11 thoughts on “Methanol”

  1. the only required physical alteration being the replacement of a non-methanol-compatible Viton fuel-pump seal with a 41-cent part made of methanol-compatible Buna-n.

    That’s those silly engineers again, doing real world tests to affirm their assertions. Will they never learn from great politicians like Obama that all you need is the media on your side?

  2. Lower heating value C8H18 ~ 45MJ/kg
    Lower heating value CH3-OH ~ 20MJ/kg

    Density of C8H18 ~ 720kg/m^3
    Density of CH3-OH ~ 790kg/m^3

    The energy available in methanol combustion is about ½ of gasoline. Bob cites a cost of $1.32/gallon which I take at face value implying $2.64 gets you about the same distance as a gallon of gasoline.

    Now you have to deal with all that nasty engineering, like the fact that water is infinitely soluble in methanol and on this planet H2O is everywhere so transportation, storage and transfer is much more difficult. I didn’t look into how much you can compress methanol before it auto ignites but that might limit the actual thermodynamic efficiency achievable. Next a methanol flame is almost invisible making a fire after a collision much more dangerous. There are probably a million other things but that’s the point, I doubt this is a better alternative to gasoline, it’s not like he was the first one to ever consider it.

  3. Dr. D:

    You might want to read Bob Zubrin’s book ‘Energy Victory’ he addresses many of the issues you just raised. For example, the almost invisible flame can be addressed with an additive.

  5. Dr. D points out some of the major issues with methanol. These are not trivial. That said, it is a viable fuel and Indy cars ran it for years. As for the EPA, back around 1990 the Director of the EPA Motor Vehicle Emission Lab in Ann Arbor, MI was a guy named Charles Gray. He was a BIG proponent of methanol and pitched it to anyone and everyone who went thru the lab.

  6. Methanol is also more difficult to ignite, easier to extinguish, can be extinguished with water, produces little or no ignitable fumes and I’m fairly certain that there are simple additives that would make the flame of burning methanol at least somewhat visible.

    All things considered I would say methanol is at worse no more dangerous than gasoline and in many ways is less dangerous.

  7. Certainly, there is something perverse about modifying cars to run on 85% cellulosic ethanol when methanol from the same feedstock would be so much easier…

  8. “he addresses many of the issues you just raised”

    Being a practitioner of thermodynamics, I’d be interested in how he addresses the much lower heating value “issue” but probably not interested enough to read the book. Having only ½ the available energy is a huge problem unless he thinks he can increase the thermodynamic efficiency by a huge amount. Dr. Carnot will object to that though.

    I was also just told that alcohol systems have corrosion problems. Hydrocarbons after all are good lubricants and corrosion inhibitors.

  10. Depending on how you measure it, methanol has an octane rating of 180. This means you can increase the compression ratio, and Otto cycle engine efficiency goes roughly with the square root of the compression ratio. (This is one of the 3 reasons Diesels get more miles/gallon) Combine that with the charge cooling you can get with direct injection and you can get high power and increased engine thermodynamic efficiency compared to gasoline.

    But personally, methanol seems to be far better than hydrogen for energy transport. Like H2, it can be used in direct (as well as reformed) fuel cells. Unlike H2, you can actually store a reasonable amount in your car. “Hydrogen powered cars, just as much NOx, but without the range”

Comments are closed.