Also, methanol is one of the easiest products to make from syngas (which is why Range Fuels finally went over to it after giving up on ethanol). If we start generating fuel from random waste, methanol is likely to be the most cost-effective liquid motor fuel.

If we must use the synthesis gas route to make liquid fuels from natural gas or biomass, I would prefer to manifest the energy content of CO + H2 not as methanol, but as a mixture of alcohols, i.e. methanol, ethanol, propanol and butanol. Methanol is of interest mainly because it is the only chemical that one can create from syngas with nearly 100% specificity. While we cannot produce ethanol with any great degree of specificity, hopefully we may be able to create a mixure of alcohols that would offer high antiknock (octane), along with reasonable energy content.

@ HarveyD

How about the approval interest of the Litium Battery Lobby?

Methanol was called wood alcohol because it was made at one time by heating wood in a closed retort to make charcoal and other chemicals. Henry Ford processed the waste wood from his factories that way when cars used a lot of wood in their construction. The methanol was used to dissolve the paint that was put on the cars.

Making methanol directly by oxidizing methane (CH4+0=CH3OH) is the "holy grail" of the petroleum industry, and would mean that natural gas would never be flared at oil wells again or even land fills. The home owner with a small unit could make his automobile fuel methanol out of the natural gas that came in the pipe.

CSIRO may be the first to be able to provide such units.

It is not thoroughly discussed in this article that methanol can directly made into gasoline with a simple process that uses special ZEOLITES as catalysts in known and used process. Methanol has a long life, and was once used in race cars to eliminate much of the problems of fighting fires on the track, but was replaced by ethanol to please corn growers perhaps.

If you have your own forest, you can make methanol with the original process. The remaining charcoal can be used in a very efficient Kalle gasifier also to power an engine.

In Hawaii, a scientist is making charcoal very rapidly from any biomass with pressurized partial combustion. Kingsford was one of the first to obtain a license for the process. If you do not wish to use a Kalle gasifier, It does remain the need to develop a small unit to convert this charcoal also into methanol.

Computer controlled electric engine valves have been possible for over twenty years, and an engine with such could adapt to any fuel at the best efficiency. It is no longer acceptable not to have such ability that could be combine with direct fuel injection and electro-turbo-supercharging for small efficient engines that can start without a starting motor; except the one that powers the supercharger.

The US has no reason to pay 120 dollars for fuel that can be had for 20 dollars from coal. Ethanol is a waste of biomass and capital relative to methanol production as well.
..HG..

In our new age democracy, lower cost, simplicity, sustainability, lower GHG, governments, voters etc no longer decide what is good for us and the country. That also applies to methanol, ethanol, butanol, NG/SG, coal, gasoline, electrified vehicles etc.

Our new Kings-Lords-Dictators, i.e. (Speculators, lobbyists, Tea Parties and friends) do it for us.

Let's face it, the people we strongly believed we freely elected are no longer the real decision makers we think they are.

We elect people who have access to the deepest pockets for a winning campaign. It's more a question of money to buy more destructive Ads (and votes) than the value of the persons to be elected.

Ways must be found to remove the growing control that money exercises on our democratic system. To start with, all election expenditures should be limited, controlled and financed with public funds. No individual, organisations or firms should be allowed to finance elections because they will always expect pay back and they do get it.

And don't think for a moment that the cellulosic ethanol industry is pedaling backwards:

This Fulcrum Bioenergy plant is being built by DEEP pockets Fluor Corp.

http://www.bizjournals.com/sanfrancisco/news/2011/01/06/fulcrum-bioenergy-inks-two.html

Fulcrum hopes to produce 10.5 million gallons of ethanol a year from 90,000 tons of garbage at the plant when it gets going. The plant will also generate some electricity for its own operations and will produce the industrial solvent propanol.

EP - are you saying the type of alcohol produced from common waste makes any kind of real difference? I thought the idea of being "green" was to produce sustainable methods of energy? NO?

Sometimes naysayers cannot help themselves. They revel in deriding every effort - even those that deliver the very thing they claim to want. Which proves them not men of science or environmental stewardship - but mere doom and gloomers with chips on shoulders.

Computer operated engine valves will allow any type of fuel to be used in an optimum way, and can be combined with electro-turbo-supercharging. Methanol can be made from coal for less than 50 cents a gallon. And oil speculators lobby against any synthetic fuels from coal or oil shale so they don't miss out on their $100 a barrel, $4.00 a gallon profits. So far China Has missed the opportunity to supply the world with synthetic fuel (methanol) at a profit. Oil producers can still make a profit with oil at $20, but they pay lobbyists to keep it in the ground until they can get $100. ..HG..

EP, falling back on the chemistry of alcohols does little to dismiss your clearly derisive attitude. Methanol or ethanol made from waste biomass by Range Fuels or Coskata or any other biofuel maker is a fuc*ing GIFT to the environmental movement. And frankly I am getting sick of listening to the loud mouth naysayers here who hide behind technical effluvia as reason to critique every productive act that meets THEIR green agenda.

How bout showing a little effing gratitude EP, Harvey, Henry Gibson? How bet get off your high horse and fake some enthusiasm??? Or maybe you just want to try to do this yourself?? Good fuc*ing luck.

I thought it was the ridiculous policy discrimination in favor of 2-carbon alcohol vs. 1-carbon alcohol which justified derision (as well as the implicit claim that alcohol fuel can eliminate our petroleum supply problems)

Er, I have NEVER suggested alcohol would "eliminate" petro. Don't know anybody that does. It can be an excellent renewable fuel to assist extended range vehicle transition to BEV.

And since you're such a single carbon enthusiast lets hear your way of dealing with methanol's 38% LESS available energy and FOUR TIMES TOXICITY. So toxic merely breathing a small amount of vapour can cause blindness. That'll work great at the local Exxon station. (USDOT) Gack!

Range Fuels intends to use the MeOH for industrial purposes. And the scaling of any new liquid fuel process is bound to be expensive and fraught with start up problems. This is what the green dweebs are shrieking to have - cellulosic alcohol. Range is still dedicated to making ethanol from wood waste and THAT IS good.

Gratitude is obviously an alien concept to whoever you are EP. But I would happily return the favor with a shot to the head. You can thank me in advance.

People in the administration certainly believe there are votes in cellulosic ethanol. The support is coming at least in part from Big Ag, because Cellulosic Is Coming Real Soon Now is the only thing that keeps the public from demanding that their subsidies be cut off to help the deficit.

And you keep mouthing off about "gratitude". Those people have been paid, usually far more than what their product was worth. They should be grateful to me, not vice versa.

If you think the environmental toxicity of methanol compares to gasoline, you're deluded (bacteria eat it up). If you think people in their right minds are going to breathe enough of either to do harm, you're crazy. There are trace amounts of methanol in all kinds of foods, and the body is evolved to handle it.