The Methanol EconomyForget about the hydrogen economy. Methanol is the key to weaning the world off oil. George Olah tells us how to do it.
The hydrogen economy -- with its vision of gas-guzzling engines replaced by hydrogen fuel cells that produce water instead of smog and greenhouse gases -- is a big mistake, according to George Olah, winner of the 1994 Nobel Prize in chemistry. Olah, whose research in the chemistry of hydrocarbons has led to high-octane fuels and more easily degradable hydrocarbons, is now director of the Loker Hydrocarbon Research Institute at the University of Southern California. He argues that storing energy in the form of methanol, not hydrogen, could end our dependence on fossil fuels and transform carbon dioxide from a global-warming liability into an essential raw material for a methanol-based economy. Olah lays out his plan in a new book, Beyond Oil and Gas: The Methanol Economy, published last week by Wiley-VCH. Technology Review: Why methanol? George Olah: Methanol in its own right is an excellent fuel. You can mix it into gasoline -- it's a much better fuel than ethanol. And we have developed a methanol fuel cell. Methanol is a very simple chemical that can be made in a very efficient way. It is just one oxygen atom inserted into methane, the basal component of natural gas; but methanol is a liquid material which is easily stored, transported, and used. TR: What's wrong with hydrogen fuel cells? GO: Even today you could put a pump dispensing methanol at every gasoline station. You can dispense it very well without any [new] infrastructure. For hydrogen, there is no infrastructure. To establish a hydrogen infrastructure is an enormously costly and questionable thing. Hydrogen is a very volatile gas, and there is no way to store or handle it in any significant amount without going to high pressure. TR: But methanol is a way of storing energy, not a source of energy like gasoline. Where will the energy come from? GO: The beauty is we can take any source of energy. Whether it's from burning fossil fuels, from atomic plants, from wind, solar, or whatever. What we are saying is it makes a lot better sense, instead of trying to store and transport energy as very volatile hydrogen gas, to convert it into a convenient liquid. And there's a fringe benefit: you really mitigate carbon dioxide in the atmosphere. TR: How do you make methanol? GO: One approach is to produce methanol by converting still-existing huge reserves of natural gas, but in entirely different, new ways. Today, methanol is made exclusively from natural gas. Natural gas is incompletely burned, or converted, to synthesis gas, which can then be put together into methanol. Now we have developed ways to completely eliminate the use of synthesis gas. The second approach involves carbon dioxide. We were co-inventors of the direct methanol fuel cell. This fuel cell uses methanol and produces CO2 and water. It occurred to us that maybe you could reverse the process. And, indeed, you can take carbon dioxide and water, and if you have electric power, you can chemically reduce it into methanol. So the second leg of our methanol economy approach is to regenerate or recycle carbon dioxide initially from sources where it is present in high concentrations, like flue gases from a power plant burning natural gas. But eventually, and this won't come overnight, we could just take out carbon dioxide from air.
|
Better Gas-to-Methanol Catalyst
08/26/2009









Comments
03/02/2006
Posts:1
03/02/2006
Posts:1
04/24/2006
Posts:1
04/28/2006
Posts:1
Combustion engines are not very efficient at converting gasoline to energy.
The electric cars excluding the energy source are highly efficient, I've read over 90%.
Throw in a (I believe) 50% efficient hydrogen fuel cell (It wouldn't surprise me if the methanol fuel cell is around 50%) and it's still 45% efficient.
I think a combustion engines have only got to 30%? (It can depend if it's used as direct power or a series hybrid)
05/02/2006
Posts:1
05/07/2006
Posts:1
05/05/2006
Posts:1
06/02/2006
Posts:1
ckcress
01/25/2007
Posts:1
contact me at: DrBrittBorden@gmail.com
BrittBorden
04/16/2009
Posts:7
03/02/2006
Posts:1
sudarto
09/29/2006
Posts:1
I am interested in learning more about the production of methanol from CO2. Please forward to me any material or address of material that will help my education in this field. Thank you and I appreciate any help available.
jh johnh@icminc.com
kittycat
08/16/2007
Posts:1
BrittBorden
04/16/2009
Posts:7
03/02/2006
Posts:1
How about a co-producing metnanol at an ethanol plant and getting more product in liquid form from one plant?
03/02/2006
Posts:1
03/02/2006
Posts:1
03/02/2006
Posts:1
BrittBorden
04/16/2009
Posts:7
03/02/2006
Posts:1
03/02/2006
Posts:1
03/02/2006
Posts:1
05/16/2006
Posts:1
By comparison an acre of solar panels near Tucson Arizona could yield a million kwh per year. Electrolyzing water at a rate of 50 kwh per kg hydrogen would yield a 20000 kg/year feedstock stream which when reacted with CO2 could produce 35000 gallons of methanol. The rub ofcourse is the cost of the solar panels.
08/14/2006
Posts:1
BrittBorden
04/16/2009
Posts:7
Brian H
07/13/2009
Posts:37
03/02/2006
Posts:1
03/02/2006
Posts:1
03/02/2006
Posts:1
03/02/2006
Posts:1
03/02/2006
Posts:1
futtemi
12/01/2006
Posts:5
Batteries, BTW, are on a steep energy density growth curve. They will hold 5-10X more within 5 years.
Brian H
07/13/2009
Posts:37
03/02/2006
Posts:1
BrittBorden
04/16/2009
Posts:7
03/02/2006
Posts:1
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fischer-Tropsch
03/02/2006
Posts:1
03/02/2006
Posts:1
The problem with Fischer Tropsch is the CO2 emission. This CO2 could be recycled, e.g. by nuclear produced electricity or hydrogen and heat and be converted into more synthetic hydrocarbons.
futtemi
12/01/2006
Posts:5
I'm pro - forward thinking, but concerned this may have equally - if not, more lethal consequences if an accident occurs.
03/02/2006
Posts:1
BrittBorden
04/16/2009
Posts:7
Brian H
07/13/2009
Posts:37
03/02/2006
Posts:1
About 15-20 years ago a fellow by the name of Dr. Alvin Marks claimed to have theoretically developed a photovoltaic devise with a maximum efficiency of 80%. Believe the roll type photocells on the ISS were of this type. Whatever happened to this? If had the right potential, efficient and economical with volume production.
03/02/2006
Posts:1
I cannot believe any photovoltaic outside of comic books could have anything like 80% efficiency over the visible spectrum. If you focus on one wavelength, you loose much of the rest. Some day, perhaps. Now, in reality, nuclear works. It could power all these other schemes.
03/03/2006
Posts:1
Check the legal history ($ouch$) of methanol spills near airfields and raceways and other high performance engine fuel storage areas. Methanol dissolves into water. Creating and storing large volumes of methanol will lead to spills, leaks, and other issues for community fresh water supplies. I sure hope it is possible to cost effectively tweak the CO2 to methanol conversion process so that ethanol is the result.
03/03/2006
Posts:1
paying $15/mcf a few weeks ago,,
03/03/2006
Posts:1
futtemi
12/01/2006
Posts:5
Dr. George Olah knows what he is talking about. Methanol is a very good alternative fuel.
03/03/2006
Posts:1
03/04/2006
Posts:1
06/02/2006
Posts:1
03/17/2006
Posts:1
Sure it evaporates and breaks down easily. But you couldn't get near a spill without a SCUBA tank setup.
05/09/2006
Posts:1
Also, electricity is a bugger to move over long distances. Just look at the losses in sending French nuclear energy to the UK through the channel cables. Something liquid with a high energy density would get round that problem and you could sensibly transport solar energy, for example from Arizona to New England.
I don't know if methanol is the best solution for this. Something with less impact on the environment from spills would be nice, but the principal is good.
03/08/2006
Posts:1
And I can't believe people are still talking nuclear: a fuel that takes years to produce and burn, and remains deadly for thousands of years, not to mention a top terrorist target.
03/14/2006
Posts:1
http://www.skywindpower.com/ww/index.htm
04/19/2006
Posts:1
tbagg
04/05/2007
Posts:1
04/25/2006
Posts:1
04/28/2006
Posts:1
The water-based economic model however, focuses in stage one on 2 billion people in South Asia to enable them to generate at least 1 KW/hr of continuous power.
The model is not particularly concerned about the profligate lifestyle of the USA nor propoing up that level of energy consumption.
06/05/2006
Posts:1
07/25/2006
Posts:1
In the discussion between electricity/hydrogen/hydrocarbons for road transport two huge fossil users were forgotten, namely aviation and small combustion facilities like heating systems. Aviation in the US currently consumes about 3E18 J/yr and this fuel will probably never be replaced neither by hydrogen nor electricity. With this argument alone, there is a massive market for synthetic liquid hydrocarbons around. Electricity and hydrogen can be generated by a suitable, country dependent mix of renewables and nuclear and the CO2 can be recycled from flue gas. This way one can produce methanol or syngas, and from there almost any other organic chemical.
Does anyone know the process efficiency of:
a) CO2 + H2 + electricity <--> methanol
b) CO2 + H2 + process heat <--> methanol?
Thanks
futtemi
12/01/2006
Posts:5
Let's produce it managing forest wood (or kind of cellulosic biomass) in countryside and solar electricity in city side. Night nuclear plants overproduction will helps in short/mid term economy transition.
Strictly efficiency requirements and overall energy consumption regulations are required to give the rest.
What are macro-economy implications for oil net buyers? this is citizens health, wealth and happiness?
Do you like forest? Me too.
joancalduch
11/07/2007
Posts:1
BrittBorden
04/16/2009
Posts:7
ziko
03/25/2008
Posts:1