ABOUT COSMIC LOG

Quantum fluctuations in space, science, exploration and other cosmic fields... served up regularly by MSNBC.com science editor Alan Boyle since 2002.

Alan Boyle covers the physical sciences, anthropology, technological innovation and space science and exploration for MSNBC.com. He is a winner of the AAAS Science Journalism Award, the NASW Science-in-Society Award and other honors; a contributor to "A Field Guide for Science Writers"; and a member of the board of the Council for the Advancement of Science Writing.

Check out Boyle's biography or send a message to Cosmic Log via cosmiclog@msnbc.com.



Is alcohol the energy answer?

Posted: Wednesday, November 28, 2007 7:10 PM by Alan Boyle


DaimlerChrysler file
Daimler's NECAR 5 prototype gets a methanol fill-up
during a cross-country test drive in 2002. The
methanol powered a hydrogen fuel cell on the
experimental vehicle.

It doesn't take a rocket scientist to figure out how to free America from the grip of high-priced oil imports. Or does it?

Rocket scientist Robert Zubrin lays out the case for an alcohol-based fuel economy in a new book titled "Energy Victory" – and although ethanol is the best-known alcohol replacement for gasoline, Zubrin focuses on a different brew called methanol, also known as wood alcohol.

The concept behind “Energy Victory” is to go after energy independence as a means to cut off the flow of money through the Middle East to terrorists – and that concept surfaced just a few days ago in the presidential campaign, courtesy of GOP hopeful Mike Huckabee.

"Every time we put our credit card in the gas pump, we're paying so that the Saudis get rich - filthy, obscenely rich, and that money then ends up going to funding madrassas" - religious schools "that train the terrorists," Huckabee said last weekend on CNN.

As a result, American money ends up financing both sides in the war on terror, Huckabee argued - and that's why he says it's imperative to move to energy independence within the next decade.

That argument gets a thorough airing in "Energy Victory."

"The world economy is currently running on a resource that is controlled by our enemies," Zubrin declares on the first page. "This threatens to leave us prostrate. It must change - and the good news is that it can change, quickly."

I'm inclined to jump over the politics of the argument for a couple of reasons: First, the calculus involved in Middle East relations is incredibly complex, as evidenced by today's news about a Saudi anti-terror crackdown and progress on the peace front. Second, you don't have to use fighting words to convince me that energy independence and alternative fuels are very good things. But how easily and how quickly can things change?

Here's where the rocket-scientist background plays a part.

"I was actually a nuclear engineer before I became a rocket scientist, and was well-acquainted with energy policy" said Zubrin, who's best-known nowadays as the president of the Mars Society. "And furthermore, the work that I did relating to Mars taught me a lot about fuel synthesis. It became apparent to me that the Bush administration's hydrogen policy was completely unworkable, but the easiest liquid fuel to make would be methanol."

Methanol? Wasn't ethanol supposed to be the fuel of the future?

After the ethanol euphoria
Last year, ethanol fuel - alcohol that can be made from corn, sugar cane or other plants - was touted as the answer for what ails America's energy economy. With the price of oil rising, ethanol blends have become much more economical.

However, the ethanol boom has turned into something of a bust over the past year, as detailed today in The Wall Street Journal. Because corn is the primary U.S. crop for ethanol production, rising grain prices have sparked fears about a "food vs. fuel" dilemma. There are also environmental concerns, about stoking up air pollution as well as draining water supplies.  

To address the food-vs.-fuel issue, and boost the amount of biomass available for ethanol production, researchers are working on innovative processes that could convert plant cellulose into ethanol - with federal funding, of course.

Cellulosic ethanol production is currently the major research focus, but the Energy Department's National Renewable Energy Laboratory is taking a long-term look at other fuels as well, including methanol.

Adding methanol blends to the mix would help close the gap, Zubrin said. "Methanol can be made from any kind of biomass without exception," ranging from raw plant cellulose to paper waste. It can also be made from stranded natural gas or coal, turning not-so-portable fossil fuels into liquid energy that could power a car or an airplane. In fact, methanol-powered cars passed technical tests at Ford 20 years ago, and at Daimler five years ago.

The current price equation is favorable to methanol as well, Zubrin said. "Methanol at 93 cents a gallon is like gasoline at $1.70," he said.

Switching to methanol, ethanol, biodiesel and other alternative fuels would make energy markets more competitive - and even though there's widespread worry about the effect of higher grain prices on the Third World, Zubrin argues that many developing nations would benefit as well.

"If we go to the alcohol economy, not only will we stop the current price rise and reverse the coming one, but we'll be able to shift a lot of money from OPEC to the world's agricultural economies," he said.

There are drawbacks, of course. Otherwise, we'd be driving alcohol-fueled cars already, right?

Problems and solutions
Unlike ethanol, methanol is toxic, which complicates handling (although Zubrin maintains that "people can handle that the way they handle gasoline"). It's also more corrosive than gasoline, which means fuel lines would have to be made of sterner stuff. What's more, methanol packs only half the punch per gallon that gasoline does, meaning that cars running purely on methanol would have to fuel up twice as often.

For these reasons, the Department of Energy's alternative-fuel database notes that methanol is currently "not commonly used or easily available." There would have to be a powerful incentive to gear up the production and distribution of methanol fuels.

Yet another factor to consider would be how oil exporters might respond to a substantial shift toward alternative fuels.  If such fuels start to take hold, oil prices could well start dropping - which would appear to be a good thing, but would also stall the momentum for embracing the alternatives and getting closer to energy independence. That's what happened in the United States after the energy crisis of the 1970s.


Courtesy Robert Zubrin
Robert Zubrin says
methanol, ethanol and
flex-fuel cars can get
America closer to energy
independence.

There's a simple solution to many of these drawbacks, Zubrin said: Require automakers to produce flexible-fuel cars capable of running on any blend of methanol, ethanol or gasoline. That could add hundreds of dollars to the cost of a car, but Zubrin said it'd be worth it.

The requirement should apply to BMW and Toyota as well as Ford and GM, he said. "The key policy here is mandating that all new cars sold, not made, in the United States would be flex-fueled," he said.

Zubrin's not the only one taking this stand: A coalition called Set America Free is working to get the alcohol economy, flex-fuel and plug-in hybrid vehicles on the political agenda as an international security issues as well as an economic and environmental issue.

So what about those plug-ins? If it takes electricity to turn biomass into alcohol fuels, why not focus completely on developing plug-in cars with super-duper-batteries?

Zubrin argues that the energy economy cannot live by plug-in hybrids alone. Even if we're able to wean ourselves off oil, liquid fuels will play a role into the foreseeable future, he said. And if you believe that energy independence is fundamental to winning the war on terror - as Zubrin, Huckabee and many others do - then alcohol fuels are the closest answers at hand.

"If I were writing a science-fiction novel about this, I could give everybody plug-in hybrids and nuclear power plants," he said. "If we're talking about taking this world right now and changing it to something else in a way that breaks the power of the oil cartel, this is the only way to do that."

Update for 5:15 p.m. ET Nov. 29: Rather than focusing on methanol, researchers at the National Renewable Energy Laboratory are studying how to make ethanol out of a wider variety of materials - through new twists in biochemistry means as well as the gasification process that produces methanol.

That's the word from Richard Bain, principal research supervisor at NREL in Colorado. Bain's been at the lab for 18 years and is familiar with the latest trends in alternative fuels. For now, at least, methanol isn't one of those trends.

"I've been in the business long enough that I know ultimately the market will decide," he told me today. Gasification (of coal as well as biomass) is an up-and-coming technology that is well-settled for making methanol, and is currently being fine-tuned for making ethanol.

"You have a choice of which one the market wants to use," Bain said. "You can make both, but the automobile industry has accepted ethanol rather than methanol."

The fact that methanol is more corrosive than gasoline is a stumbling block, because as some commenters have already noted, a lot of components would have to be made of stronger materials. That goes not only for the vehicle itself, but for the plumbing that would deliver the methanol to your fuel tank.

"If you've designed for ethanol, you'd have to redesign for methanol. ... There is a cost associated with any fuel that doesn't fit in the normal distribution infrastructure," Bain said.

The good news is that more people are catching on to gasification as a means for producing not only methanol and ethanol, but other products with energy applications as well, such as butanol.

So Zubrin's basic message still holds: Flex-fuel cars are key to keeping our energy options open. And if they're plug-in hybrid electric flex-fuel vehicles (PHEFFVs?), so much the better. How does 250 miles per gallon sound? That's what Congress called for in Section 706 of the energy bill that was signed into law a couple of years ago - a section that sets aside money for research into HEFFVs and PHEFFVs.

Some have estimated that PHEFFVs could cut liquid-fuel consumption for transportation (as well as carbon-dioxide emissions) by more than half. What do you think?

Where do you stand on the energy equation? What roles do you see for biofuels, conservation, wind power, nuclear power, solar power, microbial hydrogen, algal oil and even more efficient fossil-fuel use? Add your comments below.

MAIN PAGE

Email this EMAIL THIS

Comments

We have the technology in this country to produce our own gasoline and end our dependence on all foreign countries,we did it in world war two. we supplied the world with well made american goods, rebuilt and had a two ocean going navy and we could do it today,we dont have to rely on leaders in DC, they work for us but most of them think its the other way around. all we as a united people have to do is write, call, talk to our congressmen in each state and say this is what needs to be done what are you going to do about it? We want to know and we want it done not in 6 years but right now today.
What about the turbine engine? Hasn't technology progressed in this area ? How about coastal seaweed farms and algae farms so we can save our land for crops and help our fish population at the same time?
The number of people contributing with ideas to this blog and others like it is a clear sign that the problem can and will be solved because it HAS to be solved if we, as a civilization, are to move forward into the 21st century. We currently harvest only a tiny percentage of available energy from non-fossil sources. As has been said, the IC engine is over 100 years old, long since out of date. So is the coal-fired steam boiler! The major suppliers of oil/coal based fuels have no reason to seek changes...they only pretend to be interested in other fuel sources. An entirely new system must evolve and that takes large, billion dollar chunks if investment capital, which no one is currently willing to risk. Solar arrays are in the kindergarten stage of development covering a few acres here and there. Look at all the vacant space in Nevada, Arizona, N Mexico, S California, Texas etc receiving abundant supplies of sunshine almost every day....how many acres of solar arrray do you see there? How many rooftops do you see with solar arrays on them? FEW and far between.  RE the hydrogen cycle requiring too much energy, thus too costly to free-up the H molecule...solar power can do that on a day to day basis almost for free. H is abundant and available but the entire industrial society will have change in order to make use of this most fundamental fuel. H as fuel souce, if developed, will change the economic system of the global economy and there are too many powerful status-quo politicians and backward thinking industrialists who do not want this change to come about.  
It doesn't really matter what we as individuals would like to see happen.  The truth of the matter is, the oil companies will be the ones who decide what the next generation fuel will be.  That's because they hold all the strings, and they have the money to do it.  As the oil companies of the world slowly morph into energy brokers, they will quietly buy up any worthwhile technology that comes along and cash in on it when they decide it's time to cash in on it.  Who do you think controls the ethanol production?  The time is long gone since the oil companies didn't control this country.  Let's hope some major breakthrough in a viable oil alternative happens outside this country so that it just might have a chance of not getting squelched before it could actually become a usable alternative.  I know, GLOOM & DOOM, but from my perspective, that's just the way it is.
Seems to me I heard somewhere that it's estimated the cost of the war in Iraq will top 1 trillion dollars......  Can anyone imagine where we might be already if that money had been used to subsidize the development of infrastructure for alternative fuels instead ?

Just a thought................
Zubrin has been in and out of the media for years and all to do with his "Mars direct" plans and research projects. The guy knows what he is talking about but the right people don't listen. NASA wants to take the "long way around" to Mars and Washington wants the long way around the energy issue.
I just wonder what we could have done with the billions of dollars that we are spnding on the war.  What if that money had been invested  - to sub the auto makers, to go after all of the technologies that are out there and have been available for years.  Seems odd that we spend that kind of money to protect oil fields - (preferred contracts as it is now being hailed) in Irag.  Wow, what could we have come up with for alternatives to the oil dependancy we all have.  All of the alternatives could have been tested and deployed in the 5 years that we have spent in Irag.  What a waste.  

New alternatives?  Why are we just now talking about it?  We should have allocated 100 Billion dollars into the solution. So was it the answer to go into Irag, stop Russia and China in thier tracks trying to have thier own contracts with Hussien, only to create our own with the new admin of the country?

Let keep it going the way it is and vote for Hillary!
If I were writing a science-fiction novel, I'd have everything run on deep-drill geothermal (with liquid CO2 being used as the heat transfer fluid down the borehole to avoid corrosion problems) which then is used to get magnesium from the ocean to use in transportation as Magnesium-Air fuelcells (which use salt as the solvent). You get much simpler non-toxic power from these sources, and the resources are close enough to everywhere that there is no lock on production.
You all have good ideas, thing is, I don't want to "fill up" anymore on anything.  I don't want to have to go to a fillng station.  I want to plug it in at night.  Stop wasting all this money on future technologies that may never come to pass and spend it on a technology we have had for hundreds of years, batteries.  Zero emmissions.  You plug in at night when energy consumption is at its lowest, not producing a strain on the power grid.  Put some of the money into researching gridless energy systems and eventually you will be your own power company.
Reply to 'Len,' regarding the comment: "Why is everyone so afraid of (H) hydrogen.  Easy to make, store, clean burning?"  Easy to answer: it takes lots of energy to make hydrogen via the hydrolysis of water.  So, hydrogen ends up being a great energy transport idea, but what is really needed is an energy source.  Now, if some engineering whiz comes up with a better way to make hydrogen, say, from solar or through some sort of catalyst (nanotubes?) then hydrogen may indeed become viable.  Right now, the inputs are greater than the outputs for hydrogen; that's why you're not seeing it in use now.  Many ideas that sound good on the surface, like biofuels, don't add up once you crunch the numbers.
I believe this new form of fuel will hel us all. In simple it will lower gas rates and prices. The change can help everyone and all of the money, work, and deaths over the war for gas in Iraq will probably end a lot sooner. This should be put out in the market as soon as possible.
Delmar Fairchild:  Corn grown for ethanol is what is taking up the space we need for food stock.  If what James Stepp said is correct, we could use 4.33 times less space growing hemp, still produce the same amount of energy, and use the extra space for actual food production.  It's a win-win for the average consumer - trading corn ethanol production for hemp ethanol production.  More bang for your buck and cheaper food, lowering the cost of living.  

I totally agree that the quest for riches is what will drive us to a newer form of power... I don't think the average person understands (or doesn't yet care) how much money they could save by going green.  It makes a HUGE difference.  That's why I don't understand why people are indifferent toward/against the green movement.  If you're not in it for saving the environment, then get into it to save money.  I saved about 5 grand last year by switching to alternate fuel sources.  That means that in less than 4 years I will start getting back the initial money that I put in...

If anyone has the time, I suggest sitting down and actually figuring out what you would save versus what you spend.  A lot of the time it makes sense monetarily.
The racing car fuel is nitromethane, CH3NO2.

You can read about it at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nitromethane
Methanol less energy dense but in ICE can run on higher compressions 20% more power. All those aromatic hydrocarbon carcinogens gone to.

George Olah (Nobel Prize Winner Chemistry) has written an excellent book worth a look.

Beyond Oil and Gas: The Methanol Economy

-precursor to almost every chemical at the base of modern manufacturing.
-inherently clean burning (carries oxygen with it)
-can utilise coal and gas to make the liquid fuel. US has large coal reserves. ICCG is an extremely intelligent way to use our God given coal reserves.
-present infrastructure can be used to dispense it with some modifications.
-concentrated CO2 in flue gases can be converted into methanol by adding H2.
-H2 prodn from water electrolysis solves variability problem of wind and solar - can with CO2 make liquid energy when demand is low but wind is blowing.
-environmentally much safer than petroleum oil. Massive ocean spill of methanol would dissipate in about a day. Water soluble and easily cleaned up.
-toxicity slightly higher than gasoline - but we're adults.
-can utilise stranded natural gas deposits
-can take CO2 directly out of the atmosphere and turn it into liquid energy methanol if you like.
-China has made up its mind - it will be methanol as their transportation fuel of the future (see China's coal to methanol developments)
-can use it in Direct Methanol Fuel Cells in cars. Already going to be the power source for consumer electronics. See DMFC and laptop news.

-The US must save the free world again.

-Thank you Mr Huckabee for showing some leadership.
Even though I'm conservative and voted for Bush twice, he really dropped the ball on energy independance.  I agree with Huckabee; we need to do this in 10 years or less and really focus national attention on it.  I agree with all the ideas presented in the article.  I would also like to see extra incentives for first-to-production innovators who accomplish key advances -- perhaps something like the Ansari X-Prize?  For example, a prize for the first company to produce algal oil suitable for biodiesel at < $2/gal without subsidies.  If we work together as a nation, we can do this, and the US and the world will be a better place for our work.
The conspiracy-theory twaddle being spewed by most of the posters here illustrates the real problem with our fuel policy: it is being dictated by politics---the politics of scientific illiterates who are ignorant of basic chemistry, basic physics and basic economics.

Face the facts: liquid-fueled internal combustion engines are the most efficient means of powering vehicles.  Batteries require that a vehicle carry around tremendous amounts of additional weight, and merely move the pollution from the tailpipe to an electric power plant's smokestack---and that's not even considering the pollution involved with manufacturing batteries with limited lifespans.  Hydrogen requires similar weight penalties for safe storage systems, similar pollution relocation to produce the electricity, similar pollution to produce the storage matrix for carrying the hydrogen fuel in a vehicle...

Biodiesel, ethanol, methanol, butanol all have genuine potential.  But until the "Big Oil" conspiracy theory nuts start doing some research and educating themselves rather than blaming a "boogeyman" for the existing state of affairs, nothing is going to change.

But there's no reason at all to be hopeful that things will get better: such folks are the major reason we haven't built a new nuclear power plant in decades even though nuclear is the cleanest and safest source of electric power on earth.
 This has been an interesting read, but nobody can do anything about any of the things they are writing about. it's informative, and a good discussion, but results in no change right at this moment.
 It's going to take a concerted effort by all, now, with what is available today for the average person, Most have no cost at all, turn down the water heater 10 degrees, turn the thermostat down 5 degrees, walk when it's less than 4 blocks, start a compost heap in your back yard, shut the tap off when your brushing your teeth, I mean there are dozens of things you can do today, that would make an impact, a major inpact right now, in the next 24hrs.
 we as people, the most wasteful people in the world, have to change our habits, because the big biz that you all criticize just profits from your bad habits, and aren't going to change till you do.
 The oil companies are going to pump all the oil, that's what they're in biz for, the car companies are starting to change, actually pretty quickly, because we are starting to line up for the low fuel consumpton cars, the only thing that's going to slow the amount of oil that is going to be imported is the general public, you and I, the ones that consume it all.
 So get off your butts and start to make a difference, use that computer and research all the ways you can save energy without spending a dime.
  then research all the ways you can save even more energy spending less than a tank of gas for your car.
 then tell your friends how you did it and, god forbid, even help them figure it out.
 Now you as an individual are making a difference instead of giving lip service and waiting for the world to solve a problem you're the biggest contributor to.
 Dave  
i drive a flex fuel gmc yukon. in the 20 months or so i have leased this vehicle i have put 12000 or so miles on it( i'm retired). i do not drive very far usually so when i need fuel i just go to one of the two local stations that carry e-85. i don't check the price as i don't care what it costs. what i can say is in that 12000 miles i have purchased seven hundred and some gallons of ethanol, and only one hundred and something gallons of gasoline. e-85 is less efficient than gas it is true. i pay about 40 cents per gallon less and get about 10% less economy near enough an even trade with the amount i use. i hope the scientists can come up with ways to produce cellulosic ethanol as it is about 15 times more economical to make than corn based ethanol. i will keep my fingers crossed for all of us.
To the fella whose son asked, "why don't we do something with all these leaves instead of throwing them away," WE CAN REFUEL OUR ECONOMY BY SIMPLY REUSING WHAT CORPORATIONS GIVE US—HOGWASH!!! I'M TALKING METHANE PIPED OUT FROM LANDFILLS AND SEWAGE TREATMENT PLANTS. METHANE FROM WASTE BOGS IN CAROLINA PIG FARMS. CURRENTLY NEW YORK CITY EXPORTS ITS SEWER SLUDGE TO ALABAMA AS FREE FERTILIZER. THEY CAN KEEP IT!!! and harvest methane from it.   COMPRESSED WOOD PELLETS FROM SAWMILLS FOR HEATER FUEL (kind of sooty), SCRAPS FROM BLUE JEAN MANUFACTURERS TO MAKE HOUSING INSULATION (being done),

AS FAR AS BIODIESEL, WHY CORN? WHY NOT ACORNS!!! WHAT COULD BE MORE ENERGY INTENSIVE THAN SEEDS FROM MATURE LIVE OAK TREES? ACORNS ARE ALREADY PLENTIFUL AND TASTE VERY BITTER THEREFORE WILL NOT DISRUPT OUR FOOD GRAIN SUPPLY. ITS HOW SQUIRRELS BUILD UP THEIR FAT RESERVES IN WINTER. IT WILL ALSO ENCOURAGE LAND MANAGEMENT OVER RETAIL/RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENT AS THIS FUEL BECOMES MAINSTREAM. HEADLINE: FIGHT THE TERRORISTS WITH ACORNS? ANY THOUGHTS?

DO NOT UNDERESTIMATE THE POWER OF BUYING LESS CONSUMER GOODS: MEANS FEWER SUSPICIOUS CARGO SHIPMENTS ENTERING THE U.S., LESS DEPENDENCE ON CHINESE IMPORTS. CHINA HAS TIES WITH RUSSIA AND THERFORE IRAN. ROADS WILL BE SAFER AND LESS POLLUTING WITH LESS TRACTOR TRAILERS ON THE HIGHWAYS—NOT TO MENTION FEWER TRAFFIC JAMS AROUND CITIES. LESS TRUCKS MEANS LESS GAS CONSUMPTION. BUYING LESS AND INVESTING JOBS IN WASTE RECAPTURE COULD AND WOULD MAKE THE U.S. A WORLD LEADER AGAIN!
Butanol is a more promising alcohol fuel, it has almost as much energy per gallon as gasoline, burns clean, is not corrosive, and can be used in existing gasoline engines without modification. Butanol can be used in older vehicles until we get even better "plug-ins" to replace them. Butanol can be produced by bacterial fermentation of biomass.

Electric powered transport is the most efficient and economical option, it will eventually replace the use of fossil fuels for land transport. Electricity can be produced from a wide variety of clean power sources. LiIon batteries can now give sufficient range, and even better batteries are being developed. Automated roadways could be electrified to provide power "on the go", completely eliminating the "short range long trip" problem.

As for the other options mentioned:
Palladium can absorb 800 times its volume in hydrogen, but is far too expensive to use for H2 storage. Palladium produces heat when it absorbs H2, a fact overlooked by Pons & Fleischman in their "cold fusion" experiment. They were mistaken, no H2 fusion was taking place.

H2 can be made several different ways, but all are expensive. The cheapest source is steam reformed natural gas, which is why the oil companies are touting it - they have the cheapest source of H2, they are the main producers of H2, and they want to sell this expensive new fuel when the oil runs low. It is difficult to store sufficient H2 for vehicles, requiring incredible pressures (10,000 psi) or mind-boggling cold (-423.17 °F), or heavy expensive metal hydride alloys.

Fuel cells are almost twice as efficient as IC engines, but due to expensive Platinum catalysts and special membranes, they are far too expensive for the average driver to afford. Compared to LiIon batteries, PEM fuel cells cost more, have a shorter lifespan, and are less efficient.

Water electrolysis is at best 60% efficient, PEM fuel cells 50%, combined is only 30%. Compare that with 85% efficiency for charger and batteries - a battery electric car would use 1/3 the electricity used by an electrolyzer to fuel a fuel cell car driven the same distance. "On-board electrolysis" cannot power a car, regardless of what some slick talking scam artist says - it uses up energy, it does not produce energy.

Some wonder why I am so critical of certain  alternative technologies, and the reason is that we cannot afford to waste time and money on ideas that are too expensive, too inefficient, or cannot work. We need to concentrate on the best new ideas, the ones most likely to succeed.
CM in Modesto: Thanks for all the information.  Great read.  I will have to read/think more about the automated roadways idea you've presented.  But I disagree that RIGHT NOW we need to concentrate on the best technology.  Right now we need to reduce our oil consumption and carbon footprint no matter what the flavor of alternative fuel you choose.  And I don't think that one big solution is the solution we need.  I think that different regions will be able to utilize the different solutions better.  Take corn ethanol for instance: it's a great idea for the regions that grow corn, but taking that same product out to the far reaches of the country is a bad idea.  The infrastructure isn't there and it will be incredibly difficult to put a working solution in place.  Methanol... if it's true that we could take CO2 directly out of the atmosphere and turn it into liquid energy methanol, then that would be fantastic for areas that are choking on their own greenhouse gases. (I don't know what the biproduct of methanol is, though).  But I doubt it would be an excellent idea for those who live where there are only plants and trees around for miles.

I think the best ideas will come out of the marriage of several alternative fuel sources.  Such as Biodiesel Hybrids.  If you can get 100 mpg out of a Prius by driving it right (not like an american), imagine what you could do with a Biodiesel Hybrid VW Jetta.  I'm thinking about 8 times fewer stops for gas, at least, than a regular gas powered car.

Well, I'm definitely not an expert, I'm just taking what I'm reading and putting things together.  Thanks everyone for all the great ideas.
This has been a very interesting read. As stated by many, one of the important things is that there are discussions taking place. These need to be brought to the attention of the local politicians that YOU elect. This is neither a liberal or conservative issue, nor a Republican or Democrat issue. It is something that effects the great country we live in and the stability of it (economically and other). The change can start locally and will follow up the..ahem (I dislike stating it this way)..chain-of-command. Bottom up, not top down is the only way I see being effective politically.

 I don't believe that there is one answer that will immediately solve our energy crisis. What I think we need to do is establish many already viable alternatives and utilize them. Start with the Bio-diesel, electric cars (GM already has available production models), establish solar arrays, implement wind turbines off the coast (yes, Ted Kennedy - in your backyard), and drill our reserves to name a few.

 Hydrogen sounds good but, as others more informed than I have already stated, isn't feasible at this stage. We shouldn't give up on exploring it, though. Also remember while electric cars are a good idea, what is used to create the electricity (how about a trunk load of potatoes)? Oh, yeah, then the rising cost of potatoes...boy, the damn ripple effects again.

 Corporate greed (otherwise known as good business sense) will always tend to protect their niche in the market place, that's why solar is being talked about so much now. The patent rights that big-oil bought up in the 80's, when these technological breakthroughs were developed, are about to expire.

 Our present infrastructure and economy will not support an overnight switch to one new energy source. The answer, in my humble and uneducated opinion, is gradual change. As the populace embraces and becomes comfortable with change, the mindset and habits of the average consumer will gradually change and big-oil, big-whatever will be forced to change their habits or die in place.

 5% from solar (or more), 7% from wind (or more),flex-fuels, bio-diesel, electric cars, accessing already known oil deposits ( gulf of Mexico, Anwar and others), building more refineries, building more nuclear power plants will all help to reduce foreign dependencies.

 I must admit that reading many of the posts submitted have not only made me smile, but have had me laughing out loud. The transparent attempts to couch political idealism and the overt declarations are responsible. I'd like to respond to a few...

 First, we are already at war and the money has already been spent. Leaving now is not the answer and under funding our brave men and women in harms way is criminal, in my estimation. If I had every dollar back that I spent at McDonalds or whatever....

 Annexing Iraq? Well I've lightheartedly proposed paving the entire Middle-East and creating an international gas station. Why have over 10,000 devastating weapons to leave them in silos? They're already paid for and are only taking up space. $10 a barrel, anyone?

 Anti-Arab sentiment? All I've read is about how they have us (and the rest of the world for that matter) by the short and curlies, and they aren't afraid to tug on them either (which hurts..if you get the drift) or about terrorism. By the way I know that all Arabs or Muslims aren't terrorist, but all terrorist seem to be Arab or Muslim...Hmmmm...

 Whatever to answer(s) may be, the discussion needs to continue and opinions need to be stated and brought to the attention of those that we choose to speak for us.
Alcohol oxidiation produces CO2 and thus does not really benefit man kind.   Yes it could free us of imported oil products but global warming would not be helped. In other words alcohol does not really promise solutions.  Electric plug in auto's are still the only real solution.   And until the batteries are developed to extend their range things are not as good as they might seem.
I was in Ica Peru at Las Dunes in 1983(A distinctly desert area). I met a friend of the owner (an expatriot) who was pleased to show off his experimental planting of JOJOBA, a shrub with edible seeds that is also a source of oil (The dictionary calls it edible seed that produce a valuable liquid wax) This plant purportedly is native to southwest US, not Peru. It would be nice if we can avoid the impact on the price of corn that the the use of corn for oil by using the culture of the jojoba that could mean if it is really abetter source for oil. Does anyone know of it? Maybe its only as good as soy been oil.Its so near Xmas, lets hearit for "Ho-Ho-Ba")    C Mayer Lakeland Fla.
A couple of quick things

1. EROEI (energy return on energy invested) of ethanol could be good if much greater use were made of waste biomass sources rather than agriculture. Secondarily, cellulosic ethanol from crops like miscanthus and switchgrass (panicum) are very envirofriendly crops which can be companion planted with food crops like corn with advantages to yield of both. They require very little fertiliser and can help staunch nutrient release to water tables. Cattle can feed on them too. Sugar, which is currently at a nadir in world prices is another source, and if that's not so in the US it reflects the trade policy of protecting sugar at the moment. In any event, the mere comparison of energy in and out is also misleading. If *stationary* (and therefore less despatchable sources of energy such as coal and uranium) are converted into more despatchable sources like liquid fuels and these latter are in short supply, then we have improved the quality of the energy with advantage.

If the source of the electricity is inexhaustible and intermittent and relatively benign by environmental criteria (eg solar, wind, wave, tidal, geothermal) then the question of energy inputs is moot in energy balance terms. Nuclear (thorium and uranium) still stacks up well too because at the margin, nuclear energy plants use up very little fuel per energy unit produced.    

2. Both ethanol and butanol (an alcohol based fuel with more energy content than ethanol that can be used in unmodified gasoline vehicles or in any mix with ethanol) can be extracted from any starch based material. It can be a by-product of biodiesel from biomass such as algae, which in turn is grown in significant part by absorbing CO2 at rates far better than plant matter. Effectively, this would be converting solar energy into fuel via a few steps.

Fran
25 years ago, I worked alongside Bob Zubrin promoting nuclear fusion research. Since that time Bob's idea of what will fuel be technologically feasible for rocketry and now automobiles has continually diminished. What hasn't diminished is his over-sized self promotion. What's next? Buggy whip manufacturing?
People at long last are beginning to think seriously about the problem of "power," and are seeing more clearly the connections that lead backwards from any perceived "solution."  To answer the original question posed by Alan, no, alcohol is not the answer.  Working backwards, there is always Carbon Dioxide involved, whether in production or in use as fuel.  

Fire itself is the major clue -- nothing that merely replaces oil (fossil fuel) with another combustible is ideal.  The argument for production of ethanol, methanol, biodiesel, etc., is predicated upon its use in the internal combustion engine, or fire.  

Only electricity, derived from steam (common water makes up more than 70% of this world) which can be made at will by nuclear reaction in small quantities, stays away from oxidizing fire.  Electricity, fed into existing grids, and from them into existing networks of service stations, will provide motive power to keep the wheels of progress turning.

If one-tenth of the research money put into figuring out whether we should have greens cars or red cars this year was directed into nanobattery development, the auto makers would soon be able to provide cheap transportation, as Henry Ford figured out a long, long time ago.
Gary Bebee...why on earth does a retired person who doesn't drive much need a big honkin GMC yukon anyway? Flex fuel or not.  It's that kind of mentality since SUV's were born that got us into this emissions mess anyway.
Having more flex fuel automobiles is the only solution. Expand bio-diesel promotion and promoting diesel powered vehicles. Expand on Methanol options and switch to hydrogen power when the technology is better.

In my post earlier relating to geothermal I mentioned CO2 as a less corrosive substitute for H2O as a working fluid for heat transfer - this was wrong - CO2 is very corrosive esp. under pressure. I'm thinking maybe using oil itself would be the best method of getting heat out of the earth: To scale up geothermal power quickly just take existing old oil well bore holes and drill them deeper, then pump oil in a circulating loop... The most fuel-efficient transport has to be to transmit the power (like the MIT magnetic field method just discovered - of course Tesla already had the basic idea) to the vehicle to save weight. Transmit along the freeways and use batteries only when driving offline locally.
These ideas in this blog are great and maybe pie-in-the-sky but we're going to transition to *something* as the oil gets too expensive, so it might as well be a well thought out long-haul solution. Evolutionary steps just up the cost of transition.
I have learned so much here today, butanol, DMF, methanol, nitromethanol. But what can you do today? You can buy a diesel car. You can make your own biodiesel from used cooking oil. You can buy biodiesel from a few places. You can buy an electric hybrid or plug in. Right now you can't buy a diesel motorcylce. http://www.m1030.com/models.htm You can drive less and carpool. You can ride a bus or light rail in some places. You can walk and you can ride a bike. Nothing is going to change until some of the people on this list take their own advice.
"get America closer to energy independence". What's the major objection  to nuclear power? In Amereica it's what to do with the nuclear waste! Riddle me this: why do France, Japan, and others find no need for their own version Of Yucca Mountan as a waste depository? You can blame that peanut farmer for this one!
The fuel of the future is Boron 11. Once you have a really cheap energy source you can convert it to anything (with some losses).

http://powerandcontrol.blogspot.com/
2007/03/mr-fusion.html

Bussard Fusion Reactor

http://powerandcontrol.blogspot.com/2006/11/
easy-low-cost-no-radiation-fusion.html

Easy Low Cost No Radiation Fusion

It has been funded:

http://powerandcontrol.blogspot.com/2007/08/
bussard-reactor-funded.html

Bussard Reactor Funded

The above reactor can burn Deuterium which is very abundant and produces lots of neutrons or it can burn a mixture of Hydrogen and Boron 11 which does not.

The implication of it is that we will know in 6 to 9 months if the small reactors of that design are feasible.

If they are we could have fusion plants generating electricity in 10 years or less depending on how much we want to spend to compress the time frame. A much better investment than CO2 sequestration.

BTW Bussard is not the only thing going on in IEC. There are a few government programs at Los Alamos National Laboratory, MIT, the University of Wisconsin and at the University of Illinois at Champaign-Urbana among others.

The Japanese and Australians also have programs.

If you want to get deeper into the technology visit:

http://iecfusiontech.blogspot.com/
IEC Fusion Technology blog

Start with the sidebar which has links to tutorials and other stuff.
bob, boulder, co,

Americans didn't kill 10s of thousands of Arabs in Iraq.

Arabs killed 10s of thousands of Arabs in Iraq.
Ok. I'm about to shoot down an argument right here right now. The arguement over e85 returning rotton gas mileage. In motors with gasoline compression, yes. It is lousy. But a GM V8, for example, built to take full advantage of the fuels potential returns the same if not better mileage than the last Camaros 25-28mpg. A 14:1 compression setup should do the trick.
I myself intend on building 'Project Boozer.' a race compression motor with a somewhat less aggressive valvetrain, tuned for street use. It'll run of Grandaddys brew we'll just say, and at $1/gal to make in quantity, I'll be declaring MY independence from these $95-125 fillups at the pump if the politicians won't anytime in my lifetime!
My grandfather, Theodore O. Wentworth Sr. had the answer way back in the 70s and 80s.  He invented ways to mass produce methanol and ended up testifying to congress about it.  He forsaw our crisis of dependency on foreign oil coming many years ago.  However, they chose not to listen and now we are suffering for it!  My grandfather sat down with BP, Texaco, and others in the 80s and they were ready to sign on the dotted line.  But, the environmentalist shut it down at the last minute.  My grandfather was on the morning show with Barbra Walters, and she cut down the whole idea on national television.  The media is just as guilty as the oil companies for our situation.
CH3NO2 for the win.
why wait,everybody tired of gasoline price so high.especially in hawaii.methanol will be the right option.
It is such a shame see how US is strugling with an old issue. Brazil has had flex fuel cars for years. The vehicles does cost a little more, but you get your money worth on savings on gas. You can mix ethanol with regular gasoline for better torque. You do not have to get rid of old gasoline, just reduce the use. I am sure the american people will be glad to mix the fuel, if they are paying a fraction of what they are paying now.
Regarding the production of sugar cane or corn... there is a simple solution: like everything else in US, import from Mexico, or any other country who does not finance terrorism. It still much cheaper that importing from middle-east, first for geographical distance, and second for the cost itself. And last but not least, regarding the question about corn being food, not fuel... I am sure people in the country states can live on mashed potatos, and fried green tomatoes. People will forget how good corn is when they can afford a nice juicy steak.
I think you should find another way of making fuel because your way of making it would be more expensive and I dont want forests to be gone in the next 20 years plus it wont stop pollution.
anyone besides me think it's absolutely ridiculous to use a 3000lb+ overpriced hunk of steel to move from place to place, even with our fat american diets 300lbs would serve as a top end baseline for the typical work commute.

its long overdue that vehicles need to get LIGHTER in order to realize any meaningful mileage gains...yet this isn't the case, because people erringly think a heavy car is safer. I would tend to believe chances of surviving a head-on crash would favor lighter weight(not necessarily smaller) well designed machines with less inertia.

Energy sources notwithstanding, the whole concept of transport needs to be re-evaluted.....including "realistic" safety/liability regulations that allow more latitude to truly innovate.....
Methanol was required for some automobile racetracks until it became more politically correct to use ethanol. Only minor changes are needed to use methanol in current production cars. Gasoline is poisonous and methanol is as well. Methanol can be used in very simple stoves. Methanol can be stored for decades without much change and can be converted to gasoline in a simple process when needed. ..HG..


SEND A COMMENT

PLEASE READ: All comments must be approved before appearing in the thread; time and space constraints prevent all comments from appearing. We will only approve comments that are directly related to the blog, use appropriate language and are not attacking the comments of others.

Message (please, no HTML tags. Web addresses will be hyperlinked):

TRACKBACKS

Trackbacks are links to weblogs that reference this post. Like comments, trackbacks do not appear until approved by us. The trackback URL for this post is: http://cosmiclog.msnbc.msn.com/trackback.aspx?PostID=485699

Latest Tech & Science News

Syndicate This Site

Add Cosmic Log to your news reader:
live.com xml
myyahoo msn
bloglines newsgator
google