Japan Extracts Natural Gas From Frozen Methane Hydrate 154
ixarux writes "For the first time ever, a Japanese company has successfully extracted natural gas from frozen methane hydrate off its central coast. The Nankai Trough gas field, located a little more than 30 miles offshore, could provide an alternative energy source for the island nation, reducing its dependence on foreign imports. 'A Japanese study estimated that at least 1.1tn cubic meters of methane hydrate exist in offshore deposits. This is the equivalent of more than a decade of Japan's gas consumption. Japan has few natural resources and the cost of importing fuel has increased after a backlash against nuclear power following the Fukushima nuclear disaster two years ago.'"
Re:Seems like a good step (Score:5, Insightful)
Additionally, methane is 25 times more potent as a grennhouse gas. So converting that to energy and CO2 gives you energy and a net reduction in the greenhouse effect.
Re:Good News Bad News (Score:3, Insightful)
Supply and demand. It's the same reason why we will never run out of oil.
As oil and other hydrocarbon sources become more rare, the price goes up. As the price goes up, more exotic extraction methods go from too expensive to financially viable. You'll even see an occasional dip in prices as someone discovers a way to preform the extraction cheaper. In the long run, hydrocarbon prices will continue to increase though.
There will never be a day* when everyone stops using gasoline all at once. Instead it will become more expensive, while alternatives become more accessible. People didn't all switch to the car from horses overnight. I mean, it's not like there was a gas station in every town, and you could feed your horse anywhere. /*Insert rant about anti-nuclear people preventing new safer plants from being built here.*/
*I know, never say never and all that.
Re:Good News Bad News (Score:4, Insightful)
The reason prices are so high is because the "massive" new sources come with massive new costs to extract. Oil Shale (kerogen) is a great case in point; it is essentially rock with heavy, like waxy heavy, hydrocarbons embedded in it. In theory there is a lot of it, in practice almost no one uses it, because the amount of energy and water needed to dig the rock, cook out the kerogen, crack it into a form usable by the current infrastructure, and transport it to a useful place are extremely high. Every other grand announcement you've been reading follows suit, as does the idea of mining methane hydrates. It is pretty basic math to calculate the amount of recoverable, usable energy from these sources, and you won't be running anything like a developed nation off of it. We will be continuing to move toward less energy use, and there will be nothing slow about it. Less a march than a free-fall.
Re:Seems like a good step (Score:2, Insightful)
This only makes sense if the warming is unstoppable and there's no way to prevent the bubbling. Taking methane out from the continental shelf and burning it ADDS greenhouse gas. It only makes sense if doing nothing would allow all the methane to escape anyway.
Re:11 years or 100 years (Score:3, Insightful)
Huge difference between looking at estimated recoverable vs. estimated total quantity. Just because we know an energy source exists doesn't mean it will ever be worthwhile to spend the energy required to recover it. eg, Helium-3.
Shall beds are geographically huge, but note how they have so far only been drilled in the thickest portions and only the shallowest formations have been actively pursued (marcellus vs. utica). It takes a lot of energy to get a gas well to produce, sometimes more than it will ever be capable of producing.