Dear Mr. SmithFS. Since coal is a fossil fuel, present plans for net zero forbid its use since it is not renewable. The organic chemistry industry began with coal derivatives in the 19th century but switched to oil and gas byproducts because they are much more economical. Making methanol out of biomass would increase the demands on the s…
Dear Mr. SmithFS. Since coal is a fossil fuel, present plans for net zero forbid its use since it is not renewable. The organic chemistry industry began with coal derivatives in the 19th century but switched to oil and gas byproducts because they are much more economical. Making methanol out of biomass would increase the demands on the soil which are already very well occupied with feeding the world's population. The petrochemicals industry has grown to its present scale over 150 years; I would be interested to see calculations on how long it would take to replace these massive plants with biomass converters, how much capital it would require, and what price the "green" alternative products would require to be profitable.
I say coal for those who are concerned strictly about oil & gas supply rather than GHG emissions. If you are concerned about GHG emissions then indeed Methanol can be made carbon neutral from biomass, flue gas (i.e. cement plant), waste or even seawater CO2.
As for biomass supply, we are stupidly burning most biomass in powerplants inefficiently, where that can easily be replaced with nuclear. And idiotic agrofuels that have a carbon efficiency of ~10-20% vs biomass --> methanol can have a 100% carbon efficiency. i.e 5-10X lower biomass usage for the same amount of liquid fuel.
And we stupidly burn enough forest in wildfires to replace the entire World's liquid fuel demand with biomass --> methanol. You can convert forest overgrowth locally to methanol with portable tractor trailer sized plants, instead of it causing devastating wildfires with major health hazard from particulate emissions and the many deaths and property destruction. Biomass --> Methanol being one of the simplest and oldest chemical process known to man. A basic distillation procedure.
The Nobel Prize winning chemist, George Olah, examined in depth the problem of replacing diminishing Oil & Gas, and concluded that a Nuclear-Methanol economy would be the most viable replacement. And wrote a book on the subject: Beyond Oil & Gas: The Methanol Economy:
So again, the best thing to do, as I stated, is to continue the petrochemicals industry based on Oil & Gas as long as possible by substituting Nuclear & Methanol for Oil & Gas energy sources. That's the rational thing to do. Unfortunately, we have an energy supply administered by the most corrupt.
Dear Mr. SmithFS. Since coal is a fossil fuel, present plans for net zero forbid its use since it is not renewable. The organic chemistry industry began with coal derivatives in the 19th century but switched to oil and gas byproducts because they are much more economical. Making methanol out of biomass would increase the demands on the soil which are already very well occupied with feeding the world's population. The petrochemicals industry has grown to its present scale over 150 years; I would be interested to see calculations on how long it would take to replace these massive plants with biomass converters, how much capital it would require, and what price the "green" alternative products would require to be profitable.
I say coal for those who are concerned strictly about oil & gas supply rather than GHG emissions. If you are concerned about GHG emissions then indeed Methanol can be made carbon neutral from biomass, flue gas (i.e. cement plant), waste or even seawater CO2.
As for biomass supply, we are stupidly burning most biomass in powerplants inefficiently, where that can easily be replaced with nuclear. And idiotic agrofuels that have a carbon efficiency of ~10-20% vs biomass --> methanol can have a 100% carbon efficiency. i.e 5-10X lower biomass usage for the same amount of liquid fuel.
And we stupidly burn enough forest in wildfires to replace the entire World's liquid fuel demand with biomass --> methanol. You can convert forest overgrowth locally to methanol with portable tractor trailer sized plants, instead of it causing devastating wildfires with major health hazard from particulate emissions and the many deaths and property destruction. Biomass --> Methanol being one of the simplest and oldest chemical process known to man. A basic distillation procedure.
The Nobel Prize winning chemist, George Olah, examined in depth the problem of replacing diminishing Oil & Gas, and concluded that a Nuclear-Methanol economy would be the most viable replacement. And wrote a book on the subject: Beyond Oil & Gas: The Methanol Economy:
https://www.amazon.com/Beyond-Oil-Gas-Methanol-Economy-ebook/dp/B08671RCN9
So again, the best thing to do, as I stated, is to continue the petrochemicals industry based on Oil & Gas as long as possible by substituting Nuclear & Methanol for Oil & Gas energy sources. That's the rational thing to do. Unfortunately, we have an energy supply administered by the most corrupt.