Nevada is the site for the second coal-powered ethanol plant in the nation. No, not the state of Nevada – the city, located in central Iowa. The 50 million gallon a year plant, which is being built by Lincolnway Ethanol LLC is expected to be opened by April, according to an article in the Times-Republican. Company officials say that using coal is one-third to one-fourth of the energy cost of natural gas. However, its also more complex, expensive and high maintenance compared to natural gas.
The nation’s first Clean Coal Technology ethanol plant opened for business in December. The Corn LP plant, designed by ICM and constructed by Fagen, is also a 50 million gallon per year facility and also located in Iowa, near the town of Goldfield. Read more about Clean Coal Technology on the Coalition for Affordable and Reliable Energy (CARE) website.
Cindy,
This is actually good news and means that some people understand the problem of being dependent on natural gas. Afterall, the U.S. has hundreds of years worth of coal. Now if we can just get corn farmers to grow their corn w/o using fertilizer made from natural gas. (There is actually some hope there too. A company from Colorado is planning to convert the old Royster-Clarke natural gas nitrogen plant at East Dubuque to run on coal gas.)
I would point out though that using the energy from coal to turn corn into an alcohol (ethanol) may not be the best use of that coal. It would be more efficient to convert the coal directly to an alcohol (methanol) and use the methanol for fuel.
Methanol is as good a liquid fuel as ethanol and turning coal directly into methanol would cut out the inefficiencies of using natural gas to grow corn and then using coal (or natural gas) to turn that corn into ethanol.
Which would you think might be more efficient?
* Chemically convert coal to methanol
* Use natural gas + diesel fuel + corn + coal (or natural gas) to make ethanol
Best regards,
Gary Dikkers
My understanding is that methanol is much more toxic and volatile than ethanol, as well as being a federal hazardous air pollutant and toxic air contaminant (http://www.scorecard.org/chemical-profiles/html/methanol.html)
According to GreenCar.com:
“Today, methanol (methyl alcohol) is largely produced from natural gas, although it can be made from non-petroleum sources such as … coal. Currently, most methanol is used as M85, a blend of 85% methanol and 15% gasoline, for light-duty vehicles. …..Virtually all M85 refueling stations are located in California….
Power, acceleration, and payload are generally not compromised when running on methanol, but methanol’s lower energy content means that fuel economy will be slightly lower. Because methanol is quite corrosive, M85 compatible parts must be used and special lubricants are required. Some fleet experiences with methanol have been discouraging because of durability problems. While methanol probably never will be a major fuel for use in internal combustion engines, it is a leading contender as a feedstock for fuel cell vehicles, where it would be converted by onboard reformers to hydrogen.”
Cindy,
Hearing you expound on the negatives of methanol sounds strangely similar to a Big Oil lobbyist badmouthing ethanol.
I’ve heard them use exactly the same arguments against corn ethanol: “Lower energy density, poorer mileage.” “Too corrosive.” “The engines will need special modifications.”
Here’s the energy content of the three fuels:
Gasoline — 115,000 Btu/gal
Ethanol — 76,000 Btu/gal
Methanol — 64,250 Btu/gal
The difference between methanol and ethanol is much less than the difference between gasoline and ethanol.
Professional racecar drivers and drag racers have used methanol for decades. Why would they do that if it were bad for their engines?
The fact is methanol made directly from coal would be a viable DOMESTIC fuel that would be more than competitive with corn ethanol. After all, we have an almost limitless supply of coal. And we wouldn’t need to burn foreign hydrocarbons to make methanol. (Can’t say that about corn based-ethanol.)
Regards,
Gary Dikkers
No badmouthing here – just quotes from other sources. I thought the GreenCar evaluation was pretty balanced as to where methanol might fit in to the whole alternative fuel scenerio. I would also keep in mind that while we may have an “almost limitless supply of coal,” the recent mining accidents have highlighted the difficulty and danger in getting it out of the earth to use it. All of the alternative fuels have their pros and cons – but it appears the market is choosing to pursue ethanol as the most viable at this point, with corn-based as the jump-start to much greater possibilities down the road.
I am a 62 year old retired racer/engine builder. We began blending gasoline and diesel with ethanol and methanol back in the 70′s. We also mixed several formulas of methanol and nitromethane for use in auto, boat and tractor pull racing. I can tell you from years of experience that ethanol and methanol will decrease mileage while delivering increased power due to their slower burn rate. They will also decrease engine life by stripping lubricating oil(s)from cylinder walls, valves and bearings. However, we switched to full synthetic oils and even added small amounts to our fuel to offset the negative effects. Not only did it work well, we actually increased the life of our engines. Obviously we did not address potential environmental impact (if any) but I am confident a minimum amount of testing (formulation)can quickly overcome the proposed shortcomings of ethanol and methanol. My experience is that ethanol is by far the better fuel for blending with gasoline. Come on guys this is not rocket science we need to get on with the alternative fuel program to help clean our air and decrease foreign oil dependency.
I just want to know why methanol is more toxic than ethanol!
for one thing, it decomposes into formaldehyde, but more simply it is just a different chemical that reacts differently than ethanol does. for instance, ethanol’s presence in the womb during pregnancy may have adverse effect, especially over prolonged periods, methanol has devastating effects on fetal tissue. as for its toxicity, a lethal dose of methanol is about 125 mL. whiskey is 80 proof, or 40 % ethyl alcohol(ethanol.) i can drink a liter of it which contains 400mL of ethanol without even getting sick(I’m not bragging, just a basis for comparison.) based on this, you can guess which one i don’t want accidentally leaking into my water supply, building up on crops, or to breath in.
if you need more information, wikipedia has too much of it.