Hydrogen economy or methanol economy?

I’ve written previously of my serious concerns about the feasibility of the “hydrogen economy”. I’m pleased to learn that Nobel Prize winning chemist George Olah has similar concerns. And Prof. Olah is making an interesting case for an alternative liquid fuel: methanol.

Recycle the flue exhaust of fossil fuel power plants into a transportation fuel? Or recycle atmospheric carbon dioxide? Recycle those same carbon sources into key plastics production inputs such as ethylene or propylene?

The above methanol-production process requires electrical power as an input – it is essentially a reversal of the methanol fuel cell design. But, combined with new nuclear power capacity, this could be a way to shift transportation away from the dependence on hydrocarbon fuels. Yes, the “hydrogen economy” is supposed to do that – the problem is hydrogen for transportation is unlikely to be economic in any useful planning horizon.

Olah’s new book “Beyond Oil and Gas: The Methanol Economy” can be pre-ordered from Amazon – it will ship in May. Meanwhile, there are a few resources for background on Olah’s work. First, there is this March 2, 2006 MIT Technology Review:

The hydrogen economy — with its vision of gas-guzzling engines replaced by hydrogen fuel cells that produce water instead of smog and greenhouse gases — is a big mistake, according to George Olah, winner of the 1994 Nobel Prize in chemistry.

Olah, whose research in the chemistry of hydrocarbons has led to high-octane fuels and more easily degradable hydrocarbons, is now director of the Loker Hydrocarbon Research Institute at the University of Southern California. He argues that storing energy in the form of methanol, not hydrogen, could end our dependence on fossil fuels and transform carbon dioxide from a global-warming liability into an essential raw material for a methanol-based economy. Olah lays out his plan in a new book, Beyond Oil and Gas: The Methanol Economy, published last week by Wiley-VCH.

Technology Review: Why methanol?

George Olah: Methanol in its own right is an excellent fuel. You can mix it into gasoline — it’s a much better fuel than ethanol. And we have developed a methanol fuel cell.

Methanol is a very simple chemical that can be made in a very efficient way. It is just one oxygen atom inserted into methane, the basal component of natural gas; but methanol is a liquid material which is easily stored, transported, and used.

Second, there is Proud to be a Chemist, a March, 2005 speech by Prof. Olah upon receiving the Priestly Medal:

…CARBON DIOXIDE can be readily separated from flue gases of coal-burning power plants or industrial plants. Rather than just sequestering CO2, the gas can be used for producing methanol-based fuels and raw materials for hydrocarbons. I believe that, using selective absorption methods and membrane technology, it will be eventually even feasible to separate atmospheric CO2 itself (representing only 0.036% of air) and convert it into methanol, thus freeing humankind of its reliance on diminishing fossil fuels. Of course, to produce the needed hydrogen by electrolysis of water, much energy is needed, which will be provided by atomic energy and the use of all alternative energy sources. Other approaches (photocatalytic, enzymatic, etcetera) also offer possibilities.

Methanol, a convenient liquid, is a way to store and transport energy. Methanol is also an excellent fuel in its own right, including its use in the direct methanol fuel cell (DMFC) that we developed jointly with the Jet Propulsion Laboratory of California Institute of Technology. Methanol, significantly, can also be directly converted catalytically into ethylene or propylene and subsequently to varied hydrocarbons and their products presently obtained from oil and natural gas. Once it becomes economically feasible to chemically recycle atmospheric CO2, the process will also supplement nature’s photosynthesis to mitigate the effect of this major greenhouse gas on global warming. We are involved in extensive research on all these issues. I believe that this is probably the most interesting and significant work I have ever been involved in and that it has real viability. In contrast to the ease of handling liquid methanol, other approaches–such as the much-discussed hydrogen economy–must handle and transport an extremely volatile, potentially explosive gas under pressure, necessitating a new and very expensive infrastructure. I am not suggesting that we don’t pursue all possible avenues to solve our dependence on diminishing fossil fuels. The methanol economy approach, however, certainly deserves serious consideration as well as further research and evaluation.

Lastly, there is this Wikipedia overview, which summarizes the above case, and includes some methanol disadvantages:

• power density one half of that of gasoline
• corrosive to aluminum, importantly aluminum parts in engine fuel-intake systems
• hydrophilic: attracts water, which can create solid jelly-like obstructions in fuel-intake systems (in cold weather), which is corrosive, and which can separate into a non-combustible component
• low volatity in cold weather: methanol-fueled engines can be difficult to start and run inefficiently until warmed up
• methanol is toxic (this risk has been hugely overstated; methanol poisoning invariably results from drinking illegal liquor; methanol volatilizes and biogrades rapidly in the environment.)
• methanol is a liquid: this creates a greater fire risk; unlike hydrogen and other gases, methanol leaks do not dissipate

Why is the Bush administration investing in the Hydrogen Fuel Initiative [$1.2 Billion in 2003, increased again for FY/2007]?