Talk:Methanol fuel

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

[edit] Suggestions for changes to Methanol fuel

After reading through the page for Methanol fuel, I think it could use some improvements:

→ Focus on the fuel properties of methanol, instead of toxicity, which is already discussed under Methanol

→ Supply more references to external sources in support of statements

→ Discuss more of the positive attributes of methanol

→ Avoid a critical tone toward methanol and an approving tone toward ethanol

→ Separate medical and environmental issues

→ Resolve contradictory statements within the page

→ Consider reordering or regrouping statements to improve logical continuity

Everettrw 05:08, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Specific criticisms for the current article on Methanol fuel

Quotes are from the main article.

"Methanol has been considered as a fuel, mainly in combination with gasoline." - Methanol is used as a fuel for motor vehicles, heating devices, and fuel cells. Methanol is used as an additive and extender for gasoline in California, and has been considered for large scale use at near 100% purity. methanol.org

"It has received less attention than ethanol, however, because it has a number of problems of its own." - Methanol has received considerable attention as an alternative to gasoline. It shares many of the same properties as the more familiar ethanol, with some important differences with regards to use as fuel.

"Its main advantage is that it can be easily manufactured from methane (the chief constituent of natural gas) as well as by pyrolysis of many organic materials." - Its main advantage over ethanol is a greater efficiency of production, resulting in lower costs. This holds for both fossil fuels conversion to methanol and for biomass conversion to methanol.

"A problem with pyrolysis is that it is only economically feasible on an industrial scale, so it is not advisable to try to produce methanol from renewable resources like wood on a small (personal use) scale." - Producing methanol or ethanol on a small scale is not economically feasible at present, but industrially, over 30,000,000 tons of methanol and over 20,000,000 tons of ethanol are produced yearly for many purposes, including motor fuel.

"In any case, high temperatures are involved, with some risk of fire; furthermore, methanol is highly toxic, so great care should be taken at all times not to ingest methanol, spill it onto exposed skin, or inhale the fumes." - Both methanol and ethanol burn at lower temperatures than gasoline, and both are less volatile, reducing the risk of explosion or flash fire. Methanol has about the same acute toxicity as gasoline, so similar precautions should be taken when handling it. Methanol is much less carcinogenic than gasoline, and much less harmful to the environment if spilled. Methanol and Gasoline

"Methanol can be derived from biological sources; Russia has an extensive program to make methanol from eucalyptus." - Methanol was first created by pyrolysis of biomass. Current technology can convert the synthesis gas generated by pyrolysis to create additional production of methanol. Everettrw 03:22, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Merge into methanol economy article?

I vote "no", since the whole point of a methanol economy is not just to use it as a fuel, but to make it in "green" ways, first (i.e., from CO2). Thus, methanol can substitute for hydrogen in all of hydrogen's suggested uses in a hydrogen economy (save for a few odd aerospace uses). The methanol (fuel) article only cares about use of methanol as a fuel, and doesn't really care how it's produced. One could argue for merging the methanol fuel article into methanol economy (since it's really a subsection of that), but this would not be fair, either, as much of the interest in methanol as a fuel doesn't really address methanol source, and doesn't need to. So, it's better to leave the two articles separate, as they are. To use another fuel as an example, hydrogen as a fuel is now used in the space shuttle, but nobody cares if it comes from fossil fuels (which it does) because it is used in the space shuttle for it's extreme energy/weight ratio. None of this has any relevance to hydrogen fuels in a hydrogen economy, where hydrogen is used not because of its weight/energy ratio, but because it causes less pollution at the end use point. So two separate articles are needed, because the uses of hydrogen as a fuel have completely different objects, and there are very many difficulties and arguments in each, which have nothing to do with the other, for that reason. Same with methanol. SBHarris 08:09, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

• No merge: this article can be put side by side with ethanol economy and hydrogen economy (perhaps also Low-carbon economy) it is more than just a fuel. It is better to aim to expand the methanol economy article: current research? critics?, interviews? simply a matter of finding the articles and report on it, positive editing that is what it is all about. On an administrative note: the user that posted this tag did not motivate his merge proposal making it invalid. V8rik 18:03, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

• • Just came here to say exactly the same thing, "Methanol Fuel" is about the actual fuel whereas "Methanol Economy" is about a hypothetical economic situation and a way of structuring infrastructure etc. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 81.107.107.47 (talk) 19:56, August 22, 2007 (UTC)
    • No support for merge, tag removed V8rik 21:24, 12 November 2007 (UTC)