Why not methanol

Our governor is trying to pass a bill requiring all gas sold in
Minnesota in a few years contain 20% ethanol. Now, that is going to
require redesign of engines anyway. So why not use methanol instead of
ethanol?

The big push here is 'cause we grow corn. But methanol can be made from
much cheaper feed stock than ethanol.

I am aware that the production of both ethanol and methanol currently
use natural gas or petroleum. But they do not HAVE to. They require a
lot of heat energy. But that heat energy can come from the biofuels
themselves, rather than fossil fuels.

How high must oil get to before this country gets serious about
alternate energy?

Don Stauffer in Minneapolis > wrote in
:

> Our governor is trying to pass a bill requiring all gas sold in
> Minnesota in a few years contain 20% ethanol. Now, that is going to
> require redesign of engines anyway. So why not use methanol instead of
> ethanol?
>
> The big push here is 'cause we grow corn. But methanol can be made
from
> much cheaper feed stock than ethanol.
>
> I am aware that the production of both ethanol and methanol currently
> use natural gas or petroleum. But they do not HAVE to. They require a
> lot of heat energy. But that heat energy can come from the biofuels
> themselves, rather than fossil fuels.
>
> How high must oil get to before this country gets serious about
> alternate energy?
>

It is simple really, the ethanol is much more enviroment friendly. It
is not personally hazzardos like methanol is and a spill is just washed
away, it is not corrosive to the internal vechicle parts like methanol is
also. KB

--
ThunderSnake #9 Warn once, shoot twice
460 in the pkup, 460 on the stand for another pkup
and one in the shed for a fun project to yet be decided on

On Fri, 18 Mar 2005, Don Stauffer in Minneapolis wrote:

> Our governor is trying to pass a bill requiring all gas sold in
> Minnesota in a few years contain 20% ethanol. Now, that is going to
> require redesign of engines anyway. So why not use methanol instead of
> ethanol?

Because methanol is much more corrosive, much more toxic and hazardous,
much harder and more expensive to blend successfully with gasoline, and
requires much more drastic (and expensive) redesign of ALL vehicle
components that come into contact with fuel.

Don Stauffer in Minneapolis wrote:
> Our governor is trying to pass a bill requiring all gas sold in
> Minnesota in a few years contain 20% ethanol. Now, that is going to
> require redesign of engines anyway. So why not use methanol instead
of
> ethanol?
>
> The big push here is 'cause we grow corn. But methanol can be made
from
> much cheaper feed stock than ethanol.
>
> I am aware that the production of both ethanol and methanol currently

> use natural gas or petroleum. But they do not HAVE to. They require
a
> lot of heat energy. But that heat energy can come from the biofuels
> themselves, rather than fossil fuels.
>
> How high must oil get to before this country gets serious about
> alternate energy?


Gasoline is cheaper in the US than pretty much anywhere else other than
countries whose main/sole export is oil. Gasoline costs 2.5-3 times as
much in Europe and Japan that the US. Their response seems to have been
"even tinier cars". I do not believe there are significant crash test
requirements because there are tons of cars that are obviously just not
survivable in even a 30 mph crash...little more than a skin around the
driver/passengers.

That said....I've been wondering the answer to your question since the
gas shortage of '74.

An interesting side note...it's in OPEC's interest to keep oil prices
from going over-the-top. They know that if the prices get too high, it
will ignite an oil "revolution" that begins with a massive effort to
shift off of fossil fuels.

They want to keep the status quo until their oil reserves are gone, as
that's their livelihood and it's a co-dependent relationship. They are
as dependent on money from the US for the oil as we are for the oil.
(Don't ask what they intend to do with their countries once the oil is
gone)


Joe

Don Stauffer in Minneapolis wrote:
>
> Our governor is trying to pass a bill requiring all gas sold in
> Minnesota in a few years contain 20% ethanol. Now, that is going to
> require redesign of engines anyway. So why not use methanol instead of
> ethanol?
>
> The big push here is 'cause we grow corn. But methanol can be made from
> much cheaper feed stock than ethanol.
>
> I am aware that the production of both ethanol and methanol currently
> use natural gas or petroleum. But they do not HAVE to. They require a
> lot of heat energy. But that heat energy can come from the biofuels
> themselves, rather than fossil fuels.
>
> How high must oil get to before this country gets serious about
> alternate energy?

Other posters have noted the reasons for Ethanol vs. Methanol.

As far as your last comment:

For this country to "get serious" about alternate energy either oil
prices need to get high enough or alternate energy technology needs to
improve enough (or a combination of both) so that you can get an
alternate energy car that is comparable to a conventional car in price,
capability, reliability and service life and the same or better in
operating cost per mile.

At this point those conditions have not been met. To buy an alternate
fueled car today (as a consumer) you have to either be trying to make a
statement or incapable of / unwilling to acknowledge the significant
additional cost and reduced capability, reliability and service life of
the vehicle.

Those conditions will not be met for all vehicles at once either. At
some point the gas cost / technology slopes will intersect for the
"economy car" segment of the market, that intersection point will come
later for the "mid-full sized car" segment and later still for the
"pickup/van utility" segment.

Pete C.

Don Stauffer in Minneapolis wrote:

> How high must oil get to before this country gets serious about
> alternate energy?

Quit whingeing.

IIRC, CBS News last night rebroadcast in the UK mentioned "gas" prices
of a tad over two dollars per gallon. We pay the thick end of four
pounds sterling per gallon.

Allowing for the currency exchange rate and your under-sized gallon, I
reckon our fuel costs close to three times as much as yours.

"Robert Briggs" > wrote in message
...
> Don Stauffer in Minneapolis wrote:
>
> > How high must oil get to before this country gets serious about
> > alternate energy?
>
> Quit whingeing.
>
> IIRC, CBS News last night rebroadcast in the UK mentioned "gas" prices
> of a tad over two dollars per gallon. We pay the thick end of four
> pounds sterling per gallon.
>
> Allowing for the currency exchange rate and your under-sized gallon, I
> reckon our fuel costs close to three times as much as yours.

Actually the fuel costs about the same. It's the tax that makes your fuel
so expensive.

On Fri, 18 Mar 2005, Robert Briggs wrote:

> Quit whingeing.
>
> IIRC, CBS News last night rebroadcast in the UK mentioned "gas" prices
> of a tad over two dollars per gallon. We pay the thick end of four
> pounds sterling per gallon.

That's because you allow your government to steal overmuch from you. Most
of that price is tax.

On Fri, 18 Mar 2005, Pete C. wrote:

> For this country to "get serious" about alternate energy either oil
> prices need to get high enough or alternate energy technology needs to
> improve enough (or a combination of both) so that you can get an
> alternate energy car that is comparable to a conventional car in price,
> capability, reliability and service life and the same or better in
> operating cost per mile.

Go look at Brazil. LOTS of alcohol-fuelled cars on the roads there, and
have been for years. Performance, convenience and durability are all
reported to be completely ordinary, and alcohol costs less per litre.

There's no infrastructure for alternative fuels, so nobody buys them, so
nobody builds them, so there's no incentive to build infrastructure, so
there's no infrastructure, so nobody buys them, so nobody builds them,
so...

On Fri, 18 Mar 2005, Joe S wrote:

> Gasoline is cheaper in the US than pretty much anywhere else other than
> countries whose main/sole export is oil. Gasoline costs 2.5-3 times as
> much in Europe and Japan that the US. Their response seems to have been
> "even tinier cars". I do not believe there are significant crash test
> requirements

On the contrary; Europe and Japan use international ECE auto safety
requirements that are in many cases considerably more stringent than those
used in the US.

> because there are tons of cars that are obviously just not
> survivable in even a 30 mph crash

"Obviously"...? Horse****. Crashworthiness is not something that can be
gauged by eye. On the ranked list of countries by highway fatalities and
injuries, the US isn't even close to being first-best. The US is *16th*
best and *10th* best per vehicle-kilometre travelled and per vehicle
registered, respectively. Only one country (Canada) higher up on the list
allows US-spec vehicles in any significant number on public roads, and
Canada's only a couple slots above the US. Virtually all the safer
countries use those "obviously uncrashworthy" vehicles you're bleating
about.

http://www.scienceservingsociety.com , better read the author's bio before
you think about trashing his bona fides.