The Methanol Alternative

The New Atlantis ^ | Summer 2006 | Robert Zubrin

[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 Earth’s 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 proposals—from 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 don’t 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 selling—without any subsidy—for about $0.80/gallon. Given that methanol’s 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 toxic—but 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 book’s 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 today—because 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 car’s electronic fuel injector. Thus FFVs can be produced—and currently are being produced in two dozen models, amounting to about 3 percent of total automobile sales in the United States—with 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 book’s 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.

[Delacon]

“I recommend folks read Energy Victory.”

FYI to everybody “Energy Victory” is written by the same guy who reviewed the book “Methanol Economy” and wrote this article I posted for this thread. If you don’t have time to read the book Energy Victory you can read Mr. Zurin’s acticle titled “Achieving Energy Victory” here.
http://www.thenewatlantis.com/archive/18/zubrin.htm

[JustaDumbBlonde]

"That means we can tell the farmers go back to farming food stuffs..."

You want to tell me what I should be planting this year? Cause, here I was thinking we were able to plant whatever worked out best for us. Silly me.

"... get more farmers to grow grass, or wood in areas not suitable to growing grains.

With the cost of inputs these days, I would be really shocked if farmers were planting things that we not getting the best bang for the buck.

"So no food production problem."

This country does not have a 'food production problem'. That was my point to begin with. This country produces far more food than we can consume.

I do understand what you're saying, you are just not saying it with any tact or thought whatsoever. I have absolutely no problem with using ANY plant material, nor do I have a problem with methane. I think that we should develop every possible alternative to oil and gas. But we should be honest in the discussion. We do not have a food production problem.

[RussP]

This whole business about taking away from the food supply is bogus. An ethanol/methanol economy will be a great boon to small farmers all over the world. Who would you rather send your money to: oil sheiks in the Middle East who do nothing, or poor farmers around the world who are willing to actually produce something?

[LurkingSince'98]

yes they call it Heet and we put it INTO our gas tanks in the cold midwest to remove the free water from our gas tanks

Lurking

[Delacon]

“It still has to be grown and harvested on farms that could be producing food.”

Actually I suggest that they grow plants on land that is not suitable for growing foodstuffs. I don’t have the info available but there is way more land not suitable to regular food crops but still can be used grow grasses and fast growing trees and bushes. But yeah, there are several alternative methods of producing methanol that may be more economicly/enviromentally/efficiently suitable or may be useds in conjuction with growing plant material.

[LurkingSince'98]

Yeah boiler

why don’t you rub some gasoline on your skin sometime?

Why the hell would you do that???

use some common sense man!

Lurking

[poindexter]

Methanol corrodes aluminum.

[poindexter]

Methanol makes sense, even if the $1.60/gallon will only get you 2/3 as far as a gallon of gasoline.

Current price doesn't mean anything. If demand goes up, so will the price unless supply also increases.

[RKV]

Don’t need to. Knew this stuff before Zubrin wrote about it as did most folks who know even a bit of college chemistry. What I don’t get, is why we’re not doing it now? I guess ADM owns enough politicians to push ethanol. And the folks here who complain about using food to make fuel are idiots, btw.

[Delacon]

I apologize if I came across less than tactful but yes we have a food production problem. Corn prices are going up and are going to continue to go up with the increased demand due to ethanol production for fuel. Methanol is the answer. It wont cut into corn production or increase demand for corn. Yes, farmers are going to plant whatever is going to get them the highest return. It may be corn, it may be non edible plant materials to supply methanol production. I doubt some farmer though is going to plant saw grass or such on prime farmland to fetch 1/50th the price he could get from corn or any other produce. No, some other farmer is going go find some scrabby land that nobody wants currently because its not suitable for corn or any other produce and will try to make a living supplying a methanol economy.

[Delacon]

“Methanol corrodes aluminum.”

From the article:
“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 car’s electronic fuel injector. Thus FFVs can be produced—and currently are being produced in two dozen models, amounting to about 3 percent of total automobile sales in the United States—with essentially no price differential between them and comparable models that only use gasoline.”

[Delacon]

“If this was as good as the author says we’d already be doing it. There are E85 cars on the road today. What isn’t said is that methanol doesn’t have as much energy as gasoline, so you don’t get as good mileage. Given that a gallon of gasoline now costs $3, then methanol costs ($1.6/67%)=$2.5 and is cost competitive even in a mix with gasoline, but not by a lot.”

From the article:

“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 selling—without any subsidy—for about $0.80/gallon. Given that methanol’s 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.”

[dangerdoc]

“How about nuclear power? You know, the same stuff that the greenies (now global warmers) stymied the past thirty years and, thereby, tied us into muslim oil ....”

Domestic coal has done a fine job replacing oil for electricity generation. Although I certainly do not object to nuclear replacing coal as it is a cleaner technology.

Nuclear is great but does not provide liquid fuel for transportation.

[Delacon]

“I would have been the last to think that a government mandate was the answer, but I think Zubrin is right on this one.”

Yeh, we cons do think that “mandate” is a dirty word as well we should but if you think about it, we already mandate about a thousand things to the auto industry.

[eclecticEel]

Oh, I have no problem with using farmland to produce either methanol or ethanol. If that is the surest method of de-funding the Middle East I’m all for it.

I’m just pointing out that trying to create a distinction between crops that are “foodstuffs” and crops that aren’t is disingenuous. It all has to be grown on some amount of land by farmers that otherwise would be growing something else. Besides, ethanol can be produced from non-food crops just as surely as it can be produced from corn; weather the particular crop used to produce biofuel is edible or not has no real meaning.

[RFEngineer]

“It seems the advantages of methanol comes from the fact that you could get it from other sources, such as natural gas or via CO2 extracted from the air.”

The same fuel can be used in a conventional automobile, and a fuel cell - it’s a great transition fuel that way.

What was implied but not directly mentioned is that it is possible to create a “reversible” fuel cell. So when there is extra electricity, you make methanol, when you need extra power, you make it with the methanol - out of the air.

Granted, much more work on methanol fuel-cell membranes to make it work, but this is a real possibility, except for the fact that it won’t rely on midwest corn - so it’s politicaly non-viable.

[RussP]

Well, what little I learned in college chemistry I forgot long ago. I do not claim to be an expert on this matter, though I am in the learning process. Zubrin seems to know what he is talking about, so I trust him until I have a reason not to.

As for “the folks here who complain about using food to make fuel,” I wouldn’t call them idiots. I’d just say that either they are misinformed or I am. I don’t know the details, but I do know that if the demand for something goes through the roof, in a free market so does the supply.

[Delacon]

“Current price doesn’t mean anything. If demand goes up, so will the price unless supply also increases.”

Meeting demand is the single biggest problem with switching to a methanol economy but not an insurmountable one. If oil companies don’t want to do it, refuse to do, then I am sure there are some enterprising chemical companies and others who would be happy to take up the challenge to provide methanol in quantities and prices competitive with gasoline.

[dangerdoc]

I applogize if the article covers this but methanol has a very high octane rating which allows much higher compression ratios.

Higher compression, better effiency. This partially makes up for the decreased energy content and is why it is used in drag racing (or something similar, I really need to go to bed)

The down side to methanol is that it is a very good solvent. Most poly lines will eventually degrade. Not imposible to overcome but would require more expensive materials.

[RussP]

“Yeh, we cons do think that “mandate” is a dirty word as well we should but if you think about it, we already mandate about a thousand things to the auto industry.”

Bingo. And many of those current pollution-control mandates are far more expensive than the flex-fuel mandate.

The justification for this mandate is that it breaks the “chicken/egg” impasse: fuel-station owners cannot afford to install ethanol/methanol pumps because not enough cars can use it, and not enough cars are equipped for ethanol/methanol because it is not available at enough gas stations.

But if the price of gasoline goes through the roof, we will be darn glad we have an alternative in place. If we wait for a crisis to get prepared, we are fools.