There is a whole book about the Methanol Economy.

If you start producing synthetic fuels, than gasoline is maybe not the best option. From oil you can easily make gasoline, but from syngas (gasified from coal or biomaterial) it is rather expensive. The same counts for ethanol. But ethanol can easily be produced from sugar based materials.

Furthmore, methanol burns more efficient than gasoline. So, in case of synthetic fuels, methanol is cheaper to produce and more efficiently used in the car. But your tank needs to be bigger. But still enough reason to opt for methanol.

Lucas

 

Semantics

Rather than a methanol economy, I see a methane economy. Methane CH4 is the richest molecule in hydrogen, and is the key. More importantly, methane is renewable. (See methanogens)

Once you have methane, you can:

1) Combust it directly
2) Make Fischer-Tropsch Synfuel (compatible with current auto infrastructure)
3) Make Methanol
4) Use is to power a fuel cell

More importantly, the infrastructure is already in place to move it around. Completely ignoring all the methane that can be made from biomass, the United States has a 500+ year supply of methane from coal alone, which can be produced on the order of $2 per Million BTUs of Methane. (See ArcTech's MicGas Process)

Cheers!

 

H2 is pretty much the least feasible solution of any out there, and yet that's the one Bush chose to dump money into.

The problem is that the environmentalists are the ones pushing hydrogen because they think it doesn't produce CO2 and they are concerned about global warming and the rest of those with political power think that global warming is crock, and therefore nothing needs to be done about the oil issues.

In reality, hydrogen produces more CO2 than gas, and although it may be true it appears we have warmed up the earth by one degree in the last 100 years, the oil age can't last even another 40 years according to the CIA's website, (maybe not even 20).

Besides, has anyone realized that the mere fact that we have a billion cars in the world burning oil that maybe it's not the C02 that's causing the temperature increase of one degree (we have only increased from 300 ppm, to 375 ppm, does an extra 75 parts per million of CO2 really make that big of a difference?), or is the heat itself being created by the 1 billion cars, plus all of the electric heaters, etc. etc. that's increasing the world's temperature by 1 degree over the last 100 years.

 

omnimoeish: "In reality, hydrogen produces more CO2 than gas..."

Why do you think so? H2 + O burns to H2O, no? Hey, that kinda rhymes.

omnimoeish: "... and although it may be true it appears we have warmed up the earth by one degree in the last 100 years, the oil age can't last even another 40 years according to the CIA's website, (maybe not even 20)."

But, for one thing, we'll get better at extracting oil, so the price will rise but we will continue to get it. We also search for and burn CH4. The Coal Age could go on for quite a long time, as could The Age of Deforestation. And CO2 is a cumulative thing; reducing the rate and stopping the contributions from oil and coal early would be beneficial.

 

omnimoeish: "In reality, hydrogen produces more CO2 than gas..."

Why do you think so? H2 + O burns to H2O, no? Hey, that kinda rhymes.

omnimoeish: "... and although it may be true it appears we have warmed up the earth by one degree in the last 100 years, the oil age can't last even another 40 years according to the CIA's website, (maybe not even 20)."

But, for one thing, we'll get better at extracting oil, so the price will rise but we will continue to get it. We also search for and burn CH4. The Coal Age could go on for quite a long time, as could The Age of Deforestation. And CO2 is a cumulative thing; reducing the rate and stopping the contributions from oil and coal early would be beneficial.

And I agree with you that, at this time, H2 is not particularly feasible. However, I don't mind some spending in research for it. It's just that, as you say, the Bush priorities were skewed way too far in favor of H2.

H2 + O2 = H20 does not produce CO2, but the process of separating the hydrogen in the first place is almost exclusively done by separating the H2 from CH4 because it requires less energy input, and using electricity requires so much energy, even in states like Oregon where half of our electricity is produced sustainably without fossil fuels, and only half is produced with coal, we'd be producing more CO2 then just burning gas. It's all there in the "Hydrogen is a Hoax" article, but the bottom line is that before we can even think about hydrogen, we need to find a way to produce electricity sustainably for practically free, and free of pollutants and greenhouse gases if you believe that.

I am willing to bite on the global warming thing, I suppose there are enough experts that agree at this point that it should be given acceptability, although I'm still dubious as to whether it will ever materialize into much more serious of a problem than it is now before other repercussions of our oil dependency manifest themselves (such as economic stagnation, or resource wars).

Oil extracting technology has gotten slightly better over the years, but according to the CIA's website, there is only 42 more years of oil at current consumption levels (85 Million barrels per day globally).

https://www.cia.gov/library/publications/the-world-factbook/rankorder/2178rank.html

In other words, assuming we extract every last drop of oil, and that global consumption does not increase at all, we could still enjoy life as usual for 42 more years. In reality, many countries, most notably China are increasing oil consumption exponentially. Granted we are still finding new oil, however, its at slower and slower rates.

http://wolf.readinglitho.co.uk/chartpages/d/d1oildiscavproj.html

As for technological advancements.

http://indexmundi.com/energy.aspx?country=us&product=oil&graph=production

It's pretty obvious technology hasn't saved the US from producing less and less oil. Although other countries of the world might get more efficient at producing oil, as more time goes on, the US is going to become more and more reliant on foreign oil, and that's the best case scenario, the worst case scenario is that the major players in the middle east like Iran, Iraq, and Saudi Arabia have peaked and the other smaller contributors won't be able to pick up the slack, meaning that either we out pay the competing oil buyers like China, or go in with our military and take (this is where Bush was truly ahead of his time if you are one of those thinkers)

The question of how much oil is in the world is moot compared to whether we can actually get the stuff out of the ground fast enough to keep up with demand at a price the economy can support.

Same for the oil sands in Canada. Sure there's a lot of equivalent barrels of oil there, but how much will it cost to produce the stuff?

A barrel of oil is 42 gallons of crude oil. So at $150/barrel, last summer's high, just the oil, not the additives, not counting oil tanker transportation fees, refining fees, transportation fees of gasoline in tanker trucks to gas stations, and gas station expenses for employees, not gas taxes to maintain the roads, etc. crude oil cost $3.50 per gallon last summer, making the final price of gas about $4.50. It's pretty obvious the economy can't sustain that price. I would say the economy could probably sustain about $3.00 maximum for gasoline (that's still about $60 to fill up the average car, but the economy could probably sustain that if everything else was doing well), so probably $2 per gallon of crude oil, or $84/barrel. That's about as high as oil should ever get if we don't want the economy to contract.

Seeings how right now most of the major oil producing countries are saying that they can't even pump oil out of the ground for less than $80/barrel. I doubt the oil sands are ever going to get down to that price range.

 

omnimoeish: "(we have only increased from 300 ppm, to 375 ppm, does an extra 75 parts per million of CO2 really make that big of a difference?), "

Actually, we've gone from about 285 to 385. Since 1959 or so, when Mauna Loa began direct measurement in a systematic way, we've gone from 317 to 385. And, yes, it does matter that much. In fact, the heat capture effect of CO2 is relatively easy to determine in controlled experiments. If you sit down and work out how much CO2 is actually in the atmosphere above you, it's a surprisingly large amount.

The problem, of course, with determining the effect of increased CO2 on climate is that the atmosphere is an uncontrolled experiment; there are lots of other things that muddy the waters. Finding these effects and including them in the models is a tedious business. However, at the end of the day, it looks like, as you say, CO2 has added a degree and is headed for more.

CH4, by the way, is a much more potent GHG. One of the abatement measures we should undertake would involve trapping CH4 from man-made sources and burning it into the less potent CO2, preferably instead of other fossil fuels.

 

omnimoeish,

And I agree with you that, at this time, H2 is not particularly feasible. However, I don't mind some spending in research for it. It's just that, as you say, the Bush priorities were skewed way too far in favor of H2.

 

Anyway, gas prices have risen nearly $1 from what they were at the beginning of the year 5 months ago.

 

omnimoeish: "H2 + O2 = H20 does not produce CO2, but the process of separating the hydrogen in the first place is almost exclusively done by separating the H2 from CH4 because it requires less energy input,"

I see what you mean. If we're getting our H2 from CH4, then it's not an H2 economy, it's a CH4 economy. I never would have considered H2 production from CH4 as practical or the foundation of an H2 economy. Just burn the CH4. It's probably about as easy to deal with as H2, anyway. Easier in some ways.

I don't think free electricity is necessary for an H2 economy, but it would have to be fairly cheap.

 

Just burn the CH4. It's probably about as easy to deal with as H2, anyway. Easier in some ways.

That's pretty much exactly what the article is saying. We might as well just use methane since we are nowhere near peaking on natural gas production just from ocean vents, and there are a million microorganisms that make it, we are already making it on industrial levels around my area. And it can be quite easily turned in methanol which can run in cars, and it's non corrosive to metals, can be stored in tanker trucks, or transported in normal pipes. Basically all of our existing infrastructure would still work.

One of the problems with hydrogen that he mentions that I didn't really realize the full extent of, is that liquefying hydrogen takes about 2/3rds of the energy contained in the hydrogen you're liquefying, and pressurizing it to 5-10 PSI is almost as energy intensive.

I was wondering why it was so inefficient to produce hydrogen from electricity and that kind of explained it.

 

Panasonic is selling a household H2 fuel cell system called ENE-FARM. The system works in the following fashion:

1) Take in the city gas, which is basically natural gas consisting mostly of CH4.
2) Separate H2 from CH4 by steam reformation.
3) Supply H2 to FC to generate electricity.
4) Collect heat generated by FC and steam reformation to boil water.
5) Supply electricity and hot water to the house.

It is claimed that combined efficiency of the system is 80% as compared to 40% (at best) of the overall efficiency of the grid.

Since much cheaper substitute (carbon nano sphere) of platinum is now available for FC catalyst, this system may find a market in North America, where natural gas is abundant.

 

So it uses the heat from the steam reformation to generate electricity?

How is it compressing the hydrogen to put in your tank?

 

G35X writes... About some Panasonic gizmo...

Another gizmo to get H2 from CH4. Why bother?

Now, what might make some sense would be a fuel cell that converts CH4 to CO2, H2O and electricity at a reasonable efficiency.

One gas line in to the house, make electricity with some and directly heat the house by burning some. In the daytime, solar panels take over for the heat and electricity needs. If there's waste heat from the fuel cell, capture it and feed it to the water heater or home heating system.

I imagine this is feasible because I know there's CH3OH fuel cell technology demonstrated already. But, maybe not.

 

“ So it uses the heat from the steam reformation to generate electricity? - omnimoesh

Looks like the by-product heat from the steam reformation (and from the FC reaction) is used to heat water for kitchen and bathroom use, and not to drive thermal electric generator like the large scale co-generation. Some sketchy information is available from the following site:

http://panasonic.net/ha/e/FC/index.htm

“ …what might make some sense would be a fuel cell that converts CH4 to CO2, H2O and electricity at a reasonable efficiency… “ – dagwood55

The key here is the 80% overall efficiency, meaning less CO2 emission for the energy obtained. This high efficiency, however, depends on whether your need for hot water and electricity is balanced. Best way to balance them is the use of Li-ion battery buffer (combined ideally with solar panels on the roof).

This system is for individual households in areas where natural gas is cheap. In larger industrial scale, gas turbine/steam co-generation system would be better.

Since the gas co-generation system is a competitor to the existing grid operator, some kind of political traffic control might be necessary.

 

Keep digging

I see you guys are beginning coming around on the virtues of methane, and the fact that methane, solar and wind are not mutally exclusive. This is not a zero sum game.

Now if you will just dig a little deeper, you will also see the virtues of coal as a biomass for methanogens, and not as a fuel source to be combusted. In all seriousness, if you are concerned about global warming as a result of an imbalance of CO2 emissions, read the information at the following 4 links, taken together as a system.

MicGas
Actosol
Humasorb
Terra Preta

Hint #1: Coal + Methanogens = Methane + Actosol + Humasorb
Hint #2: Actosol + Humasorb = Terra Preta
Hint #3: The key link is the humic molecule

I've dug into this technology deep and have visited ArcTech's facility. The deeper I dig, the more I'm convinced they are on to something.

 

Interesting little tidbit about Global Warming. My biology teacher showed this to us today.

http://www.oism.org/pproject/

 

I like this part from the link:

"This petition has been signed by over 31,000 American scientists."

I suppose anyone can honestly call themselves a scientist...I mean it's not like you need a license.

 

At one time, that list had been signed by Drs. B.F.Pierce, B.J.Honeycutt and F.Burns.

I went through a chunk of it, once, and didn't run across anyone who Googled up as having made any contribution to climate science research whatever. Many didn't seem to be any kind of published scientist whatever.

The OISM is pretty much a tinfoil hat operation; they're more interested in promoting some kind of right-wing agenda than doing any science.

But that's the beauty of the internet... anybody with $5 can get a site going and seem, at first blush, authoritative. Fossil fuel interests have taken to creating Astroturf groups with names like 'Earth Stewardship Project,' and suchlike (don't quote me on that particular one, it seems right but I'm not going to bother looking it up) and they set up a tame "scientist" as figurehead.

The fossil fuel industry discovered that it didn't take much money at all to completely stymie honest researchers who would like to make a difference in our future, especially when they can partner with right-wing politicos.

The Denier industry does all they can to avoid talking about three simple, well-understood scientific phenomena:

1. The ability of CO2 to trap heat is know, can be demonstrated in a lab and it's a (relatively) simple calculation to determine what basic effect this has on the atmosphere.

2. The amount of CO2 in the atmosphere is increasing. Cross-checking this against our known C-based energy use, the increase is consistent with what we know about our use of fossil fuels, the ability of the oceans to absorb CO2 and the rates of deforestation.

3. There are unique radioisotipic signatures to C from different sources. Fossil C is depleted of one of the radioisotopes (I forget which one... C13, I think) and the percentage of CO2 with that isotope is increasing. In other words, it's the fingerprint of burning fossil fuels on the increased CO2 in the atmosphere.

Do we know exactly what's going to happen? Nope. Sometimes, climatologists get carried away, mostly because they know enough to be legitimately worried, but mostly they talk about ranges and uncertainties. People seize on these as evidence of disagreement, ignoring the big picutre... Everybody's predicting an increase in temps.

Will it kill us? Welll... we're going to find out. You never know which chamber is loaded in Russian Roulette, either. It's smarter not to play. But I guess working together to ensure a safe future for all is beyond us, so we're going to go through some interesting times. Or our children will.

"A lie gets halfway round the Earth while truth puts on its boots." - Mark Twain