New progress achieved in methanol gasoline technology

Great! More promotion can be carried out to address the severe shortage of gasoline in our country, and it can also **improve air quality. By using chemical additives, the technical problems associated with traditional methods for producing M-series methanol gasoline – such as a low methanol content, poor miscibility, difficulty in cold starting, and increased fuel consumption – have been effectively resolved, with the methanol content maintained at a moderate level of 30%–50%.

In the United States, the vast majority of methanol vehicle development projects have been abandoned in recent years. Although methanol is an excellent fuel for engine ignition and starting, it lost the opportunity to become a successful alternative transportation fuel due to its many significant drawbacks. Pilot projects for methanol gasoline in California began in 1988. Several oil companies have built over 60 methanol fuel stations in California to supply methanol gasoline for various flexible-fuel vehicles. By 1996, there were about 13,000 flexible-fuel vehicles in California. This pilot project lasted for 15 years, ending in 2003. Since then, oil companies have stopped supplying methanol gasoline. This is mainly because storage and corrosion issues associated with methanol fuel during use cause the various problems mentioned above. Over the past few years, transportation authorities in Los Angeles and Seattle have abandoned methanol projects due to the high corrosiveness of methanol fuel. Starting in 1989, they spent 102 million dollars on the methanol bus project; later, transportation officials in Los Angeles County declared their methanol air-pollution control project a failure, mainly because the high corrosiveness of methanol fuel required frequent repairs to these vehicles. After 5 years of testing, the staff at the Seattle Metro Transit Authority discontinued the methanol vehicle demonstration project. Results from the project tests showed that the corrosiveness of the fuel caused severe engine failures after the buses had been in operation for 60,000 to 70,000 miles. Due to the aforementioned problems, the transportation authorities in Los Angeles and Seattle have converted their methanol-powered buses to use CNG (compressed natural gas). The corrosivity of methanol itself is also evident in fuels with low proportions of methanol. In 1998, the American Ford Motor Company stopped producing methanol flexible-fuel vehicles. Meanwhile, in Europe, 3% methanol is allowed in gasoline, but statistics show that less than 0.1–0.5% methanol is added to fuels. The Worldwide Fuel Charter (WWFC) strictly prohibits the presence of methanol in gasoline. Current technology is not yet able to effectively address the issue of metal corrosion caused by methanol gasoline.

Methanol-based gasoline was quite popular in China during the first two years, but it seems to have faded away now. The United States has been using methanol-based gasoline for nearly 20 years, but due to unresolved issues related to it, it has given up on using this type of fuel. We hope that we can use our intelligence to address all the problems associated with its use and successfully promote its adoption——

We should learn from what others have achieved successfully. We don’t place blind faith in things that haven’t worked for others.

As early as 2006, buses in Taiyuan City, Shanxi Province, began using methanol-based gasoline, which proved to be effective in terms of environmental protection. These days, many companies and individuals own their own patents. For methanol-based gasoline, the key is to figure out how to make these substances miscible with each other, rather than having gasoline suspended above methanol. Another aspect that requires modification is the material of the internal combustion engine, as methanol gasoline is somewhat corrosive.

I’m not very optimistic about it. We keep striving to develop things that others have already discarded; it’s unclear what the outcome will be. If the issue of corrosivity could be resolved, others would have done so long ago

The information provided on the 3rd floor is quite valuable. Fuel and its structure are often influenced by politics and those in control of the industry. To solve the problem of finding buyers, they come up with various concepts and talk about environmental protection; they spend money to invite \"experts\" to hold evaluation meetings. Yet the reports issued after these meetings are not written by the experts themselves, but rather by the organizers of the meetings – that is, the people from the companies that want to sell their respective technologies. For example, the term \"clean coal technology\" has been in use for a long time. Yet it is well known that no coal chemical processing route is truly clean, yet it is still referred to as clean coal technology. If you take a look at how clean coal technology came about, you’ll find that it was actually coined by coal miners in an attempt to increase coal sales – a term that sounds good but is not really such a thing. Another example: in order to find markets for gold, South Africa is making strenuous efforts to research the use of catalysts. The goal is not to develop better catalysts, but rather to find outlets for gold. If, by chance, a very good catalyst for gold is indeed developed, that would merely be a \"happy coincidence\". The actual hazards of methanol-blended gasoline need to be proven by concrete experimental data. So far, it seems that the Chinese have not conducted a systematic evaluation. There must be some approximate range for the appropriate amount of methanol to be added to methanol-blended gasoline. However, if only the amount mentioned in point 3 is used – that is, \"statistical data show that less than 0.1-0.5% methanol is added to the fuel\" – then it’s better not to add any methanol at all. I even doubt whether the detected \"0.1-0.5% methanol\" is actually methanol from the raw material that wasn’t properly separated from MTBE. On the 6th floor, it was said that the most important thing regarding methanol-based gasoline is to figure out how to make them mutually soluble, rather than having gasoline suspended on top of methanol. Gasoline does not float on methanol, and the two are also quite soluble in each other. Only when in contact with water do the two exhibit significant stratification. Moreover, the requirements regarding water content are particularly strict; even a small amount of water, such as 0.5%, can cause stratification. Methanol gasoline is not something new, and there are no significant technical barriers or difficulties involved. With just any suitable formula, by purchasing some chemical ingredients from the market, one can produce methanol gasoline at home. Good additives for methanol gasoline can ensure that methanol and gasoline remain well miscible even when the water content is high. These additives are ethers and similar substances. What is crucial is to thoroughly study and find solutions to the problems caused by methanol-blended gasoline during its use, such as corrosion, swelling, and methanol vapor. The majority of those promoting methanol-based gasoline are people driven by profit motives; therefore, it’s mostly businessmen and those who possess the formulas for these additives. So-called testing procedures are nothing but a way to deceive people – there’s no need for any such tests for methanol-based gasoline, haha. The technical problems mentioned by the original poster – such as the low methanol content in methanol gasoline, poor miscibility, difficulty in starting in cold conditions, and increased fuel consumption – are no longer any problems at all, haha. This post was last edited by *aojungnft on 2009-3-27 00:49]

The main issue with methanol is corrosion; swelling is relatively easy to address. Nothing else is a problem; miscibility, cold start, fuel consumption, and so on are all easy to address.

Methanol gasoline **has no relevant standards – can it still develop?** Some are still under discussion; it will take some time before they can be rolled out.

In 2010, Yunnan Jiehua Group Co., Ltd. began construction in Kunming City, Yunnan Province, of a project to produce 400,000 tons per year of gasoline from 1 million tons per year of methanol; the designed overall production capacity is 1 million tons per year of methanol, with the ability to produce 400,000 tons per year of gasoline and LPG.