The benefits of methanol as a transportation fuel

Many have proclaimed the virtues of using methanol--either pure or blended with gasoline--as a transportation fuel. Indeed, only 6 months ago William Tucker wrote about this topic in a blog for the Fuel Freedom Foundation. Several years ago George Olah, Professor at Cal Tech and winner of a Nobel prize in chemistry, wrote extensively about the benefits of methanol as a fuel. California even participated in a massive demonstration program involving thousands of cars fueled by M100 and M85 (respectively, 100% methanol and 85% methanol blended with gasoline).

Methanol is largely made from natural gas. Low gas prices make methanol even more economically attractive at this time. So why is it that methanol has been seemingly overlooked as a transportation fuel? Tucker goes into this question in detail, providing a sound answer (in short, it's politics--read his blog).

I've worked with methanol for decades, using it to generate hydrogen for applications ranging from fuel cells to high-altitude balloons. I've authored a book on technology for economically converting methanol (mixed with water) to syngas as well as purified hydrogen. My purpose in this piece is to share more reasons why I'd nominate methanol as perhaps the best transportation fuel amongst a field of many options.

1. Methanol is produced from renewable sources of methane (sewage and manure, biomass, garbage), thus it offers the potential to close the carbon cycle resulting in zero net emissions of carbon dioxide.

2. Methanol is stable (unlike gasoline and diesel fuel) and it is completely miscible with water. In the event of a spill, clean-up is much easier since the methanol may be diluted with water. In the environment, methanol is rapidly degraded in a matter of days by micro-organisms to yield harmless byproducts. Unlike some of the organic compounds in gasoline and diesel, methanol is not cancer-causing and burning methanol does not result in the harmful particulate pollution resulting from diesel engines.

3. Methanol is easily handled and stored. Carbon steel containers are fine, as are polypropylene and polyethylene containers (common water and gasoline jugs are made from polyethylene or polypropylene). And, as pointed out by Tucker, the current infrastructure for distributing and dispensing gasoline and diesel fuel may also be used for methanol. So, unlike a hydrogen economy, or massive deployment of battery-electric cars, the infrastructure is in place. This simple fact means we can avoid the enormous cost of building the new infrastructure required to support hydrogen fueling and battery charging stations.

4. Methanol does not present the severe fire hazards associated with gasoline and diesel fuel. In the late 60s, methanol was mandated as the fuel for Indie race cars after a particularly devastating accident resulted in severe burns and death of several drivers. The radiated heat from a methanol flame is far less than from a gasoline fire, and extinguishing a methanol fire is easy and low risk to firefighters since methanol will wash away with water. 

Although I am not advocating methanol should be the only fuel for transportation purposes, I am arguing that it should represent an option--just as gasoline, diesel, and electricity are options. If what I am saying makes sense, you owe it to yourself to learn more. There are many excellent articles and books on this topic, and I'm happy to answer questions too.