they only need to upgrade some old distribution networks. This is planned in both states. In texas, grid upgrades are also planned to add more wind. As there is choice in texas, and plug-in drivers choose wind overwelmingly, the push for plug-ins and a cleaner grid go hand in hand. Plug-in cars are not a problem in the states of likely purchase.
Mike- I like your logic, mostly. I do agree with the need to go to non-burning "clean" coal technologies such as methanol. From methanol, it is just extra step to make gasoline, so I have no problem with coal to gaso, except cost of course to make methanol from coal is not cheap in the first place. As far as I'm concerned, your skeptical thinking on EV is valid on several levels, but worldwide governments have stepped in to heavily subsidize EV and give major discounts to EV/Plug-In buyers. So if you can't beat 'em, you gotta join 'em.
How so? Texas has already had rolling blackouts, and ERCOT predicts further reduction in margin of supply over demand for the next two years.
[ It's always about the money. While conversion from methanol to gasoline is possible, the extra cost would only benefit the current "installed base" of gasoline dependent cars that have to have it or at most 10% alcohol. The long term solution is to avold the cost of labor and increase in energy required to completely convert metahnol to gasolibe by producing new cars that can run exclusively on methanol. Any reconstruction of the molecular structure or the conversion of one energy form to another means energy lost in the form or heat released to the environment. Lineloss and chemical storage of electricity via batteries and reconversion to mechanical power means more loss. Nearly 50% of eletricity is generated from burning coal. Add in lone loss and energy conversion and you have more impact to the environment than the EV driver realizes. Increasing mileage is the direct way to reduce impact to the environment. A hybrid vehicle with a methanol powered ICE is the future. Govenment subsities are well known to be more political than pragmatic, as to how environmentally friendly they are.
The national average of coal on the grid 44.5%. That's based on 2009 data, and it is dropping. How clean is the electricity I use? - Power Profiler | Clean Energy | US EPA But plug ins don't use a national grid to charge their batteries. The regions where they are popular tend to have below average coal use. Yes there is line loss, but a plug in's total emissions will drop with the grids. If an individual's regional grid isn't getting cleaner, they can take steps to buy or make cleaner electricity. The only liquid fuels in which that is possible without a major energy use increase are WVO and biodiesel. While BEVs could work for many, the PHV will be the most common plug in because of versability. The battery in the Volt is going to be the largest we see in such a vehicle for the near future. They should make use of methanol blends.
The rolling blackouts in the winter of 2011 were simply grid mismanagement. It was very cold weather, and plants were not managed for the cold, while ercot did not bring other power on line fast enough. This gives a more ballanced idea of what is going on in the ercot grid. ERCOT: So, About that Chance of Rolling Blackouts... | StateImpact Texas The key is to not charge plug-ins at the time, and that is one or two times a year for a few hours, that the grid is stressed. My airconditioning is hooked up to the smart grid, and the utility can raise the temperature or turn it off, during times of the grid being stressed. Many of the car chargers installed in homes are set up this same way. The epa cross state pollution rule got set where some coal was going to get closed down now. Luminant took the epa to court and won, meaning it will be available at least in the summers of 2013 and 2014. The plants will be closed during the winters because competition from wind makes the power just to expensive. ERCOT does need to put incentives in to build more fast cycling ccgt to reduce the chance of blackouts in the future and allow texas to close down more of the inefficient coal and natural gas. Plug-ins do not stress ERCOT, high temperatures with high population growth has stressed the grid for air conditioning. Plug-ins can drive more wind being built profitably for the utilities, and all the utilities in texas are supportive of more plug-ins.
This is true, but not particularly revelant. Utilities have scale to derive electricity efficiently. You can't put a large wind turbine on top of a car, or a solar panel big enough to power it. CCGTs are huge and efficient. There is no reason to restrict the power plant to one that fits in a car. Do you realize there has not one new coal plan proposed to fuel Plug-ins. In the last 20 years almost all new power built in the US is natural gas and wind, and this trend is continuing. I doubt with all the political slams, people buying plug-ins have not been told numerous times that it is just using coal, but most know better. Number one reason for going plug-in is to reduce oil consumption. There are large government agencies supping money for continued oil use. Swapping methanol in some cars also will reduce oil consumption.
