Comments on: The Methanol Economy

By: Neil

Neil — Sun, 14 May 2006 18:17:19 +0000

Wow Dodgy, if you could get a petrol engine to run at 30% efficiency we’d already be getting about 200mpg – from Hummers! Heehee!
Your comment about electricty produced from coal is eye opening. Another one is that all those green peeps in their Prius’ release about 2.5 times more CO2 if they recharge their car using electricity generated from coal than they would if they just used petrol. Instead of just the engine efficiency, you now have a stack – generation eff., transmission eff., charging eff.
Food for thought.

By: Dodgy

Dodgy — Sat, 13 May 2006 22:14:26 +0000

Quote: guitargeek Says:
May 12th, 2006 at 1:33 am

“So what happens when you burn the stuff, doesn’t the CO2 just go right back into the atmosphere?

There has to be a net loss of energy overall, nothing is free. Windpower looks good, but that entropy is a bitch! Moving parts eventually wear out, plus you have to build and maintain the network to distribute and store those electrons…”

Well, yes, obviously. But it will only be CO2, no nasty carcinogens from burning toulene, benzine etc., and burning gasoline puts out plenty of CO2 itself. Of course it’s all so nasty the Californians came up with catalytic convertors; now we’ve all got them…

Net loss of energy? Really? What, you mean physics works here as well?
Let’s see, a billion years of rotting garbage makes a pool of oil.We then use massive amounts of energy to seperate it into various components. Then we put some of them into our vehicles and drive around (needlessly in a lot of cases) with efficiencies up to about 30%. Imagine if we could make all our engines 100% efficient? My SV650 would be putting out over 300 Hp, and getting 120 Mpg with no exhaust fumes. And the worlds oil would last for another 2000 years.
Moving parts? What? Compared to a coal fired power station, or a nuclear plant, they have almost zero wear parts (I think you will find a few large bearings and a chain or belt for gearing). And isn’t the network already there? Or are you plugged into something else?
Interesting comment I heard. It is believed that sourcing electricity from coal power indirectly kills more people each year, than nuclear accidents ever have.

Don’t get me wrong, I love riding my bike, and I hope I can still afford dino for another few years; but it won’t last, and we have to keep working on other things… Now!

By: guitargeek

guitargeek — Fri, 12 May 2006 06:33:41 +0000

So what happens when you burn the stuff, doesn’t the CO2 just go right back into the atmosphere?

By: Neil

Neil — Thu, 11 May 2006 16:41:02 +0000

The best way to overcome the inertia is to find a clean fuel which can be used in existing motors with no, or minimal, modifcation. From that point of view the alcohols are a good bet.
It’s not the distribution network that causes the inertia, it’s the end user installed base. It’s got to be easy, quick and cheap for people to make a change, or they will just wait until they absolutely cannot avoid it. Or until their govt. introduces some form of negative reinforcement to compel them to change.

By: keith

keith — Wed, 10 May 2006 15:24:55 +0000

The inertia behind the current fuel distribution network will only be a factor if government mandates continue to allow that. if the laws change, it could seriously updset the balance. I’ll just keep an eye on calaifornia… they seem to be the leaders of change around here.