Why not methanol

"Daniel J. Stern" wrote:
>
> On Fri, 18 Mar 2005, Pete C. wrote:
>
> > For this country to "get serious" about alternate energy either oil
> > prices need to get high enough or alternate energy technology needs to
> > improve enough (or a combination of both) so that you can get an
> > alternate energy car that is comparable to a conventional car in price,
> > capability, reliability and service life and the same or better in
> > operating cost per mile.
>
> Go look at Brazil. LOTS of alcohol-fuelled cars on the roads there, and
> have been for years. Performance, convenience and durability are all
> reported to be completely ordinary, and alcohol costs less per litre.
>
> There's no infrastructure for alternative fuels, so nobody buys them, so
> nobody builds them, so there's no incentive to build infrastructure, so
> there's no infrastructure, so nobody buys them, so nobody builds them,
> so...


Probably true, I was mostly considering *this* country (US) and not
really considering alcohol as a 100% fuel. How is it from a pollution
standpoint?

The vehicle / infrastructure chicken / egg thing is always an issue. A
non pressurized liquid fuel such as alcohol is compatible with existing
distribution infrastructure though so the issue is more of production
and demand. Loose the mid grade gas at the pump and you have room for
alcohol, low and high grade gas on existing pumps.

There is also a growing CNG infrastructure which could be adapted for
other compressed gaseous fuels such as hydrogen if that ever goes
anywhere. So there is not nearly as much of an infrastructure issue as a
production / technology / demand issue.

Pete C.

Daniel J. Stern wrote:
> Robert Briggs wrote:
>
> > Quit whingeing.
> >
> > IIRC, CBS News last night rebroadcast in the UK mentioned "gas"
> > prices of a tad over two dollars per gallon. We pay the thick
> > end of four pounds sterling per gallon.
>
> That's because you allow your government to steal overmuch from
> you. Most of that price is tax.

You think I don't know that?

That said, taxing the fuel seems the logical thing to do if you want to
reduce carbon dioxide emissions.[*]

ISTM taxes on *owning* the car in the first place can work *against*
reduction of emissions, since I find myself with a single car which is
capable of doing pretty much all I want of it, rather than the most
fuel-efficient car I find acceptably safe for routine commuting plus a
low-mileage gas-guzzler (by UK standards, at least) for comfortable
load-hauling on longer trips.

[*] Whether reduced emissions will help the planet is quite another
debate, of course.

Robert Briggs wrote:
>
> Daniel J. Stern wrote:
> > Robert Briggs wrote:
> >
> > > Quit whingeing.
> > >
> > > IIRC, CBS News last night rebroadcast in the UK mentioned "gas"
> > > prices of a tad over two dollars per gallon. We pay the thick
> > > end of four pounds sterling per gallon.
> >
> > That's because you allow your government to steal overmuch from
> > you. Most of that price is tax.
>
> You think I don't know that?
>
> That said, taxing the fuel seems the logical thing to do if you want to
> reduce carbon dioxide emissions.[*]
>
> ISTM taxes on *owning* the car in the first place can work *against*
> reduction of emissions, since I find myself with a single car which is
> capable of doing pretty much all I want of it, rather than the most
> fuel-efficient car I find acceptably safe for routine commuting plus a
> low-mileage gas-guzzler (by UK standards, at least) for comfortable
> load-hauling on longer trips.
>
>[*] Whether reduced emissions will help the planet is quite another
> debate, of course.

I've previously noted about how taxes and insurance in the US make it
non-economically feasible to have a second high mileage vehicle for
general use.

One thing that I see a lot of people do that bugs me is to confuse
mileage with efficiency, the two are *not* the same thing (not saying
you did this, just came to mind).

Mileage is simply a measure of the fuel required to get a vehicle a
given distance, and this is not a measure of efficiency. To get
efficiency you have to add work accomplished into the equation.

As an example of how mileage does not equal efficiency consider this: A
Tractor trailler combo gets say 10 miles to a gallon of diesel.When the
trailler is full of cargo the efficiency is high. When the trailler is
empty the efficiency is low. The mileage doesn't change too much between
the two states.

Is a car that gets 50mpg while transporting two people to work more
efficient than a van that gets 15mpg while transporting 12 people to
work?

The nonsense regulation in the US trying to set a corporate average
mileage number and claim it represents efficiency really annoys me. If
they want to mandate efficiency they need to use a measure of efficiency
which mileage is not.

Pete C.

Pete C. wrote:
> Robert Briggs wrote:
> >
> > Daniel J. Stern wrote:
> > > Robert Briggs wrote:
> > >
> > > > Quit whingeing.
> > > >
> > > > IIRC, CBS News last night rebroadcast in the UK mentioned "gas"
> > > > prices of a tad over two dollars per gallon. We pay the thick
> > > > end of four pounds sterling per gallon.
> > >
> > > That's because you allow your government to steal overmuch from
> > > you. Most of that price is tax.
> >
> > You think I don't know that?
> >
> > That said, taxing the fuel seems the logical thing to do if you
want to
> > reduce carbon dioxide emissions.[*]
> >
> > ISTM taxes on *owning* the car in the first place can work
*against*
> > reduction of emissions, since I find myself with a single car which
is
> > capable of doing pretty much all I want of it, rather than the most
> > fuel-efficient car I find acceptably safe for routine commuting
plus a
> > low-mileage gas-guzzler (by UK standards, at least) for comfortable
> > load-hauling on longer trips.
> >
> >[*] Whether reduced emissions will help the planet is quite another
> > debate, of course.
>
> I've previously noted about how taxes and insurance in the US make it
> non-economically feasible to have a second high mileage vehicle for
> general use.
>
> One thing that I see a lot of people do that bugs me is to confuse
> mileage with efficiency, the two are *not* the same thing (not saying
> you did this, just came to mind).
>
> Mileage is simply a measure of the fuel required to get a vehicle a
> given distance, and this is not a measure of efficiency. To get
> efficiency you have to add work accomplished into the equation.
>
> As an example of how mileage does not equal efficiency consider this:
A
> Tractor trailler combo gets say 10 miles to a gallon of diesel.When
the
> trailler is full of cargo the efficiency is high. When the trailler
is
> empty the efficiency is low. The mileage doesn't change too much
between
> the two states.
>
> Is a car that gets 50mpg while transporting two people to work more
> efficient than a van that gets 15mpg while transporting 12 people to
> work?

Where the heck does one find a 12 passenger van that gets 15 MPG? My
dad once rented a Ford Econoline to transport about 10 people, and that
thing was lucky to get 10 MPG on the freeway. Granted - it's more
efficient to transport 10 people on one that have all 10 driving
Metros/Prius/Insights alone.

y_p_w wrote:
>
> Pete C. wrote:
> > Robert Briggs wrote:
> > >
> > > Daniel J. Stern wrote:
> > > > Robert Briggs wrote:
> > > >
> > > > > Quit whingeing.
> > > > >
> > > > > IIRC, CBS News last night rebroadcast in the UK mentioned "gas"
> > > > > prices of a tad over two dollars per gallon. We pay the thick
> > > > > end of four pounds sterling per gallon.
> > > >
> > > > That's because you allow your government to steal overmuch from
> > > > you. Most of that price is tax.
> > >
> > > You think I don't know that?
> > >
> > > That said, taxing the fuel seems the logical thing to do if you
> want to
> > > reduce carbon dioxide emissions.[*]
> > >
> > > ISTM taxes on *owning* the car in the first place can work
> *against*
> > > reduction of emissions, since I find myself with a single car which
> is
> > > capable of doing pretty much all I want of it, rather than the most
> > > fuel-efficient car I find acceptably safe for routine commuting
> plus a
> > > low-mileage gas-guzzler (by UK standards, at least) for comfortable
> > > load-hauling on longer trips.
> > >
> > >[*] Whether reduced emissions will help the planet is quite another
> > > debate, of course.
> >
> > I've previously noted about how taxes and insurance in the US make it
> > non-economically feasible to have a second high mileage vehicle for
> > general use.
> >
> > One thing that I see a lot of people do that bugs me is to confuse
> > mileage with efficiency, the two are *not* the same thing (not saying
> > you did this, just came to mind).
> >
> > Mileage is simply a measure of the fuel required to get a vehicle a
> > given distance, and this is not a measure of efficiency. To get
> > efficiency you have to add work accomplished into the equation.
> >
> > As an example of how mileage does not equal efficiency consider this:
> A
> > Tractor trailler combo gets say 10 miles to a gallon of diesel.When
> the
> > trailler is full of cargo the efficiency is high. When the trailler
> is
> > empty the efficiency is low. The mileage doesn't change too much
> between
> > the two states.
> >
> > Is a car that gets 50mpg while transporting two people to work more
> > efficient than a van that gets 15mpg while transporting 12 people to
> > work?
>
> Where the heck does one find a 12 passenger van that gets 15 MPG? My
> dad once rented a Ford Econoline to transport about 10 people, and that
> thing was lucky to get 10 MPG on the freeway. Granted - it's more
> efficient to transport 10 people on one that have all 10 driving
> Metros/Prius/Insights alone.

Can't say for sure since I don't have one, but my Chev. K3500 crew cab
dually with the 7.4l v8 and 5spd gets 11 mpg while pulling a 10,000#
trailer and additional cargo in the bed, so I'm pretty sure you can find
a 12 passenger van that will do a bit better. That 11 mpg was on a 1,700
mile trip and also included letting it floor it up hills on cruise
control which tends to cut the mileage.

Pete C.

"Daniel J. Stern" > wrote in
n.umich.edu:


>
> Go look at Brazil. LOTS of alcohol-fuelled cars on the roads there, and
> have been for years. Performance, convenience and durability are all
> reported to be completely ordinary, and alcohol costs less per litre.



Brazil has mandated ethanol in motor fuels, so motorists have no choice. It
is similar to the current popularity of propane in the UK and diesel on the
Continent: governmental muscle is the motivating factor.

If alcohol "costs less" in Brazil, it is because of the political
incentives and considerable indirect subsidies in its favor.

In real terms, producing fuels from farmed plants is extremely expensive
compared to petroleum fuels.


>
> There's no infrastructure for alternative fuels, so nobody buys them, so
> nobody builds them, so there's no incentive to build infrastructure, so
> there's no infrastructure, so nobody buys them, so nobody builds them,
> so...
>
>


If we want the governmental fist-in-your-face method of achieving the
needed "infrastructure", then maybe we should do what Brazil has done.

Petroleum fuels are the cheapest thing around, hands down. That's the main
reason "alternative fuels" have not caught on except where the government
has kneecapped consumers into choosing an "alternative".

A couple of very interesting links for those who are very interested:
http://www.aip.com.au/pricing/oecd.htm
http://countrystudies.us/brazil/76.htm

That second one is a doozy. Ol' Danny is not telling us the whole story
here.


--
TeGGeR®

On Fri, 18 Mar 2005 18:01:00 +0000, Robert Briggs
> wrote:

>Don Stauffer in Minneapolis wrote:
>
>> How high must oil get to before this country gets serious about
>> alternate energy?
>
>Quit whingeing.
>
>IIRC, CBS News last night rebroadcast in the UK mentioned "gas" prices
>of a tad over two dollars per gallon. We pay the thick end of four
>pounds sterling per gallon.
>
>Allowing for the currency exchange rate and your under-sized gallon, I
>reckon our fuel costs close to three times as much as yours.

I wish people would stop talking about the high COST of fuel in
European countries as if it really cost that much for the actual fuel.
The HIGH PRICE is due to the HIGH taxes European gvts have elected to
place on the nominal COST of the fuel.

Ashton Crusher wrote:
>
> On Fri, 18 Mar 2005 18:01:00 +0000, Robert Briggs
> > wrote:
>
> >Don Stauffer in Minneapolis wrote:
> >
> >> How high must oil get to before this country gets serious about
> >> alternate energy?
> >
> >Quit whingeing.
> >
> >IIRC, CBS News last night rebroadcast in the UK mentioned "gas" prices
> >of a tad over two dollars per gallon. We pay the thick end of four
> >pounds sterling per gallon.
> >
> >Allowing for the currency exchange rate and your under-sized gallon, I
> >reckon our fuel costs close to three times as much as yours.
>
> I wish people would stop talking about the high COST of fuel in
> European countries as if it really cost that much for the actual fuel.
> The HIGH PRICE is due to the HIGH taxes European gvts have elected to
> place on the nominal COST of the fuel.

Not only that, but most of Europe has an excellent and low
priced mass transportation system so for most people a car
isn't neccesary for many trips and day to day commuting.

The best way to look at it is what percentage of disposable
income after mandatory expenses such as rent and taxes is
needed to buy gas for mandatory driving such as commuting
to work. In my case it runs around 40% of my disposable
income, double what it was a few short years ago. There is
no meaningful mass transit in my area.

JazzMan
--
************************************************** ********
Please reply to jsavage"at"airmail.net.
Curse those darned bulk e-mailers!
************************************************** ********
"Rats and roaches live by competition under the laws of
supply and demand. It is the privilege of human beings to
live under the laws of justice and mercy." - Wendell Berry
************************************************** ********

Kevin Bottorff wrote:

> Don Stauffer in Minneapolis > wrote in
> :
>
>
>>Our governor is trying to pass a bill requiring all gas sold in
>>Minnesota in a few years contain 20% ethanol. Now, that is going to
>>require redesign of engines anyway. So why not use methanol instead of
>>ethanol?
>>
>>The big push here is 'cause we grow corn. But methanol can be made
>
> from
>
>>much cheaper feed stock than ethanol.
>>
>>I am aware that the production of both ethanol and methanol currently
>>use natural gas or petroleum. But they do not HAVE to. They require a
>>lot of heat energy. But that heat energy can come from the biofuels
>>themselves, rather than fossil fuels.
>>
>>How high must oil get to before this country gets serious about
>>alternate energy?
>>
>
>
> It is simple really, the ethanol is much more enviroment friendly. It
> is not personally hazzardos like methanol is and a spill is just washed
> away, it is not corrosive to the internal vechicle parts like methanol is
> also. KB
>
Then why does everyone say we can't use ethanol higher than 10 or 15% in
our cars? I thought it was because ethanol was corrosive to internal parts.

Yeah, now that you mention it methanol is hard on paint- the tail of my
race car verifies this. However, for my methanol powered model
airplanes, we have fuel-proof paints. So I am assuming they could use
such paints on cars. Good point about the hazard to people, though. My
dad got really sick one time trying to siphon gas from a car and
swallowed a mouthful, but he certainly did survive. If it had been
methanol, he probably wouldn't have. Good thing he was siphoning it
from his passenger car, not his race car, 'cause even way back then race
cars were using methanol.

Joe S wrote:
>
> Gasoline is cheaper in the US than pretty much anywhere else other than
> countries whose main/sole export is oil. Gasoline costs 2.5-3 times as
> much in Europe and Japan that the US. Their response seems to have been
> "even tinier cars". I do not believe there are significant crash test
> requirements because there are tons of cars that are obviously just not
> survivable in even a 30 mph crash...little more than a skin around the
> driver/passengers.
>

Gee, I have a 600 pound race car. While I have never had a bad crash in
it yet, I have two friends with same class of cars who really rolled
theirs hard. One got a dislocated shoulder, the other a broken wrist.
I don't believe the weight alone is as important in a crash as other things.