That is because of the current demand. Would it stay low if demand were significantly increased?
The big economy is not in the fuel but in the cost of conversion. You need no new infrastructure for Methanol. The conversions are cheap, and even cheaper if put in at the factory. Current supply and delivery systems for gasoline will work just as well for methanol. Room temperature liquids are just easier to handle than a gas. Even an fairly easy to handle gas like methane.
It occurs to me that if this idea is so easy, why isn't it going anywhere? Where can I buy liquid Methanol for $1.34/ gallon. (And is it cost per liquid gallon, or energy equivalent gallon?)
A flex fuel car can burn gas without having to lug around the extra fuel tank. For a methane burner to be able to switch between fuels you need both a gasoline and a methane tank. That just adds mass as one of the two tanks is always dead weight.
If the idea is viable, it has obvious benefits. I just keep thinking that if it is viable, it's a no brainer, so why hasn't it been widely proposed. Why is there no "Pickens Plan" for Methanol?
As a final advantage the ability to rapidly switch between fuels is a strategic advantage. For the prepper it is nice to know that in the case of a fuel disruption caused by Iran or Saudi Arabia, or just rioting here in the US, you can use whatever fuel you can get your hands on. Most high school chemistry students can brew up ethanol in a pinch. Methanol is a bit harder, but not beyond the ability of a garage mechanic.
Well, i'm committed to my current activity regarding natural gas, but if methanol is really a viable alternative, then I will certainly be interested in using it. My thinking is that we need to do whatever it takes to remove monetary power from the middle east by virtue of their control over so much oil energy.
We need to bankrupt those b@stards and make them irrelevant, i.e. the way they were for most of their History.