Re: Methanol -- back to the future
- From: Eeyore <rabbitsfriendsandrelations@xxxxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Wed, 28 May 2008 19:49:50 +0100
Uncle Ben wrote:
I must have been asleep in the early 1990's. There was a large-scale
effort in that period on the part of California and Detroit to
introduce methanol/gasoline flex-fuel cars because of the "high price"
of gasoline at that time.
In California there were some 60 gas stations that installed methanol
pumps; the state had fleets of cars that flex-fueled methanol and
gasoline; Detroit introduced at least four lines of these flex-fueled
cars to the public.
Then the price of gasoline went back down, and all of that sank
beneath the waves. The state fleets were sold off to a public that by
and large did not even know or care that their cars would run on
methanol.
You can read all about this in the following document:
http://www.eri.ucr.edu/ISAFXVCD/ISAFXVAF/MTFLBLF.pdf
Today, methanol is dismissed as too dangerous to use. It is quite
toxic to humans, causing symptoms like blindness and further, multiple
sclerosis, and death. It burns with an almost invisible flame, which
is quite dangerous. Consider the liability problem!
Butanol is FAR better. It's effectively usable as a direct gasoline
substitute.
Graham
.
- Follow-Ups:
- Re: Methanol -- back to the future
- From: Uncle Ben
- Re: Methanol -- back to the future
- References:
- Methanol -- back to the future
- From: Uncle Ben
- Methanol -- back to the future
- Prev by Date: Re: Methanol -- back to the future
- Next by Date: Re: Methanol -- back to the future
- Previous by thread: Re: Methanol -- back to the future
- Next by thread: Re: Methanol -- back to the future
- Index(es):
Relevant Pages
|