Methane Hydrates

[Simon]

Estimates on how much energy is stored in methane hydrates range from 350 years’ supply to 3500 years’ supply based on current energy consumption. That reflects both the potential as a resource and how little we really know about the resource,” Langley says.

http://www.ornl.gov/info/reporter/no16/methane.htm

Interesting, read something about them today at work. They could explain the Bermuda triangle as well as climate change.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Methane_hydrates#_note-Guggenheim_2003
http://www.straightdope.com/columns/070803.html

Discuss

 

[Simon]

Yeah!!! Something else to burn rather than switching to renewable, nuclear, or changing our stupid habits.

Happy days.

 

[Simon]

Seriously though, its always the next easy fix rather than addressing the actual issues.

Agreed, Im more interested in the comments about its release causing massive climate change.

At one point all the animals/plants that made oil were alive and consuming carbon from the atmosphere.

 

[Jonnycoupe]

At one point all the animals/plants that made oil were alive and consuming carbon from the atmosphere.

I dont think they were all alive at the same time

 

[Simon]

I dont think they were all alive at the same time

No but the Carbon was all there and gradually got consumed

 

[Jonnycoupe]

Yep as the earth cooled down.

 

[Angilion]

I read an article yesterday on the Permian-Triassic Extinction ("The Great Dying"), outlining the major possible causes. Rather worrying, methane hydrates were one of those possible causes.

As far as we can tell, during a (relatively) short period of time, 95% of animal species became extinct.

A rapid dumping of methane from methane hydrates into the environment could jack average temperatures up perhaps 10C, fubaring the weather, destroying ecosystems, etc. Human civilisation would certainly be destroyed and humanity would probably be wiped out. The bigger the animal, the less chance of survival, as a rule of thumb.

So it might be a good thing to develop a way of mining methane hydrate deposits as soon as possible, not just to get a new fuel source but to remove this possible threat.

 

[Tefal]

Yeah!!! Something else to burn rather than switching to renewable, nuclear, or changing our stupid habits.

Happy days.

Renewable dont seem effective enough and they wont let us go nuclear

 

[Tefal]

A rapid dumping of methane from methane hydrates into the environment could jack average temperatures up perhaps 10C, fubaring the weather, destroying ecosystems, etc. Human civilisation would certainly be destroyed and humanity would probably be wiped out. The bigger the animal, the less chance of survival, as a rule of thumb.

But the thing is we can adapt at a rate no other animal has ever been able to, for instance how we can change the environment so drastically, we can cause entire species to be extinct with out major harm to us, sure most of the less developed world will die but we have GM foods etc that with rapidly be adopted and improved if necessary.

 

[BlackDragon]

Renewable dont seem effective enough and they wont let us go nuclear

Renewable is effective if governments and companies listen to what scientists have to say. For example the biofuel boom in America. Thing is they are doing it the wrong way by growing Corn to produce ethanol, which doesn't yield much fuel and requires quite a bit of processing to extract, when burnt is only slightly less toxic than gasoline, a lot of fertilising and important species don't inhabit these fields. Scientists say that they should be growing wild grasses because its fast growing, doesn't need huge amounts of fertiliser, many species inhabit the fields, and is reasonably easy to extract fuel from.

As for Nuclear, well from what i've read in New Scientist, if everyone goes nuclear there would only be 50 or something years worth nuclear material to be used. So nuclear fission is not the way forward...the way forward is nuclear fission. Huge amounts of clean energy could be made this way.

 

[Tefal]

As for Nuclear, well from what i've read in New Scientist, if everyone goes nuclear there would only be 50 or something years worth nuclear material to be used. So nuclear fission is not the way forward...the way forward is nuclear fission. Huge amounts of clean energy could be made this way.

Ummm really cause there is hundreds of years worth of nuclear fuels left in the bombs that America and Russia have already decommissioned, (i think its where most comes from) and there are still huge stock piles of nukes to use

 

[BlackDragon]

Ummm really cause there is hundreds of years worth of nuclear fuels left in the bombs that America and Russia have already decommissioned, (i think its where most comes from) and there are still huge stock piles of nukes to use

Oh yeah of course, but i think the article was mainly on about what was left in the ground that we can reach

 

[Tefal]

Oh yeah of course, but i think the article was mainly on about what was left in the ground that we can reach

Ahh but i thought there where designs for plants that could reuse old fuels up (but they haven't developed a big enough neutron gun iirc) also its only time before we develop economical fusion, or a new way convert unusable uranium.

 

[SiriusB]

Renewable is effective if governments and companies listen to what scientists have to say. For example the biofuel boom in America. Thing is they are doing it the wrong way by growing Corn to produce ethanol, which doesn't yield much fuel and requires quite a bit of processing to extract, when burnt is only slightly less toxic than gasoline, a lot of fertilising and important species don't inhabit these fields. Scientists say that they should be growing wild grasses because its fast growing, doesn't need huge amounts of fertiliser, many species inhabit the fields, and is reasonably easy to extract fuel from.

As for Nuclear, well from what i've read in New Scientist, if everyone goes nuclear there would only be 50 or something years worth nuclear material to be used. So nuclear fission is not the way forward...the way forward is nuclear fission. Huge amounts of clean energy could be made this way.

Ethanol has a higher octane number than Petrol, so it is a viable fuel. In a TV program identical cars [one with 2ltr Petrol engine, one with 2ltr Ethanol engine] went head to head and the Ethanol car won.

Ethanol is also a by-product of many other industrial processes. Mainly breweries and distilleries. However ethanol can be obtained even from wood-chip and lots of other interesting places.

I am not saying it is perfect but as long as the beer doesn't run out we will have ethanol

 

[Tefal]

Ethanol has a higher octane number than Petrol, so it is a viable fuel. In a TV program identical cars [one with 2ltr Petrol engine, one with 2ltr Ethanol engine] went head to head and the Ethanol car won.

Ethanol is also a by-product of many other industrial processes. Mainly breweries and distilleries. However ethanol can be obtained even from wood-chip and lots of other interesting places.

I am not saying it is perfect but as long as the beer doesn't run out we will have ethanol

I thoguht while you could go faster with ethanol or methanol it doesn't get as many miles to the gallon?

 

[Angilion]

Alcohol (in whatever form) also has other drawbacks:

i) You need a lot of land to grow the plants to turn into alcohol.
ii) You can't quickly change production to respond to changes in demand - the alcohol being used for fuel is from crops planted months earlier.

I don't think the UK could be self-sustaining in alcohol fuel, due to a relative scarcity of arable land. Better than nothing, though.

 

[Simon]

Ethanol has a higher octane number than Petrol, so it is a viable fuel. In a TV program identical cars [one with 2ltr Petrol engine, one with 2ltr Ethanol engine] went head to head and the Ethanol car won.

Ethanol is also a by-product of many other industrial processes. Mainly breweries and distilleries. However ethanol can be obtained even from wood-chip and lots of other interesting places.

I am not saying it is perfect but as long as the beer doesn't run out we will have ethanol

Food prices are already on the up because of biofuels and the increase demand on, what is this year, a short supply. One problem is that you need energy to grow these crops and produce fuel, once you start using fertilisers they are often more damaging (carbon wise) than normal gasoline.

Also it contains 66% of the energy vs gasoline (30 vs 45MJ/kg)

 

[Heliospherez]

I think its safe to say we (the human race) are going to be dead ducks anyway within 200 years as we will have expended our food sources, our oil reserves, we will have multiplied beyond our means and the skys will be black from all china & the advancing 3rd world emmissions. We will also have managed to kill the oceans with plastics, pollutants and over fishing (something that most of the fish kingdom managed to survive in the last great planet kill-off)

We are currently doing next to nothing about it now as no one really gives a monkeys or has the money to pay for any research into it - so why concern yourself. May aswell just wake up to the fact we have destroyed most of the planets eco systems as it is and this civilisation has 6 or 7 generations of hedonism to enjoy before the spiders and crocs take over again

I'd be more concerned about oil running out. Thats the biggest problem facing the human race from what I can see.

 

[Glaucus]

I wish green partys would shut up about bio fuels. The're incredibably bad.

A) takes land away from food production
B) already destroying forest to grow bio fuels
C) once fertilisers and stuff is taken into account there not so carbon nutral
D) you can't grow enough to replace oil.

I think its safe to say we (the human race) are going to be dead ducks anyway within 200 years as we will have expended our food sources, our oil reserves, we will have multiplied beyond our means and the skys will be black from all china & the advancing 3rd world emmissions. We will also have managed to kill the oceans with plastics, pollutants and over fishing (something that most of the fish kingdom managed to survive in the last great planet kill-off)

yeah ok, lets listen to the scaremongers and not look at the facts.
Food sources can be expanded
200 years we will of colonised other planets. The first moon base is likely to happen within 20 years and mars not long after.
Oil reserves does not matter, we already have the means to replace it,oil and peak oil has to be the worst bit of scaremongering in history. The only reason we haven't changed is due to cost. Due to economics you use the cheapest source 98% of the time. Again with increased food we wont multiply beyond are means, we will just have to build both up into the sky and below the ground. Although killing fish is a tragedy it's not going to extinct the human race.

We are currently doing next to nothing about it now as no one really gives a monkeys or has the money to pay for any research into it - so why concern yourself. May aswell just wake up to the fact we have destroyed most of the planets eco systems as it is and this civilisation has 6 or 7 generations of hedonism to enjoy before the spiders and crocs take over again

Again nothing but pure scaremongering, we have alternatives. But green partys tend to block the ones which would actually help and support things like bio fuels which are a disaster. Why change to the new types of fuel when oil is so cheap?

Again we will live for more than 6 or 7 generations.

I'd be more concerned about oil running out. That's the biggest problem facing the human race from what I can see.

Again this is a no-problem, we have alternatives, we don't need oil. However it is still *** cheapest and hence we're still using it.

 

[Angilion]

Colonising other planets within 200 years?

Not likely. It would take that long to make any of the other ones in this solar system inhabitable, in theory. In practice, we're not sure it's possible at all.

Maybe somone will invent an interstellar drive of some sort that circumvents the speed of light restriction. Or maybe not.

Assuming that we do get a colony off-planet within 200 years, what on Earth makes you think we could ship a significant number of people to it? How would you propose moving, say, a billion people to a newly-formed colony on another planet? You'd need to move a billion to make a significant difference to the population of Earth by that time (assuming there aren't any disasters that dramatically reduce the population). Once you got them there, how would they survive? You can't put a billion people in a newly-formed colony, especially on a planet that is being terraformed and which probably doesn't support human life outside of sealed buildings.