Carbon Recycling - Manufacturing renewable methanol from CO2 

makes a lot more sense than liquid hydrogen..........which is incredibly inefficient,difficult and outright dangerous.

I make my own from the distillation of wood.

@@steveciarico9824 syngas, biogas, and landfill gas (which continuously output fuel for 50 years straight and landfills over the years are everywhere) are also suitable for making carbon neutral methanol fuel. Basically any biowaste is with either a gasifier or a biodigester and the already made and in use methanol synthesis reactors. Heck for syngas you are left with char as a byproduct which if you burry it in the form of biochar (which has soil fertility Benifits) , you are sequestering carbon; yes a carbon negative fuel that is net energy positive to make. Biomethanol in general is net energy gaining process unlike efuel which is a net negative electric storage and distribution tech. Did I mention methanol takes way less enery to split into hydrogen, while taking up less space and container weight and being vastly easier to transport. China actually made a methanol to hydrogen refueling station for this reason. They also have trucks and cabs that run on internal combustion engine methanol. Though with a relatively inexpensive gasoline to alcohol conversion kit (compared to buying a new car) 90% of vehicles on the road can be converted. In truth methanol is cheap (the drag racer people stimulated a arbitrary price mark up over the decade and renewable suppliers of methanol is a new sector that lacks producers). US goverment found it was $0.70 a gallon if we used non renewable natural gas (though bio methane from literal sewage and trash should be in the same ball park). Biomethanol can be just as if not more inexpensive. Though E-methanol will be a lot more expensive since it is a net loss of energy by storing in a more convenient and applicable form.

@@wazza33racer You need hydrogen to produce methanol

@@wastelesslearning1245 If you converted an engine to run on methanol it would cut it's mpg in half that is well documented by within the US Department of Energy Alternative fuels fuel properties comparisons using the gasoline gallon equivalent metric. The reasons drag racers love methanol is the godly cooling effects of the fuel vaporizing allows them to fill the block with a solid material to strengthen the block as radiators are not necessary. Ideally, it should be blended with gasoline to boost octane and reduce combustion chamber temperature allowing higher compression engines increasing efficiency.

True. Electric Cars are inherently more energyefficient. Then you can add a small metanolgenerator. And use that to heat the car. And extend the range. (When needed) Thus saving massively on batteries.

If the process uses high temperature nuclear hydrogen and nuclear waste heat for the CO2 stripper tower heater, the process can be cheap and scalable. In this case it uses cheap hydro and geothetmal electricity and heat.

Nope, hydrogen in the water is locked in an energy well, you have to pull it out via electrolysis. You should think of methanol as a carrier of hydrogen.

The challenge in converting to a non- fossil fuel economy is to create a power delivery system using clean, abundant nuclear energy. Batteries are one way; expensive, short-lived, and made using scare rare earth metals, amd building a completely new infrastructure (charging stations), or produce clean-burning methanol, which can be delivered using existing petrol stations with minimal mal modifications. The Methanol economy is probably best realized by combining this fuel with 15% gasoline, useable in flex fuel vehicles. The push to all-electric vehicles is because of graft; some are getting very, very rich. See: Elon Musk, Al Gore, etc. The best system

@@scottslotterbeck3796 running the world on nuclear power may have kind of made sense if it was pushed for 20-40 years ago. But unfortunately nuclear power is simply too expensive now. Renewables are much cheaper at this point, and nuclear power has only become more expensive. Likewise the promise of fusion power is laughable: even if we get net positive energy, fusion will likely always be more expensive than fusion power, which will always be more expensive than collecting the energy that reaches us for free from the powerful fusion generator in the sky

Likewise batteries have real advantages over other power storage methods in that they have near zero round trip energy losses. No liquid fuel will ever achieve this even with advanced fuel cells. I agree though that the rare materials required to create li-ion batteries means it probably will not be the storage system we need to manage power on the largest scales.

@@sandpiperbf9767 You are completely wrong. Solar takes 75 times the land area as nuclear, and bird-killing windmills take 400 times the land. Solar/wind are dead-end propositions. If you take away subsidies they are far more eXpensive in the long run.

Exactly. You are quite bright and knowledgeable.

"poisoned" is the term i believe , but yes, nice catch...

There is plenty of CO2, don't worry.

What do you mean? It's quite easy to convert an ICE to run on methanol. It was used in NASCAR racing for some time.

@@markotrieste it sounds like he’s saying the editor is trying to make the guy look bad by manipulating his statement.

Silly. It's a well-known process; Germans used it in WWII to make fuel for tanks

Nope! Any electricity source will do; obviously, nuclear power is the best and cheapest source.

Not true! As long as you have a cheap source of electricity you can do it. For example from the sun. If you live in a place with low geothermal activity but a high level of sunlight with a large enough sun farm you produce tons of electricity for effectively free (minus farm costs of course).

Not true. Co2 can be captured for free from industrial point sources. And cheap power found too.

And this i possible. It is exepsive but possible

There is some global warming; check our glaciers; melting worldwide.

it must be really embarrassing to realize republicans are heading this up after making a documentary.

Nuclear, my friend. So much energy!

The typical ansver in Denmark to what you are saying would be, yes...... run your cars on electricity,... and your heating, for that matter,... but there are 'hard to abate' sectors where electricity is not an option: Planes, ships and plastic production and.....

The very small 400 ppm CO2 concentration in the atmosphere is growing exponentially.

Go to Venus and tell me how CO2 doesn't effect climate.

Source: Trust me bro

Why do you keep denying sound science established in centuries? Climate sensitivity to CO2 was already hypothesized by Fourier in the 18th century and proven theoretically by Arrhenius at the end of the 19th century.

@@tasimota but looking at the experiments showing co2’s heat absorption, we’d need nearly 100 times that 400 ppm to produce the heat gains they’re claiming, which would prove that co2 isn’t the driver they’re making it out to be.