RE: Driven: Tesla Roadster
Discussion
Mr Gear said:
Dunno, but it can't be that much of a problem. I've seen all sorts of cars and bikes running on methanol at Santa Pod.
Standard ones or ones that have been built to run on it?Dagnut said:
Methanol might have a higher octane rating than petrol but does it have a higher calorific value? if so why aren't cars running it now?
Way lower.Petrol is about 32MJ/l, Butanol is 29.2MJ/l, Methanol is 16MJ/l.
XitUp said:
Mr Gear said:
Dunno, but it can't be that much of a problem. I've seen all sorts of cars and bikes running on methanol at Santa Pod.
Standard ones or ones that have been built to run on it?Dagnut said:
Methanol might have a higher octane rating than petrol but does it have a higher calorific value? if so why aren't cars running it now?
Way lower.Petrol is about 32MJ/l, Butanol is 29.2MJ/l, Methanol is 16MJ/l.
Dagnut said:
So why are you brandishing it as a solution? Not being a smart arse here don't take the wrong tone..just wondering why you see it as an alternative?..I no very little about it apart from the fact it does produce as much energy as petrol and its used as an octane booster..I know methanol run cars get horrible mpg
I'm not. Go back and read what I've said. I think butanol is a much more realistic solution than methanol.Although butanol fuels are very viscous, about the same as diesel.
XitUp said:
Well, yes, I meant the fuel.
Sorry, wasn't meant to sound like a smart-arse comment 
Just doing some disambiguation XitUp said:
Doesn't methanol have the same problems as ethanol with regards to it being hard to transport in current pipe lines?
Yes, it does; it also corrosive, and requires some variations to some current ICE components. In some global car markets, cars' fuel systems are already quite capable of coping; in California, for instance, 200 million miles have been clocked on Methanol so far - the main conversion work is a raising of the compression ratio.As I said in an earlier post, its advantage is that it uses the same basic infrastructure in terms of types: the same manufacturing methods, the same logistics, and so on. Companies making filling station equipment for petrol can easily make the same suitable for Methanol, using the same equipment, just by changing a few material specifications.
Since H2 would require an entirely new infrastructure (just as LPG has), it seems reasonable to me that take-up would be increased if the same companies could simply upgrade current infrastructure in the natural course of things. It also means there is instant competition - everybody can make it - so equipment prices are not kept artificially high in the short-to-medium term.
Dagnut said:
Mr Gear said:
XitUp said:
skwdenyer said:
XitUp said:
Butanol is better than methanol really.
I presume you mean "butanol fuel" rather than the various compounds to which the term Butanol collectively refers?The problem with Butanol is that it is not markedly better than petrol in terms of tailpipe emissions, and it has various production constraints.
You're right, as a fuel for an ICE it is better than Methanol; as a zero-carbon (and zero-other-nasties) option it still has some way to go.
Methanol's calorific value is lower; it also has a lower stoichiometric fuel:air ratio (6ish:1). This means fuel consumption (volumetrically) is higher. However, even without subsidies, Methanol sold in California (where it has been used as a road fuel for decades) is still just over 10% the price of petrol per gallon. Evidence with LPG suggests that drivers will accept increased (volume-based) fuel consumption if the financial fuel consumption is lower or no worse.
The only real down-side from a practical perspective is that Methanol is hygroscopic; since modern cars' tank breather systems are optimised so as to minimise evaporative pollution, this isn't a major problem.
hairykrishna said:
It's not a terrible idea. The main problem is that it's corrosive; not a horribly difficult problem to solve. It's energy density isn't that crap in the grand scheme of things - it;s just that petrol is very, very good.
From an ICE perspective, most of the corrosiveness problems can be solved - even in existing engines - using oil additives.skwdenyer said:
It is also simply a new way to eat up some natural and non-replaceable mineral deposits for no good reason.
Driving around is a perfectly good use of mineral resources. What do you think we've been doing with oil for over 100 years now.skwdenyer said:
As I alluded-to, and as others have enlarged-upon, synthesising Methanol using sequestered CO2 creates a perfect closed-loop cycle. Burning Methanol does not generate any nasties; it simply returns CO2 to the atmosphere. Using the atmosphere as the transmission medium for the "backhaul" part of the CO2 cycle is good science and very efficient; for every kilo of CO2 removed a kilo of CO2 is replaced.
[sark]You do realise this is what's known a perpertual motion?[/sark]Generating methanol using CO2 requires vast energy inputs. Due to the second law of thermodynamics you'll never recover anything like as much energy from burning methanol as you put into making it.
CO2 is the lowest chemical state for carbon. To rebuild it into any kind of hydrocarbon (methanol/gasoline/diesel) requires energy.
Lots of it.
Its at least as bad as the fabled hydrogen economy with only one advantage. Ease of distribution.
And as for the "time shift" comment, that'll do me. No generation before me has cared about leaving me any fuel to burn, so why should I start caring now. If coal to oil is what it takes to keep the wheels turning then so be it.
I should of course point out that I live in Scotland, where we have 1/10th the population of England, and happen to have huge stranded deep coal reserves along with major offshore deep coal reserves. Not economical to mine, but with some R&D in situ gasification may be the answer....
Andy
Edited by andytk on Friday 27th November 20:46
andytk said:
skwdenyer said:
It is also simply a new way to eat up some natural and non-replaceable mineral deposits for no good reason.
Driving around is a perfectly good use of mineral resources. What do you think we've been doing with oil for over 100 years now.andytk said:
skwdenyer said:
As I alluded-to, and as others have enlarged-upon, synthesising Methanol using sequestered CO2 creates a perfect closed-loop cycle. Burning Methanol does not generate any nasties; it simply returns CO2 to the atmosphere. Using the atmosphere as the transmission medium for the "backhaul" part of the CO2 cycle is good science and very efficient; for every kilo of CO2 removed a kilo of CO2 is replaced.
[sark]You do realise this is what's known a perpertual motion?[/sark]andytk said:
Generating methanol using CO2 requires vast energy inputs. Due to the second law of thermodynamics you'll never recover anything like as much energy from burning methanol as you put into making it.
Correct. So the energy supplied needs to be free or near as damn it.andytk said:
CO2 is the lowest chemical state for carbon. To rebuild it into any kind of hydrocarbon (methanol/gasoline/diesel) requires energy.
Lots of it.
Petrol is the only fuel I know of where energy out > energy in, but that's only because the balance is already embedded in the oil which is dug out of the ground.Lots of it.
In fact, any synthesised fuel will be like that, otherwise - as you say - the 2nd law of thermodynamics is broken.
However, research is showing us the way here. For instance, this work in Singapore has demonstrated how to use cheap, non-toxic, low-energy, low-cost organocatalysts to catalyse the reduction of CO2 to Methanol. With a little more work, and coupled with complementary work in the capture of CO2 from the atmosphere using organic methods, the way is clear for an order of magnitude (at least) reduction in the energy required. Use solar for that (small) amount of additional energy and, err, away you go.
andytk said:
Its at least as bad as the fabled hydrogen economy with only one advantage. Ease of distribution.
Well, I disagree; you don't have to expend even more energy to compress Methanol before distributing it.andytk said:
And as for the "time shift" comment, that'll do me. No generation before me has cared about leaving me any fuel to burn, so why should I start caring now. If coal to oil is what it takes to keep the wheels turning then so be it.
I prefer to hope that my son, and his children, and their children, and so on will have a better world in which to live, not a worse one. That may be an unusual view of the world, and I certainly wouldn't wish to foist it upon others!andytk said:
I should of course point out that I live in Scotland, where we have 1/10th the population of England, and happen to have huge stranded deep coal reserves along with major offshore deep coal reserves. Not economical to mine, but with some R&D in situ gasification may be the answer....
LOL Scotland is at the sort of population density which England needs to return to in order to be sustainable. I'm not sure how we do it, but energy poverty might force a few out, whilst getting more of Western Europe to speak English and offer free healthcare would probably make them more popular amongst immigrant populations More seriously, as I'll explain, Methanol can be a very, very cheap fuel. Not only can it "save the planet", but the raw materials are limitless and, as such, are not subject to the restricted supply which dominates the oil-based fuel pricing agenda.
The only Scotland-specific observation I would make is that, err, wind power might be a better solution than solar for powering the CO2->Methanol reduction apparatus
skwdenyer said:
a whole load of stuff
Well said, I agree with all of that. ^We can't swap petrol for methanol today, but if we massively reduce liquid-fuel consumption (perhaps through plug-in hybrids etc) the remaining fuel we do use can be renewable, closed-carbon-loop biofuel or methanol.
Coal-to-oil is a disgusting example of stuff we can do but probably shouldn't.
skwdenyer said:
[ Methanol can be a very, very cheap fuel. Not only can it "save the planet", but the raw materials are limitless
I still think you're missing the point.Where are you going to get the energy for methanol.
Windmills, solar, or any combination will be hideously expensive. You do realise that the reason that solar and wind cannot compete (sans subsidies) with fossil fuels currently is not because of intermittency issues, its because the capital costs are huge. And they're not set to drop anytime soon, if anything high oil prices compound construction costs.
High capital costs means high energy prices for renewables, combined with capex recovery for the actual methanol plant = high costs for methanol.
The bottom line is we'll be lucky if we have enough energy to heat our homes (if we have to go without fossil fuels) so where do you propose to pull vast quantities of energy to produce massive amounts of methanol.
I once did a back of the envelope calculation for how many nuclear plants it would take to produce about half of our fuel requirements going down the synthetic fuel route.
The answer was 73 nukes.
Like I said. A huge amount of energy.
Andy
andytk said:
skwdenyer said:
[ Methanol can be a very, very cheap fuel. Not only can it "save the planet", but the raw materials are limitless
I still think you're missing the point.Where are you going to get the energy for methanol.
Windmills, solar, or any combination will be hideously expensive. You do realise that the reason that solar and wind cannot compete (sans subsidies) with fossil fuels currently is not because of intermittency issues, its because the capital costs are huge. And they're not set to drop anytime soon, if anything high oil prices compound construction costs.
High capital costs means high energy prices for renewables, combined with capex recovery for the actual methanol plant = high costs for methanol.
The bottom line is we'll be lucky if we have enough energy to heat our homes (if we have to go without fossil fuels) so where do you propose to pull vast quantities of energy to produce massive amounts of methanol.
I once did a back of the envelope calculation for how many nuclear plants it would take to produce about half of our fuel requirements going down the synthetic fuel route.
The answer was 73 nukes.
Like I said. A huge amount of energy.
Andy
Even if that does fail, I'm entirely happy with 73 nuclear plants.
eldar said:
kambites said:
eldar said:
Quick question, seeing as its freezing... Do electric cars have heaters? If so, how do they work?
I assume they use an electric heater. eldar said:
kambites said:
eldar said:
Quick question, seeing as its freezing... Do electric cars have heaters? If so, how do they work?
I assume they use an electric heater. Rather than charge the batteries, why not just change them at your local petrol station. If car makers could come up with a standard size that would solve most of the problems.
I think the electric drive train will be the future. Either via batteries or powered via fuel cells.
A h2 based compustion engine if far less efficient compared to fuel cells.
At the end of the day a power station is far more efficient that our beloved internal compustion engine.
The near future (50 odd years) will be a combination of Nuclear/Alternative and CO2 capture, unless there is a massive break through in nuclear fusion.
Hopefully cars will become lighter as well with improved mass production of carbon/glass fibre.
The Tesla looks like a great car. Alas I don't think they will last as a company, they will either be bought for the technology or be outdone by BWM/VAG (can't see GM or Ford catching up at the moment)
I think the electric drive train will be the future. Either via batteries or powered via fuel cells.
A h2 based compustion engine if far less efficient compared to fuel cells.
At the end of the day a power station is far more efficient that our beloved internal compustion engine.
The near future (50 odd years) will be a combination of Nuclear/Alternative and CO2 capture, unless there is a massive break through in nuclear fusion.
Hopefully cars will become lighter as well with improved mass production of carbon/glass fibre.
The Tesla looks like a great car. Alas I don't think they will last as a company, they will either be bought for the technology or be outdone by BWM/VAG (can't see GM or Ford catching up at the moment)
My mobile phone is dead but i notice yours is charged? Can we swap batteries...
Dont forget a fuel cell car is a battery powered car just with the fuel cell extra with a subsequently smaller battery. Whether or not you think hydrogen will take off you need economies of scale in the drivetrain before you can even think about mass producing the fuel cell bit.
Dont forget a fuel cell car is a battery powered car just with the fuel cell extra with a subsequently smaller battery. Whether or not you think hydrogen will take off you need economies of scale in the drivetrain before you can even think about mass producing the fuel cell bit.
xyphod said:
Rather than charge the batteries, why not just change them at your local petrol station. If car makers could come up with a standard size that would solve most of the problems.
I think the electric drive train will be the future. Either via batteries or powered via fuel cells.
A h2 based compustion engine if far less efficient compared to fuel cells.
At the end of the day a power station is far more efficient that our beloved internal compustion engine.
The near future (50 odd years) will be a combination of Nuclear/Alternative and CO2 capture, unless there is a massive break through in nuclear fusion.
Hopefully cars will become lighter as well with improved mass production of carbon/glass fibre.
The Tesla looks like a great car. Alas I don't think they will last as a company, they will either be bought for the technology or be outdone by BWM/VAG (can't see GM or Ford catching up at the moment)
Because the battery is a wearing part. You have to think of the charge as the fuel, not the battery. A battery typically has about 1,000 cycles before it holds too little charge to be useful. If you'd just bought a new car with many thousands of pounds worth of batteries would you really want to swap those with someone whose car is three years old and on their last legs?I think the electric drive train will be the future. Either via batteries or powered via fuel cells.
A h2 based compustion engine if far less efficient compared to fuel cells.
At the end of the day a power station is far more efficient that our beloved internal compustion engine.
The near future (50 odd years) will be a combination of Nuclear/Alternative and CO2 capture, unless there is a massive break through in nuclear fusion.
Hopefully cars will become lighter as well with improved mass production of carbon/glass fibre.
The Tesla looks like a great car. Alas I don't think they will last as a company, they will either be bought for the technology or be outdone by BWM/VAG (can't see GM or Ford catching up at the moment)
There are ideas for rental schemes but it needs a massive mindset and infrastructure change.
Simon
Gassing Station | General Gassing | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff