Technology Review - Published By MIT
Advertisement
[1] 2 Next »

Thursday, March 02, 2006

The Methanol Economy

Forget about the hydrogen economy. Methanol is the key to weaning the world off oil. George Olah tells us how to do it.

By Kevin Bullis

smaller text tool iconmedium text tool iconlarger text tool icon

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.

[1] 2 Next »

Comments

  • Energy density?
    Guest (Tim) on 03/02/2006 at 12:00 AM
    Posts:
    1
    This would be practical if we doubled the efficiency of existing vehicles, as Methanol has half the energy density of petroleum. If we use fuel cells and ultracaps for regeneration this would be within reach IMHO.
    Rate this comment: 12345
    • same problem
      Guest (Gabe) on 03/02/2006 at 12:00 AM
      Posts:
      1
      all alternative fuels such as hydrogen, methane, ethanol and methanol have the same problem - lower energy density than petroleum. This translates into shorter distances the vehicle can travel without refueling. But in my opinion, a 200 mile range is acceptable for the average driver. After all, a stupid Humvee doesn't have more range either.
      Rate this comment: 12345
      • Energy density of Hydrogen is high not low
        Guest (Jim J) on 04/24/2006 at 12:00 AM
        Posts:
        1
        Your comment hydogen's energy density is lower than petroleum is not correct. Hydrogen has the highest energy to weight ratio of all fuels. 1 Kg of hydrogen contains the same amount of energy as 2.1 Kg of natural gas or 2.8 Kg of gasoline.
        Rate this comment: 12345
        • Storage density of Hydrogen is very low
          Guest (Patrick) on 04/28/2006 at 12:00 AM
          Posts:
          1
          Yes the density per Kilo of Hydrogen is extremely high, but the practical reality is that you must either store it at very high pressure (which means extremely strong and heavy tanks which outweigh the contents by many times) or as a cryogenic liquid (a much lighter storage system but if you use an unpressurized dewar vacuum flask it will slowly boil off...not the best thing for an enclosed parking lot). 
          Rate this comment: 12345
          • Missing an important point
            Guest (Bryce) on 05/02/2006 at 12:00 AM
            Posts:
            1
            Efficiency!
            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)
            Rate this comment: 12345
        • H2 Energy
          Guest (Jim B) on 05/07/2006 at 12:00 AM
          Posts:
          1
          Jim J, Patrick (4/28/06) is right: In BTU per unit volume, H2 is very, very low. Just approximating, and from memory, a cubic ft (7.48 gallons) of gasoline has about 900,000 BTU; a ft3 of liquid H2 (minus 423F!)has around 274,000 BTU. And how do you keep that liquid liquid? Compressed gaseous H2 will look even poorer on the important BTU/unit volume basis. And, how do we effectively get the H2 in the first place without a net energy loss? Maybe sodium borohydride. But right now, getting H2 expends either methane (most common), coal, oil, or nuke energy...not good.
          Rate this comment: 12345
      • Energy Density difference between liquid fuels unimportant
        Guest (Derek) on 05/05/2006 at 12:00 AM
        Posts:
        1
        Yes, the energy density of alcohols is less than gasoline, but all you have to do is install a larger gas tank!  Ethanol's energy density is ~~80% of gasoline's and even if the 50% figure for Methanol is right, that only means my current 14 gallon tank needs to be a 28 gallon.  When compared to the problems with competing energy storage systems, a larger tank is a trivial problem in the individual car and could be pretty easily overcome at the fueling station.
        Rate this comment: 12345
        • Energy density difference reveals high cost
          Guest (wayne) on 06/02/2006 at 12:00 AM
          Posts:
          1
          A gallon of E-85 (85% ethanol, 15% gasoline) sells currently for about $2.65/gallon, and gasoline for $2.80. But, E-85 has 30% less energy per gallon, so it cost's you $3.78 to go the same distance. The cost of methanol or ethanol systems will have to drop dramatically before the consumer will switch to them. You can, however, take advantage of the high octane rating of these fuels and raise the compression ratio of the engine, dramatically increasing efficiency. Of course, then you can't use gasoline in it. At this time, methanol can be purhased in bulk for about $.93 per gallon. Double that number for energy density difference and you're at $1.86. Add in blending and processing fees, state and federal taxes, filling station mark-up, etc, and the cost is well above the price of gas today. And the price would rise rapidly with demand pressure. Nuclear power used to crack hydrogen from water, followed by conversion to methanol is the preferred route, but it will never be cheap.
          Rate this comment: 12345
        • Re: Energy Density difference between liquid fuels unimportant
          ckcress on 01/25/2007 at 4:27 PM
          Posts:
          1
          Avg Rating:
          3/5
          I hate to seem to practical here but if it requires twice as much fuel for methanol to eqaute to gasoline, milage wise, than methanol had better be 1/2 the price per gallon or the public won't go for it.
          Rate this comment: 12345
  • Methanol from CO2
    Guest (Tennyson Rodrigo) on 03/02/2006 at 12:00 AM
    Posts:
    1
    You say methonal can be made without going through the syn gas route.  Thatis, by derivng it from CO2 and water.  But you also say this needs electricity.  In general we need electricity (energy) to produce fuels.  So what is the comparative efficiency with which we can produce Methanol if we need electricity to do that?
    Rate this comment: 12345
    • Re: Methanol from CO2
      sudarto on 09/29/2006 at 7:21 PM
      Posts:
      1
      Avg Rating:
      3/5
      This is a good idea to develop "cogeneration" plant from conventional coal power plant.
      Rate this comment: 12345
    • Re: Methanol from CO2
      kittycat on 08/16/2007 at 12:28 AM
      Posts:
      1
      Kevin,
      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
      Rate this comment: 12345
  • CO2 & Energy source problem
    Guest (Jonas Norrby) on 03/02/2006 at 12:00 AM
    Posts:
    1
    Producing methanol from CO2 will not lower the CO2 levels unless you sequester the produced methanol. Just like trees only sequester CO2 aslong as they are not burnt. The other question is where are you going to get the energy from? Using fossiel fueled energy sources to produce methanol via CO2 certainly is not a sustainable method, so we are left with the same problem we had at the start and which also is the problem of the hydrogen economy where is the energy going to come from? There are as far is I can see only two sources left after fossiel fuels, solar powered sources (direct, winds, waves, etc.) or nuclear sources (fusion or fission). The latter has the problem of also having a finite supply (mostly Uranium) and thus does not solve the dependence problem.
    Rate this comment: 12345
    • Ethanol % Methanol
      Guest (Vince) on 03/02/2006 at 12:00 AM
      Posts:
      1
      Ethanol plants are producing large volumes of pure CO2 now. They are also using Natural gas to power them.
      How about a co-producing metnanol at an ethanol plant and getting more product in liquid form from one plant?
      Rate this comment: 12345
      • Pipeline extension
        Guest (Jonas Norrby) on 03/02/2006 at 12:00 AM
        Posts:
        1
        Yes this could make economical sense, the problem is that it only adds one more step (which costs energy) to the process of eventualy creating CO2 which is released into the air. Each step requires energy and as long as the basis  for this energy is a fossil fuel it means that we have a hidden CO2 release coupled to the eventual CO2 release  which is equivelant to the CO2 needed to produce the energy needed for the step(s).
        Rate this comment: 12345
        • Continuation
          Guest (Jonas Norrby) on 03/02/2006 at 12:00 AM
          Posts:
          1
          If the basis for your energy production is fossil fuels then you have a fossil fuel economy. If you need energy to produced a energy carrier then it is the basis energy producer which determine the type of economy we have. Both methanol and hydrogen do not change the type of economy if they cannot be used a primary energy production sources (aka power our powerplants).
          Rate this comment: 12345
  • The Methanol Economy
    Guest (Ricardo Icassatti Hermano) on 03/02/2006 at 12:00 AM
    Posts:
    1
    In Brazil we make alchool from cane and use it in ours cars. Simple and cheap.
    Rate this comment: 12345
    • Alchol
      Guest (Jonas Norrby) on 03/02/2006 at 12:00 AM
      Posts:
      1
      Basicly solar power, and yes it works like any biofuel. Just like any biofuel do we have enough arable land for both fuel and food production?
      Rate this comment: 12345
      • ethanol from cane
        Guest (RemyC) on 03/02/2006 at 12:00 AM
        Posts:
        1
        Yeah, and look at what a mess ethanol from agri-biz slash and burn the rainforest to grow cane has made in Brazil!
        Rate this comment: 12345
      • alchol
        Guest (bill) on 05/16/2006 at 12:00 AM
        Posts:
        1
        first what is arable do you mean availble second the goverment and states are dishing out billions of dollars anually to pay farmers not to grow crops on their land another point is look at how much crop goes to waste annualy because we don't eat it or don't get bought from the farmer and god fore bid the american farmer become as finacaily prospuruos as a ceo for a oil company instead we will drive then to sell the land and equipment because we don't need them
        Rate this comment: 12345
      • Methanol Farms
        Guest (Lee) on 08/14/2006 at 12:00 AM
        Posts:
        1
        The ethanol guy says he gets 2.5 gallons of ethanol per bushel of corn and 150 bushels of corn per acre.  Works out to 375 gallons per acre before you subtract all the energy inputs. 

        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. 
        Rate this comment: 12345
  • Question from chem illiterate
    Guest (Lauren ) on 03/02/2006 at 12:00 AM
    Posts:
    1
    Does methanol degrade into methane (a greenhouse gas 21 times more potent per molecule than carbon dioxide)?
    Rate this comment: 12345
    • no methane
      Guest (Gabe) on 03/02/2006 at 12:00 AM
      Posts:
      1
      Lauren, the answer is no. When you burn methanol, it goes to carbon dioxide and water. Besides, it would be stupid to release methane into the atmosphere because it is a good fuel. Why waste it by releasing it?
      Rate this comment: 12345
  • Solving Problems
    Guest (Mike Lisanke) on 03/02/2006 at 12:00 AM
    Posts:
    1
    I think the genius of using methanol for the method of energy distribution is that its a reversible chemistry. The fuel-cell which (burns) Methanol could included its own CO2 capture, which might be convertable back into the Methanol used the next day by supplying the CO2. Additional CO2 converters acting in areas of high release (could) start the process of reversing what (is) becoming a bad situation. Doing something efficient with CO2 now, sounds to me like an important part of a solution to our fossil fuel problems.
    Rate this comment: 12345
    • Expect it solves nothing it moves the problem
      Guest (Jonas Norrby) on 03/02/2006 at 12:00 AM
      Posts:
      1
      As stated in the article you get the methanol by reversing the process which means you have to supply electricity to drive the process. Also you will get less energy from the process then you put into it. This method is neat but only if the primary energy source is a non-fosiel fuel source like wind, solar, etc. Yes you can also reverse the CO2 production but  it will only lower the net CO2 production using a non CO2 primary source. Well I have to give a bit that depending on the efficiency it might lower the CO2 production if it produces more energy per volume of CO2 production.
      Rate this comment: 12345
      • Methanol - just an unwelcome middleman
        Guest (CKE) on 03/02/2006 at 12:00 AM
        Posts:
        1
        Why use valuable electrical energy to make methanol, which is later converted back to electricity at point-of-use? Just leave it as electricity, to charge batteries that store & discharge at 90% plus efficiency? As far as liquid fuel for automobiles, modern ICE's are just as efficient from well to road.
        Rate this comment: 12345
    • Methanol Fuel Cell
      Guest (R Korumtollee) on 03/02/2006 at 12:00 AM
      Posts:
      1
      Very interesting indeed. However, given that you are using the methanol to produce energy and part of that energy to convert CO2+H20 into methanol again, isn't it going against the basic laws of thermodynamics?
      Rate this comment: 12345
  • Methanol as a fuel source
    Guest (R. Maguire) on 03/02/2006 at 12:00 AM
    Posts:
    1
    In WW2, the Germans were able to make ersatz fuel to run their tanks.  Whatever happened to that technology and why has it not been investigate, or improved in more than 60 years? 
    Rate this comment: 12345
    • Fischer Tropsch process
      Guest (Jonas Norrby) on 03/02/2006 at 12:00 AM
      Posts:
      1
      This process is still used to make synthe gas. Also a german company is using it to produce biodiesel with as biomass basis wood.

      http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fischer-Tropsch
      Rate this comment: 12345
      • energy must be portable
        Guest (kitk) on 03/02/2006 at 12:00 AM
        Posts:
        1
        Methanol is a fuel--meaning a portable energy source in this case. Hydrogen is a sexy, trendy, sci-fi fuel but would require a truely sci-fi infrastructure and materials just to use--and requires more energy than methanol just to produce. It is certainly more hazardous then methanol. But with atomic power as a base, either could be workable. What bugs me is that only the oil companies appreciate what the consumer needs: reliable, convenient, and flexible fuel sources.
        Rate this comment: 12345
      • Re: Fischer Tropsch process
        futtemi on 12/01/2006 at 3:08 PM
        Posts:
        5
        Avg Rating:
        2/5
        SASOL in South Africa also uses the Fischer Tropsch process for coal liquefaction and China is planning to build two similar plants.
        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.
           
        Rate this comment: 12345
  • Methanol Safety
    Guest (Mike) on 03/02/2006 at 12:00 AM
    Posts:
    1
    I assume this stuff is poisonous like most other fuels. What happens if a tanker of this liquid spills (like Exxon Valedez). Does it evaporate into the air quickly, mix with surrounding water and get completely diluted, seep into the ground and eventually into a undergroud aquifer etc.

    I'm pro - forward thinking, but concerned this may have equally - if not, more lethal consequences if an accident occurs.
    Rate this comment: 12345
  • methanol vs ethanol
    Guest (RemyC) on 03/02/2006 at 12:00 AM
    Posts:
    1
    Ethanol isn't poisonous, unless you drink of a heck of a lot of it... Methanol is just jumping from the gasoline frying pan into another toxic fuel fire.
    Rate this comment: 12345
  • Alternative energy
    Guest (Will Miskolzie) on 03/02/2006 at 12:00 AM
    Posts:
    1
    The discussion leads to one conclusion. The best source of energy would be effiecient conversion of sunlight to electricity. Anything could be done after that.

    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.
    Rate this comment: 12345
    • energy pro and con
      Guest (kitk) on 03/03/2006 at 12:00 AM
      Posts:
      1
      Methanol has low toxicity compared to petroleum; it evaporates readily and breaks down easily in nature, though a large spill would be like, well, spilling a lot of any alcohol, and sterilize the immediate area. Cleanup would be fairly simple. So, it is clean.
        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.
      Rate this comment: 12345
      • Methanol Safety
        Guest (Colin) on 03/03/2006 at 12:00 AM
        Posts:
        1
        I liked this idea when Zubrin first hinted at it, with his proposed conversion of Martian atmospheric CO2 to methane.  I really like the idea of using today's multispectral thin film photovoltaic cells (OVONIC) to convert Earth atmospheric CO2.  I don't like the toxicity issue.
        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.
        Rate this comment: 12345
        • Methanol is Stupid
          Guest (Lee) on 03/03/2006 at 12:00 AM
          Posts:
          1
          As pointed out, methanol is made from N gas, which is already in short supply, ask those who were
          paying $15/mcf a few weeks ago,,
          Rate this comment: 12345
          • Methanol is NOT stupid
            futtemi on 12/01/2006 at 3:15 PM
            Posts:
            5
            Avg Rating:
            2/5
            Methanol is not stupid if produced from CO2 from flue gas. I have recently read a US military study in which the CO2 was extracted from seawater to produce fuel for battle ships with embarked nuclear power. Cost: approx US$ 3.50/gl. In the Netherlands, I already pay today more than US$ 4/gl. And honestly: even if I had to pay twice as much, it won't kill me, I would just be incited to save more.
            Rate this comment: 12345
        • Methanol is not that toxic
          Guest (Gabe) on 03/03/2006 at 12:00 AM
          Posts:
          1
          Methanol is toxic if you drink it. First you go blind, and if you drink more you die. But compared to other fuels it is far less problematic. An Exxon Valdez type spill would kill a lot of animals/plants in the area of the spill, but the effects would be very short term. This is because methanol is biodegradable. There are bacteria which would clean up methanol quite fast - within a few days. It is also water soluble, which means it would quickly spread out in the sea/ocean and be diluted to very low, non-tox