ABOUT COSMIC LOG

Quantum fluctuations in space, science, exploration and other cosmic fields... served up regularly by MSNBC.com science editor Alan Boyle since 2002.

Alan Boyle covers the physical sciences, anthropology, technological innovation and space science and exploration for MSNBC.com. He is a winner of the AAAS Science Journalism Award, the NASW Science-in-Society Award and other honors; a contributor to "A Field Guide for Science Writers"; and a member of the board of the Council for the Advancement of Science Writing.

Check out Boyle's biography or send a message to Cosmic Log via cosmiclog@msnbc.com.



A new energy frontier?

Posted: Thursday, August 20, 2009 6:46 PM by Alan Boyle


USGS
  Gas hydrates are
  deposits of ice that
  contain natural gas.

Energy experts say vast undersea reserves of natural gas hydrates may be more accessible than previously thought, potentially offering an important stopgap in the coming energy transition.

But unless the transition is handled adroitly, gas hydrates could set off a vicious circle of global warming - and there are already signs that the situation is heating up.

The promise of gas hydrates is highlighted this week in the journal Science: Ray Boswell, a researcher at the National Energy Technology Laboratory, recaps a string of pilot projects aimed at assessing what it would take to harvest undersea gas hydrates.

Gas hydrate deposits are a big deal because they are so widespread, and yet so mysterious: These undersea deposits form from methane and water at low temperatures and moderate pressures. The methane molecules are trapped within lattices of water molecules, but they can be released by raising the temperature or lowering the pressure.

Boswell cites estimates suggesting that 20 quadrillion cubic meters of methane could be trapped within global deposits. If all that methane could be extracted, it would provide enough natural gas to supply the United States at current levels for more than 30,000 years.

That's an impossibly big "if," however. First of all, the vast majority of those deposits are either widely dispersed in mud or piled up in mounds on the deep-ocean floor. Getting at those deposits would be an expensive, ugly proposition with potentially catastrophic environmental consequences (more about that in just a bit).

Success in sand?
In recent years, gas hydrates have been found in more accessible settings, such as sandy deposits off the coast of Alaska and in the northern Gulf of Mexico. Sand reservoirs of gas hydrates also have been identified off the shores of southeastern Japan and Canada's Northwest Territories. Gas hydrate reserves have also been found in offshore clay sediments near India and Korea.


USGS via TAMU
On the molecular level, gas hydrates consist of methane molecules (CH4, green and gray) embedded in lattices of water molecules (H2O, red and white).

Drilling tests have suggested that extracting the methane from the sandy deposits could become commercially feasible, Boswell said. One method calls for reducing the pressure in the well bore, liberating the methane gas from the water. Another method involves injecting carbon dioxide to displace the methane from cavities in the deposits. The second method has the added benefit of locking up CO2, which could address climate change.

"Initial studies of these two approaches have been encouraging, but extended production tests of both methods are needed," Boswell wrote. "Such testing, currently in the planning stages for sites in Alaska, will be needed to help prepare for marine production tests, which are still several years away."

In a follow-up e-mail exchange, Boswell acknowledged that gas extraction wasn't a slam-dunk: "What can be done/accomplished, by when, is a function of many things: budgets, the continued interest of our industry collaborators, research findings going forward in the U.S. and internationally." He said the stated goal was to resolve the questions about commercial production from gas hydrates by 2015 for the Arctic, and by 2025 for the Gulf of Mexico.

A whiff of environmental worry
One of the big questions has to do with how harvesting gas hydrates would affect climate change. Methane is a far more potent greenhouse gas than carbon dioxide, and for a long time, researchers have wondered whether the release of undersea methane could kick off a runaway global-warming effect.

Here's how the scenario is set out: Warming oceans cause a thaw in gas hydrate deposits, which liberates methane, which adds to the greenhouse effect, which warms the oceans, which adds to the gas hydrate thaw, which ... well, you see where this is going.

The "methane apocalypse" often comes up in discussions of past extinctions or science-fiction tales (such as "The Mother of Storms," a past pick in the Cosmic Log Used Book Club). There's even a USGS Web page addressing concerns that gas hydrates are to blame for the Bermuda Triangle.

But you don't have to turn to science fiction or the fossil record to pick up on the concerns about gas hydrates. This month, Geophysical Research Letters published a study finding that an Arctic sea-temperature rise of 1.8 degrees Fahrenheit (1 degree Celsius) has coincided with heightened release of methane from the sea's depths.

"Our survey was designed to work out how much methane might be released by future ocean warming; we did not expect to discover such strong evidence that this process has already started," the University of Southampton's Tim Minshull said in a news release from Britain's National Oceanography Center.

And the world's oceans are continuing to warm, according to the latest statistics

Joseph Romm, who has been following the gas hydrate issue at the ClimateProgress blog for the Center for American Progress, told me "there's no question that it is a potentially large resource - and it also is a potentially dangerous climate feedback."

This month's study highlighted a "very serious" concern, he said.

"Before any country were to engage in large-scale attempts to harness this, some scientific body should study the matter and render some advice," Romm said. In addition to the greenhouse-gas concern, "methane in the water is dangerous to sea life," he noted. (Unless you're talking about methane-eating bacteria, of course.)

Romm said the worst thing energy prospectors could do would be to mine gas hydrates using "some sort of bulldozer approach," without regard for the consequences.

I have a feeling Boswell would agree with that.

"Our goal is to provide another option for society to have available to help us deal with future energy demands," Boswell told me in our e-mail exchange. "We will as a nation need to weigh all sorts of issues in making these choices. Our program is designed to provide the relevant information so that those decisions are as informed as possible. This includes numerous projects we have to understand gas hydrates' role in the environment, in carbon cycling, in past climates, and in potential response to changing climates going forward."

What do you think? Will gas hydrates help us get by while we make the transition to alternative energy sources such as wind power, solar power and biofuels of all sorts (plus nuclear power)? Or does all this talk about a methane apocalypse scare you off? Feel free to weigh in with your comments below.

Update for 9:45 p.m. ET: Tim Collett, a researcher at the U.S. Geological Survey focusing on gas hydrate projects, told me that the Japanese are "by far the most motivated" to move forward with methane. They're planning to begin a test production project in the Nankai Trough in 2012, he said.

Collett stressed that the kinds of gas hydrate deposits currently under consideration are not the kinds that pose the greatest hazard for excess methane release. "The hydrates we think of for production issues are really deeply buried," he said.

Nevertheless, researchers are always mindful of methane's potential downside as well as the potential upside. "The hazard assessment with this type of hydrate occurrence is probably manageable, but the issues have to be considered in every case," Collett told me.

More on methane power:


Join the Cosmic Log team by signing up as my Facebook friend or hooking up on Twitter. And reserve your copy of my upcoming book, "The Case for Pluto."  You can pre-order it from Amazon, Barnes & Noble or Borders.

MAIN PAGE

Email this EMAIL THIS

Comments

Sounds like the first episode of Steam Vent Wildcatters to me...you heard it here first!
The sulfur plumes roiling up from the depths should create amazing sunsets...don'tch think?
This is just the beginning...stay tuned...
forgot the link...here's what google has for 'steam vent wildcatters'...cool, eh?
http://theenvironmentgame.blogspot.com/2009_04_17_archive.html
I love the Smell-O-Vision reference, by the way!
Seriously bad news if over exploited. But good news if it can synergise with sequestration. However it is but a stop-gap before we tap permanent power sources like space-based solar, planet-gridded wind, thorium fission and deuterium fusion power.
why we look to new sources of energy, we keep thinking in terms of 10, 20, or 30 years back. I find it hard to believe we can continue to go into space but can't work at the ocean's depths. We, the world, need to remove the rhetoric and politics and get on with solving all these issues, not raising new ones.
Seems to me this stuff is a time bomb sitting down there and  we've lit the fuse by ignoring global warming for 30 years. Lets get it out of there and utilized before there is uncontrolled release. Use some of the energy from it to cleanse the air with CO2 recovery.
Uh-h-h ... let's see here ... I seem to recall that use of chlorofloronated hydrocarbons (CFC's) was an A-OK thing for air conditioners, refrigerators, auto A/C's, etc.  I also recall that they wound up damaging our ozone layer because we didn't recapture them during equipment service, etc. I also recall reading that a chemist fella WARNED that use of them would do just that when the CFC gas reached the upper atmosphere and reacted with sunlight. I think warning dates way back in the 50's - maybe even the late 40's.
We are CHILDREN with these new possible resources. We need to be CAREFUL and LISTEN to those who might have valid concerns and use that information to seek viable and safe technologies.
Did you know that ascorbic acid (good old viatmin C) can neutralize the chlorine and its byproducts in the CFC's (and your residential water, too!) Maybe we should 'sprinkle' some of that stuff around the upper atmosphere via every commercial aircraft. Tha tmight help to restore our ozone cover. Any thoughts on that?!
Of perhaps greater urgency than the gas hydrate question is the dissolved methane question:

Does methane dissolve at greater and greater concentrations with stagnant water depth?  If so, the problem is far worse than gas hydrate because merely disturbing the stagnant, methane-saturated water could trigger a Permian-type extinction -- and said methane-saturated water would be a VERY tempting target for exploitation.

The strongest argument against this potential has been presented in Geology: Online Forum pp. e42.
Methane-driven oceanic eruptions and mass extinctions: COMMENT
Gerald R. Dickens
Department of Earth Sciences, Rice University, Houston, Texas 77005, USA

Published Online: January 2004

http://tinyurl.com/leqlyx

This mere comment could definitely use some strong reaffirmation by additional research.
TriChloroEthylene which was created first in France circa 1840, is the mother for the various compounds that caused the Ozone Hole. Otherwise, Fran, you are correct.  But you are barking at a much bigger picture than tending to the use of NG Hydrates found to be in huge supply ... including the marsh lands of the Soviet Union who are also finding it bubble up with the warming Earth and the crux of the problem is that if CARBON is being released then we are only contributing to the acceleration of the global warming in a vicious circle as I said.  
  It is not necessary to have carbon involved.  Carbon is the summation of energy use.  We do not need that.  Many Organisms, plants. and animals are already sequestering the carbon or releasing a free Hydrogen molecule or H2 free for the taking but we do not have the wits to grab it before it rises to the upper Stratosphere.  Indeed that is part of the cycle that the legumes use to grab the Oxygen to to create Nitrate or NO3 and simply blow away the Hydrogen.  
  The solution to carbon clean-up is to grab the free hydrogen and use it w/o creating CO2 or maybe genetic engineering of the organizms to something that would do the job.  Humans could do the job if they had the desire to overrule the Corporations who just do not give a damn.
Leo K. Reed
Do we really need to be investing money into a NEW fossil fuel choice?  This sounds like a ghastly mistake to me - the money would be much better spent going toward fusion research.
I am uncomfortable with any attempt to exploit a novel source of fuel that would contribute to global warming.  Even assuming no catastrophic out-gassing of methane, just burning the stuff puts unwanted carbon dioxide into the atmosphere.  It is not a sustainable carbon-neutral solution.  

My suggestion for a solution to the energy problem is biomass.  Grow some fuel crop on land that is good for nothing else.  Use waste-water to irrigate it.  Burning it releases exactly as much carbon as it removes from the atmosphere in the process of growing.  Grow more than you need to power your civilization and you end up carbon negative.  

Methane?  It stinks.
If history is anything to go by, then cheap, readily available methane will simply cause yet further delays in any real migration towards sustainable energy production. And it will do so while continuing to add to the carbon load of the atmosphere while risking the release of raw methane (a worse greenhouse gas) from the disturbed deposits. This chemical engineer thinks its a horrible idea.
This could be the chaotic singularity that leads to run-away global warming !!!  Considering that humans have done so little the "Right Way", with any concern for the environment, but usually what makes the most bucks !!!
The vast depths of the ocean are not warming up.  Sea Water is at it's most dense state around 2-3 deg. C.  Even if the Earth warms much as some predict the ocean temperatures will only be affected just a few more Meters below the surface.  There is always some uncertainty but for the most part I just see alarmists trying to sell a story.
Charles Todd,
There's a similar pressure differential at 15 feet ocean depth.  I can run a paddle powered canoe just fine, why can't I get nuclear powered battleship?
Very thought provoking article Alan!  It sure would be nice of we could get that methane out of the deep sea, but it has to be done very carefully.  We don;t want to release another mass extinction event like what happened at the end of the Permian Age, where the trapped methane did get too warm and came out of it's hydrate stage.  Unfortunately to get a commercial level and reasonable price we'd have to use the bulldozer approach.  Better to leave the stuff alone until we really know what we're doing or we'll end up snuffing ourselves out.
When hydrates are mentioned, my first thoughts turn to this book:  "The Swarm: A Novel of the Deep by Frank Schatzing".
Mr. Schatzing describes, in great detail, the incredible potential of "gas hydrates" for the good, and the cataclysmic.  Of course the story is fiction, but the scientific basis is impeccable.
Any discussion of mining the seafloor, for hydrates, must be tempered with great caution, and this book delivers a megadose of that.
Why not auger the stuff up through a pipe. The pressure will decrease and temp will increase as you come up and the gas will evolve and surface. This in turn will decrease the press in the pipe and will suck in more hydrate. You might even be able to turn off the auger once primed.  I cant beleive that we couldnt get methane from hydrate without doing more env damage than oil production.  Even if the only upsides are foreign independence and huge supplies, I think that is enough.
,eng with too much time
"Injecting carbon dioxide to displace the methane from cavities in the deposits ... has the added benefit of locking up CO2, which could address climate change."

If you then burn the methane you make more CO2. Locking up, in this case, means acidifying the ocean to the detriment of any creatures that need carbonate ions to make their shells.

The fossil fuel industry must expeditiously go out of business, to be replaced by farmed biofuels such as the hydrocarbons produced by Botryococcus braunii, a pelagic algae that now grows in the Indian Ocean.

Its various strains make isoprene oligomers with different average molecular weights, mostly centered around n=6. What matters most is that the dry weight of the most prolific strain is OVER 70% HYDROCARBON. This is algae truly is a fuel plant.

Oil companies could feed these hydrocarbons directly into existing refineries. Electricity generators could directly replace coal with them. Because the hydrocarbons contain no sulfur, nitrogen, metals or ash, most existing pollution abatement and catalyst guard investment could be shut down as unnecessary. This is a really sweet feedstock.

For more details and some economic background see the website:

http://alum.mit.edu/news/WhatMatters/Archive/200111/
I am probably showing my ignorance by saying this, but I am just amazed that people are still willing to invest hundreds of millions of dollars into oil and other fuels that we know to be so harmful to our planet and our very existance at a time when so many new advances are being made in green energy production methods that do so much less harm to the earth.
Quit wasting time with these supposed "solutions".  We need to find a way to create unlimited power with no harmful byproducts.  Seems to me that Fusion and hydrogen fuel cells are our best bet along with wind solar and electric dams.  Spending money on anything else that doesn't move toward these goals is a waste of time and resources.
"I find it hard to believe we can continue to go into space but can't work at the ocean's depths."

That answer is easy. The reason is PRESSURE. The skin of a vehicle in space can be thin and weak because its function is to hold air inside, but a deep sea submersible must be made super-strong with the strongest metals and newest technologies to withstand the immense pressure of the depths. Going into space is far easier.
the reason these long carbon molecules are dangerous to the environment Fran is because when they reach the upper atmosphere light from the sun radicalizes the carbon molecules which make them highly reactive with things such as O3(ozone). Hence dumping Vitamin C (another long carbon molecule) would just exasperate the problem. Finally, if you burn methane... you still from CO2.. if you burn any carbon based molecule you get CO2. lets find an energy source that does away with CO2 once and for all... we are humans we have faced larger problems.
Why do I keep getting a picture of West Virginia, et al, under water.  The last people I would trust with a potential bomb is the DOE and their "industry collatorators".

Clathrates depend on a combination of temperature and pressure for stability.  Reduce the pressure or increase the temperature and the phrase "Whoosh, Bang, Nasty" comes to mind.

The question comes down to who would you trust to research and develop a potential energy source that could have really long-term hazards.  And don't forget that burning methane gets you carbon dioxide.  So now you have a risky source of CO2 that, at best is going to be carbon neutral with an increased risk of greenhouse gas release.  Once the djinn is out of the bottle, who puts him back?

Place your bets, ladies and gentlemen!

There is no sulfur in methane.
Can we make our own gas hydrates? For use on other worlds and in space where methane is plentiful?
Let's say; set up a robot plant on the moons of Jupiter and other plants to make liquid oxigen? Unlimited rocket fuel for thousands of years.
It's probably a good idea to harvest it ASAP since much of it will eventually be release naturally anyway, I strongly agree with writers above that this has to go along with an aggressive CO2 sequestration program, like we should already be doing anyway.
Come on guys.  Look at recent and long term history.  During the global warming of 1200 and 1300 AD there was no huge methane release and cascading doom.  

Looking at recent geological history, last 100,000 years, it has been a lot warmer AND a lot colder.  It doesn't look like this doomsday scenario occured.
The atmosphere that we breathe was never intended to be a cheap garbage can for the waste we produce from combustion.  I'm a Republican, a conservative, and a businessman, and I am also aware that our eagerness to make a buck can and will destroy the only known planet in the universe that will support human life.  Some things are better left alone like sleeping dogs, asbestos, and methane hydrates.
Methane hydrates are naturally formed substances that are unstable and volatile.Fairly slight changes in temperature and pressure can change them very quickly and that phenomenon is happening right now, according to numerous reliable scientic researchers in several countries. Geophysicists are just catching up with the many changes that a warming cycle can produce and the potential for the release of large volumes of methane from frozen deposits is just one of them, potentially the most dangerous to life on the planet. Previous warming periods, such as mentioned prior to 1300AD, perhaps were not warm enough to release major volumes of gas into the atmosphere. Now, however, we have the added heat sources of major urban areas, planet-wide use of fossil fuels, major deforestation, none of which existed 900-1300AD.(Little Ice Age which followed,circa 1300-1800, has yet to be completely explained. Years of American Revolution were particularly cold) It may not be possible to prevent the sublimation of vast quantities of methane from frozen hydrates if ocean temperatures continue to rise, which they are. A Permian catastrophe is then very possible, a grim forcast, but one that should not be ignored. Disturbing these large deposits for industrial exploitation is maybe on the far side of foolish, and not at all necessary.    
Frank Weigert...
Hi Frank...brilliant piece...if the 'use in existing plants' part is real, why not co-develop the technology?
Supplement the new tech with petro chem fuel as needed.
How much transiton is there?
Would the switch-over in real time make things unprofitable?
Thanks...
Why disturb a natural resource when we are producing
the raw material to begin with.It is not without the
grasp of todays technology and knowhow to harness and
refine the output of (waste) methane or methene.Our
landfills and other human repositories are full of it.O.K. pun intended.But why not work with that?Hey
another renewable resource.
"We need to find a way to create unlimited power with no harmful byproducts..."

While you're at it, you should probably find a way to repeal the second law of thermodynamics, too.
Its good to know that there are additional sources of methane, but its unlikely that we will need them. Natural gas is currently in oversupply and new defracking techniques keep increasing our reserves. If natural gas becomes the primarly fossil fuel in our cars and powerplants, tapping naturally occuring methane offers a renewable and carbon neutral alternative for the same machines. Methane can be captured from every landfill, sewage treatment plant and agricultural operation. Right now this methane is just escaping into the atmosphere, if demand for methane gets to the point that we are looking at undersea resserves, the market will capture these free and renewable sources first and at an unprecedented scale.
The hydrates exist in the first place because they are a buildup of methane that was supposed to be released into the atmosphere all along, and furthermore, whether we disturb them or not, they will eventually be subject to a disturbance (earthquake, landslide, volcanism, etc...) that will put them into the atmosphere anyway.  May as well exploit them as safely as we can.
How would drilling for 'gas hydrates' be any different from our current drilling for 'natural gas' ?  Seems to me that they're one-in-the-same and that the gas we recover now probably WAS 'gas hydrate' before it was released.  How is there any new energy source or any new technology needed ?

Another thought: CO2 is NOT a problem !  Our problem is that too much of the heat we create and radiate is captured by WATER which is still relatively warm when it precipitates.  THAT's what's warming the oceans !  CO2 comprises only roughly 3/10's of 1% (approx. seasonal average) of our atmosphere and is NOT significant.  The amount of HEAT we let escape into our water vapor IS significant.  We need to release less heat !
The title of this article is phrased as a question.  So, to answer it: No, this is not a new energy frontier.  It is old news and burning methane produces CO2.  Presently, we would need to do research to make it possible to get at these hydrates.  I think we would be better off spending the money that this research would require in pursuit of better solar panels or perhaps to see if we can speed up fusion power testing.  

A couple of comments here mention that we should also be using biomass fuels as they are safer to acquire, can be carbon neutral and no research needs to be done for those.  There is a problem with biomass fuels though.  They freeze at far too high a temperature to be useful in northern climes such as the northern half of the US.  Currently, we mix biomass fuels with fossil fuels to prevent this freezing.  Everything I've seen indicates that you can have up to 80% biomass fuel in the mixture and still prevent freezing so the biomass/fossil fuel mix should be used for the interim until better means become available.  This may not apply to ethanol (since, from what I understand, it's not much different from moonshine)but bio-diesel is definitely affected.  We will never see 100% ethanol as too many people would start taking a drink from the gas pump as they fill their car up.

Another option that was mentioned is hydrogen fuel cells.  The problem with those is how do we get the hydrogen?  Currently, we burn coal so the carbon will bond with oxygen and leave the hydrogen free for us to collect.  With fuel cells, a car may not be adding CO2 to the atmosphere, but the use of the car still requires the release of CO2.  There is hydrogen in water of course, but it takes more power to separate the water through electrolysis than you could ever make by burning the hydrogen.  Therefore we would have to have some other method of making electricity to do the job.  And that's not to mention the fact that water is a scarce commodity anyway.

And the carbon sequestering thing has it's own dangers.  One idea I know of and the one proposed here to release the hydrates, is to sequester CO2 in very deep water.  But it is possible for that CO2 to eventually escape.  This happened at Lake Nyos, Cameroon.  You can read it at this site  http://www.themorningnews.org/archives/stories/our_town.php and the story is the second one on the page.  From the article: "Almost every living thing near Lake Nyos died in a single night—1,700 villagers, thousands of cattle, and most of the wildlife and insects."  This makes me very cautious about sequestering CO2 anywhere.  It can be released far too quickly to have any chance of doing anything about it.

The one thing I've noticed as an overall theme with alternate energy sources is that only part of the story is told.  Alan, do you think you could do an article (or a series of them) that covers both the good and the bad for any ideas of alternate energy and climate change prevention?  It would be good if we could have all the facts on the table when looking at what we should be spending our time and money on.

Bill
So if a terrorist group were to drop a nuclear weapon off a ship over a large methane hydrate feild, think giant bulldozer, they could welcome the 12th mahdi?
How do you think your electricity is generated. Most is done with Natural Gas about 86%.
Jon:  We could only be so lucky if they decided to do that with their weapon.

Bill:  This program is funded at $15 million a year.  Chump Change.  Rounding error.

Fred: You're basically right, it is not much different.  Theres just a lot of it that was not appreciated as part of the resource base before

Frank:  Yes, it is part of natural carbon cycling. Natural cycles can be upset by man, though, and that is at least a question worth studying.

Chris:  If that was true, why do we burn so much coal?

Methinks:  :)

Dave: The energy problem is big.  It will take alot of options.

H.C.: everything you say is true until the last sentence.  I see no link between the plan to extract hydrates from that small subset that may be extractable and the ongoing natural processes you describe.

ReDefazio:  So why then are you OK with the continual burning of mountains of coal...something way way worse than this pure methane from hydrate.  Methane is the most refined, purest, fossil fuel.  Way cleaner than the other stuff we burn.  What if this let us burn less of that sulfurous, nitrous crap?  I hope we can stop burning fuels too, but am not sure I see a scenario where that happens.  SO burn the cleanest stuff...even if it costs more to get
One thing for sure is that nothing will actually be done about large scale global problems until it results in large scale damage to the entire human population.  There is nothing short of disaster that will stem the human greed that ignores these issues. I won't be around, but some of you might be.
Its not an alternate energy source, it’s a threat to the planet as big and real as global warming or meteorites. The stuff is down there, sooner or later it will come up either by human caused global warming or natural warming cycles. And its bubbling up right off Malibu right now (PBS Nova)!  It’s not a good energy source but burning it or running fuel cells makes it less hazardous and easier to dispose of.  And we can use the extra energy to capture not just the resulting pollution but actually start scrubbing the atmosphere of CO2, via calcium carbonate, bury the biomass, whatever, it all takes energy. It will be a very long time before we completely stop burning fossil fuels and energy will have to be very cheap before we actually get serious about cleaning things up. The oil of Saudi Arabia isn’t going to bubble up and destroy the planet someday, this stuff might – so let’s burn it first, then the oil if we haven’t come up with a better plan. It is cleaner than oil and we don’t have to invent anything other than a safe harvest method.
I cant believe all you environmentalists. You all want to run off a cliff together with your apocalyptic theory. Anytime someone comes up with a new solution you have to negate it with some nonsense about how the world will end if we do this. It seems as though you hate the human race and think the world would be a better place without us. The funny thing is that you never want to look at the damage done by the proposition of so called environmentally green energy production. Do you think that a wind generator is grown in the field where it stands? You might be stunned by the amount of toxic waste that is generated in the fabrication of this complex machine. What about the power grid that needs to be reinforced? Do you think copper production is environmentally friendly? What about the insulation for the wires? Solar cells? Why do you think they are produced outside of the U.S. ? Maybe because the process is too toxic for our country. How about the electric car? Anyone know how toxic it is to produce NIMH or LION  batteries? The rest of the car wasn't exactly grown in a field either. Look, the bottom line is that no matter what we do there are negative side effects. We need to move forward with discretion in all areas. Lets look forward to the future with a little optimism and not be so negative. Our society has come pretty far and will go a long way if we work together in an intelligent and dutifil way
Responding to Bill Powers, York PA:  Shortly after the event in Cameroon that you referred to (1986), I asked a highly educated friend of mine, and native of Cameroon, about the story.  He was shocked I even knew anything about it, but then I do gravitate to the science news, and there was a small article in my local newspaper about it (no internet then).  He told me that the event was not what it seemed, but an Israeli test of chemical weapons.  I have nothing to go on except what he told me, but knowing his family and the level of their connections, increases my curiosity and makes me question the event as explained. And my response is not to imply I believe CO2 cannot be dangerous, but to question the relevance of a presumed natural event.
I might as well add my two cents here; everyone else has.  I agree with those who insist that any such production merely postpones the need to do what we should already have done, and certainly could have done by now. Why have we not yet produce a refrigerator sized fusion generator?  The experts will say this is ridiculous of course, but I am talking about a multi billion dollar project on a world wide basis with this end in mind, and not with profit in mind. I have my Master's in Economics and to me the answer is clear.  Unimaginably gigantic fortunes depend on being able to control energy production and distribution.  If you and I each had unlimited electrical power at our fingertips for say, the price of a small car, that would evaporate in the blink of an eye. I would love nothing better than to see this happen, but if you think those very powerful, very wealthy and deeply entrenched interests would not fight with any and all of their considerable means, to the death, and I do mean death, then you have not the slightest understanding of how the current world operates.
On the issue of warming oceans releasing methane causing a runaway greenhouse effect...

Our current global and oceanic temperatures are nowhere near the peaks that have occured in the past...hell, the world is still warming up after the last ice age, and has a long way to go before temperatures reach their peaks  (which last occured when....sometime in the Jurassic??).  There was no "runaway" greenhouse effect then, and I see little reason to think that there would be now, when ocean temps are a lot cooler then they've been in the past.  Besides, based on the fossil record, all that seems to happen when the temperature increases is that animals get bigger and biodiversity increases...hardly a "doomsday" scenario.

Why do people keep on thinking that every little thing we do will cause the world to end?
"Frank:  Yes, it is part of natural carbon cycling. Natural cycles can be upset by man, though, and that is at least a question worth studying"

Oh so sure. Oh so pure. Belive what frank said. You made a statement and called it a question.  Man is part of nature.  The Earth will vary in Temperature with or without mans help.  As our solar system nears the galactic plane in it's eternal bob within the galactic system, more gravitational energy will be exchanged between our sol and the millions of other sols in the system.  The conservation of energy and momentum is not something man is able to violate.  Methinks stated the obvious but it does fall upon deaf ears.  Before you state that one or two of the outer planets are cooling, find thier place in the energy equation.  I am growing rather irksome of all the people with the "earth is gonna end in 2xxx" signs "unless we {whatever}".  Perhaps early mesopto??ia burned all their available firewood and made the great desert, then what of the mayans prosperity on a concurrent plane? perhaps neanderthals killed all the great wooly rinos and thus sealed their fate? yet at the same time modern hominoids began to flourish...perhaps the dinos just darn well all learned how to jump up and down in unison and cracked gondawanna land in half!!!...hey wait I have a better theory, what if cooler heads prevailed and the rest of us just went about our normal biz?? after all, that is what we are going to do anyways, right? am I right?...fossil fuels are not drying up, this article acknowledges that for sure, (broad stretch to call iced nitrogen fossil fuel but after alan has already taken so many literary liberties over the years, what the hell).  More to the point, humanity has it's own energy cycle, and, like so many other species, is quite adaptable.  And thank whatever for that because man made or otherwise, the earth will heat up.  Sorry all you wannabes but it was in the cards long before archimedes placed an almost sealed vessel over a fire and said "er, yea man, steam engine".  Even back then "oil was drying up".  Yes that's right, tar pits were getting more difficult to locate and the price of energy was increasing.  To wit, had someone at the time, Said no to whale blubber or reed thatching or whatever the equivalent of your silly assed iced methane story was, it would in retrospect been nothing more than what it is now.  MARKET MANIPULATION!!!!...and we are ALL IRKSOME OF THAT DOODOO THAT IS SO PREVALENT.  What real quantitative numbers do you have that the earth is abnormally warm?..for all anyone knows it is abnormally COOL!! after all, there was a time, a very long time, where the earths atmosphere was substantially different!!  What quantitative numbers have been pro-ofered, let alone posisted for the amount of carbon consumption of lichens? plankton? spiders? seeweed? sublimation? earth ejecta?...hell this list could go on all night and day.  Period. NO QUANTIFICATION. NADA. NIEN....why with those unknown facts I may as well perdict that the calgary loons will win the super bowl next year!!  Sure ice sheets are dissappering, now go out a few million parsecs and get the bigger picture.  Oh so small is man in all but his own mind.
To handle a potential energy resource adroitly requires setting up a public business entity for mining, processing, for research and development,  for selling and distributing the product, without decimating it, pricing at a limited profit with sufficient proceeds from profits given to the public fund to meet the unmet needs of others ; this being  a public business with top to bottom wage and price controls so that no person no matter what role they hold in the business earns a disproportionate income for their labor and their needs and want, and with all persons receiving the same excellent quality health care and pensions.
I don't see anything meaningful ever being done about global warming.  Mankind will never voluntarily reduce it's standard of living, especially regarding a distant theoretical threat. I believe we are doomed to suffer the consequences of global warming, whatever they may be. By the time the naysayers and obstructionists are convinced the threat is real, it will be too late.  It's the Tragedy of the Commons on a global scale.

My question is, how this burning methane is gonna help?? I know, we will have another way to obtain energy. Problem is, users will not replace coal or something else with methane. They will burn coal AND methane. So providing humanity with more fossil fuels is a no no. If people want hydrate methane, they can dive and pick it up!!!. But I am not moving a finger to help and I hope the powers that be understand opening hydrate methanes to humanity will be as responsible as opening a whisky warehouse to a bunch of alcoholic. Humanity as a whole has showed NO responsible/sensible use of fossil fuels. They behave more like locust that will eat everything they can get their hands on with complete disregard of consequences. The more they eat, the more they breed and the more they will have to eat later on. We can stop them from burning all the coal and oil, but can stop them (or at least slow them down) about boozing away all those quadrillion of hydrate methane. Any scientist/engineer should just forget about anything that puts even more CO2 in the atmostphere . If you want energy, you can pedal, but I am not being a collaborator of planet-cide. ah ah. Hopes someone gets the message. More CO2 in the atmosphere is a NO-NO. Use the money for something else.! > refuse to use/abuse/develop more fossil fuel stuff as much as you can!!!
For all practical purposes I think we should focus our attention on developing renewable sources of energy like wind, solar, tides, etc., that DON'T contribute to pollution or global warming.


SEND A COMMENT

PLEASE READ: All comments must be approved before appearing in the thread; time and space constraints prevent all comments from appearing. We will only approve comments that are directly related to the blog, use appropriate language and are not attacking the comments of others.

Message (please, no HTML tags. Web addresses will be hyperlinked):

TRACKBACKS

Trackbacks are links to weblogs that reference this post. Like comments, trackbacks do not appear until approved by us. The trackback URL for this post is: http://cosmiclog.msnbc.msn.com/trackback.aspx?PostID=2041789

Latest Tech & Science News

Syndicate This Site

Add Cosmic Log to your news reader:
live.com xml
myyahoo msn
bloglines newsgator
google