The Methanol Alternative to Gasoline - as a way to enhance our energy security. We are gambling

[Bill USA]

that we can take three or four decades to convert to sexy-tech electric cars and not experience an oil supply disruption in that time. I don't know if anybody has noticed but things have become MUCH more unpredictable and dangerous in the Middle-East in the last couple years. Iran closing in on nuclear capability, Syria, the Arab Spring.... this is like playing hot potato with live grenades. And we don't even have to have a real oil supply disruption -- just enough of a likelihood to spook the oil speculators and the price of oil goes through the roof..

The rise in the price of oil in the past several years has started to cut into our economic growth. If speculators start betting on a supply disruption those bets themselves could put us back into a deep recession. Lower economic growth and elevated unemployment -- and employment anxieties really makes selling the more high-tech and more expensive technologies even more difficult. This will slow the adoption of said technologies. And along with the instability in the middle-East we have China, India and the rest of the developing world increasing the demand for petroleum which solidifies a continuing strong upward trend in the price of petroleum.

We should be using whatever technologies we have to reduce our consumption of gas and oil. but that's not likely to happen.

http://www.nytimes.com/2012/02/24/opinion/methanol-as-an-alternative-to-gasoline.html?_r=1&

We’re producing more natural gas these days than we can use, thanks to new techniques to extract gas from shale. A recent report from the M.I.T. Energy Initiative, “The Future of Natural Gas,” called methanol “the liquid fuel that is most efficiently and inexpensively produced from natural gas.” China has already taken notice. Automakers there, like Chery, Geely and Shanghai Maple, have all introduced vehicles capable of running on methanol. Indeed, methanol is so much less costly per mile than gasoline that illegal fuel blending is rampant in China.

Unfortunately, most cars sold in the United States offer consumers no choice beyond gasoline. The so-called flex fuel vehicles that are now on the market are warranted to operate only on gasoline and ethanol. If Congress were to enact an open fuel standard that required new cars to be warranted to run on all-alcohol fuels, including methanol, natural gas could compete with oil in the liquid fuels market. Producing these cars would cost about $100 more. And these fuels could be distributed through the current refueling infrastructure with only slight retrofits.

The current global spot price for methanol made from natural gas is $1.13 per gallon, without any subsidy. Methanol produces about half the energy per gallon as gasoline, so you need to burn twice as much to go just as far. But it is still cheaper than gas. It would cost approximately $3 today, including taxes, distribution and retail markup, to travel the same distance on methanol as on a gallon of gasoline, according to calculations by the Methanol Institute, a cost that is well below the current national average for gasoline. If the economics of natural gas change, a flex fuel vehicle could still run on methanol made from coal, biomass and possibly recycled carbon dioxide, if that technology proves economical.

~~
~~

Another way to run cars on natural gas is by using compressed natural gas, or C.N.G. These vehicles require a dedicated fuel line and a large gas canister in the trunk. However, the cost of converting a light-duty vehicle to C.N.G. is over $10,000. Such an upfront cost would be reasonable in high mileage users (over 35,000 miles per year) like taxis, buses and garbage trucks, but is too high for a typical car owner, and the return on investment would take many years, even with current low natural gas prices.

[NYC_SKP]

1. I don't support extending the chokehold that internal combustion engines have on the US.

Methanol as a short term solution, no thank you.

It's still fossil fuel, still inefficient, and it just delays the inevitable longer term solution, less personal travel and more mass transit and electric vehicles wherever possible.

[Bill USA]

2. we can also make methanol from biomass such as forestry and agricultural waste. Thus it's renewable

fuel. As I said, we will see our economy taken off at the knees sooner or later with an oil supply disruption or the possibility of a disruption which will cause speculators to bid up the price of oil.

THis will put us into a recession - possibly one of years in length - which will impact sales and adoption of electrics even more.

Even with the rosey estimates which do not allow for an oil supply disruption (see article referenced in OP) it will take decades to achieve significant adoption of electrics making the possibility of an oil supply disruption almost a certainty (over the span of 30 to 40 years.)

we need to cut our consumption of gas by half in as few years as possible to increase our energy security.

[Nihil]

3. I love the way that fuel junkies term everything else "waste"

> we need to cut our consumption of gas by half in as few years as possible
> to increase our energy security.

No, you need to cut your consumption of *energy* by half in as few years
as possible and f*ck your cars.

[Bill USA]

6. The scope of the OP was limited to transportation energy consumption. You are welcome to suggest

any practical solutions (e.g. Ones that will produce appreciable reductions in gasoline/oil consumption in, say.. less than 20 to 30 years.) - that pertain to the subject raised in the OP.

If you want to start a broader discussion of ALL forms of energy consumption you are encouraged to post on that subject.

As I pointed out above, methanol can be made from biomass such as forestry waste (yes, it is treated as waste in that it is not used for anything presently) and agricultural waste materials.

http://cdm-meth.org/en/Desperdicio/Desperdicio%20agricola/Desperdicio%20de%20otras%20industrias%20agricolas.aspx

Many crops leave considerable amounts of waste, e.g. maize, sorghum, millet, wheat, nut and cotton production. In Rajasthan, India, waste from mustard production is the basis for several CDM projects. Some crops leave just as much waste as they do usable crop and with little alternative uses; the resources for the assessment of biomass residue is often lagging behind.

see: http://www1.eere.energy.gov/biomass/pdfs/btu_forest_biomass.pdf

Over a price range of $20 to $80
per dry ton at roadside, quantities of forest residue biomass
potential vary from about 33 to 119 million dry tons currently,
to about 35 to 129 million dry tons in 2030. This is somewhat
less than the 2005 Billion-Ton Study (2005 BTS) due to the
removal of used resources and the decline in pulpwood and
sawlog markets. Primary forest biomass is the single largest
source available for new uses—accounting for nearly half of
the estimated total—including integrated operations, other
removals (e.g., land clearing), and thinnings on other forestlands.
Integrated operations are a composite category that includes
logging residues from roundwood harvests and fuel treatment
operations on timberland. Since both of these residue sources
include the removal of sawlogs and pulpwood for merchantable
products, they were combined to avoid double counting and
were constrained by sawlog and pulpwood harvests. Over time,
quantities increase by the rate of growth in projected demand
for sawlogs and pulpwood. Urban wood wastes, which include
the woody components in municipal solid waste (MSW) and
construction and demolition wastes, are the second largest
potential source available for new uses. Other removals
(i.e., timberland clearing and precommercial thinnings) and
thinnings on other or noncommercial forestland are much
smaller. There are relatively large amounts of mill residue
generated each year; however, most of these materials are
used, leaving relatively small amounts available for new uses.
As shown below, large amounts of forest residue biomass and
processing residues, such as mill residues and pulping liquors,
are currently used by the forest products industry.

[NickB79]

4. That "waste" is what makes soil fertile and productive

Essentially, you are advocating strip-mining the soil for fuel, which is NOT renewable by any stretch of the imagination. But I'm not surprised you'd take that stance.

[Bill USA]

9. Let's not be sophistic here. NOBODY is suggesting removing all crop residue.

examination of this issue has lead to the conclusion that a portion of the crop residue can be removed. However, it does depend on the climatic and soil conditions and the crops being grown. Obviously, nobody is saying it's practical to remove ALL the crop residue. but in many cases some portion of the residue can be removed in a sustainable way.

Willful misunderstanding/misrepresentation of another's position is one of the basic techniques of disinformation. You aren't doing yourself any good by engaging in such contemptible cozenage.


http://www.ifao.com/PDFs/How%20Much%20Residue%20Can%20You%20Remove%20FINAL%20IFAO.pdf

[NickB79]

19. Farming practices are currently highly unsustainable

Even discounting the massive fossil fuel inputs required to make up for the current removal of biomass, we're still shedding unsustainable levels of soil every year through erosion even in the US, which supposedly has the best soil conservation system in the world: http://www.nytimes.com/2011/05/05/opinion/05thu2.html?_r=0

The Agriculture Department says that a “sustainable” rate of topsoil loss for most of Iowa is 5 tons per acre per year, and the actual average soil erosion is 5.2 tons. But using Iowa State University statistics and an aerial survey, the Environmental Working Group concluded that average annual soil loss in much of Iowa is double the federal government’s estimates. This pace of erosion is caused partly by an increasing number of intense storms. As the report says, it has been exacerbated by a fundamental bias in federal farm policy and supports. In the dozen years before 2009, Iowa received nearly $17 billion in subsidies that fostered high-intensity farming and less than $3 billion to support conservation. In the recent budget battles, conservation programs were the hardest-hit farm programs.

In an ideal world, we could theoretically remove a portion of the land's biomass without harming the underlying soil. However, in the real world this is not realistic or feasible. We are already removing MORE than is sustainable simply to feed ourselves, and you think we can remove even more to feed our vehicles as well?

[Bill USA]

20. low-till, no-till farming increasing (2009: 35.5% of major crops) - No-till Corn a net carbon sink

Farmers in the U.S. are moving increasingly to low-till and no-till cultivation practices. Here's what information I could find on this ...

http://www.ers.usda.gov/publications/eib-economic-information-bulletin/eib70.aspx

In order to help policymakers and other interested parties better understand U.S. tillage practices and, especially, those practices’ potential contribution to climate-change efforts, ERS researchers compiled data from the Agricultural Resource Management Survey and the National Resources Inventory-Conservation Effects Assessment Project’s Cropland Survey. The data show that approximately 35.5 percent of U.S. cropland planted to eight major crops, or 88 million acres, had no tillage operations in 2009

U.S. crop practices, National Resources Inventory-Conservation Effects Assessment Project, NRI-CEAP - report summary
http://www.ers.usda.gov/media/135319/eib70_reportsummary.pdf
(emphasis my own)

What Is the Issue?

Tillage—the plowing of land for weed and pest control and to prepare for seeding—has long been
part of the cropland farming enterprise. A reduction in how often or how intensively the soil is tilled
allows the soil to retain more organic matter, which stores or “sequesters” carbon, which then is not
available to contribute to global warming as carbon dioxide (CO2), a greenhouse gas. The adoption
of less intensive tillage practices on a large number of farms could sequester substantial amounts
of carbon, allowing agriculture to contribute to U.S. efforts to reduce and control greenhouse gas
emissions. Because of this potential role for tillage in U.S. climate-change policy, ERS researchers
have compiled and analyzed available USDA data on tillage practices by U.S. farmers.

What Do the Data Show?

[font size="3"]Approximately 35.5 percent of U.S. cropland (88 million acres) planted to eight major crops had
no tillage (“no till”) operations in 2009, according to ERS researchers who analyzed 2000-07
data from USDA’s Agricultural Resource Management Survey (ARMS). The crops—barley, corn,
cotton, oats, rice, sorghum, soybeans, and wheat—constituted 94 percent of total planted U.S.
acreage in 2009.[/font]
(more)

Research showing that growing Corn under a no-till regime produces a net Carbon sink in the Central U.S. ...

Carbon budget of mature no-till ecosystem in North Central Region of the United States
http://research.eeescience.utoledo.edu/lees/papers_pdf/[35].pdf

Abstract:

Continuous measurements of carbon flux from 1997 to 2002 by eddy-covariance were used to evaluate the carbon budget for a maize (Zea mays L.) and soybean (Glycine max (L.) Merr.) rotation agricultural ecosystem that has been in no-till cultivation for over 14 years. These measurements were used to determine the net ecosystem exchange of carbon (NEE) at the local scale and for the North Central Region of the U.S. (NCR). Results show that at the local scale, the no-till ecosystem is a carbon sink when planted with maize (576 g C m2 per year) and soybean (33 g C m2 per year). On a regional scale, the carbon sink is proportionally lower than that of the local scale. This is attributed to regional consumption of the grain (over 85% of all NCR grain is consumed elsewhere in the world) combined with the carbon emissions associated with agricultural practices. Since nearly 100% of both maize and soybean yields are consumed annually, e.g. all carbon stored in grain is consumed somewhere in the world, the long-term carbon-sequestration potential of this system is lower than revealed with the local and regional analysis. [font size="3"]Accounting for 100% grain consumption, maize still acts as a C-sink of 184 g C m2 per year while soybean becomes a C-source of 94 g C m2 per year. As these two crops are grown in rotation, the system when accounting for all emissions to the atmosphere is a net sink of 90 g C m2 per year. Overall, however, the potential exists for long-term carbon sequestration.[/font]
(more)

[NickB79]

5. Natural gas from fracking is worse than coal, carbon-wise

We're currently looking at methane leakage rates up to 9% from existing wells; that means that we must end the insanity that is fracking for natural gas as soon as possible if we want to stand any chance in hell of preventing catastrophic global warming in this century.

You make is sound as if all that excess natural gas is a good thing, when in actuality it is a very, very bad thing.

[wtmusic]

7. Your source for 9%?

Not doubting, I've seen all kinds of crazy numbers both low and high.

Thanks

[GliderGuider]

8. It was reported in Nature

http://www.nature.com/news/methane-leaks-erode-green-credentials-of-natural-gas-1.12123

[wtmusic]

10. If CH4 is 23x as bad as CO2 for radiative forcing

and natural gas combustion is (in theory) 1/2 as carbon intensive as coal per unit energy, the entire process is actually

23*9 = 207% + 50% = 257% greater. 2-1/2x worse than coal.

Thanks.

[Bill USA]

12. actually u treated 9% as 900%. It should be 23x0.09 = 207%. But also "up to 9%" is not an average.

Need to use a representative number. Also, were they talking about all natural gas production or just fracking?

[wtmusic]

13. We're reaching the same number via different methods

I'm also adding in the 50% for combustion.

Even if you used half of that as an average, it's still worse.

[Bill USA]

14. the way I read that was 1.9%, am I missing something?

"The Cornell group had estimated that 1.9% of the gas produced over the lifetime of a typical shale-gas well escapes through fracking and well completion alone."


http://www.nature.com/news/air-sampling-reveals-high-emissions-from-gas-field-1.9982

(getting off computer now, will have to check out answer tomorrow)

[GliderGuider]

15. From the original Nature article I linked:

the research team reported new Colorado data that support the earlier work, as well as preliminary results from a field study in the Uinta Basin of Utah suggesting even higher rates of methane leakage — an eye-popping 9% of the total production. That figure is nearly double the cumulative loss rates estimated from industry data — which are already higher in Utah than in Colorado.

9% is the highest estimate I've seen, and it looks like the average is more like 3%-4%. But it's early days yet for the measurements. It would be unreasonable to expect the system to be gas-tight. It's OK, there's a lot of GHG in the air already - a little more will only do us in a few months sooner.

[Bill USA]

16. even 3% to 4% is concerning considering methanes 21x heat trapping capacity relative to CO2.

in addition to that what concerns me just as much is I don't think they really know the risks fracking present to ground water. Foul up ground water and it would take more than a hundred years (if ever) for it to clear - you're obviously not going to be able to do any remediation that far down in the ground. Nobody really knows the real risks.

Thankfully, we do not have to use fracking to get natural gas to make into methanol to reduce gas consumption - purely as a way of reducing our dependence on imported petroleum. This is obviously not a renewable fuel but is meant to be a way to buy time and reduce our economic risk due to imported oil dependence - till we can get more renewable fuels in use and electric cars and hybrid electrics on the road.

[GliderGuider]

18. I don't worry about it much any more.

I think GlobCiv is just about out of time. I don't give international industrial cohesion more than another 20 years before the climate emergency, energy/resource/food/water shortages and a major destabilization of international finance get together to smack the human endeavour upside the head with a clue by four.

I don't think 3% vs 9% will make a whit of difference to the looming outcome.

[Bill USA]

22. I too think we are just about out of time. It would take a huge effort started immediately to save

us now. INstead we will continue a course to slow 'progress' over the next 30 to 40 yrs, to disaster.

[Bill USA]

11. we produced Natural gas before fracking. Making methanol from natural gas does not depend on

fracking. I think we are jumping into frackiing without adequate research as to its long term safety.

Fortunately, we don't need fracking to produce natural gas to make methanol from. The author of the article referred to in OP is apparently satisified that fracking is safe. I don't feel that way myself.

[hunter]

17. Why would we want to do that?

Automobiles are dangerous, smelly, expensive things, and very bad for the environment.

Let's get rid of them.

Realistically, however, The USA will simply make gasoline out of natural gas and coal, after it destroys any nations that try to disconnect the dollar from the international oil market.

Gasoline synthesis:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gas_to_liquids

This wiki is not entirely up-to-date because there is a lot of proprietary stuff going on that's not publicized. (Gasoline producers learned from the MTBE fiasco.) There's quite a bit of natural gas making it's way into gasoline already. Gasoline has been a synthetic fuel for many years, and not a simple distillate of sweet, light crude oil.

Methanol is a terrible fuel anyway. It's just as easy to make dimethyl ether (DME) which is a good "bottled gas" replacement for propane heating and stoves, or fuel for diesel engines.

[Bill USA]

21. I am confident this will not happen (making methanol from biomass OR natural gas) as Petroleum

Industry will not allow it. This is why the Petroleum industry has been so fanatically fighting ethanol. THey know if people find out we can burn ethanol in cars with engines optimized to use alcohol and get better fuel efficiency than with gas (Start-Up, Ethanol Boosting Systems, DoE Ethanol Vehicle Challenge 1998) it would only be a matter of time till someone said - "Well hell, if we can use ethanol, we sure can use methanol too". And methanol is cheaper than ethanol to make (spot price around $1.34 gal).

So what would that mean for the oil companies. We can make enough methanol combined with ethanol to significantly cut into the amount of gasoline needed. This would end the petroleum industry's ability to set gas prices where they want them. In fact, if we were producing 20% to 30% (or more) of our light transportation fuel supply as methanol + ethanol the price of gas in the U.S. would most likely come down!

NOTE that in the last few years the price of West Texas Intermediate has been selling for about 14% to 18% BELOW North Sea Brent. For as long as anyone can remember WTI sold AT A PREMIUM of 6% to 8% ABOVE Oil from the rest of the world (NSB pricing). So ethanol constituting about 8% of the domestic fuel supply moved the price of WTI DOWN about 18% to 26% from what it would have been! Just imagine what a supply of ethanol+methanol constituting 20% to 30% of the domestic light transportation fuel supply would do to gas/oil prices. Since petroleum affects the price of just about everything we buy this would put a downward presssure on the prices of just about everything we buy - with a great beneficial impact to our economic growth rate.

Any gaseous transportation fuel has the rather large drawback of requiring a multi-billion dollar (and mulit-years) infrastucture build-out problem - in order to supply the gaseous fuel to millions of drivers. Also, pressurized gas fueled cars have a high marginal cost over conventional car engines (and the EBS ethanol optimized engine for example). Honda sells a NG powered Civic for an additional cost of about $9,000.

The Ethanol boosted engine (Ethanol Boosting Systems) can handle ethanol or methanol at an additional cost of about $1,000 to $1,600. Adapting a car to use methanol or ethanol is not really that expensive nor is it a huge technical hurdle.

By saving our economy ethanol (and methanol) would enhance the adoption of more technically challenging and more expensive technologies such as PHEVs.

But not to worry, this will not happen. The petroleum industry will make sure of that...