Technology Review - Published By MIT
Advertisement

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

Thursday, March 02, 2006

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.

Comments

  • Energy density?
    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
    Guest (Tim)
    03/02/2006
    Posts:1
    • same problem
      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
      Guest (Gabe)
      03/02/2006
      Posts:1
      • Energy density of Hydrogen is high not low
        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
        Guest (Jim J)
        04/24/2006
        Posts:1
        • Storage density of Hydrogen is very low
          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
          Guest (Patrick)
          04/28/2006
          Posts:1
          • Missing an important point
            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
            Guest (Bryce)
            05/02/2006
            Posts:1
        • H2 Energy
          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
          Guest (Jim B)
          05/07/2006
          Posts:1
      • Energy Density difference between liquid fuels unimportant
        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
        Guest (Derek)
        05/05/2006
        Posts:1
        • Energy density difference reveals high cost
          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
          Guest (wayne)
          06/02/2006
          Posts:1
        • Re: Energy Density difference between liquid fuels unimportant
          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

          ckcress
          01/25/2007
          Posts:1
          Avg Rating:
          4/5
    • Re: Energy density?
      Britt Borden says: With an ICE engine the higher compression and direct cylinder injection would increase efficiency which would help make up for energy density.  Britt Borden
      contact me at: DrBrittBorden@gmail.com
      Rate this comment: 12345

      BrittBorden
      04/16/2009
      Posts:7
      Avg Rating:
      3/5
  • Methanol from CO2
    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
    Guest (Tennyson Rodrigo)
    03/02/2006
    Posts:1
    • Re: Methanol from CO2
      This is a good idea to develop "cogeneration" plant from conventional coal power plant.
      Rate this comment: 12345

      sudarto
      09/29/2006
      Posts:1
      Avg Rating:
      3/5
    • Re: Methanol from CO2
      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

      kittycat
      08/16/2007
      Posts:1
      Avg Rating:
      3/5
    • Re: Methanol from CO2
      Britt Borden says: Methanol is a very simple molecule so it will take less energy i.e. less electricity.  Britt Borden
      Rate this comment: 12345

      BrittBorden
      04/16/2009
      Posts:7
      Avg Rating:
      3/5
  • CO2 & Energy source problem
    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
    Guest (Jonas Norrby)
    03/02/2006
    Posts:1
    • Ethanol % Methanol
      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
      Guest (Vince)
      03/02/2006
      Posts:1
      • Pipeline extension
        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
        Guest (Jonas Norrby)
        03/02/2006
        Posts:1
        • Continuation
          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
          Guest (Jonas Norrby)
          03/02/2006
          Posts:1
    • Re: CO2 & Energy source problem
      Britt Borden, this is correct; where are we going to get the energy from?  But where ever we get it from it will take less energy to produce methanol than other fuels because methanol is a much more simple molecule, Britt Borden.
      Rate this comment: 12345

      BrittBorden
      04/16/2009
      Posts:7
      Avg Rating:
      3/5
  • The Methanol Economy
    In Brazil we make alchool from cane and use it in ours cars. Simple and cheap.
    Rate this comment: 12345
    Guest (Ricardo Icassatti Hermano)
    03/02/2006
    Posts:1
    • Alchol
      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
      Guest (Jonas Norrby)
      03/02/2006
      Posts:1
      • ethanol from cane
        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
        Guest (RemyC)
        03/02/2006
        Posts:1
      • alchol
        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
        Guest (bill)
        05/16/2006
        Posts:1
      • Methanol Farms
        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
        Guest (Lee)
        08/14/2006
        Posts:1
    • Re: The Methanol Economy
      Methanol could also be made from sugar cane, only it would be cheaper, Britt Borden
      Rate this comment: 12345

      BrittBorden
      04/16/2009
      Posts:7
      Avg Rating:
      3/5
      • Re: The Methanol Economy
        Sugar cane can only be cultivated in tropical and subtropical climates.  The equator passes through the center of Brazil; the US doesn't have much subtropical farmland. 
        Rate this comment: 12345

        Brian H
        07/13/2009
        Posts:28
        Avg Rating:
        5/5
  • Question from chem illiterate
    Does methanol degrade into methane (a greenhouse gas 21 times more potent per molecule than carbon dioxide)?
    Rate this comment: 12345
    Guest (Lauren )
    03/02/2006
    Posts:1
    • no methane
      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
      Guest (Gabe)
      03/02/2006
      Posts:1
  • Solving Problems
    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
    Guest (Mike Lisanke)
    03/02/2006
    Posts:1
    • Expect it solves nothing it moves the problem
      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
      Guest (Jonas Norrby)
      03/02/2006
      Posts:1
      • Methanol - just an unwelcome middleman
        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
        Guest (CKE)
        03/02/2006
        Posts:1
        • Re: Methanol - just an unwelcome middleman
          And what are we going to fly with? In aviation, hydrogen is as little useful as electricity.
          Rate this comment: 12345

          futtemi
          12/01/2006
          Posts:5
          Avg Rating:
          3/5
          • Re: Methanol - just an unwelcome middleman
            Electric vehicles already have a 200+ mile range, at about 2¢/mi. (TeslaMotors.com) As for aviation, you don't need to abolish all oil use to have a major impact. 

            Batteries, BTW, are on a steep energy density growth curve.  They will hold 5-10X more within 5 years. 
            Rate this comment: 12345

            Brian H
            07/13/2009
            Posts:28
            Avg Rating:
            5/5
    • Methanol Fuel Cell
      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
      Guest (R Korumtollee)
      03/02/2006
      Posts:1
  • Methanol as a fuel source
    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
    Guest (R. Maguire)
    03/02/2006
    Posts:1
    • Fischer Tropsch process
      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
      Guest (Jonas Norrby)
      03/02/2006
      Posts:1
      • energy must be portable
        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
        Guest (kitk)
        03/02/2006
        Posts:1
      • Re: Fischer Tropsch process
        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

        futtemi
        12/01/2006
        Posts:5
        Avg Rating:
        3/5
  • Methanol Safety
    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
    Guest (Mike)
    03/02/2006
    Posts:1
    • Re: Methanol Safety
      Britt Borden here, methanol is toxic, but not much worse than gasoline in terms of direct human contact, while it breaks down much quicker in the environment (some water treatment plants actually add it to the water to promote bacteria growth).  It is also much, much less of a fire hazard, Britt Borden.
      Rate this comment: 12345

      BrittBorden
      04/16/2009
      Posts:7
      Avg Rating:
      3/5
    • Re: Methanol Safety
      It also blinds you if you drink it. 
      Rate this comment: 12345

      Brian H
      07/13/2009
      Posts:28
      Avg Rating:
      5/5
  • methanol vs ethanol
    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
    Guest (RemyC)
    03/02/2006
    Posts:1
  • Alternative energy
    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
    Guest (Will Miskolzie)
    03/02/2006
    Posts:1
    • energy pro and con
      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
      Guest (kitk)
      03/03/2006
      Posts:1
      • Methanol Safety
        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
        Guest (Colin)
        03/03/2006
        Posts:1
        • Methanol is Stupid
          As pointed out, methanol is made from N gas, which is already in short supply, ask those who were
          paying $15/mcf a few weeks ago,,
          Rate this comment: 12345
          Guest (Lee)
          03/03/2006
          Posts:1
          • Methanol is NOT stupid
            Methanol is not stupid if produced from CO2 from flue gas. I have recently read a US military study in which the CO2 was extracted from seawater to produce fuel for battle ships with embarked nuclear power. Cost: approx US$ 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

            futtemi
            12/01/2006
            Posts:5
            Avg Rating:
            3/5
        • Methanol is not that toxic
          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-toxic levels. So a methanol spill is far less damaging than a petroleum spill.
          Dr. George Olah knows what he is talking about. Methanol is a very good alternative fuel.
          Rate this comment: 12345
          Guest (Gabe)
          03/03/2006
          Posts:1
          • Primary source? Dr Olah.
            It might be a very good alternative fuel, dont have the knowledge to argue the pros vs cons. But if you want to use it as a fuel where are you going to get it from and what is needed to get it. It cannot be pumped like oil so you will need to produce it. Unless you can get a biological process going which creates it you will need electricity. Where is this going to come from? The options are very limited namely solar powered process or nuclear sources. I would like to hear the answer of Dr George Olah or the author of this piece on the point of the primary energy source. That is much more important to solve in a sustainable way then which fuel we eventuely will use.
            Rate this comment: 12345
            Guest (Jonas Norrby)
            03/04/2006
            Posts:1
            • primary source: good question.
              You are right. The economics of hydrogen generation are key. I ordered Dr. Olah's book from Amazon, but it was delayed twice and finally cancelled. Nuclear plants generate electricity slightly cheaper than coal, but that still means costly hydrogen if electrolysis is used. Maybe using nuclear reactors for high temperature thermal cracking of water is more economical, but that would still have to be weighed against it's profit potential of producing electricity for direct consumption.
              Rate this comment: 12345
              Guest (wayne)
              06/02/2006
              Posts:1
      • Methanol from CO2
        or solar energy
        Rate this comment: 12345
        Guest (Jos Eeltink)
        03/17/2006
        Posts:1
      • [no subject]
        Methanol is a neurotoxin. It's readily absorbed thru the skin, and the vapor can be inhaled. It is EXTREMELY dangerous, just hunt down the MSDS. Way more toxic than gasoline.

        Sure it evaporates and breaks down easily. But you couldn't get near a spill without a SCUBA tank setup.
        Rate this comment: 12345
        Guest
        05/09/2006
        Posts:1
    • Methanol as battery
      A lot of the problems with renewable energy are related to continuity of supply (wind stops, solar only in the day etc.) Batteries aren't that great at storing a lot of energy so if you have a half decent way of storing the surplus for when there is a deficit, then you have something useful.

      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.
      Rate this comment: 12345
      Guest (Andy)
      03/08/2006
      Posts:1
      • Hydrogen as battery, too
        The same idea is true of using solar/wind to produce hydrogen.  H2 is not toxic, and a release will simply evaporate into the atmosphere.  I don't buy the "too expensive to make an infrastructure" line.  Bush chose to ignore the Kyoto Protocol because he deemed it too expensive for the nation, proving cleaning up old energy sources is even more expensive.  Once someone figures out how to make H2 safer, the infrastructure will come.

        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.
        Rate this comment: 12345
        Guest (Mike)
        03/14/2006
        Posts:1
        • High Altitude Wind Power as Electricity Source
          Continuous wind power energy is a few short miles above your heads.  Using this energy _source_ to produce methanol seems very reasonable to me, but society better get moving, before the energy source (oil) we have available to create this infrastructure is depleted.

          http://www.skywindpower.com/ww/index.htm
          Rate this comment: 12345
          Guest (Bob)
          04/19/2006
          Posts:1
    • multiple wavelengths
      Can do, I think.  Don't see any reason one can't deploy a distribution of different molecular antenna elements with a range of energies.
      Rate this comment: 12345

      tbagg
      04/05/2007
      Posts:1
      Avg Rating:
      2/5
  • Hydrogen
    Think Gabe was sorta loosely using the term "energy density" as a measure of BTU/unit volume, where H2 is just flat awful, even compressed or even liquefied. Different subject: Worrying about H2 infra-structure or fuel cell efficiency or H2 flammability is interesting but a more immediate concern should be "How do you get the H2 in the first place?" Right now, methane is the feedstock (ohoh), or water can be the feedstock together with one hell of a lot of electrical power (oops). Once we figger out how to get the H2 without the expenditure of enormous amounts of fossile fuel or nuclear energy, then we could address how to get this extremely low BTU/gal fuel to the local H2 filling station. Mr. Bush talks like the "hydrogen economy" is just around the corner; it isn't.
    Rate this comment: 12345
    Guest (Jim B)
    04/25/2006
    Posts:1
  • Stranded gas reserves
    Conversion to methanol does solve a nasty problem that the natural gas (methane) industry has had for a long time.  So called "economically stranded gas reserves" are supplies of natural gas in "inconvenient" places far from the point of use.  The classic means of transporting gas is to buid a (very expensive) pipeline from the field to the place of use or to liquify the methane (so called LNG, Liquified Natural Gas).  Both these methods are expensive and so many of the stranded fields may not be available even though we know the gas is there.  Converting the methane to methanol makes transportation a lot easier.
    Rate this comment: 12345
    Guest (Patrick M)
    04/28/2006
    Posts:1
  • The Water-Based Economy
    My optimistic vision is for a pure water-based economy consonant with what life has been doing all along - catalysing water into electricity and oxygen. We already know the shape of the manganese catalyst that does it.

    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.
    Rate this comment: 12345
    Guest (Paul JACOBSON)
    06/05/2006
    Posts:1
  • Methanol from landfill gases
    Landfill gases contain methane at around 50%. The gases can be made to inscrease the methane count by a process known as bioreactor technology or simply recirculating landfill fluid. The gases can then be cleaned using CO2 technology and pure methane gas harvested. Here is a never ending source of fuel, unless garbage ceases to exist!
    Rate this comment: 12345
    Guest (Karen Casson)
    07/25/2006
    Posts:1
  • and what about aviation fuel?
    I am a latecomer here but a feroceous defender of liquid hydrocarbons as ideal fuels and nuclear as the power source.
    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

     
    Rate this comment: 12345

    futtemi
    12/01/2006
    Posts:5
    Avg Rating:
    3/5
  • forest economy
    CH3OH is better energy vector than H2. Many will support me on that.
    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.
    Rate this comment: 12345

    joancalduch
    11/07/2007
    Posts:1
    Avg Rating:
    4/5
    • Re: forest economy
      Yes, this makes a lot of sense, a forest economy will improve the environment for all of us that live in it Britt Borden. 
      Rate this comment: 12345

      BrittBorden
      04/16/2009
      Posts:7
      Avg Rating:
      3/5
  • CO2  to methanol ?
    please i need some infomration about these reaction condition if it possible ?        zo86kaa@yahoo.com iam thankfull your help
    Rate this comment: 12345

    ziko
    03/25/2008
    Posts:1
    Avg Rating:
    2/5

Log In

Forgot your password?     Register »
Advertisement

Videos

Making 3D Maps on the Move
Technology Review November/December 2009

Current Issue

Natural Gas Changes the Energy Map
The United States has vast supplies of this cleaner fossil fuel. But how should we use it?
Advertisement
Advertisement
Advertisement
Subscribe to Technology Review's daily e-mail update. Enter your e-mail address

TECHNOLOGY RESOURCES

More Technology News from Forbes

Advertisement
MIT Massachusetts Institute of Technology © 2009 Technology Review. All Rights Reserved.