[LibertyRocks]

Pontiac:
The author is referring to Methanol, and not Ethanol.
The article also states that the figures are all based upon PRE-TAX fuel costs.

Neverdem:
Fascinating article. I was not aware that one could make methanol out of ANY biomass. Most things I had read stated that methanol could only be made out of fossil fuels. If it's true that Methanol can be made from any biomass source then it's a no-brainer. I don't see why we don't already do this (except the oil companies might freak out).

Without knowing much about this subject in depth, I can immediately see positives - and not many negatives.

[Wonder Warthog]

"I was not aware that one could make methanol out of ANY biomass. Most things I had read stated that methanol could only be made out of fossil fuels. If it's true that Methanol can be made from any biomass source then it's a no-brainer. I don't see why we don't already do this (except the oil companies might freak out)."

Indeed, if it "contains carbon" it can probably be turned into methanol. Conversion is particularly easy with natural gas, which, thanks to horizontal drilling, is rapidly increasing the US's supply of natgas. The only problem with natgas used as fuel directly is that is has to be stored under relatively high pressure to remain in liquid form. Methanol, of course, is liquid under ambient conditions. You lose some fuel value, but you gain ubiquity of fuel sources.

I have myself wondered why it wasn't being considered.

[Ditto]

I don't see why we don't already do this (except the oil companies might freak out).

'Oil' companies are also in the coal and gas business. Why would they be opposed?

[saminfl]

Does Methanol destroy small engines?