Some time back the Pentagon did a study on fuel technologies that recommended Methanol be used instead of gasoline/benzine/batteries for powering transport.

There are several reasons to do this, one being the Methanol, despite
making humans blind, is non-toxic to the biology of this planet.
Basically it's not poisonous to the bugs and other biotica upon
which humanity depends.

The other big reason is that it is easy to make. In fact you can
make it in your back yard, which is it's economic downfall: Banks
(and other people with money) will not invest in a technology
that uses a fuel that cannot be controlled at source. So
what we get is a toxic replacement of questionable provenance,
and a transport technology that cannot be fueled in emergent
situations. And that's a crippler for our tech:methanol is a
fuel that can only be cooked in your back yard with considerable
effort and that may be it's salvation: we need to get the
idea thru to banks and other institutions with money that
the methanol that can be cooked in your back yard is ONLY
EVER GOING TO BE ENOUGH TO GET YOU TO A FUEL STATION SUPPLIED
BY AN INDUSTRIAL REFINERY. So there really isn't any need
to poison us with benzene analogs (or lithium mines on Phobos).

And making our technology reproducible in the back yard will make it
a lot easier to "re-civilize" after a crisis like war/famine/plague.

Not nearly the "supply chain" problems ...

Dhu

--
Je suis Canadien. Ce n'est pas Francais ou Anglais.
C'est une esp`ece de sauvage: ne obliviscaris, vix ea nostra voco;-)
Duncan Patton the Campbell

On Wed, 31 Aug 2022 17:41:39 -0000 (UTC), Dhu on Gate wrote:

> Some time back the Pentagon did a study on fuel technologies that recommended Methanol be used instead of gasoline/benzine/batteries for powering transport.
>
> There are several reasons to do this, one being the Methanol, despite
> making humans blind, is non-toxic to the biology of this planet.
> Basically it's not poisonous to the bugs and other biotica upon
> which humanity depends.
>
> The other big reason is that it is easy to make. In fact you can
> make it in your back yard, which is it's economic downfall: Banks
> (and other people with money) will not invest in a technology
> that uses a fuel that cannot be controlled at source. So
> what we get is a toxic replacement of questionable provenance,
> and a transport technology that cannot be fueled in emergent
> situations. And that's a crippler for our tech:methanol is a
> fuel that can only be cooked in your back yard with considerable
> effort and that may be it's salvation: we need to get the
> idea thru to banks and other institutions with money that
> the methanol that can be cooked in your back yard is ONLY
> EVER GOING TO BE ENOUGH TO GET YOU TO A FUEL STATION SUPPLIED
> BY AN INDUSTRIAL REFINERY. So there really isn't any need
> to poison us with benzene analogs (or lithium mines on Phobos).
>
> And making our technology reproducible in the back yard will make it
> a lot easier to "re-civilize" after a crisis like war/famine/plague.
>
> Not nearly the "supply chain" problems ...
>
> Dhu

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OIcwgiCi4WE

"Tucker Carlson: This is an attack on your autonomy"

According to Tucker Carlson the reason for electric vehicles has nothing
to do with the environment and everything to do with engineering social
control into the structures of our civilization*: they have a remote
"off" switch.

Dhu (*crappy tech eventually solves itself being unmaintainable:
do _you_ know how to sharpen a stone axe? So now all they'll
sell us are stone axes because metal knives are too dangerous for
us kiddies to have)

--
Je suis Canadien. Ce n'est pas Francais ou Anglais.
C'est une esp`ece de sauvage: ne obliviscaris, vix ea nostra voco;-)
Duncan Patton the Campbell