Posted on 02/03/2008 7:18:44 PM PST by Delacon
ny serious energy policy must deal with three critical issues. First, economic: The policy must provide an energy resource base sufficient to allow for continued worldwide economic growth for the foreseeable future. Second, environmental: The policy must be compatible with the long-term flourishing of life on Earth, including human life and civilization. And finally, strategic: The policy must ensure that control of the Earths energy resources, and thus its future, lies in the hands of free societies committed to human progress, and taken away from tyrannical and terrorism-promoting states.
George Olah, recipient of the 1994 Nobel Prize in Chemistry, is one of the giants of twentieth-century science, and his coauthors are solid technical men. Together they have written a profoundly important book on energy policy, laying out the basis for a technically achievable approach to all three dimensions of the energy problem.
There is no shortage of energy experts with grand designs and proposalsfrom technophile dreams of an unworkable hydrogen economy, to Malthusian calls for enforced economic limits through conservation, to socialist schemes for creating massive government-subsidized synthetic-fuel industries, to the libertarian faith in the Invisible Hand. Compared to such misguided alternatives, the competence and rationality of The Methanol Economy is refreshing.
The authors begin by describing the dimensions of the worldwide energy problem: Even as our reserves of fossil fuels have grown in recent decades, the demand is growing faster, and as more of the world modernizes, a global energy crunch looms. From here, they turn their attention to renewable energy sources and nuclear power, and then they offer a thorough refutation of the technical feasibility of the hydrogen economy. This widely-touted panacea cannot work because it takes more energy to produce hydrogen than it yields, because hydrogen is an excessively low-density medium for storing chemical energy, and because an entirely new multi-billion-dollar fuel distribution infrastructure would have to be created to support hydrogen vehicles before any could be sold.
The heart of the book outlines a proposed technical solution to the energy problem. The authors dont propose new ways of generating energy, arguing that all feasible alternative and renewable energy sources must be considered and used, nuclear energy above all. Instead, they focus on the challenges of how to store and best use energy.
The authors dub their proposal the methanol economy. Methanol is commonly known as wood alcohol because it can be produced from wood; it can also be made from coal, natural gas, methane hydrates, any type of biomass, or urban waste. It can be used as fuel for internal-combustion engines, and eventually in fuel-cell vehicles. It can also be used as feedstock for producing dimethyl ether, an excellent fuel for non-polluting diesel engines. In short, it is a convenient medium for storing energy and is easily transported and dispensed as a fuel.
Integrating methanol into our energy system would have numerous benefits in the not-so-distant future. As the authors point out, it would make the transportation of liquid natural gas much safer by converting it to less-hazardous liquid methanol before shipping it. Methanol could also be used to produce plastics, synthetic fabrics, and many other non-fuel products currently made from petroleum.
Importantly, methanol can also be produced (in conjunction with an auxiliary electricity source, like nuclear power) by chemically recycling carbon dioxide, which can be found naturally in the air or readily captured from atmosphere-polluting industrial emissions. The methanol produced can, in turn, be used to produce synthetic hydrocarbons and other products now obtained from fossil fuels. If successfully tapped, methanol has the ability to liberate mankind from its dependence on fossil fuels for transportation and hydrocarbon products, while reducing the amount of carbon dioxide pumped into the atmosphere.
Consider ethanol as a comparison. The commercial competitiveness of ethanol is somewhat confused by the complex influences of a variety of subsidies and tariffs. By contrast, methanol is currently sellingwithout any subsidyfor about $0.80/gallon. Given that methanols energy content is about half that of gasoline, that price is the equivalent, in energy terms, of gasoline for $1.60/gallon. In other words, we can produce a useful and economically viable vehicle fuel, using a huge domestic and Western hemispheric resource base, at prices lower than gasoline.
So if the economic and strategic questions can be answered, that leaves the matter of methanol and the environment. The authors deal with environmental concerns in a cool, thorough, and methodical fashion. Unlike ethanol, which is edible, methanol is toxicbut so is gasoline. However, unlike gasoline or petroleum, methanol is soluble in water and readily biodegradable by common bacteria, so spills of methanol, whether from defective pumping stations or shipwrecked tankers, would have no long-term environmental impact. Furthermore, as the authors demonstrate, the toxicity of methanol is commonly overstated. In point of fact, methanol is present naturally in fresh fruit, and so low doses of methanol have always been a normal part of the human diet. Unlike gasoline, methanol is not a carcinogen or a mutagen, and the pollutants and other emissions from methanol-powered internal combustion engines are far more benign than emissions from their gasoline-driven counterparts. (Automobile emissions could even be reduced to zero with methanol-based fuel cells.) And if methanol is produced from carbon dioxide or from biomass, its use in place of petroleum acts to counter man-made global warming as well. Compared to gasoline or diesel fuel, the authors conclude, methanol is clearly environmentally much safer and less toxic.
The books greatest shortcoming is in its policy recommendations. It has none. While describing the technological basis for a future world of progress, freedom, economic development, and an acceptable environment, the authors offer no plan for how to make it happen. Given the highly technical and scientific orientation of the authors, this is perhaps understandable, but it is unfortunate.
Indeed, by focusing on the best technical solution without regard to policy implications, the authors sail past essential matters without stopping to seize them. This is most evident on the subject of Flexible Fuel Vehicles (FFVs), automobiles that can operate with gasoline and/or various mixtures of gasoline and alcohol. The most common FFVs in the United States are E85 or M85, meaning that they can function with up to 85 percent ethanol or methanol and 15 percent gasoline. On the subject of FFVs, Olah and his colleagues say:
Although the flexibility of the FFVs represent a powerful means to circumvent the fuel supply conundrum, and also a way to build up the demand for methanol, it must be borne in mind that this is only a compromise.... In the long term, the use of cars optimized to run only on methanol (M100) would be preferable, and would also greatly facilitate the transition to methanol-powered fuel cell vehicles.
Yet without the short term, there is no long term. The authors are correct that, in the abstract, cars optimized to run only on methanol would be preferable. But such cars would find no buyers todaybecause there are no pumps to fuel them, nor will there be, until millions of such cars are on the road. Thus the FFVs, which can run on a combination of gasoline, methanol, and/or ethanol, are not only a compromise. Rather, they are the key transitional technology that can make the methanol economy a reality.
Manufacturing a car as an FFV requires only the use of a corrosion-resistant fuel line and a change in the programming of the chip controlling the cars electronic fuel injector. Thus FFVs can be producedand currently are being produced in two dozen models, amounting to about 3 percent of total automobile sales in the United Stateswith essentially no price differential between them and comparable models that only use gasoline. As a result, there is no downside to making flex-fuel capability the standard. If it were required that all new cars sold in the United States had to be FFVs, there would be 50 million automobiles capable of burning methanol on the road in the U.S. within three years. Under such conditions, with methanol producible for a fraction of the cost of gasoline, the methanol pumps would appear soon enough, and the methanol economy envisioned by Olah and his collaborators would soon follow.
But one should not complain too much about the books omissions, since it maps out a viable technical approach for addressing our energy problems. They have shown us where to go; now it is time for policymakers to help get us there.
Robert Zubrin, an aerospace engineer, is president of Pioneer Astronautics, a research and development firm.
Robert Zubrin, "The Methanol Alternative," The New Atlantis, Number 13, Summer 2006, pp. 85-88.
What is the procedure for producing ethanol from wood?
What is the procedure for producing ethanol from wood?
I am coming to the conclusion that making ethanol from wood(cellulosic ethanol) is far more expensive than making methanol from wood and other cellulose sources. Ethanol at this point is what gets made when certain bacteria(yeast) eat sugars. Methanol is what gets made when other bacteria eat cellulose. Getting cellulose into a form that can be eatin by yeast takes several added steps that cost a lot of extra money that methanol production doesn't have to worry about or pay for. From wiki:
Cellulosic ethanol (also called lignocellulosic ethanol) is a type of biofuel produced from lignocellulose, a structural material that comprises much of the mass of plants. Lignocellulose is composed mainly of cellulose, hemicellulose and lignin. Corn stover, switchgrass, miscanthus and woodchip are some of the more popular cellulosic materials for ethanol production. Cellulosic ethanol is chemically identical to ethanol from other sources, such as corn starch or sugar, but has the advantage that the lignocellulose raw material is highly abundant and diverse. However, it differs in that it requires a greater amount of processing to make the sugar monomers available to the microorganisms that are typically used to produce ethanol by fermentation. Switchgrass is the major biomass material being studied today, due to its high levels of cellulose. Cellulose, however, is contained in nearly every natural, free-growing plant, tree, and bush, in meadows, forests, and fields all over the world without agricultural effort or cost needed to make it grow. Whether distilled from agricultural crops such as corn, wheat, barley or created from celloluse, ethanol is ethyl alcohol; it is identical in chemical composition regardless of the source. Calling it cellulosic ethanol is misleading because it (cellulosic ethanol) is no different physically from corn ethanol or wheat ethanol. The ground of North American forests is littered with tons of cellulose-containing wastewood branches fallen from trees, which could be harvested and converted into ethanol automobile fuel. The processes that produce lumber and lumber products also generate cellulose waste that is discarded that could be used to produce cellulosic ethanol.
There are at least two methods of production of cellulosic ethanol (see "Production methods", below):
Neither process generates toxic emissions when it produces ethanol.
Cellulosic ethanol production currently exists at "pilot" and "commercial demonstration" scale, including a plant in China engineered by SunOpta Inc. and owned and operated by China Resources Alcohol Corporation that is currently producing cellulosic ethanol from corn stover (stalks and leaves) at a continuous, 24-hour per day rate.
>Compared to such misguided alternatives, the competence and rationality of The Methanol Economy is refreshing.<
Actually, methanol is just another “misguided alternative”.
It’s MORE expensive than petro-based gas to produce.
Pretending we can harvest plants at a rate sufficient to offset any significant percentage of oil consumption is pure fantasy.
When the world gets serious about solid energy alternatives they will turn to nuclear power and hydrogen power.
They we access low sulpher coal reserves and oil where we know it exists.
The 2nd method is to make syngas from the feedstock( coal, cellulose,etc) and then change it into ethanol. The big variable here is the energy input to make syngas. There are several companies that manufacture the equipment to do method #2. If you have 5-10 acres, a source of saw dust or wood chips, or coal,( or for that matter nat gas), and a power source, you too can make your own ethanol from wood, trash, coal, etc. The problems still remain, how much is the feedstock, how much does the energy input cost, and how much is the going price of ethanol? When ethanol was $4 a gallon, this was very positive. Now corn is high and ethanol is low which is the same problems oil refiners have at the moment. They call it "the crack spread". The answer, of course, is to get a cheaper feedstock, like sawdust or switch grass. And maybe some type of solar or coal powered energy source. As long a pols from Iowa control the process, this will be unlikely. They insist corn is the ONLY way America will go. They also still insist on subsidies when corn is at an all time high. We can buy 200 proof ethanol from Brazil for about $1.50 dollars a gallon,RIGHT NOW, But the US tacks on about 57 cents a gallon tax to keep it out of our market. We also give sugar subsidies to US farmers to keep the price of sugar propped up when it could be produced much cheaper and, ergo, make ethanol from sugar for less than $1 a gallon. Ethanol is workable, right now, but there are so many competing forces working against it, it looks bleak. Also, American ignorance on the subject is beyond belief. If we don't crack the corn cabal soon, ethanol as fuel, will die and Brazil will keep moving forward past oil independence, to oil exporter. Ethanol is the fuel answer, but corn ethanol from US farmers, is killing the idea. What if we bought corn from Russia, or Brazil? The farmers here would still pitch a function and you still have a tight energy profit. We must move on or ethanol will die.
Hmmm, if they can make ethanol directly from coal or natural gas, then what they should do is convert all electricity generation over to nuclear and save the coal for ethanol production. We’d be energy self sufficient easily. To keep the farmers from having fits, we could produce a deisel alternative from crops. This would save our petroleum for producing plastics, lubricants, adhesives, fertilizers, etc.
It’s not a matter of bathing in it. It is a matter of spilling it on yourself or you clothes.
Thanks for the kind, insightful and intelligent answer just the same.
Warm Regards,
Boiler Plate
“Don’t get it on your skin and breathe it either.”
I have heard that as well. How does it compare to gas and ethanol in term of toxicity?
“Don’t get it on your skin and breathe it either”
You are both correct, of course. And the ethanol game is indeed a political one. Agricultural waste is a much more logical feedstock for ethanol than is corn. Using corn is STUPID. Wanna go blind...expose yourself to methanol; and there are many other serious side-effects to methanol exposure.
One of these days we should be seeing energy alternatives that do not require any of these fuels. No polution, no dollar cost for fuels. No grid. Scary for THEY. But it will happen. I have seen some of these solutions. They work.
As far as comparing to gasoline, I'll plead ignorance. I washed parts and my hands in gas as a kid growing up( and I built cars and engines). It was later in life I was warned of benzene and other cancer causers in gas. I would leave it on my hands and arms until it started to burn my skin before washing it off. Back then there was also tetra ethyl lead in gas. We all knew of the lead, but figured as long as we didn't drink it, so what? My dad was a mechanic and a car painter for most of his life, and did the same as I did, and died at 85 with a heart attack. He never had cancer, but worried about it. He did have lead in his system from painting most likely. He took chelation treatments for that. I'm 56 now, and my biggest problem is fatness and severe ugliness. I don't think gasoline did that though. Maybe my baldness, who knows. I have stopped drinking Sterno and coke toddies though. I'm sure there are more chemicals to know about in gas, but I haven't studied it that much. Back in the 1800's, they drank petroleum for "miracle cures". The house I live in used to belong to a doctor and I found several bottles of medicine in a box in the attic that has turpentine and oil in it. The human body seems to be tougher than we give it credit for.
Remember that everything is a poison, the question is dose.
Water is a poison at a very high dose.
Ethanol is a poison at a lower dose.
Methanol is a poison at a lower dose. Interestingly, the antedote to methanol poisoning is ethanol. If you drink a six-pack after filling your car, you should be okay.
(note, this is joke, not a professional recommendation)
The big advantage to methanol is that it is not made by fermentation. You do not need alot of fresh water to make the ethanol and then use alot of energy removing the water from the final product.
True, but it is a cheap and clean source of power that can feed biofuels & etc.
A fuel suitable for central station electrical generation is not the same as a fuel suitable for transportation energy. At this point in time, we have a shortage of one of these, and not the other.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.