Methanol Institute - supporters of MTBE and $$ over humanity

[Mr_Spock]

http://www.methanol.org/

:mad:

Methanol Institute - disgusting industry propaganda - go read for yourself - http://www.methanol.org/ . Oh, and they show themselves to be quite friendly toward their competition - a fuel known a ethanol that is renewable. Even I know that ethanol isn't a great alternate fuel (for various practical reasons), but it is unseemly for the methanol institute to be bashing them since methanol, although it has some chemical advantages over ethanol, is essentially just another fossil fuel at this point. When oil prices go up, so does methanol - what's so great about that? I sent the email below to them after reading a few of thier "select" studies on MTBE and their alarms about the impact on fuel prices by not protecting the industry from law suits (energy bill)!

"I was looking for methanol today and I discovered your web site during a search. I noticed it wasn't a sales site, but I did see several articles about MTBE. They all seemed to be biased toward describing MTBE as a minor threat to people and a major threat to the price of gasoline. Then I read that MTBE was mostly methanol (which I was wondering at this point). I use methanol as a cooling medium in my turbocharged vehicle BTW. I actually like methanol as a fuel from what I have read, but the featured promotion of an environmental poison (MTBE) and the unnecessary bashing of ethanol as an alternative fuel (which, unlike methanol, IS renewable) totally disgusted me. Anyone who knows about methanol knows that is is just an extension of a fossil fuel and it is impractical to produce as a renewable fuel except possibly in enormous volumes. Anyway, I found the general anti-humananity, pro $$ message on your site reprehensible. I am now not very fond of methanol as a fuel as you have taken the slash and burn attitude so common with our oil companies - and, in fact, your industry is merely an extension of the oil industry. Shame on you. Even with the most strict method of sampling and measuring, you were still seing 4 in 10,000 likely drinking water sources contaminated with MTBE at higher than EPA acceptable standards and you consider that good? Sick people, very violenty sick :( ."

Put that in you pipe methanol industry :smoke:

[Kraklen]

1. Oh, for fuck's sake.

No, MTBE is not methanol. It might be made from methanol but it's not methanol.

Methanol can be made via fermentation much like ethanol is. As a fuel additive I don't see why it would be any worse than ethanol.

And that's what we're talking about, fuel additives, not fuels themselves. Ethanol is not a good alternative fuel.

[Mr_Spock]

2. Why does it say that MTBE is made from methanol?

Why are they so supportive of it?

Why do they say that methanol is made from natural gas?

Why have read that methanol is very expensive to produce and requires huge volumes to be practical - using a lot of tree pulp.

Since there is no conversation ongoing about this here at DU that I am aware - are you from the Mehtanol Institute - and is this my response to my email?

Are you scanning sites in order to tear down critics?

[Kraklen]

4. LOL.

MTBE is made from methanol. Or to be more accurate, I'm going to assume it's made from either methyl bromide or methyl iodide, which themselves are made from methanol (I assume). (Both methyl iodide and bromide are also natural products, by the way, and are used for the synthesis of damn near everything, btw)

But that's not what your OP says, it says MTBE IS methanol. Pretty misleading.

"Why are they so supportive of it?"

I don't know why they're supportive of it. I assume the website's creators are involved in the industry. Why shouldn't they be supportive of it?

"Why do they say that methanol is made from natural gas?"

That's how most of it is made. It's cheaper to make it from crude oil on a large industrial scale. Same with ethanol. It's made from ethylene, which comes out of oil wells. (via the Wacker reaction, if anybody's interested.) Oh dear, now I've gone and done it.

"Why have read that methanol is very expensive to produce and requires huge volumes to be practical - using a lot of tree pulp."

Well, it's much like ethanol in that regards. It can be made from petroleum, or via fermentation. That's why there was so much comparison with ethanol on that site. They're very closely related compounds.

"Since there is no conversation ongoing about this here at DU that I am aware - are you from the Mehtanol Institute - and is this my response to my email?"

You've got me. I'm a troll from the Methanol Institute. I'm trying to sap your precious bodily fluids. Booga booga booga.

"Are you scanning sites in order to tear down critics?"

No. Do you know anything about chemistry?

[Mr_Spock]

8. I can respond to your responses within:

"MTBE is made from methanol. Or to be more accurate, I'm going to assume it's made from either methyl bromide or methyl iodide, which themselves are made from methanol (I assume). (Both methyl iodide and bromide are also natural products, by the way, and are used for the synthesis of damn near everything, btw)"

"What are some common uses of methanol?

Methanol has a number of uses. As a basic building block for hundreds of chemical products, methanol is being used safely and effectively in everything from plastics and paints, to construction materials and windshield washer fluid. It is the principal ingredient in various organic chemicals such as formaldehyde, acetic acid, chloromethane, and MTBE. Since 1965, methanol has been the only racing fuel used by the Indianapolis 500. Methanol also is an ideal hydrogen carrier fuel for fuel cell technology applications. In addition, methanol is used for denitrification in municipal wastewater treatment plants and can be an excellent turbine fuel for electric power generation."

Don't let the fact that you DIDN'T BOTHER TO READ from the web site I linked to twice in my original post. "It is the principal ingredient in ... MTBE"!!!

"I don't know why they're supportive of it. I assume the website's creators are involved in the industry. Why shouldn't they be supportive of it?"

So, my post is about the disgusting manipulation by an industry association, and YOU DIDN'T EVEN READ IT?? How am I supposed to respect your arguments when you are supporting methanol but not even noticing that I was angry at the horribly anti-humanity aspects of their advocacy. This is a site where we care about issues like MTBE - do you support it's continued use? Because that was their main agenda - IF YOU HAD READ THE SITES INFO!!!!!!!!! :(

"That's how most of it is made. It's cheaper to make it from crude oil on a large industrial scale. Same with ethanol. It's made from ethylene, which comes out of oil wells. (via the Wacker reaction, if anybody's interested.) Oh dear, now I've gone and done it."

Ethanol is more easily made from corn than Methanol is made from wood pulp - it takes energy to "preburn" the stew top make methanol.

"Well, it's much like ethanol in that regards. It can be made from petroleum, or via fermentation. That's why there was so much comparison with ethanol on that site. They're very closely related compounds"

Actually it's not as practical to produce via fermentation and thermal conversion. It's most practical now since we still have considerable fossil fuel reserves.

"You've got me. I'm a troll from the Methanol Institute. I'm trying to sap your precious bodily fluids. Booga booga booga."

I want to believe that you're just being silly :D

"No. Do you know anything about chemistry?"

I spent a lot of time studying the different fuels/additives. I'm not a chemist, but I understand chemistry better than most. I already stated in my OP (which you're choosing to ignore) that for various reasons, methanol was much more suited as an alternate fuel that ethanol. There is a lot involved there. Cold temperature volatility (or lack thereof) pretty much dooms ethanol right there. Both fuels have a lot of oxygen in them already which means that you need very low air/fuel ratios for stoich burning - this is an issue as fuel tanks will have to be bigger. They both absorb a lot of water when exposed to humid air (hygroscopic) and even small amounts can reduce the energy content of the fuel. Methanol boils at 148F which can be a problem as vapor lock would come into play. They also have large heat of vaporization (methanol higher than ethanol) which can lead to condensed frost issues in certain applications. Methanol is much more corrosive than ethanol - this is somewhat of a big deal as handling and fuel systems issues play a big role in usage - sometime lubricants are added to pumps/injectors don't corrode and stop working. Even as an additive to fuels, they absorb water which can eventually be an issue in lost performance in high enough concentrations (100% methanol is used as gas-line antifreeze/water absorber - HEET). Methanol has a relatively low flash point and burns with an invisible flame - I've seen the results of people who were stupid and ran poorly designed 100% methanol injection systems - good thing there was no ignition spark or they would only have known they were cooking by the burning sensation! There are several other issues I can't remember off the top of my head as I type this...

There are other alternatives as well, but I'm not going there in this post - my post wasn't even about alternatives anyway, it was about industry greed and their lack of humanity!!

[Kraklen]

9. Did I read all of your link? No.

Your link contains dozens of large articles. I scanned it and found nothing wrong with it.

The quote "methanol is an ingredient in MTBE" was from your OP and appears to be quoted from a criticism of the website you've linked to. Regardless of its origin, I think it's quite misleading. It implies that MTBE is a mixture, of which methanol is a major component, this is completely false.

Like I said, yes, methanol has huge number of uses. The most important of which is as a solvent, I just want to stress that.

"So, my post is about the disgusting manipulation by an industry association, and YOU DIDN'T EVEN READ IT?? How am I supposed to respect your arguments when you are supporting methanol but not even noticing that I was angry at the horribly anti-humanity aspects of their advocacy."

Alright, now what's wrong with methanol? You've failed to indicate any factual errors with the website. You've failed to show how methanol is "anti-humanity."

"This is a site where we care about issues like MTBE."

As for MTBE, I think it's a problem, but highly exaggerated. Regardless, methanol has nothing to do with MTBE.

"Ethanol is more easily made from corn than Methanol is made from wood pulp - it takes energy to "preburn" the stew top make methanol."

Ethanol is easier to make for spirits from corn. For large industrial purposes it's easier to make from ethylene. That's why they use ethylene. Yes, it takes energy to make methanol via fermentation. Same with ethanol. That's why ethanol is a poor choice as an alternative fuel.

"Actually it's not as practical to produce via fermentation and thermal conversion. It's most practical now since we still have considerable fossil fuel reserves."

Again, same with ethanol.

"I spent a lot of time studying the different fuels/additives. I'm not a chemist, but I understand chemistry better than most. I already stated in my OP (which you're choosing to ignore) that for various reasons, methanol was much more suited as an alternate fuel that ethanol. There is a lot involved there. Cold temperature volatility (or lack thereof) pretty much dooms ethanol right there. Both fuels have a lot of oxygen in them already which means that you need very low air/fuel ratios for stoich burning - this is an issue as fuel tanks will have to be bigger. They both absorb a lot of water when exposed to humid air (hygroscopic) and even small amounts can reduce the energy content of the fuel. Methanol boils at 148F which can be a problem as vapor lock would come into play. They also have large heat of vaporization (methanol higher than ethanol) which can lead to condensed frost issues in certain applications. Methanol is much more corrosive than ethanol - this is somewhat of a big deal as handling and fuel systems issues play a big role in usage - sometime lubricants are added to pumps/injectors don't corrode and stop working. Even as an additive to fuels, they absorb water which can eventually be an issue in lost performance in high enough concentrations (100% methanol is used as gas-line antifreeze/water absorber - HEET). Methanol has a relatively low flash point and burns with an invisible flame - I've seen the results of people who were stupid and ran poorly designed 100% methanol injection systems - good thing there was no ignition spark or they would only have known they were cooking by the burning sensation! There are several other issues I can't remember off the top of my head as I type this... "

OK, so you seem pretty much in agreement with the website you linked. So I don't understand where you're going with all this.

[Mr_Spock]

10. "Regardless, methanol has nothing to do with MTBE"

Ok, you are simply placing your head into a hole and not reading my posts, so I am going to do like you and selectively "pick" what I want to comment on from your post.

Read the title of this post. Now answer this:

1. WHY are they spending so much time advocating MTBE usage?

2. WHY does their OWN FAQ tab say that METHANOL is a principal ingredient in MTBE???

If you can face the real music of my post, I'll take on your other minor quibbles. If you choose to ignore the main thrust of my post, then I can't help you. You are being infuriatingly deflective of my main point.

[Kraklen]

11. Hmmm.

1. WHY are they spending so much time advocating MTBE usage?

They're not. In the FAQ there's two mentions of MTBE, one is an explanation of fuel oxygenators, of which MTBE, ethanol, and methanol are common. The other is an explanation of how MTBE has been banned by several states. There's several mentionings of it under the "fuels" link, but I didn't see any real cheerleading for MTBE. It's tough to have a discussion on fuel additives without mentioning the stuff.

2. WHY does their OWN FAQ tab say that METHANOL is a principal ingredient in MTBE???

Well, it appears they've worded terribly. Why are you repeating it?

"If you choose to ignore the main thrust of my post, then I can't help you. You are being infuriatingly deflective of my main point."

If you have a main point, I'd sure like to read it. Something about "attacking humanity," or some such nonsense. You sure haven't made yourself clear.

[Mr_Spock]

12. Forget it - you're using right-wing tactics on me

I can't discuss an issue with someone with an attitude like yours.

[Kraklen]

13. Au contraire.

I'm trying to have a civilized, intelligent conversation.

I'm still completely uncertain of what your original point was.

Did you have one?

[Mr_Spock]

14. Poisoning people to save $0.09 per gallon of gasoline.

Maybe if you actually read the email I sent them:

"I was looking for methanol today and I discovered your web site during a search. I noticed it wasn't a sales site, but I did see several articles about MTBE. They all seemed to be biased toward describing MTBE as a minor threat to people and a major threat to the price of gasoline. Then I read that MTBE was mostly methanol (which I was wondering at this point). I use methanol as a cooling medium in my turbocharged vehicle BTW. I actually like methanol as a fuel from what I have read, but the featured promotion of an environmental poison (MTBE) and the unnecessary bashing of ethanol as an alternative fuel (which, unlike methanol, IS renewable) totally disgusted me. Anyone who knows about methanol knows that is is just an extension of a fossil fuel and it is impractical to produce as a renewable fuel except possibly in enormous volumes. Anyway, I found the general anti-humananity, pro $$ message on your site reprehensible. I am now not very fond of methanol as a fuel as you have taken the slash and burn attitude so common with our oil companies - and, in fact, your industry is merely an extension of the oil industry. Shame on you. Even with the most strict method of sampling and measuring, you were still seing 4 in 10,000 likely drinking water sources contaminated with MTBE at higher than EPA acceptable standards and you consider that good? Sick people, very violenty sick ."

I hate oil companies and Bush is a big promoter of this "slash and burn" (ie emphasize $$ over the poisoning of water supplies).

Do you like the oil companies (most methanol producers are oil companies) and their main supporter - President George W. Bush of the United States of America?

[firefox]

3. MTBE comes from petroleum

Methyl alcohol or wood alcohol is a poison. That is why it is worse than ethyl alcohol.

[Kraklen]

5. Ethyl alcohol is a poison.

It's not as bad as methyl alcohol. But in small doses it's harmless.

Same as methanol.

[Mr_Spock]

6. You're insane. Methanol will easily blind and maybe kill in small doses

You are appologizing for methanol and you didn't even have the decency to read the propaganda on the page I linked to. Typical promoter of something who want's to hide from the facts that don't support ones position. You're not being impartial or fair.

[Kraklen]

7. Methanol really isn't that toxic.

Yes, every now and then teenagers will get into a bottle labelled "alcohol" and drink it thinking that it's ethanol and end up going blind or killing themselves. Lots more die from ethanol.

But anybody using the toxicity of methanol over ethanol as an argument against industrial uses or as a fuel additive is a full-of-shit fearmonger.

"hide from the facts that don't support ones position. You're not being impartial or fair."

That's odd, I was thinking the same of you.

[Oerdin]

15. I recall when enviromentalists wanted MTBE.

That's right. A while back the Sierra Club was pushing for MTBE as an oxigenating agent to help reduce smog while numerous scientists opposed it based upon it being toxic and water soluable while industry resisted due to the cost factor. The Sierra Club won and MTBE was required in all gas in California which set off massive contamination of the state's ground water.

That just goes to show that enviromental people can sometimes not see the forest for the trees and our enviromental policies should be reviewed by scientists first. Not reviews to death as a way of preventing change like the Bush Administration uses it but instead a sensable peer review in order to find the best policy for a given situation.