NEAT OR ON THE ROCKS

Methanol has half the heating value of gasoline (requiring a fuel tank twice as large for the same range of the car), a higher octane number (permitting higher compression ratios and hence better perfonnance), is less volatile (causing starting and warm-up problems), and has a lower combustion temperature (strongly reducing NOx pollution); it is also more toxic than gasoline, and far more corrosive (either itself, or perhaps due to the water that it inevitably absorbs).

But the overriding advantage of methanol, a member of the alcohol family, is that it can be made from coal, woods garbage, and other materials. At present, it is obtained from natural gas. Gasoline, too, can be made firom coal, but only in a process involving many more stages. Moreover, methanol (or at least methane, the raw material for it) could, in principle, be made from coal in-situ, reacting the coal chemically underground without mining it (AtE Oct.75).

The blend of 10% methanol added to gasoline proved to be less than a howling success in the GM test. Driveability was worse, emissions about the same, and fuel economy in miles per total gallons was slightly worse, though, of course, in miles per gallons of gasoline it was better. More than 10% methanol significantly impaired driveability, and less than 10% doesn't save much gasoline.

To run a car on pure methanol needs a number of modifications beyond a doubled fuel tank. All materials in contact with the methanol must be made corrosion resistant; an additive to increase volatility (for cold starts) must be mixed into the fuel; the carburetion must be changed for increased fuel flow and the intake system must be designed to improve fuel vaporization; the spark plugs must be cooler for the lower combustion temperature; and the distributor must be calibrated for a different firing time.

With these changes, the drive-abililty of the Chevelle was satisfactory, and that of the Cutlass with the electronic fuel injection was equivalent to gasoline. However, both had problems with cold starts; evidently more volatizing additives, or even a pre-heating system, will be needed. Neither is a prohibitive obstacle, and methanol remains, technically, a serious contender as a gasoline substitute.

For more on the technical details, write for Search, Jan-Feb. 1977, Technical Inf. Dept., GM Research Labs, Warren, MI 4800. Science (11 Feb. 1977) also has an interesting report on Alcohol a Brazilian answer to the energy crisis. (The same issue has a strongly biased article on the breeder reactor program; it avoids the important issues and is printed on uncoated paper, because Science's printers ran out of gas for their drying oven, which normally prevents the ink, if not the breeder program, being smeared.)

But then, these are merely the technical details. The crucial point about methanol is the cost, and the coal-to- methanol technique is kept artificially uncompetitive by congressional price fixing of natural gas and by the uncertain climate for investments. Methanol remains blocked by the people who think automobile engines need not be designed, because they can be legislated.