Chemical hydrogen production NOT electrolysis

[oil pan 4]

Methanol does not have to come from fossil fuel.
I can be made from cellulose economicly most of the time (unless natural gas is really cheap), today (the plant was built 20 or 30 years ago), unlike ethanol.

[Air-Hybrid]

Originally Posted by oil pan 4

Methanol does not have to come from fossil fuel.
It can be made from cellulose economically most of the time (unless natural gas is really cheap), today (the plant was built 20 or 30 years ago), unlike ethanol.

Isn't the point that NatGas is really cheap and that's why we are making the vast majority of the methanol used in industry from it? If there was a tax regime that favoured biomass then things might be different!

[elhigh]

Originally Posted by mario.silva

To make enough hydrogen AND FUEL PRICE COMPETITIVE you can make it with the
Reaction of water and aluminum at 600 Celsius to prevent the protective coating of aluminum oxide

Stop me if I sound unappreciative, but if you have water at 600c, wouldn't it be better used in a steam engine? Or a turbine?

The hotter it is, the better it works.

[oil pan 4]

Originally Posted by Air-Hybrid

Isn't the point that NatGas is really cheap and that's why we are making the vast majority of the methanol used in industry from it? If there was a tax regime that favoured biomass then things might be different!

We don't need the government picking winners and losers, it only makes a mess of things.
The market will favor wood chips for methanol at some point in the future, no need to rush it.

[Air-Hybrid]

Originally Posted by oil pan 4

We don't need the government picking winners and losers, it only makes a mess of things.

That suggests that currently everyone's on a level playing field, which with decades of petro lobbying it ain't.
Though it's probably verging on criminal to express this in earshot of most North Americans, some form of effective (not the wasted out thing the EU has) Carbon-market should be adopted; unilaterally if need be.

[UFO]

Originally Posted by oil pan 4

We don't need the government picking winners and losers, it only makes a mess of things.
The market will favor wood chips for methanol at some point in the future, no need to rush it.

That is wrong. We need to move off fossil energy sources; those current "winners" are leading us on a destructive path, and the government is the appropriate vehicle to lead the change.

[oil pan 4]

We tried to implement an artifical "carbon trading market" in the U.S., but after the removal of government support (aka money), monthy trading volume fell to 0 at the start of 2010 and it was history.
This tends to happen to companies that don't offer a useful product or service.

[razor02097]

Originally Posted by oil pan 4

We don't need the government picking winners and losers, it only makes a mess of things.
The market will favor wood chips for methanol at some point in the future, no need to rush it.

Agreed!

The same government that subsidized corn for E85... we all know how big a hit that was I saw the price of E85 yesterday at only 10 cents lower than 87 unleaded I guess gubment stopped dumping our tax dollars down the E85 hole.

[oil pan 4]

Originally Posted by razor02097

Agreed!

The same government that subsidized corn for E85... we all know how big a hit that was I saw the price of E85 yesterday at only 10 cents lower than 87 unleaded I guess gubment stopped dumping our tax dollars down the E85 hole.

I love the idea of e85, so long as it can stand on its own.
Which might be possible now due to all the cheap/evil natural gas we have.

[Air-Hybrid]

Originally Posted by razor02097

The same government that subsidized corn for E85... we all know how big a hit that was I saw the price of E85 yesterday at only 10 cents lower than 87 unleaded I guess gubment stopped dumping our tax dollars down the E85 hole.

I reckon the problem isn't that governments shouldn't play a role; it's more that they have a nasty habit of listening to marketing men and lobbyists instead of getting their policy advice from unbiased engineers and scientists ( <- not the ones living in the 'academic bubble' though!).