-
Pandora’s Problems
June 14, 2013 | 19 comments
-
Story Ideas for a Press Turning Against Obama
May 28, 2013 | 28 comments
-
Is Kleiner Perkins Sorry It Ever Met Al Gore?
May 13, 2013 | 32 comments
-
America’s Oil Revival
February 8, 2013 | 146 comments
-
Want to Stop Violence? Start in Hollywood
January 21, 2013 | 26 comments
The Energy Spectator
Can Methanol Replace Foreign Oil?
The glut of natural glass makes it a no-brainer.
(Page 2 of 2)
Yossie Hollander suggests manufacturers could locate reforming plants at the terminus of natural gas pipelines, then truck the methanol to gas stations. “It wouldn’t require any new infrastructure,” he says. “You could use the pumps and storage facilities we have now.” At current prices, methanol would sell at the equivalent of $2 per gallon. “You wouldn’t need subsidies,” he says. “The market would take care of everything.”
Is there a catch to all this? Well, yes, there is one. Currently it’s illegal. “When the EPA wrote its regulations for auto emissions it approved only one fuel — gasoline,” says Hollander. “Ethanol makes it into your gas tank because it’s classified as an ‘additive.’ The EPA could easily write new regulations for methanol or classify it as an additive. It’s just a question of getting them to do it.”
Fuel Freedom is running a very smart campaign, enlisting national security experts, free market enthusiasts and environmentalists to the cause. “Methanol burns cleaner than gasoline,” says Hollander. “It would mean a big improvement in air pollution.” With prompting, a bipartisan coalition is currently shepherding the Open Fuel Standard Act through Congress. The law would require automakers to produce cars that can run on a variety of fuels, including methanol. “Right now the auto companies could produce flex-fuel vehicles any time they want,” says Hollander. “Their answer is always that they’ve tried before and nobody wanted to buy them. That could now change.
“The pieces are all in place,” he concludes. “All that’s needed is a shove in the right direction.”
With the natural gas industry wallowing in a glut, leading drillers such as ExxonMobil and Chesapeake are pulling their rigs out of the Marcellus and sending them in search of oil. Some wells are shutting down, waiting for the price to rise again. There’s talk of exporting gas but it’s a long slog. Cheniere Energy just received permission to construct an LNG terminal in Louisiana, but the opening is at least five years away.
So with a surplus of natural gas and a $780 billion annual bill for oil imports, is there any chance that a new methanol industry might resolve both problems at once? It sure looks plausible.
Letter to the Editor View all comments (84) | Leave a comment
More Articles by William Tucker
More Articles From The Energy Spectator
http://spectator.org/archives/2012/06/15/can-methanol-replace-foreign-o
Follow us:
ADVERTISEMENT
Current Issue
- Way Beyond the Lemonade Stand
- His Reach Exceeded His Grasp
- Once Upon a Time in the West
The Spectacle Blog
Democrat Dan Maffei Blames Budget Cuts for Girl’s Rape, Mother’s Murder
Robert Stacy McCain | 6.18.13
SPONSORED LINKS
FLASHBACK TO: 1995
-
Pope Culture
A man of faith in a godless age is hitting Americans where it hurts.
-
Why the GOP Does Not, Like, Totally Suck
Mr. and Mrs. American Spectator Reader, let P.J. O’Rourke talk sense to your kids.
-
Dames at Sea
-
In the Absence of Guns
In Britain, defending your property can get you life.
-
The Metaphysical Martini
-
Counting the Costs of Clintonism
The debacle of this president’s administration is both a cause and a symptom of the decline of American values. Unless Congress impeaches him, that decline will go on unchecked. An eminent jurist surveys the damage and assesses the chances for the recovery of our culture.
-
Chuck McHagel
It won’t take long for conservatives to scratch this presidential wannabe off their 2008 scorecard.
-
The Legacy of Old John and Mother Fresh-Roasted
-
It’s the Best Time of the Year
The American Christmas, like the songs that celebrate it, makes room for everybody under the rainbow. Is that why so many people seem to be hostile to it?
-
The Bush Crack-Up
Was the President done in by the economy, or by the politics of the economy?
Clip of the Day
ADVERTISEMENT
Appleby| 6.15.12 @ 6:32AM
Why not just open up the drilling and refining of the stuff we already have in abundance that works fine without requiring that everybody buy a new car (the next step if Obamacare's individual mandate is upheld?) and could be done without having to invent a whole new technology and overcome the screaming and kicking and flailing of environmental groups who want nothing at all built anywhere near anybody?
P.S. Methanol burns without a flame, making a methanol fire very difficult to spot until the person, place or thing has been incinerated. Except in the absymal racing movie "Driven", where it burned like gasoline.
Jack in Wi| 6.15.12 @ 7:03AM
This is another thoughtful essay. I think the best solution is still liquified or compressed natural gas. One thing I know though, is that is it is one hell of a bang when propane explodes. It sure can do a lot of damage, especially in a confined place.
TLP| 6.15.12 @ 5:32PM
Thank You.
You're a Stupid Old Bag, when it comes to your INSISTANCE that you can't vote for Romney, even if SATAN were running, (and he is) but you got this one right.
WTF is wrong with people, when they're Hungry, and standing in the Middle of a Corn Field, all they can think about is: "If only I had some Tofu"?
I'm sick of these Stupid MFers.
God gave us OCEANS of Oil, and MOUNTAINS of Coal, and UNLIMITED amounts of Natural Gas, FOR A REASON!
Has everyone LOST THEIR MINDS?
I have to take a Sh*t.
Should I waste water, using the toilet? Or, is it better to just go in my pants?
Unfckingbelievable.
Moe Blotz| 6.15.12 @ 7:33AM
In RE: the sub title, "The glut of natural glass makes it a no brainer", I would have to say putting natural glass into my fuel tank would be a pane. The best solution to our energy future is to shut down the EPA and Dept. of Energy, the two agencies most responsible for our energy woes. Until those agencies are reined in, contact your elected representatives in the Kingdom on Potomac and tell them to put the brakes on those rogue agencies.
Albert Constantine Jr.| 6.15.12 @ 11:06AM
"In RE: the sub title, "The glut of natural glass makes it a no brainer", I would have to say putting natural glass into my fuel tank would be a pane."
But who could complain about a lack of transparency?
Bob Grant| 6.15.12 @ 1:39PM
Natural glass? ....another word for sand?
I'm sure that would do wonders for my engine.
c. j. acworth| 6.15.12 @ 8:24AM
Can methanol be blended with regular gasoline in place of ethanol? Is it as hygroscopic as ethanol? Will it damage small engines (outboard motors, chain saws, etc. ) the way ethanol does? At least with methanol we wouldn't be burning food.
Alej| 6.16.12 @ 9:01AM
Not just small engines... I had to replace an engine in my truck after ethanol dissolved the head gasket and allowed combustion products into the cooling system. "Ethanol enriched" is a HUGE scam perpetrated on us by lobbioed congressmen.
Pecos Pete| 6.15.12 @ 8:33AM
Any time we have to rely on the government to solve our energy problems we will be making these problems worse. If methanol works, let the free enterprise system prove it. We don't need more diktats from bureaucrats, we need to get the government out of the energy business.
Purp| 6.15.12 @ 9:22AM
That's ridiculous. The "free enterprise" system is a fallacy and has been for over a 100 years. It was called laissez-faire when the Robber Baron Era was upon us until T. Roosevelt put them in their place. Republicans keep trying to go back to the 1800's, as if that was such a great time for most Americans. It wasn't. A few, Carnegie, Vanderbilt, JP Morgan, Rockefeller made huge fortunes and monopolized areas of the economy - but not shared by the people.
Moreover, if oil had not been subsidized by the government, as it still is as a matter of fact, it might not have made it to be what it is today. The government has always chosen winners and losers, and the Republicans do it all the time. "Free Enterprise" is a euphemism for "Let me do what I want, with no responsibility for the damage or cost I incur" ... which is bull.
JD| 6.15.12 @ 11:42AM
I would feel criticized if any of what you said was true.
Purp| 6.15.12 @ 11:52AM
So, what are you saying? What's not true?
TR didn't control the Robber Barons? Did you ever hear of Anti-Trust Laws?
Or perhaps you think oil popped out of the ground right into the combustion engine? You do know that 4 Billion dollars a year in subsidies goes to the oil companies - STILL?
Are you a Fixed News viewer?
satan| 6.15.12 @ 12:32PM
It is all true, it is just that JD doesn't have a substantive response to your statements.
George True| 6.15.12 @ 1:27PM
No, satanic one. I suspect JD simply doesn't want to waste his time trying to teach facts and logic to a useful idiot like Purp. IT would be like trying to teach a pig to sing. Doesn't work, and just annoys the pig.
Purp| 6.15.12 @ 4:51PM
It's eternally interesting to me that you will waste mountains of words trying to elevate yourself above, while degrading me, instead of refuting facts that fly in the face of what you have been taught by Fox and Rush. Are you that self-loathing? And you call me an idiot? Pfffttt....
Skippy| 6.16.12 @ 1:52PM
4 billion a year?
Cheap at twice the price!
TrueBlue | 6.15.12 @ 5:38PM
What subsidies? They recieve tax write-offs for business expenses, to include equipment, maintenance, inspections, and lease payments. I've yet to find any documentation on an ACTUAL subsidy. If tax write-offs are subidies then just about everyone in the country is getting them. You have evidence of a real subsidy? PROVE IT.
Also, it still cracks me up how much people rail on the oil industry when they only make a few cents on the gallon vs the massive amount state and federal government makes for not doing a dang thing, on top of the money they get for leasing the land and approving drilling permits.
Alej| 6.16.12 @ 9:07AM
Absolutely correct, TBlue... purp is one of those kids that never went anywhere after highschool, and watched more energetic classmates study and work and elevate themselves... now, ten or fifteen years later, he's infuriated that he's still a busboy watching his erstwhile classmates reap the rewards of their sweat. He thinks socialism would "bring those people down a notch," and elevate him to his rightful place in the system.
Petronius| 6.15.12 @ 11:56AM
Those Men founded and ran businesses. Businesses are Not support groups for the incompetent. The world Is an Arena, not a nursery school sand box.
Purp| 6.15.12 @ 1:04PM
Yes, they did, and paid workers 25cents/day and worked them 12 hours day, 6-7 days/week, in dirty filthy conditions, no vacation, no sick leave, completely at the mercy of the BOSS.
Maybe you want jobs like that - go ahead, knock your socks off. I don't.
Moreover, the government gave each of them preferential treatment - but you don't know that do you?
I guess you're happy with the 1% getting all the wealth in this country.
George True| 6.15.12 @ 1:29PM
Again, Purp, the topic is methanol, not robber barons. Would you care to offer your expert opinion on methanol vs gasoline?
Purp| 6.15.12 @ 4:52PM
Short attention span, eh, Sunshine? Read a bit more, you'll figure it out.
Alej| 6.16.12 @ 9:14AM
Hey, punk, after I got off active duty and a tour in Viet Nam (as a Marine Corps infantry officer, with a degree), the only job I could get soon enough to keep feeding my wife and child was as a roughneck on a drilling barge in the Louisiana swamps... $2.16 per hour, but time-and-a-half after 40 hours, working 7 "12s" - seven straight days, twelve hours a day - 84 butt-busting hours.
I "knocked my socks off," punk.
Ten years later I had a two-story house on acreage in the country and a small helicopter parked in the front yard.
You might try doing without socks, crybaby.
George True| 6.15.12 @ 1:25PM
Only a logic-deficient lefty would turn a discussion on energy into an indictment of the free enterprise system. Like all lefties, you know so much that simply isn't so.
How about remaining on topic, and enlighten us all with your highly expert opinion as to whether the author's proposal to convert to liquid methanol would or would not be a good thing.
Purp| 6.15.12 @ 4:55PM
Where's your own analysis? This is not a good thing, methanol is poisonous and dangerous to handle. Worse than gasoline without the payback.
And, if you haven't noticed, gas prices have plummeted lately, thanks to our brilliant President and his wonderful policies. Oh, I mean the "free enterprise" system.
TrueBlue | 6.15.12 @ 5:39PM
You mean the increased oil production due to drilling on PRIVATE lands? Because they haven't approved any new leases for drilling in nearly 2 years.
Warrior| 6.15.12 @ 11:20PM
Gas prices have reduced because Europe is melting down. Also, an impending global recession and dollar strengthening only because the Euro is weakening has greatly assisted. You can add to the list some of the instability that Iran was adding to the equation has subsided. Supply was never an issue and the demand is weakening.
The President and his cabinet members by his and their own words would love to have the price of gas go much higher.
satan| 6.15.12 @ 12:30PM
Yes, get the gov. out of the energy business. Except that big oil wants the government in the energy business so they can continue to get massive welfare payments from the gov. Ya, and free enterprise my ass.
George True| 6.15.12 @ 2:01PM
Oil companies get the same tax treatment as ANY OTHER INDUSTRY. Like any business, they are allowed to deduct their actual costs of finding, drilling, producing, and refining the oil. What is left after that is NET profit, which is what is taxed, samne as any other business. And it is taxed at the corporate rate of 35%, which by the way is the highest corporate tax rate in the world. There are no other "subsidies" or "special tax breaks" that oil companies receive.
Secondly, the oil companies earn literally two cents per gallon profit on gasoline sold in this country. The federal government, on the other hand, charges an 18.4 cent per gallon tax on every gallon, or in other words a "profit" of over NINE TIMES what the oil companies realize.
It is the GOVERNMENT that is fleecing you on oil, not the oil companies. I suggest you get your head out of your nether regions and stop spouting nonsensical leftist talking points.
Purp| 6.15.12 @ 5:01PM
How stupid. 4 Billion dollars a year subsidy is a pretty big subsidy, when less than 2 billion pays for the headstart program, NPR, CPB, and a dozen other programs.
You really believe that crap you spewed? The oil industry returns 39%, far above most business, which is happy to return 10%. Their net profits are enormous, with 10 billion/qtr is not unusual. And, they don't pay 35% tax rate, but you knew that didnt' you? As far as the tax on gasoline, without it, there would be no highways or roads, and we wouldn't need the gasoline or the oil. Ergo, the oil industry is using the Feds to subsidize their industry that way too.
Oil is the biggest scam today.
Warrior| 6.15.12 @ 11:24PM
We can agree that the government should not be subsidizing anything. Roads were built and maintained long before the federal nanny stepped in. Remove the federal taxes and let the states deal with the highways and byways.
JimH| 6.15.12 @ 8:38AM
While the country has more oil available than government allows to be extracted, we likely would be better off using natural gas in one form or another. Ideally the market should be left to determine that. What is an abomination is growing crops for fuel on land which could be used for growing food. There is no net energy benefit and it raises food costs. Someone pointed out the methanol burns without a visible flame. I suppose some additive could be added to the fuel to deal with this.
Purp| 6.15.12 @ 11:54AM
Why not use Coal? the US is the Saudi Arabia of Coal.
George True| 6.15.12 @ 1:31PM
I thought your god Obama said coal is baaaad.
Purp| 6.15.12 @ 5:02PM
Answer the question ... don't change the subject, will ya?
Warrior| 6.15.12 @ 11:26PM
We can agree again. Use coal, natural gas, nuclear, solar panels, windmills...doesn't really matter, let the market pick the winners and losers.
Skippy| 6.16.12 @ 2:29PM
"If somebody wants to build a coal-powered plant, they can. It's just that it will bankrupt them"
BHO
Bob Grant| 6.15.12 @ 2:26PM
Good. You'd look good in a turbin, Al Perp Arabiya.
TrueBlue | 6.15.12 @ 5:42PM
Can't use coal because the EPA and envirohippies (redundant I know) keep making laws that make it more and more difficult to use. They keep trying to shut down the power plants we already have and you think they'll let us even THINK about finding another use for coal (even assuming it was possible in this case)?
John Navratil| 6.15.12 @ 8:49AM
At 65% energy content of gasoline, $2/gallon methanol isn't much of a deal. Add the inconvenience of more frequent refueling and this doesn't seem to be the no-brainer as claimed.
William Tucker| 6.15.12 @ 9:02AM
The $2 per gallon methanol figure is an energy EQUIVALENT, not the actual price. A gallon of methanol would cost $1.33 per gallon but you would need three gallons to match the energy output of two gallons of gasoline.
Stuart Koehl| 6.15.12 @ 11:57AM
Suggest you go back and amend your text to make this explicit.
MikeBee| 6.15.12 @ 8:56AM
No, no, no, and a thousand times, NO! It already costs an arm and a leg to heat our homes with natural gas, even with this supposed glut of natural gas which exists. Divert this natural gas production into automobiles, and the price of heating homes will multiply a thousand times!
Think about it: when supply is very high, and demand is not, prices MUST fall. However, even with this glut of natural gas, and only constant demand, not rising demand, the cost of heating our homes has risen quite a bit.
So, I simply say, "No!", to the above idea. Let's drill for the oil which is already there, and use that.
TrueBlue | 6.15.12 @ 5:43PM
The increased cost is mostly from increased taxes on the use. It goes back to how Obama was saying we'd have to artificially raise the cost of energy in order to get people to convert to wind/solar.
Louis Jenkins| 6.15.12 @ 9:12AM
Tuesday evening I arrived at the home and found in the door a marketing specialist's card. Natural Gas is available for your home it said. I tore the card up. The house hasn't been heated or cooled with natural gas in years. Drill for oil. Gasoline still delivers more bang for the buck when it comes to cars.
Skippy| 6.16.12 @ 2:33PM
InWine Country California my PG&E electric bill is 15 times my gas bill, despite my using gas to heat all my water, run my dryer, my home heating and my rangetop.
Sorry Louis, I'll take the nat. gas all day.
Bob K| 6.15.12 @ 10:10AM
Mr. Tucker,
"The Legal Intelligencer," Philadelphia's Legal on-line newspaper has a feature about the Shale Industry in PA. It had an article yesterday that said Chesapeake Oil and other developers of Marcellus Shale in NE PA are shutting down operations there because the Gas there is 99% pure methane and is "drier" and consequently cheaper. It sells for $2.00 per 1000 cubic feet. The "wetter" gas from the shale in Ohio and SW PA also contains propane, benzene and ethane and sells for $6.00 per 1000 cubic feet. Chesapeake will concentrate its explorations there.
It seems that pure profit is the moving force behind the natural gas developers. When all the costs are added up in getting the gas it cannot compete with good old Oil.
We are going to be driving gasoline run automobiles and trucks for a long time. Why not just build some refineries in the Bakken Shale Oil region of N.D. instead of building a pipeline to get it to the Gulf where it will be shipped to the far east?
You guys mystify me! Do you really want Cheap Energy? Or do you just want control of the people?
There is free access to this article with a free subscription. Google "The legal Intelligencer." Here is a link but it might not work.
http://www.law.com/jsp/pa/PubA.....slreturn=1
Bob K| 6.15.12 @ 3:49PM
Today "The Legal Intelligencer" noted that a Pittsburgh Law Firm is opening up an office in Akron, Ohio to get some of the legal business from the Shale industry there. Now that NE PA is shutting down Methane operations there.
http://www.law.com/jsp/pa/PubA.....2559673053
TrueBlue | 6.15.12 @ 5:47PM
If they could sell a large enough volume of methane to make up for the cost difference they would. Since we only allow it's use in specific areas however there is not enough demand to make it worthwhile. Amazing, profit motivates for-profit companies... who knew?
Bob K| 6.16.12 @ 5:49PM
Indeed! Who knew?
In southwest PA Shell Oil, a Dutch Corporation is building an 18 Billion Dollar petrochemical "cracker" plant in Beaver County near Pittsburgh. The deal just went through.
http://shale.sites.post-gazett.....ming-to-pa
It appears to be easy to liquify Propane and Ethane and maybe even Benzene, but not Methane and so that is where the profits lie.
On a political note that probably will be a factor in the upcoming election The Republicans who are now running the state have made a serious public relation mistake. They have refused to put an Extraction Tax on the gas that is being produced.
Every other state which has a Fracking Industry is subject to a tax like this. Only PA doesn't have it. It is a big issue here in PA and since the state has about 1 million more registered Democrats than Republicans it does not bode well for the Republican party.
Fracking gas wells results in damages to small rural local roads and bridges from the heavy water trucks which are needed to bring the 3 million gallons of water to each well that is to be fracked.
Small local municipalities need some of this tax money for road and bridge repairs of the damage these heavy trucks cause to them.
This is already an issue in the election.
irish19| 6.17.12 @ 1:37PM
Benzene is already a liquid. Thought you might like to know.
Interesting discussion otherwise.
Bob K| 6.17.12 @ 9:03PM
Thanks. I thought it was. I got the info about the "wet" gas from a legal newspaper which was writing about where the legal work was going to.
Al Adab| 6.15.12 @ 11:09AM
For the life of me I do not understand why we export and import. the oil. If we ship out say 100 tankers every day and ship in 100 tankers every day what is the point. Would it not be better for national security to retain domestic production and only export the surplus? Our military should not be hostage to the necessity of continuing imports subject to stoppages when our domestic production provides for our needs. The price of oil in other nations is not our concern; the price in this nation is. The strength of our national economy and of our military depends on it.
JD| 6.15.12 @ 11:44AM
We export and import because it's cheaper, thanks to complex federal rules.
Whenever something doesn't make sense, look to the feds for the cause.
satan| 6.15.12 @ 12:38PM
"We" don't export and import, the oil companies do. Everything they do, they do for the profit motive. It doesn't have to make sense to you.
Skippy| 6.16.12 @ 2:34PM
I(heart)profit.
Purp| 6.15.12 @ 11:58AM
The Oil companies are Global Enterprises, not US companies anymore. They couldn't care less about the US. They will send and receive oil where it is cheapest for them to do it. $$$ is the bottom line. They make the decision, not the government.
George True| 6.15.12 @ 1:41PM
That is as it should be.
Purp| 6.15.12 @ 5:03PM
Then government is NOT the problem .. thank you.
Skippy| 6.16.12 @ 2:37PM
Do you profit from your business?
Do you reduce your profits because someone somewhere thinks you make too much?
Do you set a maximum profit and then refund or reduce prices until your profits cease?
Sure. I'll just bet you do.
Bob Grant| 6.15.12 @ 2:20PM
"$$$ is the bottom line." That's a good one Perp.
Petronius| 6.15.12 @ 11:47AM
Oddly enough, Henry Ford designed his first engine to run on alcohol. The problems with using it as a motor fuel appeared immediately. It evaporates very quickly when exposed to air, and operational range and mileage are the pits compared to gasoline and diesel. The low flash point does great harm to the engine itself. Pistons get burned blue in minutes, so they would have to be low compression. That means less power. I want horses under the hood; not hamsters.
Gary B| 6.15.12 @ 12:08PM
Any new technology or fuel type is always threatened by a drop in gasoline prices. The answer is to drill here; drill now. All it takes is a president who isn't a criminal, which is easier said than done.
cicero| 6.15.12 @ 12:35PM
This whole Dept of Energy fiasco came about when the Chicken Littles convincedd the government that we were running out of oil. They had joined the folks at the EPA who were put in power because the Chicken Littles convinced the government that we were polluting the atmosphere with fumes from oil burning vehicles and furnaces. Now that we have learned that we are sitting on a sea of oil, and we have reduced pollution from cars and furnaces to negligible amounts, why are we still listening to the Chicken Littles
Let the market place work. If the market place comes up with a cheaper, more efficient way to fuel our economy, let them bring it on. Until that happens,. we should be using the cheapest, most efficient fuels we can find and produce. To do otherwise is only to allow the Chicken Littles control the rest of us. How silly is that?
Gary B| 6.15.12 @ 12:39PM
Right... starting with the free-market price for gasoline and good luck with that.
satan| 6.15.12 @ 12:41PM
Sea of oil? How silly is that?
satan| 6.15.12 @ 12:44PM
The price of gas will go down as soon as 390 pound women stop driving to the supermarket for a pack of chewing gum.
Gary B| 6.15.12 @ 2:44PM
Or if supply increases.
Skippy| 6.16.12 @ 2:42PM
Why should your prejudices be considered re: the activities of others?
Nobody really cares what you want, just as you don't care about them.
Nice little fascist.
jdmeth| 6.15.12 @ 12:55PM
Actually, methanol raises the octane levels so you can run higher compression ratios. Volatilizing methanol also cools the intake charge so the motor runs cooler. All this results in higher power output that will raise engine temperatures but only at full throttle.
The Party of Hell No!| 6.15.12 @ 3:51PM
William,
If you want people to buy into new technology with old/new fuels don't use words like "carburetor" - a device not seen on an American vehicle since the late 80's.
For most Americans it is not some small adjustment, or changing of the jets of their carburetor, it is the replacement of the already programmed chip from their cars on-board "computer" which oversees the timing/firing of the ignition and the air/fuel mixture. Besides this aspect it also may require new injectors with larger diameter orifices to manage the larger volume of methanol required to run properly.
The biggest problem of adding methanol to already existing automobiles - which freaks out auto manufacturers whenever someone promotes more methanol use - the corrosive aspect of methanol. To deliver methanol the fuel systems on current manufactured vehicles are incapable of resisting this corrosive action. Again it is not a simple adjustment or simple replacement of a mechanical fuel pump attached to the side of the engine. The delivery system on most modern automobiles are designed with the electrical fuel pump installed inside the fuel tank to protect the fuel pump, save space and facilitate better fuel pressure by utilizing "pushing" rather than "pulling" fuel from the tank. For fuel tanks, pumps, lines and delivery components to be able to resist this corrosive action requires very specific materials even o-rings and gaskets to insure a sealed system.
Bob K| 6.15.12 @ 4:05PM
Mr Tucker,
There is a letter to the editor in this weeks "The Economist" on the Problems of Shale. See page 20.
It ends stating it has a role to play in the future "but at present it is becoming the perfect excuse for politicians to avoid making tough decisions about carbon emissions." The writer is anti carbon of course.
Where do you stand here? Natural Gas does have lower Carbon emissions. Do you think switching to it will help save humanity?
Myself, I don't think it will make a difference at all except to make us all less free and poorer.
Bob K| 6.15.12 @ 4:12PM
You might like this weeks issue of "The Economist." Big feature on how the Arctic is Melting and how it will effect trade, energy and the environment.
Makes me wonder if Mr. Tucker's article here was timed to come out at the same time?
The Party of Hell No!| 6.15.12 @ 4:10PM
Satan,
Actually not believing in a sea of oil is foolish. When I was a lad in the late 70's and the the first oil crises occurred everyone knew "the science was in" we were running out of oil and in 20 years the known world reserves would be depleted. The U.S. had no more reserves to be found, oh and natural gas was depleted and we would be buying LNG from Saudia Arabia for the rest of our existence, and the US would never be an exporter of fossil fuels again, or some such nonsense. Well 20 years have come and gone and everywhere the drillers drill there seems to be more oil gas and even where it was assumed all the oil and gas had been depleted and sucked out of the ground. OPEC (Saudia Arabia) wants Americans to believe this myth so we won't go looking for more oil because the US is a stabilizing force leading to the price of oil on the world market to be devalued.
lolwut| 6.15.12 @ 4:17PM
carburetor?
what modern car has one of those?
sheesh, if you don't even know that the carburetor is an outdated piece of technology that most modern cars do not have (they're fuel injected which is controlled by a computer), how in the world can we trust you about the rest of the article?
cicero| 6.15.12 @ 4:20PM
POHN Thanks for the support. I recommend a book that came out about 12 years ago called "The Prize". It was the history of the oil industry from 1859 to about 1995. Every so many years, since the turn of the last century, the hew and cry has arisen that we are running out of oil. Like majic, as soon as the price of oil rises, they find another "elephant" - a huge deposit of oil. That is where we are now. Only instead of finding one huge deposit of oil, we are finding huge deposits all over the world.
It was the discovery and exploitation of oil that saved the whales, saved the forests, and was a major contributor to the extension of human life expectancy. Why it has become the "scource of all evil" is a mystery to me. It can only be the Chicken Little Syndrome.
Cabermon| 6.15.12 @ 6:26PM
Mr. Tucker,
I agree that methanol is a possible replacement or substitute for motor fuels in our future, but my comment is mainly to correct some minor errors:
1) "Natural glass" is made when lightning hits sand, as on a beach. The resulting glass structures are called "fulgarites."
2) Methanol was the defacto fuel at Indy because of its very high octane rating until the introduction of the Ford V8s in the early '60s, which had grown out of Formula 1 where gasoline was required. Sachs & MacDonald were running Ford V8s carrying 80 gallons of 100 octane gas each. It was indeed a cataclysm.
3) LNG (liquified natural gas) is cryogenic CH4 (methane) and requires vented, vacuum-insulated containers (dewars) for storage. Really inconvenient. Butane (C4H10) and Propane (C3H8) are different compounds which are liquid at room temperature when stored at modest pressures.
So once we find that magic process for economically making methanol from methane, we whould be ready to go!
Moe Blotz| 6.15.12 @ 7:37PM
Oy, do youse toss cabers?
Cabermon| 6.16.12 @ 10:22AM
Hey mon, I toss dem in Jamaica, mon!
Skippy| 6.16.12 @ 2:49PM
Please leave the telephone poles IN the ground gents.
Scots. Sheesh!
Life-lover| 6.17.12 @ 9:21AM
With respect, we simply cannot allow that to happen. Consider the possibilities for our brave new world if a free citizen can travel where and when he likes, from point to point and not necessarily along the route with all the cameras, and without breaking his budget. I rest my case.
JP| 6.17.12 @ 11:26AM
Can Methanol replace foreign oil? I do know; but, US oil can. There are huge oil reserves located between Colorado and California.
BB| 6.18.12 @ 11:47PM
Unfortunately methanol is not a very good choice for road fuel. Ethanol is not either but slightly better than methanol, better yet is butanol.
Gasoline fuel mileage could be GREATLY increased by changing how the EPA measures pollutants. A car that gets 80mpg can easily be manufactured and would pollute considerably less than the current crop of cars that may get 30-40mpg with a weight of pollutant per mile measure.
The EPA does not measure by weight of pollutants per mile they use percentage of pollutant in exhaust gas. If a vehicle does not put out much exhaust then the percentage of pollutants exceeds the levels the EPA mandates with it's(stupidly put in place??) means of measuring and the vehicle cannot pass the EPA tests.
Changing to a system of weight of emissions per mile system versus a percentage of tailpipe emissions would result in an immediate SIGNIFICANT increase in vehicle mileage. Also, existing vehicles could be re-programmed to get better mileage.
This would result in both reduced emissions AND reduced oil consumption.
The EPA's current method of measuring emissions insures that fuel economy will not be greatly increase guaranteeing a steady rate of oil consumption(and resulting revenues!).
Mnestheus| 5.11.13 @ 3:38PM
Natural glass? I don't mind Bill being on the take from the Kochs like the rest of the folks at TAS, but the Obsidian Order is another matter.