Talk:Methanol economy

message: With Ethanol getting more and more news coverage, I think this article should have a section discussing the similarities and differences between using Ethanol vs using Methanol as a fuel. --Flatline 21:02, 4 October 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Comparison to Ethanol 

message: A high percentages of disadvantages listed are not in fact theoretical, but known. This to me means there needs to be two sections on disadvantages: known and theoretical.
For example, methanol's effect on aluminum is known. The hydrophilic nature of methanol is also known, not theorized. In fact, looking at the list, the vast majority of these are known disadvantages. The energy density is a theoretical disadvantage because for it to be a disadvantage the net energy extracted would have to be lower. The liquid vs. gas aspect is also theoretical as in some cases liquids are easier to manage than gases. The effect on plastics regarding permeability is also theoretical as it relies on the use of those materials. And the final theoretical disadvantage is the underground leakage aspect. All else are confirmed problems/disadvantages and should be listed as such. To do otherwise gives the false impression that there are no known problems/disadvantages, only theorized ones. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Ucntcme (talk • contribs) 00:15, 8 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Not all disadvantages Theoretical 

message: 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. Thus, methanol can substitute for hydrogen in all of hydrogen's suggested uses (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 08:06, 11 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Merge into methanol (fuel)? 

message: I have changed this part of the article for the following reasons. In the book on "The Methanol Economy" by George Olah etc. on page 243 Olah mentions selective membranes only with relation to extraction from exhaust gases from fossil fuel plants. He then mentions alkali absorbents such as KOH as feasible ways of extracting from the atmosphere. He also mentions that KOH is especially suitable for electrolytic recovery of carbon dioxide. I do not include this fact in the article, in order to avoid excessive detail Zfishwiki 19:53, 4 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Extraction from atmosphere 

message: This article should be about methanol economy and not about methanol production  —Preceding unsigned comment added by V8rik (talk • contribs) 17:05, 7 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Methanol production merge into methanol 

message: I developt my ideas aboout the Methanol economy independent. It started as I visited the international automobile show in Frankfurt 2007.
There had been at the GM booth Opel Flextreme and Chevrolet Volt plug-in hybrid cars.
3 cars, 3 different range extenders with gasoline, diesel and hydrogen.
As I started to calculate profitability of the different range extenders in different scenarios, there was never a profitability of the hydrogen fuel cell system.
How to transport hydrogen more economic? Let's take a carbon atom to carry 4 hydrogen atoms. But Methan needs still a high pressure tank.
Let's take one Oxygen atom, and it's Methanol easy to carry in a simple tank.
From where to take the carbon atom? 
As soon as photovoltaic is available cheap and in huge quantity, energy is no problem, the only problem is easy to carry energy for mobile usage. So let's take biomass as carbon source only, energy for all the chemical process. 1kg dry wood can in such a way deliver 1,65 litre Methanol.
I made Ocober 2007 an interview with a developer in a reputated resarch institute: Methanol engine with generator can reach over 40% electric efficiency. 
My calculation for a medium sized plug-in hybrid car over 300.000 km hydrogen vs Methaol:
The Methanol car needs 2800 kg more wood, but has a simple engine and a simple tank.
The energy to produce Methanol from water and wood is about the same as for making hydrogen, liquification, compression into the tank.
But 2800 kg more wood are a bargain compared to the fuel cells, the high pressure tanks and all the hydrogen infra structure.
--Pege.founder (talk) 19:11, 17 February 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Hydrogen vs Methanol for range extenders in plug-in hybrid cars 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on Methanol economy. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20130703233732/http://cri.is/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=14&Itemid=8&lang=en to http://cri.is/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=14&Itemid=8&lang=en
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 02:55, 9 June 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on Methanol economy. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20070707042155/http://www.methanol.org/pdfFrame.cfm?pdf=Methanol_humantox_rev.pdf to http://www.methanol.org/pdfFrame.cfm?pdf=Methanol_humantox_rev.pdf
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 21:23, 24 January 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified (January 2018) 

message: The article is pitching methanol economy as some sort of idealized goal. The slant partially defeats whatever goals advocates might have in mind. Why not just describe the components of a methanol economy without the explicit and implicit judgements?  --Smokefoot (talk) 16:06, 8 September 2023 (UTC)
thread_title: The article is supposed to be about methanol economy, not advocacy