Talk:Methanol economy

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Contents 1 Comparison to Ethanol 2 Not all disadvantages Theoretical 3 Merge into methanol (fuel)? 4 Extraction from atmosphere 5 Methanol production merge into methanol 6 Hydrogen vs Methanol for range extenders in plug-in hybrid cars

[edit] Comparison to Ethanol

With Ethanol getting more and more news coverage, I think this article should have a section discussing the similarities and differences between using Ethanol vs using Methanol as a fuel. --Flatline 21:02, 4 October 2005 (UTC)

A highly irresponsible, non-evidentiary statement is made with regards to methanol's toxicity: "methanol is toxic (this risk has been hugely overstated; methanol poisoning invariably results from drinking illegal liquor; methanol volatilizes and biodegrades rapidly in the environment.)" Stating that methanol is toxic is like stating that strychnine is toxic: the hazard is there, intrinsic to the substance, though the dose may not be enough to induce any health effects (so you don't die from the volatilized strychnine sitting on a shelf across the room). Exposure studies and the developmental health literature has recently been synthesized by a panel of the National Toxicology Program, a part of the National Institute for Environmental Health Sciences (NIEHS), http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi?cmd=Retrieve&db=pubmed&dopt=Abstract&list_uids=15995730&query_hl=8&itool=pubmed_docsum. --Faithandreason

I don't understand the reasoning for de-emphasizing the specific toxic endpoints associated with methanol exposure in the current (20 May 2006) version of the story, relative to the prior version. While a fuller discussion of the toxicity of methanol is available on the methanol entry, since the current article discusses "advantages and disadvantages" to an MeOH economy, an assessment of the relative benefits and costs of MeOH should be fully discussed. MeOH has known neurological (optic nerve) and developmental (e.g. neural tube closure) associations at relatively high doses, which may be experienced under accidental exposure conditions. It's worth doing a formal risk assessment of MeOH as a fuel, and compare those risks to the benefits. Only then can the relative costs and benefits be fully elucidated, under some uncertainty. The current text appears to imply that there is some controversy over MeOH toxicity. --Faithandreason

[edit] Not all disadvantages Theoretical

A high percentages of disadvantages listed are not in fact theoretical, but known. This to me means there needs to be two sections on disadvantages: known and theoretical.

For example, methanol's effect on aluminum is known. The hydrophilic nature of methanol is also known, not theorized. In fact, looking at the list, the vast majority of these are known disadvantages. The energy density is a theoretical disadvantage because for it to be a disadvantage the net energy extracted would have to be lower. The liquid vs. gas aspect is also theoretical as in some cases liquids are easier to manage than gases. The effect on plastics regarding permeability is also theoretical as it relies on the use of those materials. And the final theoretical disadvantage is the underground leakage aspect. All else are confirmed problems/disadvantages and should be listed as such. To do otherwise gives the false impression that there are no known problems/disadvantages, only theorized ones. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Ucntcme (talk • contribs) 00:15, 8 January 2007 (UTC).

It's well known that methanol contain insoluble contaminants such as halide ions which has a great effect on corrosivity, while insoluble contaminants may cause clogging. Acidic combustion products may also cause corrosive wear on certain engine components, this is also well known. These problems are however similar with ethanol and can generally be solved by carefully selecting the right construction materials, setting up standards for fuel quality and selecting te right oil and fuel additives. Aluminium, as an example can be protected from methanols corrosive effects by anodizing. Methanols hydrophilic nature is mainly a problem when using methanol-gasoline blends. When using pure methanol, some water content is't an issue. Permeability is also a problem for gasoline-methanol blends, specifically when using low methanol blends. With high methanol blends this isn't an issue. All this is also not theories, but rather well documented facts. That liquids can be easier to handle, and especially transport is also well known and not only a theory. JEdlund —The preceding signed but undated comment was added at 19:19, August 21, 2007 (UTC).

[edit] Merge into methanol (fuel)?

I vote "no", since the whole point of a methanol economy is not just to use it as a fuel, but to make it in "green" ways, first. Thus, methanol can substitute for hydrogen in all of hydrogen's suggested uses (save for a few odd aerospace uses). The methanol (fuel) article only cares about use of methanol as a fuel, and doesn't really care how it's produced. One could argue for merging the methanol fuel article into methanol economy (since it's really a subsection of that), but this would not be fair, either, as much of the interest in methanol as a fuel doesn't really address methanol source, and doesn't need to. So, it's better to leave the two articles separate, as they are. To use another fuel as an example, hydrogen as a fuel is now used in the space shuttle, but nobody cares if it comes from fossil fuels (which it does) because it is used in the space shuttle for it's extreme energy/weight ratio. None of this has any relevance to hydrogen fuels in a hydrogen economy, where hydrogen is used not because of its weight/energy ratio, but because it causes less pollution at the end use point. So two separate articles are needed, because the uses of hydrogen as a fuel have completely different objects, and there are very many difficulties and arguments in each, which have nothing to do with the other, for that reason. Same with methanol. SBHarris 08:06, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Extraction from atmosphere

I have changed this part of the article for the following reasons. In the book on "The Methanol Economy" by George Olah etc. on page 243 Olah mentions selective membranes only with relation to extraction from exhaust gases from fossil fuel plants. He then mentions alkali absorbents such as KOH as feasible ways of extracting from the atmosphere. He also mentions that KOH is especially suitable for electrolytic recovery of carbon dioxide. I do not include this fact in the article, in order to avoid excessive detail Zfishwiki 19:53, 4 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Methanol production merge into methanol

This article should be about methanol economy and not about methanol production —Preceding unsigned comment added by V8rik (talk • contribs) 17:05, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

Methanol production is a very important part of the methanol economy. Before using methanol as a fuel, energy storage media or raw material in an economy based on methanol it is important to know where we are going to get the methanol from in the present and more importantly in the future. The article on methanol discusses only the present ways to produce methanol from fossil fuels (mostly natural gas) going through syn-gas. This way of producing methanol is only discussed shortly in the methanol economy article to avoid redundancy. It seems to me that other alternative methanol production methods not used nowadays have more relevance in the article on methanol economy as they are a central point of the methanol economy. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Goepy (talk • contribs) 18:10, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Hydrogen vs Methanol for range extenders in plug-in hybrid cars

I developt my ideas aboout the Methanol economy independent. It started as I visited the international automobile show in Frankfurt 2007. There had been at the GM booth Opel Flextreme and Chevrolet Volt plug-in hybrid cars.

3 cars, 3 different range extenders with gasoline, diesel and hydrogen.

As I started to calculate profitability of the different range extenders in different scenarios, there was never a profitability of the hydrogen fuel cell system.

How to transport hydrogen more economic? Let's take a carbon atom to carry 4 hydrogen atoms. But Methan needs still a high pressure tank. Let's take one Oxygen atom, and it's Methanol easy to carry in a simple tank.

From where to take the carbon atom?

As soon as photovoltaic is available cheap and in huge quantity, energy is no problem, the only problem is easy to carry energy for mobile usage. So let's take biomass as carbon source only, energy for all the chemical process. 1kg dry wood can in such a way deliver 1,65 litre Methanol.

I made Ocober 2007 an interview with a developer in a reputated resarch institute: Methanol engine with generator can reach over 40% electric efficiency.

My calculation for a medium sized plug-in hybrid car over 300.000 km hydrogen vs Methaol:

The Methanol car needs 2800 kg more wood, but has a simple engine and a simple tank. The energy to produce Methanol from water and wood is about the same as for making hydrogen, liquification, compression into the tank. But 2800 kg more wood are a bargain compared to the fuel cells, the high pressure tanks and all the hydrogen infra structure.

--Pege.founder (talk) 19:11, 17 February 2008 (UTC)