Preface. Methanol, or CH₃OH, is primarily used to make chemicals for plastics, paints, and cosmetics. It is made from coal or natural gas. “Green” methanol is made from biomass or biogas from landfills or sewage plants. Or it can be made by combining hydrogen created with renewable electricity and carbon dioxide.

Just a few of the reasons why methanol is not an option are:

• The California methanol effort was abandoned for many reasons, but especially because methanol was finding its way into water supplies and its toxicity was considered a significant health concern.  At high concentrations it is terribly toxic
• Methanol reduces gas mileage
• It is more expensive per energy unit than gas
• Getting water out of methanol is even harder to do than ethanol, and water corrodes engine hoses and seals, and shortens engine lifetime
• Pure methanol has safety issues — it burns with an almost invisible flame
• There are no commercial facilities making methanol now
  

This post discusses using methanol in shipping and also has excerpts from a U.S. House hearing on alternative fuels.

Alice Friedemann  www.energyskeptic.com  Author of Life After Fossil Fuels: A Reality Check on Alternative Energy; When Trucks Stop Running: Energy and the Future of Transportation”, Barriers to Making Algal Biofuels, & “Crunch! Whole Grain Artisan Chips and Crackers”.  Women in ecology  Podcasts: WGBH, Financial Sense, Jore, Planet: Critical, Crazy Town, Collapse Chronicles, Derrick Jensen, Practical Prepping, Kunstler 253 &278, Peak Prosperity,  Index of best energyskeptic posts

***

Gallucci M (2021) The world’s first ‘carbon-neutral’ cargo ship is already low on gas. Shipping giant Maersk announced plans for a green methanol-powered vessel by 2023. But there isn’t enough of the fuel to go around. Grist.

Swanson A (2023) Green ships offer a nascent hope. New York Times.

In 2021, Gallucci reported that shipping company Maersk is looking at using “Green methanol” to reduce greenhouse gas emissions and curb air pollution in ports which can be used as a “drop-in” replacement for oil-based fuels with relatively minor modifications to a ship’s engine and fuel system. It’s also easy to store on board and, unlike batteries or tanks of hydrogen, it doesn’t take away too much space from the cargo hold. But it is extremely expensive to make, and very little is made, less than 1% of what ships would need.

In 2023, Swanson reported this too. Nothing has changed since 2021 though. This article did say that one reason for doing so is that ships can’t plug in frequently enough to be powered by batteries and the electric grid.

Here is the actual reason. Vaclav Smil (2019 in “Electric container ships are stuck on the horizon. Batteries still can’t scale up to power the world’s biggest vessels” IEEE spectrum makes it clear that the real reason is that batteries simply are not powerful enough: You’d need 100,000 metric tons of batteries taking 40% of cargo space to go from Asia to Europe in 31 days on an 18,000 TEU container ship, and it is hard to imagine how or how long it would take to recharge these batteries. In comparison, the same ship just needs 4,650 metric tons of diesel fuel (explained at greater length in category 1) Decline/Transportation/ships in post “Electrify ships with batteries?”

Nor will methanol ships make a dent before energy decline begins in earnest. There are 125 methanol ships being built all over the world, but that is a tiny fraction of the 50,000 cargo ships plying the oceans. At the very end of the article it states that “experts say that the fuel’s reliance on finite sources of waste, like corn husks and cow manure, means that there will not be enough to power the global shipping fleet”.  A few other barriers mentioned in the article is that there’s no guarantee the price could ever be cheap enough. It is made from coal, oil or natural gas now so continuing with them would not be green. There will be a need for a whole new methanol distribution infrastructure at every port. And a whole new methanol manufacturing industry. To attempt to make a go of this, shippers would need to be locked in to knowingly paying three to five times more for their cargo. Meanwhile “infinitesimally small volumes” of green methanol from plants using renewable energy are being made.

And I might add, the energy returned on energy invested is quite clearly negative. Above all, we are running out of time since world oil production peaked in 2018.  Still true on November 7, 2023 at EIA International oil production here (crude oil statistics, the other kinds are not transportation oil and shouldn’t be included)

***

House 112–159. July 10, 2012. The American energy initiative part 23: A focus on Alternative Fuels and vehicles. House of Representatives. 210 pages.

Tom Tanton Executive Director, American Tradition Institute’ President T2 and Associates

California led the search for petroleum fuel alternatives with initial interest focused on methanol. Ford Motor Company and other automakers responded to California’s request for vehicles that run on methanol. In 1981, Ford delivered 40 dedicated neat methanol fuel (M100) Escorts to Los Angeles County, but only four refueling stations were installed. The biggest technical challenge in the development of alcohol vehicle technology was getting all of the fuel system materials compatible with the higher chemical reactivity of the methanol, and avoiding corrosion stemming from water absorption. Methanol was even more of a challenge than ethanol but some of the early experience gained with neat ethanol vehicle production in Brazil was transferred. The success of this small experimental fleet of M100s led California to request more of these vehicles, mainly for government fleets. However, longer-developing problems combined with high cost ultimately killed the program. At the time, almost all methanol was produced using natural gas as a feedstock, with an approximate 25% loss in energy content in the conversion from gas to methanol. Natural gas prices had increased and supplies decreased, leading to noncompetitive prices and short supplies. Ligno-cellulose based methanol (i.e. “wood alcohol”) was only available in limited quantities as is true today.

Mr. Shane Karr, Vice President of Federal Government Affairs, the Alliance of Automobile Manufacturers.

It is particularly relevant to this committee to know that emission standards in approximately 40% of the States are about to be increased, and that increase in emissions standards is somewhat problematic with FFV technology and is likely to make FFV technology more expensive. The other important point to note is that the Open Fuel Standard requires vehicles to run on E85, which is ethanol, and M85, which is methanol. While we certainly have built vehicles that can run on methanol in the past and we could do it again, the fact is there are no production facilities in the U.S. making methanol in commercial quantities right now. There are a number of other significant issues that would have to be further studied and addressed if we were going to go in that direction.

It should also be noted that if manufacturers were required to design FFVs to be capable of meeting these emission standards on methanol, the challenges become far greater on all fronts – exhaust emissions, evaporative emissions, durability and test burden. Because burning methanol produces much higher levels of formaldehyde, an air toxic, a whole new development effort focused on meeting stringent formaldehyde standards would be needed. The high volatility and permeation rates of methanol blends bring into question the feasibility of meeting evaporative emission standards (we last produced methanol vehicles before the introduction of real world test procedures in the 1990s). The corrosive nature of methanol leads to durability concerns for fuel system components. Additionally, thousands of additional tests per year would be required, which include more expensive and time-consuming measurement techniques for methanol and formaldehyde, impacting both the need for additional manpower and lab equipment. Simply put, the future emission standards were not developed taking into account the challenges of methanol.

The Methanol Experience

In the late 1980s to mid-90s, automakers produced a limited amount light-duty vehicle models that could run on an 85% blend of methanol in gasoline (M85). This experiment was in response to a series of California initiatives to increase the availability of methanol fuel and M85 FFVs across the state. Below is a generic list of components and modifications automakers may have utilized in the late 80s and 90s to transform a vehicle into a M85 compatible FFV.

The California methanol effort was abandoned for a variety of reasons. The largest was that methanol was finding its way into water supplies and its toxicity was considered a significant health concern.

It is important to note that these vehicles were produced prior to the implementation of the federal Tier 2 vehicle emissions program or enhanced evaporative emissions standards. The Tier 2 program resulted in vehicles emitting 99% fewer smog-forming emissions compared to vehicles in the 1970s. EPA and California are currently in the process of implementing new Tier 3 and LEV III vehicle emissions standards respectively that will require automakers to significantly lower the remaining 1% of smog-forming emissions. Because of the unique nature of methanol, the M85 FFVs produced in conjunction with this CA program would not have been able to meet the Tier 2 emissions targets, much less the pending aggressive Tier 3 and CA LEV III requirements.

But from a vehicle perspective, there were also concerns.

• Methanol contains 50% less energy content than gasoline. Drivers had to refuel twice as often and consumer acceptance was low.
• The fueling infrastructure was very expensive, and retailers were unwilling to mortgage their futures on an unproven fuel.
• Today, there are no production facilities in the U.S. making methanol for use as transportation fuel in commercial quantities.
• The U.S. currently imports over 80% of its methanol needs and the additional imports required to fuel an M85 compatible fleet would be counter to efforts to bolster U.S. energy independence and security.
• There are no pipelines to ship it around the country and methanol cannot be shipped using conventional oil and gas pipelines due to its highly corrosive nature.
• There are no pumps available at fueling stations (ethanol pumps would not be certified for methanol, which is more corrosive and much more problematic if it leaks and contaminates our ground water).
• Methanol does not perform as well as gasoline when a cold engine is started, it’s worse than ethanol

Nor is it easy to convert vehicles to burn methanol as the following list shows:

Generic List of Vehicle Components and Modifications Utilized in pre-Tier 2 M85 FFVs:

• Fuel Pump Speed Controller
• Canister Purge Valve

• Engine Modifications:

1. Piston Ring chrome plated face to resist corrosion and wear.
2. Exhaust Valve & Seat material upgrade to resist corrosion and pitting.
3. Engine Oil- formulated to reduce the tendency of methanol to remove anti-wear additives from the oil. Also contains additives to reduce corrosion and wear due to higher acidity of blow-by gases.
4. Throttle Body – changes made to allow canister purge at idle.

• Wiring Assemblies – modifications required for component additions.

• Electronic Control Module (ECM) – changes required for specific methanol inputs and outputs:

1. Fuel Composition
2. Fuel Temperature
3. Fuel Tank Level
4. Prom and Software Changes

• Fuel Injector Driver Module
• Ignition Coil- high secondary current ignition coil for improved cold start.
• Fuel Rail Assembly – material changes for methanol compatibility to injectors, pressure regulator, and rail coating.
• Pipe Assemblies – material changes for methanol compatibility.
• Variable Fuel Sensor Assembly – monitors fuel composition (% of methanol) in fuel line.
• Catalytic Converter – revised catalyst loading for emissions control.
• Low Fuel Light – added because of decreased driving range with methanol.
• Fuel Sender Control Module – interrupts current through fuel level sender to reduce galvanic attack in methanol environment.
• Fuel Tank – stainless steel required for corrosive methanol environment.
• Solder -silver solder required for methanol compatibility.
• Flame Arrestors – stainless steel required to prevent fame propagation from fill door to fill tank.
• Fuel Hose and Vent Hose – revised for decreased fuel.
• Fuel Fill Pipe and Vent Extensions stainless steel required for corrosive methanol environment.
• Fuel Fill Pipe – modified vent pipe to provide canister clearance.
• Canister – increased capacity evaporative canister required because of higher vapor pressures of low methanol blends.
• Canister Bracket – unique bracket to reposition large canister.
• Fuel Cap – gasket materials modified for methanol compatibility
• Fuel Sender and Pump Assembly:

1. Higher flow pump to account for reduce energy density
2. Extensive material changes for methanol compatibility

References