Methane Hydrates

[SelectHalfling0]

In the October 2014 edition of Scientific American (a magazine I read) there was an article about Methane Hydrates. I am creating this thread to spread some info and see if anyone knows about Methane Hydrates.

To start things off, here are the facts about Methane Hydrates (from the scientific american): Methane hydrates are methane molecules (CH₄) that are trapped in an "Ice-Crystal" Cage. They are found off almost every major shoreline at depths deeper than 3,000 feet. Methane Hydrates (as far as scientists can tell) are created when large underground methane bubbles begin seeping to the surface. When the methane comes in contact with water the water crystallizes around it. These create massive shelves at the ocean floor of methane hydrates.

Now this is why they are important: Methane hydrates can release large amounts of energy when burned (like burning methane with oxygen). Also, when burned, they produce less CO₂ than coal, oil, or gas. Recent discoveries have revealed these methane hydrates are being warmed by the oceans, and if the oceans reach an unknown tipping point, they could be released into the atmosphere. As some of you may know, Methane is a very potent greenhouse gas. Attempts to catch the hydrates have been relatively unsuccessful, as they are very loosely connected to the ocean floor and entire sections of the deposits break away at the slightest touch.

This is why I am writing this: Research, although on going, does not get much funding from any governments. The only nation to secure samples of methane hydrates is Japan, as they are attempting to phase out their nuclear program. Also, according to scientific american, the methane hydrates off the coast of the mainland USA hold enough energy to power the country for 2,000 years (at our current energy usage). The implications of methane hydrates are massive.

What are you're thoughts/opinions?

[Tex_NL]

A GREEN LIE!

Oil, natural gas, methane hydrates. It don't matter which you burn. They are ALL fossil fuels! If you really want to make a positive impact you should switch to nuclear power and reduce carbon emissions.

Yes, nuclear waste is dangerous and we have no permanent solution for it yet. But after solar, hydro and wind it IS the cleanest source of energy.

Edit: I forgot geothermal energy. Geothermal is of course also 'cleaner' than nuclear.

Edited September 27, 2014 by Tex_NL

[Kryten]

Saying it'd give off less CO₂ than natural gas is misleading. Yes, there'll be a few percent less CO₂ per unit energy due to the non-methane portion of natural gas, but it's going to take a lot more energy to get it out in the first place.

[Tex_NL]

And don't forget disturbing a methane hydrate layer can actually cause a spontaneous, cascading release of methane. You do NOT want your drilling rig sitting in a big cloud of flammable gas. Remember Piper Alpha?

OK, Piper Alpha drilled for oil be the resulting fireball would be similar.

[Seret]

Also, when burned, they produce less CO₂ than coal, oil, or gas.

Cleaner than coal and oil, but exactly the same as gas. The natural gas we currently burn is almost pure methane.

There's nothing particularly green about this source of carbon, it's still releasing a geologically sequestered carbon store into the atmosphere. The only way it could help is if it was cheaper to recover than coal so would displace some. Given where it's located that seems highly unlikely.

[StrandedonEarth]

Methane hydrates have also been suggested as a cause for disappearances in the Bermuda Triangle (and elsewhere). A ship in an area of a massive methane release would be unable to stay afloat in the frothing sea, and an airplane flying through a fresh methane cloud would probably ignite it (a mere spark would do it) and get knocked out of the sky. At the very least, I'm not sure how the engines would perform running incredibly rich.

[SelectHalfling0]

If anyone actually read what I said, you would have noticed that I stated cleaner than natural gas, coal, etc (not completely green). You would have also noticed I said when interacted with methane hydrates can break away (quite easily). I do thank you for finding a picture similar to the dangers methane hydrates pose.

Responding to Stranded's question about using methane as fuel (for machines I presume) methane is incredibly explosive. It would probably be safer (for everyday folks) to make electricity out of it.

Also, this is not an add for different sources of energy. I want to see if anyone knows about these, and if they know of any environmental implications they have.

[Kryten]

I'm not sure you understand; natural gas is about 95% methane. The only major difference it would have with methane derived from clathrates is the extraction would be inherently harder and thus dirtier.

[Dkmdlb]

Methane hydrates have also been suggested as a cause for disappearances in the Bermuda Triangle (and elsewhere). A ship in an area of a massive methane release would be unable to stay afloat in the frothing sea, and an airplane flying through a fresh methane cloud would probably ignite it (a mere spark would do it) and get knocked out of the sky. At the very least, I'm not sure how the engines would perform running incredibly rich.

Given that the Bermuda triangle is statistically indistinguishable from any other arbitrary patch of ocean in terms of lost airplanes and ships, the problem with this explanation is that there is nothing to explain.

[TheGatesofLogic]

A GREEN LIE!

Oil, natural gas, methane hydrates. It don't matter which you burn. They are ALL fossil fuels! If you really want to make a positive impact you should switch to nuclear power and reduce carbon emissions.

Yes, nuclear waste is dangerous and we have no permanent solution for it yet. But after solar, hydro and wind it IS the cleanest source of energy.

Edit: I forgot geothermal energy. Geothermal is of course also 'cleaner' than nuclear.

Nuclear is actually cleaner than solar energy, since phtovoltaic cells are made out of extremely volatile materials, and causes fewer deaths than wind. Just a point. Nuclear really is the very best energy source we have.

As for methane hydrates, people have all pointed out the issues already, it's hard to dredge them up, and after all that is it worth saving a few percent on our emissions budget? It's just not economical either.

[Dkmdlb]

Nuclear really is the very best energy source we have.

Except for the stratospheric cost of construction. But in pretty much every other way, yeah.

[Seret]

Nuclear is actually cleaner than solar energy, since phtovoltaic cells are made out of extremely volatile materials, and causes fewer deaths than wind. Just a point.

That's not quite correct. When all their external impacts are assessed nuclear does come out well (certainly better than most fossil fuels) but it still isn't as good as renewables.

Take for example Pearce et al 1992 "The Social Costs of Fuel Cycles", which rates various fuels in terms of external costs in UK£ per MWh:

coal = 54

gas = 3.9

nuclear = 4.8

renewable = 0.55

oil = 60.5

These external cost assessments attempt to take in diverse factors such as atmospheric pollution and GWP, human health, land use, damage to forestry and buildings, etc.

PV cells aren't made from volatile materials, they're mostly just silicon which is what a large percentage of the Earth's crust is made from. The semiconductor industry does use a lot of nasty chemicals in the manufacturing process, which I assume is what you meant.

Contrasting nuclear to renewables is a bit pointless though. They're not competing technologies. They serve a different role in a well-balanced grid, and are complementary. A low carbon grid can (and probably should) contain substantial amounts of both.

Edited September 28, 2014 by Seret

[StrandedonEarth]

Responding to Stranded's question about using methane as fuel (for machines I presume) methane is incredibly explosive. It would probably be safer (for everyday folks) to make electricity out of it.

Actually my question was how well an aircraft engine (especially piston engines) would run when flying through a methane cloud. The fuel/air mixture would be much richer than usual. Since "natural gas" is mostly methane, lots of stuff runs on it: my stove, fireplace, furnace, hot water heater...

Given that the Bermuda triangle is statistically indistinguishable from any other arbitrary patch of ocean in terms of lost airplanes and ships, the problem with this explanation is that there is nothing to explain.

Which is why I also stated (and elsewhere). It was floated as an explanation for unexplained disappearances in general, especially in coastal regions. The Bermuda Triangle is merely the "poster boy" for unexplained disappearances.

[TheGatesofLogic]

You're probably right on that, didn't think it through very much, but the danger to human life aspect I mentioned is still very valid. And you're right in that they don't really compete, except in government investments. Government investments into "pure" renewables looks better than investment into nuclear energy even though the actually Wattage gain on the grid for such investments is less than nuclear. In that way the transition to a purer grid is slowed. What should be happening is a full switch to nuclear THEN a balancing of that system with other renewables. Unfortunately, because of nuclear capital costs, this would run into other issues as well :/

[Idobox]

One good reason to exploit clathrates is that we really don't want them to be released in an uncontrolled manner.

Methane is a much more potent greenhouse gas than CO2, and a common catastrophe scenario is that when they start releasing the stored methane, it could cause a very strong positive feedback loop and a "flash heating " over a few years/decade, until the methane is destroyed (O2/CH4 mixture is inherently unstable, even at low temperatures).

If something like that is indeed possible, then extracting the methane, even if it is to burn it without using the energy, might still be preferable.

A similar catastrophe scenario involves the permafrost thawing and releasing massive amounts of methane by putrefaction of accumulated frozen biological waste.

Finally nuclear energy is great, but we don't know how expensive decommissioning modern power plants is, and it is also not very flexible (most of the cost is in the construction, so you don't really want to stop it or reduce the power output). We're running on 70-80% nukes in France, and it's a good things our neighbours don't, other wise the lack of flexibility would make it much more expensive.

The best energy is the one you don't use. Replace suburbs by dense, well insulated housing and you just saved between 30 and 50% of rich countries' consumption.