Can methanol move beyond its dirty roots?
The potential for clean production is what makes methanol desirable as a fuel. It's not just a more efficient way to use energy, but also a way to remove existing CO2 from the air. To reach carbon neutrality by 2060, as China has promised, the country can't put all its eggs in one basket, like EVs. Popularizing the use of methanol fuel and the clean production of methanol may enable China to hit its target sooner.
But the future is not all bright and green. Currently, the majority of methanol in China is still made by burning coal. [...]
But as Bromberg says, unlike gas and diesel, at least methanol has the potential to be green. [...]
"If that is not an intention—if people are not going to pursue low-carbon methanol—you really don't want to implement methanol at all," Bromberg says.
Methanol fuel also has other potential drawbacks. It has a lower energy density than gasoline or diesel, requiring bigger, heavier fuel tanks—or drivers may need to refuel more often. This also effectively prevents methanol from being used as an airplane fuel.
[...] Beyond China, some other countries, like Germany and Denmark, are also exploring the potential of methanol fuels. China, though, is at least one step ahead of the rest—even if it remains a big question whether it will replicate its success in developing EVs or follow the path of another country with a major auto industry.
(Score: 3, Funny) by Opportunist on Tuesday October 04 2022, @05:03PM (3 children)
"No offisher, what you're shmelling ish the ccaaar..."
(Score: 2) by DeathMonkey on Tuesday October 04 2022, @08:21PM
He's not drunk, just blind!
(Score: 2) by higuita on Tuesday October 04 2022, @08:45PM (1 child)
in case you don't know, methanol is a "fool alcohol", it cause blindness (not temporary) ... so no, not a good idea to try to drink it
(Score: 3, Funny) by Opportunist on Tuesday October 04 2022, @09:51PM
Yeah, but that's not funny, is it?
But it reminds me of another joke. The alcohol bottle in the chem lab was emptied out every day, so the responsible lab tech wrote on it "Warning! Causes blindness!", the next day it was half empty and someone scribbled below that "I'll risk an eye".
(Score: 3, Informative) by turgid on Tuesday October 04 2022, @05:36PM (1 child)
I seem to remember Brazil [wikipedia.org] being early adopters of ethanol fuel (in the 1970s).
I refuse to engage in a battle of wits with an unarmed opponent [wikipedia.org].
(Score: 1, Informative) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday October 04 2022, @08:46PM
Yes, Brazil went for ethanol,from iirc sugar cane. C2H6O, or from Wiki, "Its formula can be also written as CH3−CH2−OH or C2H5OH (an ethyl group linked to a hydroxyl group)."
That's not the same as methanol, again from Wiki, "simplest aliphatic alcohol, with the formula CH3OH (a methyl group linked to a hydroxyl group,..."
(Score: 4, Funny) by kazzie on Tuesday October 04 2022, @06:24PM (1 child)
If they really want to help people in cities breathe easier, they should concentrate on menthol cars.
(Score: 1, Funny) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday October 04 2022, @06:42PM
Methanol? Methane! I get 14 miles to the burrito!
(Score: 2, Informative) by richtopia on Tuesday October 04 2022, @10:33PM (2 children)
There have been many proposals of liquid fuels capable of generation without fossil fuels. Methanol, ethanol, ammonia, even gasoline analogues. Ultimately they can't compete with fossil fuels on cost and never go anywhere.
Unless the cost of digging energy out of the ground goes up, these will never compete. If there is a carbon tax increasing the cost of fossil fuels, they could find applications in long-distance transport or air travel. Batteries dominate applications where the capacity needed is not too demanding because they are very efficient and the cost scales with capacity. For high capacity applications you really need to react your fuel with oxygen to bring the total weight down. This can be burning a fuel like methanol in a combustion engine, or it can be running hydrogen through a fuel cell.
(Score: 3, Interesting) by legont on Tuesday October 04 2022, @11:23PM
Yes, and let me once again remind that gasoline was a toxic waste of oil processing. We wanted diesel, heating fuel, kerosene aka jet fuel. Gas was something to get rid off. Cars were invented for a specific reason to burn off unwanted gasoline.
American, Saudi and Venezuelan oil was always light - rich with gas - while Russian was heavy wanted one.
"Wealth is the relentless enemy of understanding" - John Kenneth Galbraith.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday October 07 2022, @05:59PM
Still makes more sense than hydrogen. But somehow the hydrogen bandwagon has tons of people on it.
As for never go anywhere, these will be competitive if fossil fuels become more expensive. And also, ethanol has been burnt as a fuel or part of a fuel in some countries.
(Score: 2) by mcgrew on Wednesday October 05 2022, @07:21PM
AFAIC the piston engine is dead. It's an over a century old obsolete Rube Goldberg device with way too many moving parts and points of failure. I hate all the routine maintenance piston engines require, but I hate even worse having to fuel the damned thing in sub-freezing weather. I also hated paying almost $900 for a fuel pump, which all piston internal combustion engines require.
These alternative fuel engines don't get rid of global warming (but neither will my coal-powered electric car when I can actually BUY one, waiting list) and have few if any advantages to gasoline and diesel, maybe none, and all of the disadvantages from a user's point of view.
I wondered why nobody is advertising the advantages of electric cars, and found that they can't make them fast enough. I'm on the waiting list for the cheapest EV on the market, and you'll have to wait for a Tesla, too.
You guys know that an electric motor has one moving part. Mr. Goldberg can keep his pistons.
mcgrewbooks.com mcgrew.info nooze.org