The last time I checked, the price for 200L of Methanol was close to $700 CAD here in Canada. As long as we get this price down and make a dependable infrastructure, I see it as a much more practical green fuel. Driving a hybrid car that can use M100 and also gasoline (when needed) with the price of a regular hybrid would help everyone switch to the real green economy.
@@steveciarico9824 syngas, biogas, and landfill gas (which continuously output fuel for 50 years straight and landfills over the years are everywhere) are also suitable for making carbon neutral methanol fuel. Basically any biowaste is with either a gasifier or a biodigester and the already made and in use methanol synthesis reactors. Heck for syngas you are left with char as a byproduct which if you burry it in the form of biochar (which has soil fertility Benifits) , you are sequestering carbon; yes a carbon negative fuel that is net energy positive to make. Biomethanol in general is net energy gaining process unlike efuel which is a net negative electric storage and distribution tech. Did I mention methanol takes way less enery to split into hydrogen, while taking up less space and container weight and being vastly easier to transport. China actually made a methanol to hydrogen refueling station for this reason. They also have trucks and cabs that run on internal combustion engine methanol. Though with a relatively inexpensive gasoline to alcohol conversion kit (compared to buying a new car) 90% of vehicles on the road can be converted. In truth methanol is cheap (the drag racer people stimulated a arbitrary price mark up over the decade and renewable suppliers of methanol is a new sector that lacks producers). US goverment found it was $0.70 a gallon if we used non renewable natural gas (though bio methane from literal sewage and trash should be in the same ball park). Biomethanol can be just as if not more inexpensive. Though E-methanol will be a lot more expensive since it is a net loss of energy by storing in a more convenient and applicable form.
@@wastelesslearning1245 If you converted an engine to run on methanol it would cut it's mpg in half that is well documented by within the US Department of Energy Alternative fuels fuel properties comparisons using the gasoline gallon equivalent metric. The reasons drag racers love methanol is the godly cooling effects of the fuel vaporizing allows them to fill the block with a solid material to strengthen the block as radiators are not necessary. Ideally, it should be blended with gasoline to boost octane and reduce combustion chamber temperature allowing higher compression engines increasing efficiency.
Electrolysis to produce hydrogen is ~70% efficient, then the efficiency of methanol synthesis from hydrogen and CO2 is typically around 40-50%, Then you could expect around 35% efficiency for a methanol internal combustion engine. So a round trip efficiency of just over 12%. How are we looking so far?
True. Electric Cars are inherently more energyefficient. Then you can add a small metanolgenerator. And use that to heat the car. And extend the range. (When needed) Thus saving massively on batteries.
If the process uses high temperature nuclear hydrogen and nuclear waste heat for the CO2 stripper tower heater, the process can be cheap and scalable. In this case it uses cheap hydro and geothetmal electricity and heat.
For marine application it is more suitable. Battery systems do not have enough energy density. Recharging time is too long. İt is too difficult to storage hydrogene. Systems need too high pressure and extreme low temperature. Leakage is a significant problem. System can be very expensive. transporting hydrogene is a different story. İt could be very expensive too. Amonia is too hazard gas. At room temperature it is at gas phase. Leak is a big problem. Storage systems can be too expensive. To burn it systems need modifications. Explosion is another problem. Transporting Amonia is difficult. Systems need possitive pressure to storage Amonia. Methanol is more suitable than amonia. Global warming is too big problem. a too big environmental desaster is closed to world. Every country decides and makes something for global warming quickly. Time is too limited.
Seems like the efficiency is pretty low if you have to do electrolysis, pressurization, distillation etc. Is it possible to produce methanol directly from electricity CO2 and water? Can you reverse the process in a direct methanol fuel cell?
Nope, hydrogen in the water is locked in an energy well, you have to pull it out via electrolysis. You should think of methanol as a carrier of hydrogen.
The challenge in converting to a non- fossil fuel economy is to create a power delivery system using clean, abundant nuclear energy. Batteries are one way; expensive, short-lived, and made using scare rare earth metals, amd building a completely new infrastructure (charging stations), or produce clean-burning methanol, which can be delivered using existing petrol stations with minimal mal modifications. The Methanol economy is probably best realized by combining this fuel with 15% gasoline, useable in flex fuel vehicles. The push to all-electric vehicles is because of graft; some are getting very, very rich. See: Elon Musk, Al Gore, etc. The best system
@@scottslotterbeck3796 running the world on nuclear power may have kind of made sense if it was pushed for 20-40 years ago. But unfortunately nuclear power is simply too expensive now. Renewables are much cheaper at this point, and nuclear power has only become more expensive. Likewise the promise of fusion power is laughable: even if we get net positive energy, fusion will likely always be more expensive than fusion power, which will always be more expensive than collecting the energy that reaches us for free from the powerful fusion generator in the sky
Likewise batteries have real advantages over other power storage methods in that they have near zero round trip energy losses. No liquid fuel will ever achieve this even with advanced fuel cells. I agree though that the rare materials required to create li-ion batteries means it probably will not be the storage system we need to manage power on the largest scales.
@@sandpiperbf9767 You are completely wrong. Solar takes 75 times the land area as nuclear, and bird-killing windmills take 400 times the land. Solar/wind are dead-end propositions. If you take away subsidies they are far more eXpensive in the long run.
actually CO2 capture from sea water not atmosphere is far easier/more efficient from what i understand? so maybe processing plants to convert captured CO2 to Methanol off coastal waters could be both more economical and a real solution to wean ourselves off fossil fuels?
You don't need to release carbon from an industrial place via a chimney or exhaust vent, it should be dealt with in a way that it doesn't have to be released via a chimney or exhaust vent.
Methanol is toxic fuel the best use of CO2 gas is for methanition using the Sabatier reaction which means any spare hydrogen can be converted into CH4 and water . CO2 gas can be pumped into depleted gas fields for storage.
Not true! As long as you have a cheap source of electricity you can do it. For example from the sun. If you live in a place with low geothermal activity but a high level of sunlight with a large enough sun farm you produce tons of electricity for effectively free (minus farm costs of course).
You need too much electricity for these processes. And if it comes from renewable sources why then just dont use it as it is. More effort should be put on finding better ways for storing energy rather than building these factories.
The typical ansver in Denmark to what you are saying would be, yes...... run your cars on electricity,... and your heating, for that matter,... but there are 'hard to abate' sectors where electricity is not an option: Planes, ships and plastic production and.....
Why do you keep denying sound science established in centuries? Climate sensitivity to CO2 was already hypothesized by Fourier in the 18th century and proven theoretically by Arrhenius at the end of the 19th century.
@@tasimota but looking at the experiments showing co2’s heat absorption, we’d need nearly 100 times that 400 ppm to produce the heat gains they’re claiming, which would prove that co2 isn’t the driver they’re making it out to be.
The last time I checked, the price for 200L of Methanol was close to $700 CAD here in Canada. As long as we get this price down and make a dependable infrastructure, I see it as a much more practical green fuel. Driving a hybrid car that can use M100 and also gasoline (when needed) with the price of a regular hybrid would help everyone switch to the real green economy.
makes a lot more sense than liquid hydrogen..........which is incredibly inefficient,difficult and outright dangerous.
I make my own from the distillation of wood.
@@steveciarico9824 syngas, biogas, and landfill gas (which continuously output fuel for 50 years straight and landfills over the years are everywhere)
are also suitable for making carbon neutral methanol fuel. Basically any biowaste is with either a gasifier or a biodigester and the already made and in use methanol synthesis reactors. Heck for syngas you are left with char as a byproduct which if you burry it in the form of biochar (which has soil fertility Benifits) , you are sequestering carbon; yes a carbon negative fuel that is net energy positive to make. Biomethanol in general is net energy gaining process unlike efuel which is a net negative electric storage and distribution tech. Did I mention methanol takes way less enery to split into hydrogen, while taking up less space and container weight and being vastly easier to transport. China actually made a methanol to hydrogen refueling station for this reason. They also have trucks and cabs that run on internal combustion engine methanol. Though with a relatively inexpensive gasoline to alcohol conversion kit (compared to buying a new car) 90% of vehicles on the road can be converted.
In truth methanol is cheap (the drag racer people stimulated a arbitrary price mark up over the decade and renewable suppliers of methanol is a new sector that lacks producers). US goverment found it was $0.70 a gallon if we used non renewable natural gas (though bio methane from literal sewage and trash should be in the same ball park). Biomethanol can be just as if not more inexpensive. Though E-methanol will be a lot more expensive since it is a net loss of energy by storing in a more convenient and applicable form.
@@wazza33racer You need hydrogen to produce methanol
@@wastelesslearning1245 If you converted an engine to run on methanol it would cut it's mpg in half that is well documented by within the US Department of Energy Alternative fuels fuel properties comparisons using the gasoline gallon equivalent metric. The reasons drag racers love methanol is the godly cooling effects of the fuel vaporizing allows them to fill the block with a solid material to strengthen the block as radiators are not necessary.
Ideally, it should be blended with gasoline to boost octane and reduce combustion chamber temperature allowing higher compression engines increasing efficiency.
Excellent presentation, though I would like to see more of the chemistry in your journalism.
Electrolysis to produce hydrogen is ~70% efficient, then the efficiency of methanol synthesis from hydrogen and CO2 is typically around 40-50%, Then you could expect around 35% efficiency for a methanol internal combustion engine. So a round trip efficiency of just over 12%.
How are we looking so far?
True. Electric Cars are inherently more energyefficient. Then you can add a small metanolgenerator. And use that to heat the car. And extend the range. (When needed) Thus saving massively on batteries.
If the process uses high temperature nuclear hydrogen and nuclear waste heat for the CO2 stripper tower heater, the process can be cheap and scalable. In this case it uses cheap hydro and geothetmal electricity and heat.
Nice clean flame like a gas stove.
one of the most informative videos I have ever watch.
For marine application it is more suitable. Battery systems do not have enough energy density. Recharging time is too long.
İt is too difficult to storage hydrogene. Systems need too high pressure and extreme low temperature. Leakage is a significant problem. System can be very expensive. transporting hydrogene is a different story. İt could be very expensive too.
Amonia is too hazard gas. At room temperature it is at gas phase. Leak is a big problem. Storage systems can be too expensive. To burn it systems need modifications. Explosion is another problem. Transporting Amonia is difficult. Systems need possitive pressure to storage Amonia.
Methanol is more suitable than amonia.
Global warming is too big problem. a too big environmental desaster is closed to world.
Every country decides and makes something for global warming quickly. Time is too limited.
Exactly. You are quite bright and knowledgeable.
Seems like the efficiency is pretty low if you have to do electrolysis, pressurization, distillation etc. Is it possible to produce methanol directly from electricity CO2 and water? Can you reverse the process in a direct methanol fuel cell?
Nope, hydrogen in the water is locked in an energy well, you have to pull it out via electrolysis. You should think of methanol as a carrier of hydrogen.
The challenge in converting to a non- fossil fuel economy is to create a power delivery system using clean, abundant nuclear energy. Batteries are one way; expensive, short-lived, and made using scare rare earth metals, amd building a completely new infrastructure (charging stations), or produce clean-burning methanol, which can be delivered using existing petrol stations with minimal mal modifications.
The Methanol economy is probably best realized by combining this fuel with 15% gasoline, useable in flex fuel vehicles.
The push to all-electric vehicles is because of graft; some are getting very, very rich. See: Elon Musk, Al Gore, etc.
The best system
@@scottslotterbeck3796 running the world on nuclear power may have kind of made sense if it was pushed for 20-40 years ago. But unfortunately nuclear power is simply too expensive now. Renewables are much cheaper at this point, and nuclear power has only become more expensive. Likewise the promise of fusion power is laughable: even if we get net positive energy, fusion will likely always be more expensive than fusion power, which will always be more expensive than collecting the energy that reaches us for free from the powerful fusion generator in the sky
Likewise batteries have real advantages over other power storage methods in that they have near zero round trip energy losses. No liquid fuel will ever achieve this even with advanced fuel cells. I agree though that the rare materials required to create li-ion batteries means it probably will not be the storage system we need to manage power on the largest scales.
@@sandpiperbf9767 You are completely wrong. Solar takes 75 times the land area as nuclear, and bird-killing windmills take 400 times the land. Solar/wind are dead-end propositions. If you take away subsidies they are far more eXpensive in the long run.
actually CO2 capture from sea water not atmosphere is far easier/more efficient from what i understand? so maybe processing plants to convert captured CO2 to Methanol off coastal waters could be both more economical and a real solution to wean ourselves off fossil fuels?
You don't need to release carbon from an industrial place via a chimney or exhaust vent, it should be dealt with in a way that it doesn't have to be released via a chimney or exhaust vent.
Very helpful video
Thankyou so much
I hear the word "catalyst" and think immediately that the used gases therefore must not be too dirty? Catalysts can become toxified, is often said.
"poisoned" is the term i believe , but yes, nice catch...
7:44 why cut the camera away from him while he makes a bold claim? because the video editors attempted to defraud the viewers about his statement.
What do you mean? It's quite easy to convert an ICE to run on methanol. It was used in NASCAR racing for some time.
@@markotrieste it sounds like he’s saying the editor is trying to make the guy look bad by manipulating his statement.
Silly. It's a well-known process; Germans used it in WWII to make fuel for tanks
Methanol is toxic fuel the best use of CO2 gas is for methanition using the Sabatier reaction which means any spare hydrogen can be converted into CH4 and water . CO2 gas can be pumped into depleted gas fields for storage.
IAM very interested
What is the exact amount of conversion of Hydrogen and Oxygen in electrolysis unit
Quit interesting 👍🏻
For Green methanol carbon capture and Green hydrogene production are key technologies.
And this i possible. It is exepsive but possible
All for a tiny little lab
Balgamdulillah.
This can only work where there is geothermal activity.
Nope! Any electricity source will do; obviously, nuclear power is the best and cheapest source.
Not true! As long as you have a cheap source of electricity you can do it. For example from the sun. If you live in a place with low geothermal activity but a high level of sunlight with a large enough sun farm you produce tons of electricity for effectively free (minus farm costs of course).
Not true. Co2 can be captured for free from industrial point sources. And cheap power found too.
But what will the plants eat?
There is plenty of CO2, don't worry.
what climate change?
There is some global warming; check our glaciers; melting worldwide.
hi my family owns two of these plants in the US and one in italy. we are staunch republicans. plot twist mfers.
it must be really embarrassing to realize republicans are heading this up after making a documentary.
You need too much electricity for these processes. And if it comes from renewable sources why then just dont use it as it is. More effort should be put on finding better ways for storing energy rather than building these factories.
Nuclear, my friend. So much energy!
The typical ansver in Denmark to what you are saying would be, yes...... run your cars on electricity,... and your heating, for that matter,... but there are 'hard to abate' sectors where electricity is not an option: Planes, ships and plastic production and.....
The very small amount of CO2 in the atmophere has not impact on the world's climate.
The very small 400 ppm CO2 concentration in the atmosphere is growing exponentially.
Go to Venus and tell me how CO2 doesn't effect climate.
Source: Trust me bro
Why do you keep denying sound science established in centuries? Climate sensitivity to CO2 was already hypothesized by Fourier in the 18th century and proven theoretically by Arrhenius at the end of the 19th century.
@@tasimota but looking at the experiments showing co2’s heat absorption, we’d need nearly 100 times that 400 ppm to produce the heat gains they’re claiming, which would prove that co2 isn’t the driver they’re making it out to be.