Methanol - The Official Chinese Liquid Transportation Fuel Of The Future
by John Laumer, Philadelphia on 11.27.06
Nations seem to sanction transportation fuels based on their respective natural resource bases. Brazil, tropical center of a highly productive sugar industry, has a focus on ethanol. The US, which once was able to meet most domestic fuel demand with in-country oil production, focuses on gasoline as if it were still 1970. China, without much of either oil or sugar, has decided to go for methanol as the ‘official liquid transportation fuel’ of the future. The logic here is that methanol is a straightforward output of Coal To Liquid (CTL) processing and they have coal-a-plenty.
Yes we know: methanol is toxic. But so is gasoline (a major constituent of gasoline is benzene, a known human carcinogen). Plus, don’t forget to account for this USEPA risk analysis , from we excerpt the following information: - “Gasoline-ignited fires in 1986 involving cars, buses, or trucks resulted in 760 deaths, 4,100 serious injuries, and $215 million in property damage. Projections indicate that casualties would drop dramatically if methanol were substituted for gasoline as the country’s primary automotive fuel. Looking just at vehicle fires in which gasoline is the first material to ignite, a switch to methanol could save an estimated 720 lives, prevent nearly 3,900 serious injuries, and eliminate property losses of millions of dollars per year”.
Having hopefully set aside the methano-phobia for a few minutes, lets have a look at the details.
From an article in Financial Times Asia-World edition we garnered that “China is gearing up for a massive investment in a homegrown fuel source to cut its growing reliance on imports - plants to turn coal into gas and oil…China's central planners have on their desks proposals for at least $24bn (€20bn, £13.6bn) worth of large-scale coal-to-liquids projects, with a number of pilot plants already under construction in Inner Mongolia and other coal-rich provinces”.
In a later US edition we learned that “Beijing sets national standard for methanol as automotive fuel.” “The standard, which has yet to be officially announced, was reported in a trade magazine and confirmed yesterday by an official attached to the National Development and Reform Commission (NDRC), the economic planning body responsible for the standards…By the time the plants, which convert coal to liquids, start producing in 2011 to 2013, China's oil demand will have doubled, allowing methanol to supply about 10 per cent of the market."
Addressing China's increasing food demand, “Critics of ethanol say it is inappropriate to use corn to make fuel at a time when China is struggling to keep precious agricultural land in production to ensure "food security" for the country”.
We have a hunch about this which transcends the ICE technology future. It is possible that direct methanol fuel cells (DMFCs) for transportation will cross the cost-effectiveness finish line long before a hydrogen fed PEM fuel cell gets out of the starting gate.
Kudos to the US car makers who may get to sell "flex-fuel" vehicles in China, set up for ethanol and/or methanol and gasoline blends.
Given the Rand Corporation's recent projection that the US could feasibly satisfy 25% of its energy demand from renewable fuels, and given the increased food demand that will follow the burgeoning world population, what will satisfy the remainder of our transportation needs by 2050? Cellulose is certainly the most popular current bet for investors and government research grants. Given the resources that the US has in large quantity, we think that CTL produced methanol is the dark horse for the US official liquid fuel of the future.
It is good to see that China is looking for an alternative fuel source, but producing Methanol from Coal is still not Carbon neutral and will add to our global warming problem, isn't it?
=== author's response follows ====
The possibilities range widely, from filthy, inefficient, toxic, iron-age mess (like China does most things now) to carbon sequestering, high-yielding, toxin controlling, modern technology (better than the US mandates), Given the history of Chinese technology development, I'd guess the former, but would love to be proven wrong.
It is a commonly known fact that coal to liquid conversion results in massive CO2 production, estimated at 4x the Co2 produced in normal coal combustion.
If you paid attention to the Montana CTL debate you would be aware of the massive CO2 production of that process. Many countries that don't have gas have plenty of coal; the US, Australia, Germany. But this process is far, far worse than just burning coal directly. It is better to burn the coal to make electricity.
Surely Treehugger should be more informed on these well known issues. Perhaps a little research before posting would raise the quality and provide more informative posts. This is basic level information which Treehugger doesn't have a grip on; please try to make better informed posts, this is disappointing and a disservice to the opportunity you have to inform others.
=== author's response follows ====
Your technical characterization of CTL may well be correct. However, I would hasten to point out, as I did the post, that this train has already left the station. No amount of 'blog complaining' is going to change their basic decision. If there is room for improvement left for the Chinese government on this issue, it would be in esuring use of maximum achievable control technologies (end of pipe pollution controls) to curtail particulate NOX, SOX and mercury emissions. Carbon sequestration would also be needed of course. Because I was not able to find any information whatsoever about pollution control aspects of the projects (does not help that I can not read or write the language), I felt I was in poor position to pass judgment and therefore did not.
As for your characterization of our lack of technical background at TH, you might be interested in the post I wrote on the Montana CTL proposal you refer to-- way back in September 2005. http://www.treehugger.com/files/2005/09/montana_governo.php#comments
Happy to know the news from a US media. My company is handling a big Methanol-Blended Gasoline project and I know how important the news is to the whole energy industry of China. Recently, an official media released the news that 100% methanol fuel for vehicles has been permitted and methanol-blended gasoline could be a feasible solution...wish to communicate with any potential investment partners. My email is sushidong@yahoo.com.cn
Where does it say that methanol is the liquid fuel of the future for China? The articles only state that China has created a technical standard. There's nothing about production targets or about policies saying that this is the preferred fuel.
If you follow the Chinese legislation on bioenergy and biofuels, you'll see that just as much (if not more) is being done on that front.
Moreover, a Chinese top official of the industrial economics research department with the Development Research Center of China's State Council recently stated that CTL is 'irresponsible' and 'inefficient'.
http://biopact.com/2006/10/chinese-top-official-dismisses-coal-to.html
Treehugger should be more careful in interpreting stories. Methanol is not seen as the only fuel of the future for China. Far from it.
=== author's response follows ====
Thanks for the hopefull comment. I was wondering if the earlier stories we based our post on would lead to a controversy and perhaps put some reverse spin on the 'official' plan.
Hello, I have read the comments above and recently been given a report that China is going to invest substantially into their coal-to-methanol, DME and olefins marketplace. It will be substantial from what I can tell and our company is strongly considering establishing ourselves in China. It is a long difficult process working in China, but I suspect the numbers will be released shortly. Contact me at walterb@gastechno.com if interested in the report.