China Successfully Mines Gas From Methane Hydrate In Production Run (oilprice.com) 132
hackingbear writes from a report via OilPrice.com: In a world's first, China has successfully extracted gas from gas hydrates in production run in the northern part of the South China Sea. According to the U.S. Department of Energy (DOE), global estimates vary, but the energy content of methane in hydrates, also known as "fire ice" or "flammable ice," is "immense, possibly exceeding the combined energy content of all other known fossil fuels." But no methane production other than small-scale field experiments has been documented so far. The China Geographical Survey said that it managed to collect samples from the Shenhu area in the South China Sea in a test that started last Wednesday. Every day some 16,000 cubic meters (565,000 cubic feet) of gas, almost all of which was methane, were extracted from the test field, exceeding goals for production mining. This is expected to help cut down China's coal-induced pollution greatly and reduce reliance on politically sensitive petroleum imports controlled by the US. "The production of gas hydrate will play a significant role in upgrading China's energy mixture and securing its energy security," Minister of Land and Resources Jiang Daming said on Thursday.
Great.. Methane.. (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:Great.. Methane.. (Score:5, Informative)
Re:Great.. Methane.. (Score:5, Interesting)
Re: (Score:2)
And ... let's hope their mining process doesn't allow much of it to escape directly into the atmosphere.
Re: Great.. Methane.. (Score:1)
Re:Great.. Methane.. (Score:5, Interesting)
There's such an enormous amount of methane that this won't allay those concerns. If it's going to happen it will still happen even if we're burning it 100% in place of coal.
There is such an enormous amount of methane (natural gas) being mined already, so much so that the price [forecast-chart.com] of natural gas makes flaring it off cheaper than piping it to market in many locations.
This will help nations like China and Japan who are without ample petroleum natural resources, but the value of liquid crude and condensates will be largely unaffected unless global population trends tail off.
Re:Great.. Methane.. (Score:5, Insightful)
Getting back to the question at hand, whether it's better for the environment to burn the CH4 vs. something else, you'd need to take into account exactly what is getting released into the atmosphere for a given amount of energy output. There are already technologies in place to limit CO2 emissions from coal-fired power plants, so if it's possible to do something similar for burning CH4, then there's no reason why it wouldn't be a much cleaner source of power than coal, GWh for GWh.
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Why the above is a bunch of bullshit:
https://www.skepticalscience.c... [skepticalscience.com]
https://skepticalscience.com/c... [skepticalscience.com]
The greenhouse effect is a real thing. Deal with it.
Re: (Score:1)
Asscrate
Re: (Score:1)
why you idiots just don't do your own research
Perhaps you are a climate scientist. I'm not, and my educated layman's opinion about climate science is pretty worthless. Indeed, for topics like climate science, invertebrate neurogenetics, quantum chromodynamics, and brain surgery I feel safer deferring to actual credentialed peer-reviewed scientists who know what they're doing.
I'm going to go out on a limb and suggest that you are not a climate scientist since your main reference for the topic is a veritable cesspool of nut-job conspiracy theories.
When the world had more CO2, it was warmer. (Score:5, Informative)
Since you are cut-and-paste reposting what you already posted, I will cut-and-post what I already replied:
The difficulty here is that you are mixing up stuff that's correct, and stuff that isn't.
For the longest time earth was flooded with CO2 18 times higher than we have today,
That part is true. The Earth has had more carbon dioxide in the past,
and it was colder.
This part is not true. In general, when there's more carbon dioxide it's warmer, and when there's less it's colder. [wordpress.com]
We had more CO2 in THE FUCKING ICE AGE.
First, to be pedantic, let me remind you that we are in an ice age right now: there are permanent ice caps on the planet that don't disappear in the summers. The detailed place we are in the cycle is that we are in an "interglacial" period, but overall, yes, we're still in an ice age.
It's quite well accepted that the glaciation cycle is driven by Milankovitch variations, the pattern of solar insolation (short for "incident solar radiation," by the way) across the northern and southern hemisphere. Carbon dioxide and water vapor, however-- the greenhouse gasses in the atmosphere-- are the amplifiers that turn the relatively small insolation changes into global temperature changes.
As the cycle of increase of glacial and interglacial periods go, the record is very clear: glacier advance correlate with reduced carbon dioxide, and glacier retreat trends with increased carbon dioxide. So, no, your statement is backwards-- if by "in the fucking ice age" you mean "during the ice covered periods of the current cycle", then, no, we had less CO2 in the atmosphere in the fucking ice age.
The graph you link, with a minimum increment on the time axis of 100 million years, doesn't show the ice age cycle (with time periods three orders of magnitude shorter than that). Here's a graph of temperature and carbon dioxide over the last four glaciation cycles:
http://earthguide.ucsd.edu/virtualmuseum/images/VostokIceCore.html">http://earthguide.ucsd.edu/virtualmuseum/images/VostokIceCore.html [ucsd.edu]
The rest of your post seems to have equivalent random mixing up of facts. You write:
I don't know why you idiots just don't do your own research but keep repeating nonsense just because someone else said so.
But that seems to be exactly what you are doing-- posting a scrapbook of random unrelated stuff without, as far as I can tell, making any attempt to understand it. Here are some links:
https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/what-thawed-the-last-ice-age/ [scientificamerican.com]
http://earthguide.ucsd.edu/virtualmuseum/climatechange2/07_2.shtml [ucsd.edu]
Re: Another fucking idiot,where was the "FLOOD"? (Score:1)
You're wasting your time arguing with these sheeple. If there was practically no industry left and everywhere was like Detroit, these muppets would still support regulating the remaining industry our of existence.
The simple strategy of the super rich. They're comparatively even richer than you if they can make you poorer. In particular, they strive to take away the bare necessities of life - all tou really need. They need to keep you dependent on something they can weasel out of providing for you.
Re: (Score:2)
Global Warming Cooling. I don't understand why people get in such an uproar over it.
Re: (Score:2)
As I recall the primary process that removes methane from the atmosphere is light-catalyzed degradation into CO2 and water. At which point you're in exactly the same position as if you had burned it, except that you didn't get to harvest the energy, and got a bunch of years of methane-induced warming first.
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:3)
Why would it do that when it's considerably less dense than air?
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:2)
Last time I checked, water vapour wasn't even close to being the main component of the atmosphere.
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:2)
Because a truck is normally an auto(mobile). At least from my understanding.
Re: (Score:3)
From what I've read on the Methane (CH4) vs. CO2, it's not at all clear cut. CH4 is indeed a far worse greenhouse gas than CO2 - figures of 20-30x the heat trapping potential are often mentioned - but lingers in the atmosphere for a much shorter span of time than CO2 as natural processes tend to remove it within a decade or so.
depends on where in the atmosphere, unfortunately. the chemical process by which the atmosphere oxidizes methane into CO2 is based on hydroxyl radicals created in the upper atmospher
Re: (Score:2)
"CH4 is indeed a far worse greenhouse gas than CO2 - figures of 20-30x the heat trapping potential are often mentioned "
That's 20 the heat trapping potential when averaged over a century.
Now factor in that it decays relatively rapidly upon release and realise that in the first decade the effect can be _100_ times as high as CO2.
That's why things like the Laptev Sea methane plumes (which are located in about the worst possible location for such a thing to occur) should be terrifying people.
Re: (Score:2)
"IIRC methane is a seriously nasty greenhouse gas. "
It also breaks down quickly in the atmosphere. CO2 sits there until it is absorbed or used by something.
Re: (Score:3)
No it's not, it all depends on how long it persists in the atmosphere.
If methane has a half life of say one week, then it really does not matter that it is 20x worse than CO2 because it's not around long enough to matter.
Re: Great.. Methane.. (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Which is precisely why we might have to start collecting it from the ocean floor (at least in some areas). With global sea temperatures on the rise there have already been concerns raised that it might start releasing on its own, exacerbating climate change. Its not a good situation either way, but given the choice of mining the crap permanently locked up in the crust (oil/coal) or mining the stuff that is on the verge of gurgling its way into our atmosphere anyways I think the choice is obvious.
Re: (Score:2)
Given the choice between burning methane and burning coal, burn methane.
Given the choice between burning methane and letting it bubble out ("Laptev Sea methane emissions"), burn methane
Both choices must be temporary, whilst mankind embarks on a crash-plan buildout of nuclear power - with the best will in the world trying to do it with "renewables" simply isn't practical(*) or indeed possible(**). We may already be too late to prevent an anoxic oceanic event - which might sound like a good thing the way some
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:2)
The CO2 emission per KW produced by burning coal is nearly twice as high as from methane. Not a final solution but still better than coal.
Not to mention that coal contains other things, like arsenic, and burning coal generates a lot of (acidic) ash. Sure, some (most?) of that can be filtered out (for a price) but then you have all that material to deal with.
Re:Great.. Methane.. (Score:5, Insightful)
Natural gas hydrate consists of methane locked in water crystals that also are called flammable ice. It is an enormous untapped energy source formed under high pressure and low temperatures in permafrost or under the sea. It is regarded as a clean energy option with high energy density and huge amounts of reserves. It releases less than half the amount of carbon dioxide when burned as do oil and coal, ministry officials said.
It releases a lot less carbon than their existing coal fired plants and shit load less particulates, so a big improvement in that regard.
I guess the danger is that it could slow their move to renewables.
Re: (Score:3)
I guess the danger is that it could slow their move to renewables.
Also how much ecological damage does it's mining/extraction/refining do
Re: (Score:2)
Mining the sea isn't without ecological risks, either.
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Re: (Score:2)
It's strip mining the seabed, shaking everything up (to trigger depressurisation decomposition of the several % of hydrate in the mud), then dumping the debris behind the strip-mining tool.
But because it's out of sight (kilometres below sea level), that attracts less attention than doing the same thing to (for example) Canadian forests.
Re: (Score:2)
"I guess the danger is that it could slow their move to renewables."
It could, but the chinese in particular are investing in nuclear energy at levels unmatched by anyone at any period in history - and they're working hardest on _safe_ nuclear technology that the USA had working in the 1960s - then canned because it was almost impossible to weaponise.
Renewables and gas are bridging technologies. They can't provide enough energy to meet overall demand and they still emit CO2 respectvely. Once you have commerc
Re: (Score:2)
Less smog-producing pollution.
Same amount - or worse - of greenhouse gas effect at the end of the day.
Re: (Score:2)
"Methane's lifetime in the atmosphere is much shorter than carbon dioxide (CO2), but CH4 is more efficient at trapping radiation than CO2. Pound for pound, the comparative impact of CH4 is more than 25 times greater than CO2 over a 100-year period."
https://www.epa.gov/ghgemissio... [epa.gov]
Re:Great.. Methane.. (Score:5, Insightful)
IANAS (I am not a scientist but) Methane Hydrate is rather unstable, and tends to off-gas when water warms. By harvesting the more easily accessible hydrate for the methane, it may help reduce the methane impact on global warming, as methane is a far more potent greenhouse gas than CO2 is.
Re:Great.. Methane.. (Score:4, Insightful)
Not saying we ought not continue full speed ahead with carbon free alternatives - only say that the Treaties are worthless regarding the global environmental picture.
Re: (Score:2)
Paris agreement signed / ratified:
CHINA 22 Apr 2016 3 Sep 2016
INDIA* 22 Apr 2016 2 Oct 2016
http://unfccc.int/paris_agreem... [unfccc.int]
Re: (Score:2)
The obligations are not the same. Those that get a huge advantage will obviously sign.
Here's one example among many:
Article 9: Section 1
Developed country Parties shall provide financial resources to assist
developing country Parties with respect to both mitigation and adaptation in
continuation of their existing obligations under the Convention.
http://unfccc.int/files/essent... [unfccc.int]
Which are the developed countries?
Which are the developing countries?
What financial resources are they obligated to provide?
Now try to find the nitty-gritty details. Now that's a bit*h to find.
I'm certainly glad you're not my attorney.
Re: (Score:2)
India hasn't paid much attention to either, but China has - for a very simple reason - land elevation.
If sea levels rise 7 metres, China's going to have to relocate around 400 million people. They're not looking forward to that and would prefer not to do so if t can be avoided - and unlike other governments the PRC has a large engineering base in its leadership who feel they can at least try to avert a disaster.
India, Pakistan and Bangaladesh are already feelinging at the consequences of people being forced
Re: (Score:2)
https://www.bostonglobe.com/ne... [bostonglobe.com]
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
I bet you've never once ridden a bicycle to work, have you?
Oh, but I'm not an american. I regularly bike to work.
Links to actual facts (Score:2)
Since you have now cut-and-paste reposted this twice already in the same thread. I'm getting tired of reposting my reply, so this time I will just repost the links
graph of temperature and carbon dioxide over the last four glaciation cycles:
https://simpleclimate.files.wordpress.com/2012/04/edc.jpg [wordpress.com]
http://earthguide.ucsd.edu/virtualmuseum/images/VostokIceCore.html [ucsd.edu]
https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/what-thawed-the-last-ice-age/ [scientificamerican.com]
http://earthguide.ucsd.edu/virtualmuseum/climatechange2/07_2.shtm [ucsd.edu]
About that whole limited supply of fossil fuels ? (Score:1, Troll)
Just how many doomsday scenarios / Malthusian Apocalypses failing before people stop accepting them ? *
*I have no doubt someone will always be screaming the end is nigh but you can hope for the bulk of humanity.
Re: (Score:2)
China has more coal than the equivalent caloric value of all known uranium deposits. By the time the world will burn out all Uranium, Chinese will still have coal for many millenniums.
Re: (Score:2)
Uranium is stupidly expensive and a pain in the rear to refine and burn as a nuclear fuel. It's good for proving the cycle, but thorium is a better long-term fuel - and we have 50-500,000 years' supply of it.
The best part is that thorium is pretty much going begging as rare earth mines can't give it away. There are hundreds of thousands of tons of the stuff already mined and ready to be used.
Re:About that whole limited supply of fossil fuels (Score:4, Informative)
We're already well past the point where the planet can safely absorb the byproducts of fossil fuel burning. So the Malthusian issues are just as severe as people have been saying all along.
Re: (Score:3)
Yeah, I mean really who wants to live on a greener more fertile planet
https://www.nasa.gov/feature/g... [nasa.gov]
Re: (Score:2)
Similarly, 9/11 was great because the new World Trade Center building looks much more attractive than the blocky old towers.
Re: (Score:2)
Good analogy
Oh wait Powering the civilization is in no way the same as terrorism. That's a lousy analogy.
Re: (Score:2)
The analogy is about being a myopic ignoramus and focusing on one tiny positive while ignoring a huge surrounding catastrophe. Since this is exactly what you did, the analogy is 100% spot-on.
Re: (Score:2)
You're saying the Industrial revolution was a tiny positive ?
BTW Haansen and Mann(the teedle dee and dum of this) were predicting doom before congress going back to the 80s. Where is this huge catastrophe that's supposed to be here by now.
Re: (Score:2)
You're confusing yourself. The tiny positive you mentioned "more green plants".
The industrial revolution was in the past. We're talking about the future.
Re: (Score:2)
You're confusing yourself. The tiny positive you mentioned "more green plants".
The industrial revolution was in the past. We're talking about the future.
Please if you are going to be ignorant try not to demonstrate it quite so forcefully.
Greening the planet is hardly a tiny positive if you are starving. The industrial revolution is ongoing and still being powered overwhelmingly by fossil fuels, Where and how do you think the computer you type this one was made ?
Re: (Score:2)
Okay I'll bite.
If someone tells your that we are running out of (insert fossil fuel here), what they are most likely talking about is economically viable (insert fossil fuel here) not absolute values. This planet has a ton of trapped energy, it's just ridiculous to think of the sheer amount of energy that has been stored in this planet over it's billions of years of existence. It's a ton of flipping energy and unless something significantly changes about how human's exist, there's just no hope in us ever
Re: (Score:2)
Your post overall isn't bad. It's considerably better than the stuff that comes from people that mod anything that challenges their preconceptions down so let me ask
Just when have you heard anyone not frame fuel exhaustion in anything but apocalyptic terms ? It's overwhelmingly the case.
I don't even want to talk about just ho
Re: (Score:3)
.......... The fact is, there's enough carbon dioxide and methane in the atmosphere to make it opaque in the wavelengths that those gases absorb. ........
You are quite right. Well done!!!
You have just told us in effect that the greenhouse effect caused by these gases is real. Though I suspect you didn't understand the science you just quoted. When you have worked out just what wavelengths these gases are transparent to and what wavelengths they are opaque to, and which direction the energy at these various wavelengths are going, and the consequences of this, and all the other boring actual science, please come back and explain to the other deniers in a bit
Re: (Score:1)
True, the planet will probably survive, but human society isn't quite so resilient. Rising ocean levels will displace billions (40% of the population live within 37 miles of a coastline), changing weather patterns will disrupt an already strained agricultural system & conflict over resources will further add to the "fun". Though would also say that there is still a chance of us completely destroying the planet, as humans are inconceivably stupid when it comes to survival. If you had a room with just
That's great too bad (Score:2, Insightful)
Re: That's great too bad (Score:1)
Id rather have Jim Crow voter suppression instead of being killed and my organs harvested... But you're a fucking moron, so maybe it would be good to harvest you.
Re: (Score:2)
Current state of affairs in the USA worries me... (Score:5, Insightful)
I am beginning to get concerned that a sizable number of innovations are coming from the "East." Not much from the "West" these days. I am afraid that we may become inconsequential in the next few decades.
Think...
High speed trains; latest mobile technologies; the public transit system in New York is [several] decades behind that in Shanghai; the Chinese recently flew their own manufactured passenger plane and have the AG600 - the world's largest amphibious aircraft.
But I am sure we can catch up if we dedicate resources appropriately.
Re: (Score:3)
Because we don't do science anymore, and technology only after every imaginable pressure group has been satisfied. The California high speed rail uses tech that is off-the-shelf in Europe and Asia.
Comment removed (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:1)
Relax. East is west and west is east. The world's a sphere, after all.
US (and EU) have specialized, since long, on financial scams and Ponzi schemes. And a bit of worthless Intellectual Poverty.
Enjoy the scammer's next-to-last show, called "Make Foo Great Again" while it lasts. I'm hoping it takes a few of those scammers down in the last show, so we'll have something nice to watch.
Right. Next you'll be telling me... (Score:3, Interesting)
they're mining Manganese Nodules from the sea floor like we did (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/GSF_Explorer). There's more going on here folks.
Re: (Score:2)
7MW isn't a rate.
China is doing a good thing with methane! (Score:1)
children, please. (Score:2)
What happens when methane combusts? (Score:2)
This is what happens. You get CO2 and water vapor. [elmhurst.edu]
Much better solution as you're outputting far less CO2 versus burning coal.
Better burn it (Score:2)
Haf a million cubic feet sound impressive. (Score:2)
If that were a conventional gas well onshore, it would be pretty marginal for commercial viability - it would all depend on the availability of infrastructure to get it to market. For a well in deep water (it must be deep to have a low enough seabed temperature for methane hydrates to be stable), it would be an economic failure, because
Re: (Score:1)
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/... [wikipedia.org]
1,222 kilometres is a lot more then 330km.