backstop wrote:The still greater range of profound objections to unsustainable nuclear power would be exacerbated by the notion of building additional nuclear to generate methanol,
given the massive loss of primary energy involved. (The report above defines that loss from Hydro-power methanol as being around 56%).
Backstop, the same report said that using flue stream gas (much higher CO2 concentration that biomass), will result in losses of about 52%; using electricity to synthesise methanol from air + water leads to an energy loss of about 62%. This is not something unexpected if you ask me.
backstop wrote:Quite what the projected full-term full-spectrum £-costs of Nuclear methanol would be remains to be seen, but the fact that the nuclear lobby has never yet promoted this option doesn't add to its credibility.
Actually the cost was covered in the report I linked ....
Assuming that CO2 from air is used, the main component of the cost is electricity. Since large scale hydro and nuclear have comparable costs, the answer to your question may be found at page 10 of the
link I provided yesterday:
Methanol from biomass: 0.25-0.35 eurocents/lt
Methanol from flue gas: 0.4 eurocents/lt
Methanol from atmospheric CO2: 0.6 eurocents/lt
Since the thermal content of MetOH is half the corresponding figure for gasoline (
link), the prices should be doubled to give an idea of the cost of MetOH relative to gasoline.
So methanol from biomass or flue gas should be cheaper than gasoline, while methanol from atmospheric CO2 matches the current cost of gasoline (at least in Europe).
For the benefit of lurkers who are not accustomed to SI units, let's convert everything to gallons and US dollars, assuming that 1 gallon = 3.85 lts and 1 Euro = 1.2 USD
Methanol from biomass: 2.31-3.23 USD/ga
Methanol from flue gas: 3.7 USD/ga
Methanol from atmospheric CO2: 5.54 USD/ga
Since Methanol would be an indigenous source, and not shipped from Europe, it might be reasonable not to multiply the MetOH cost by the current euro/USD exchange rate. In such a case, the prices are reduced to:
Methanol from biomass: 1.93-2.7 USD/ga
Methanol from flue gas: 3.08 USD/ga
Methanol from atmospheric CO2: 4.62 USD/ga
Not bad, considering what 100+ oil will do to the gasoline price at the pump.
The largest component of the cost is due to electricity , ergo costs can (and will) go down when cheap abundant electricity is available, and will be fairly robust to oil price hikes (at least in the US).
Our only real options for cheap carbon neutral electricity are: nuclear and (offshore) wind in my book.
backstop wrote:the fact that the nuclear lobby has never yet promoted this option doesn't add to its credibility.
This couldn't be further from the truth .... but you are forgiven
because the methanol option is usually discussed at the end of hydrogen papers (so one has to look really hard for it).
I provided a link from an 1992 abstract by the Japanese nuclear industry yesterday i.e.:
http://www.iaea.org/inis/aws/htgr/fulltext/25067245.pdf
If you are looking for something more recent, try a conference held at MIT last year:
http://web.mit.edu/canes/symposia/tokyo ... mmary.html
If I were to select one fuel that a) does not compete with farm land b) can be used to reforest land c) can be used by countries that do not have access to forests then Methanol would be the way to go.
Since I can hear the doomers crying: no oil was the most versatile fuel/energy option we ever had, we are screwed, methanol will not and cannot replace oil, let me compare the two options to see which one is the best:
GEOGRAPHIC AVAILABILITY
OIL: One needs favourable geology to produce it. Unfortunately areas with favourable geology do not have favourable international politics so....
METHANOL: One needs only water/air/electricity sources. Political problems include NIMBY's who object to wind farms and nuclear reactors, but I have high hopes for the US and the EU: when NIMBYism confronts the national traffic jam, guess who will win!
EROEI of the feedstock:
OIL: 30 and declining
Methanol: (the feedstock for methanol production is electricity, because air and water comes for free) => 40+ (wind), 60+ (nuclear, one pass fuel cycle), 4200 (nuclear with breeders)
EROEI of the distillate:
OIL: 7.4 (after distillation)
Methanol: 40 x 0.38 = 15.2. Assuming that biomass is used for feedstock, the efficiency becomes equal to: 40 x 0.52 = 20.4 !!
EFFICIENCY OF END USE:
Methanol is probably more efficient when used as fuel!
I can (and eventually will) put methanol in laptops/cell phones but I cannot do the same with gasoline
EASE OF USE:
About the same for both fuels ... actually methanol might be better given its ability to a) be used for solvent and reactant in many applications of synthetic chemistry
CARBON BUDGET:
MetOH is a clear winner on this one.
Game, set and match for Methanol methinks!