Slashdot Mirror


Gas Goes Solid

Roland Piquepaille writes "This innovation from Japanese researchers can potentially revolutionize the energy distribution sector. Instead of transporting liquid gas, they changed gas into a solid material which is easier, safer and cheaper to distribute. Technology Review has the story. "Rather than extracting methane from hydrates, they want to turn methane into hydrates -- essentially, transforming the colorless and odorless gas into small pellets that can be easily stored, transported, and eventually turned back into natural gas. A few months ago Mitsui, in partnership with Osaka University, opened a demonstration plant near Tokyo to promote the concept and show that it works." Check this column for an analysis."

154 comments

  1. I knew it. . . by villain170 · · Score: 2
    . . . was too good to be true:

    Because hydrates are still a mysterious substance, there are many scientific and engineering obstacles that could make the process cost prohibitive.

    --

    I am over here... now I am back over here!
  2. One problem by Zanek · · Score: 1, Insightful

    There is one fundamental problem with this great idea. That is, how do they go about converting
    the millions of cars in the world to be able to use this !

    --


    Help pay for my wedding! Go to my kickass website
    1. Re:One problem by TheAntiCrust · · Score: 3, Informative

      Ugh. First off, they are talking about natural gas, not gasoline.
      Secondly, they arent expecting the consumer to recieve these pellets, the pellets are just a intermediary to ship and store the gas easier before it gets to the customer. This should have been EXETREMELY obvious since it specifically states that the pellets are harder to ignite then regular gas, you shouldnt have even had to RTFA for this one.
      And thirdly, you wouldnt convert all the cars on the road to a new fuel source, you would just produce new cars, and eventually phase the current ones out.

    2. Re:One problem by enronman · · Score: 1

      Actualy, you don't have to conver cars to be able to use natural gas. Using the Fisher- Tropsch process you can convert natural gas into "crude oil" and then the resulting refined products you know. It is cheaper to produce clean gasoline out of synthetic crude oil than regular crude oil.
      Another thing you might be intrested in is that you can convert COAL into natural gas, and of course then turn it into oil ect. If we are willing to spend the cash then we won't have a "oil shortage".

    3. Re:One problem by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Points 1 and 3 are obvious. Point 2, however, yes, they weren't talking about cars, but this could have enormous applications in the fuel cell technology if it could be done with hydrogen, say -- then it could very well apply to cars. Clearly you'd have to build in the melting procedure to the cars, but hey, it could work.

      If this takes off, I think we'll see more fuel cell car prototypes that use this process in the near future. After that...who knows?

  3. The solution is already out there. by GMontag · · Score: 3, Funny

    Don't rabbits and deer already produce small pellets that emit methane?

    Cows produce large methane generating chips too.

    Certainly helps with the energy company PR problems, who can argue with a fluffy little cute bunny? Will Greenpeace dare break out the holy hand grenade?

    1. Re:The solution is already out there. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You are so right-on with this issue! I mean, what's he going to do, nibble me bum?

      Save the little bunny and keep the methane pellets. Sometimes when ya' look around, there's nothing but gas.

  4. What is gas? by The+Original+Yama · · Score: 4, Funny

    In Japan, gas is solid.

    In the USA, gas is liquid (i.e. petrol).

    In Soviet Russia, gas is ... ?

    1. Re:What is gas? by Rhinobird · · Score: 4, Funny

      IN SOVIET RUSSIA, gas is... ...called vodka.

      --
      If Mr. Edison had thought smarter he wouldn't sweat as much. --Nikola Tesla
    2. Re:What is gas? by gl4ss · · Score: 2, Funny

      related sitenote.. there was a news-quote somewhere i saw last week or so, that sais that in sweden where etanol is used (experimentally?) as petrol on cars some people are abusing the system by filtering/otherwise_weeding_out the stuff that is not drinkable in it.

      (sweden, as well norway and finland, has quite high taxes on alcohol)

      i wonder if you could abuse these pellets by eating them and then fwarping extra loudly.

      --
      world was created 5 seconds before this post as it is.
    3. Re:What is gas? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      In Soviet Russia, gas is ...

      YOU!

    4. Re:What is gas? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Happy Sig!

      Or do you perhaps mean gay like homosexual? In that case, I had no idea that sigs had any gender...?

    5. Re:What is gas? by Guppy06 · · Score: 1

      "In Soviet Russia, gas is ... ?"

      Bose-Einstein condensate!

    6. Re:What is gas? by Chexum · · Score: 1

      Truth is always stranger you can imagine.. GAZ

      --
      "Ten years from now, they could do it in a few seconds." -- The Racketeer of the Hellfire Club, 1993, Phrack 42
  5. Been there. Done that. by Boss,+Pointy+Haired · · Score: 5, Funny

    Tried to produce gas, came out solid.

    Shit happens.

  6. Freaky by Rhinobird · · Score: 3, Funny

    Whoa...the ice is burning.

    --
    If Mr. Edison had thought smarter he wouldn't sweat as much. --Nikola Tesla
    1. Re:Freaky by Ronin+Developer · · Score: 1

      Adds new meaning to the term "When Hell Freezes Over", eh?

  7. How many miles per? by jellomizer · · Score: 3, Funny

    Miles per Gram?
    Miles per Pound?
    Miles per Pellet?
    Miles per Block?

    Heck with this we might as well switch to metric.

    --
    If something is so important that you feel the need to post it on the internet... It probably isn't that important.
    1. Re:How many miles per? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      1.2 scoops per mile.

      It takes 21404 scoops to cover your standard NFL and NCAA football field.

    2. Re:How many miles per? by more · · Score: 1
      You didn't notice the "Gram" in your mail, did you? You are completely metric already.

      How much is that "Gram" thing in inches, anyway?

      --

      -- Imperial units must die --

    3. Re:How many miles per? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      >> How much is that "Gram" thing in inches, anyway?

      That's the beauty of using an (almost) one unit per dimension: you cannot mix grams (weight or mass) with inches (length).

      That would be the same as asking how to convert pounds to inches.

      Sorry if your question was sarcastic.

    4. Re:How many miles per? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Miles per national library of congress.

      Get with it man!

    5. Re:How many miles per? by jellomizer · · Score: 1

      Untill Kellogs makes the 2 scoops per mile car.

      --
      If something is so important that you feel the need to post it on the internet... It probably isn't that important.
    6. Re:How many miles per? by one9nine · · Score: 2, Funny


      "My car gets forty rods to the hogshead, and that's the way I like it!" - Grandpa Simpson

    7. Re:How many miles per? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      50 pounds gets you six inches (typically). sometimes you have to pay 100 or 200 pounds.

  8. A feq questions first by Mattygfunk1 · · Score: 1, Interesting
    The server is roasted but it seems like having the ability to buy "fuel pellets" would be a huge advance for the automotive industry. I know a few youngens that regularly run out of fuel, so a pellet or two in the glovebox would be sensational.

    A few questions though -

    • What is the cost compared with gas?
    • How much would cars cost to be converted?
    • Would they have to be converted?
    • Would the pellets be safe for the elderly to use or do they have to be handled with care?

    Maybe some of you who got to the article could answer these for me.

    __
    cheap web site hosting

    1. Re:A feq questions first by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Answer: It is natural gas, not gasoline/petrol.

    2. Re:A feq questions first by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Who cares? 99% of cars use liquid fuels (petrol, ethanol, etc.). There was no mention of cars in the article, so I don't know where you're getting your ideas from.

    3. Re:A feq questions first by jdreed1024 · · Score: 2, Informative
      The server is roasted but it seems like having the ability to buy "fuel pellets" would be a huge advance for the automotive industry.

      You can thank Slashdot for another useless article summary and title. The process is actually talking about Natural Gas, not Gasoline. The primary goal of this is not to make "fuel pellets" for cars (although that would be cool), rather it's to find an alternative method of transporting Liquified Natural Gas (LNG). LNG tankers have to maintain a very cold environment (-162 C) and high-pressure environment, as do the processing facilities. This new method only requires facilities at -10 C (or 14 F, slightly cooler than your kitchen freezer) so it would be a huge savings in costs. It would also eliminate the need for huge pipelines, since most transportation from the field to the distribution area could be done in pellet form.

      Yay ambiguous article headlines.

      --
      There is no sig, there is only Zuul.
    4. Re:A feq questions first by novakreo · · Score: 1

      You can thank Slashdot for another useless article summary and title. The process is actually talking about Natural Gas, not Gasoline.

      Just because when you say gas, you mean gasoline, doesn't mean the rest of the English-speaking world sees it that way. In Australia at least, the word gas refers to natural gas or LPG (which used to be quite popular as a car fuel until the price difference between it and ordinary unleaded dropped), and the stuff inside your car is called fuel or petrol.

      --
      O frabjous day! Callooh! Callay!
    5. Re:A feq questions first by enronman · · Score: 1

      LNG tankers, with the exception of two in japan out of a global fleet if 130, are not 1. Presurized or 2. refrigrated www.energy.uh.edu has a paper on LNG that can explain that to you.

    6. Re:A feq questions first by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I would think that in most countries "gas" means "natural gas". Americans (i.e. people from the USA) like to think the universe revolves around them. For most of them, it's more ignorance than arrogance.

  9. This is natural gas by SHEENmaster · · Score: 2, Funny

    I assume that a pellet stove could be used with the resulting pellets.

    --
    You can't judge a book by the way it wears its hair.
  10. A new Metal Gear Solid??? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Funny

    Cool... Cool.. where is it...???? ...

    Oh, just a crap article :(

  11. Re:Why? by The+Original+Yama · · Score: 1

    The article states that the plant needs to be kept at -10 degrees. At a guess, I don't think you could keep solid gas at room temperatures, although it could probably survive at higher than -10 degrees.

  12. Interesting... by WegianWarrior · · Score: 2, Interesting

    Assuming that all the hurdles around the process can be overcome, and it turns out to be finacialy sound, this may very well be the start of a revelution as far as energy distribution goes. Something needing just -10C to distrebute... heck, I could store a pile outside in the winter and just carry 'natural gas' inside in a bucket. Come summer, whatever remains there was would just evaporate away (I assume) safely. Methane - which is the main component of natural gas - is a quite efficient fuel for a properly designed internal combustonengine, or you could feed it to a fuelcell.

    I missed a few details however... just how do you go from solifed gas and back to gaseous gas? Is it just a matter of heating them above -10C, or? Can anyone offer any inisght on this? Because if it's a realtively easy process, I can easily imagine these pellets beeing used for energydelivery in cars, homes, cabins, laptops (well, maybe not for a few years) etc etc ad nasaum.

    ...and then there is the 'other uses' this stuff can have... If you built a bomshell much like a thermos, you could just fill it up with pellets, add a bustercharge and get yourself a nice FAE-bomb...

    Oh, gotta qoute this bit of the article (emphasis mine);
    Norwegian petroleum engineers first proposed the idea after comparing the transport economics of liquid natural gas to natural gas hydrates, knowing that hydrates could store large amounts of natural gas in a small space.

    --
    Everything in the world is controlled by a small, evil group to which, unfortunately, no one you know belongs.
    1. Re:Interesting... by SimJockey · · Score: 2, Informative

      Yep, I'm thinking that a bit of heat would be all you need. Then some separators to do the bulk water-gas separation and some dryers to get it to pipeline spec. No real technology show stoppers on the other end.

      --
      Laugh while you can, monkey boy!
    2. Re:Interesting... by WegianWarrior · · Score: 1

      Idea - use the methane-water mix to fuel a gasturbine. The water will help cool the turbineblades, as well as add mass to the mix. And as we all know (don't we?), several kinds of turbojets have utilised waterinjection in the past to increase thrust...

      --
      Everything in the world is controlled by a small, evil group to which, unfortunately, no one you know belongs.
    3. Re:Interesting... by enronman · · Score: 1

      To convert the hydrate into a gas, all you need to do is raise the temp. Natural gas hydrates are very similar to dry ice, something you may be familiar with.

      I work with LNG, and yes you could build a a fuel air bomb out of this. However, the tempature of the material makes this hard. Look at the pictures of burning hydrate being held by peoples hands, until it is a gas it isn't dangerous. LNG is very similar. The tempature of the liquid will snuff out most flames ect.

  13. article by abhisarda · · Score: 3, Informative

    Gas Goes Solid
    Japanese researchers may have found the secret to exploiting the world's untapped natural gas reserves.

    By David Wolman
    April 11, 2003

    Nearly 95 percent of the known gas fields in the world are too small to justify the costs required pipe the gas to a plant, turn it into a liquid, and then transport it on specially equipped tankers.

    But a handful of researchers have an idea that could make these fields worth mining: rather than figure out cheaper ways to transport this cleaner-burning energy source from point A to point B as a liquid, why not change natural gas into a solid substance that's easier and cheaper to transport?

    Japanese researchers Hajime Kanda and Yasuhara Nakajima at Mitsui Engineering and Shipbuilding in Tokyo think they've found a solution with the aid of hydrates, solid crystals in which natural gas--composed chiefly of methane--is caged inside of water molecules.

    For decades, researchers have been looking for ways to gather these crystals from their deep-ocean deposits and reap what they expect could be a natural gas harvest. Kanda and Nakajima are taking an opposite approach. Rather than extracting methane from hydrates, they want to turn methane into hydrates--essentially, transforming the colorless and odorless gas into small pellets that can be easily stored, transported, and eventually turned back into natural gas. A few months ago Mitsui, in partnership with Osaka University, opened a demonstration plant near Tokyo to promote the concept and show that it works. If the Mitsui's process proves feasible and economical, many untapped natural gas deposits could become vital energy sources.

    Changing natural gas into a hydrate form for cheaper transport gained attention in the early 1990s. Norwegian petroleum engineers first proposed the idea after comparing the transport economics of liquid natural gas to natural gas hydrates, knowing that hydrates could store large amounts of natural gas in a small space. "More than 180 standard cubic feet of gas can be stored in one cubic foot of hydrate," says Rudy Rogers, professor of chemical engineering at Mississippi State University, and an authority on industrial use of gas hydrates.

    Another major advantage: "transporting natural gas as hydrates can be done at lower temperature and pressure than liquid natural gas, and the risk of ignition in transport is much lower," explains Hugh Guthrie, who studies natural gas at the U.S. Department of Energy's National Energy Technology Laboratory in Morgantown, WV. Much of the high cost of liquid natural gas comes from temperature and pressure demands on piping, shipping, and storage facilities.

    Producing the hydrates requires mixing natural gas with water in a continuously stirred tank reactor. When gas is piped into the water from the bottom, hydrates form on the surface of the gas bubbles. Removing the residual water leaves behind a residue of hydrate powder. Kanda and Nakajima envision a hydrate-pellet production plant close to gas fields in Southeast Asia. From there, a pellet carrier would transport the hydrate load to plants where the pellets would be turned back into gas and piped to market.

    The company's demonstration plant produces as much as 600 kilograms of hydrates per day, moving the methane through all the necessary phases: hydrate formation, storage, pelletizing, and "controlled dissociation," or separation of the gas and water. Whereas a liquid natural gas facility requires temperatures of -162 C, Mitsui's plant operates at -10 C, which means huge savings in cooling costs. Kanda says the project, which is co-sponsored by the government's New Energy and Industrial Technology Development Organization, demonstrates that hydrates can be a successful vector for gas transport.

    Mitsui's only significant competition in gas hydrate technology comes from another Japanese company, Mitsubishi. Mitsubishi is pursuing its own gas-to-solid technology based on a hydrate-oil slurry, a process whose main drawback is that i

  14. Well... by Kai_MH · · Score: 0

    That's great, but how long would it take to implement in all the major countries? In a world nearing the end of methane-based fuels for transportation, is it really worth it? Sure, we still need to transport natural gas and other types of gasses, but... is it worth it? I'm sure a lot of these gasses will become obselete in the next 3-4 decades.

  15. Isn't this old news? by TerryAtWork · · Score: 1

    I mean, isn't there tons of methane Hydrates at the bottom of various lakes etc? Haven't we known about this forever?

    --
    It's Christmas everyday with BitTorrent.
    1. Re:Isn't this old news? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Yes.

    2. Re:Isn't this old news? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      No its not old news. RTFA. The old news is the existance of methane hydrate deposits. There is current ongoing research attempting to develop methods to mine these underwater deposits. The challages the researchers face is great. Methane Hydrate deposits are unstable. Mining them could be dangerous not only to the miners but also the enviroment. So far, there is no thechniques to do this that is enviromentaly and finacialy practical. This story is about something quite different, e.i. a practical, ready for production method for transporting and storing methan.

  16. Can anyone speak by Drakin · · Score: 3, Interesting
    On the quality of minds that work at the U.S. of the sense of people who work at the Department of Energy? Sheesh. this guy's quote is just funny...
    Another major advantage: "transporting natural gas as hydrates can be done at lower temperature and pressure than liquid natural gas, and the risk of ignition in transport is much lower,"
    The transportation of it will be done at a lower pressure, yes, but at a higher temprature... not a lower one. You need to cool and/or pressurise a gas to form a liquid. Cool and pressurise it more, and you can get a solid... simple changes in the state that the matter is in. Creating hydrates is a chemical reaction... which has differnt prerequsits for happening, and the result is more stable (I assume) where the temprature and pressure don't need to be as strictly monitored.
    1. Re:Can anyone speak by Drakin · · Score: 1

      What a fucked up first line.

      "On the quality of minds that work at the U.S. Department of Energy?" it should be.

      I need to wake up.

    2. Re:Can anyone speak by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
      Creating hydrates is a chemical reaction

      Technically it's not a chemical reaction. It's just hydrogen bonds between molecules, but the molecules stay whole.

    3. Re:Can anyone speak by TheLink · · Score: 1

      Well if your mind allegedly works at the US ;).

      --
    4. Re:Can anyone speak by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Informative

      Go study hydrates, it is not the same as just transporting methane in liquid form!

    5. Re:Can anyone speak by enronman · · Score: 1

      LNG isn't normally transported as a presurised liquid. Checkout www.energy.uh.edu click on the LNG link there. I work for them but there is a paper on LNG that will explain that for you. LNG is allowed to boil off and used as a fuel for tanker. You don't refrigrate it, you just insulate it!

  17. Re:Sign from God by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    This proves my point that the only worthwhile freedom OF religion is freedom FROM religion!

  18. Things to remember by wowbagger · · Score: 5, Insightful

    1) Hydrates are not stable at room temperature and pressure - you still have to keep them cold (-10 C). Granted, -10C is better than -100C, but you will still have to have a refrigeration unit or a pressurized tank.

    2) When you break the hydrate down, you have methane and water. You have to do something with the water - dump it on the ground, feed it into the engine to be vaporized, something.

    3) While hydrates may store more methane than storing the methane as a gas, I don't think hydrates store more methane per unit volume than storing the methane as a liquid.

    4) You are storing methane and water - you will have more mass per unit methane than storing just methane.

    Those things said, this could be a good thing, in that anything that allows better storage and transport of methane makes it a more viable fuel source.

    1. Re:Things to remember by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Ok, let's go...

      1) I'd venture that 10 times less degrees (well, not really since it's Celsius not Kelvin) means a lot of energy for cooling is saved (why don't everybody just say "spared"?).

      2) Hmm, the water problem could be serious and only because of what you said, but because water is becoming a scarce (and expensive) resource. I believe the water could be returned or destined to local human usage.

      3) Again, this is a point where numbers do count. I don't have the slighest idea about how much volume is increased by hydrating methane. It could be only 10% -- or 400%... maybe someone who really understands this stuff could give us some help.

      4) Yet, this could be useful... storing just methane would require higher direct (like cooling) and indirect (like special transport care) costs.

    2. Re:Things to remember by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Informative

      IAAAE - I am a automotive engineer

      The water might not be so unwanted as you suggest.
      There are some concepts of internal combustion
      engines which use a mixture of fuel and water.
      The water will be evaporized during combustion
      and the produced steam will provide an added force
      to the piston. Think of an additional steam-engine
      you get for free.

      johnboy

    3. Re:Things to remember by Ronin+Developer · · Score: 2, Interesting


      2) When you break the hydrate down, you have methane and water. You have to do something with the water - dump it on the ground, feed it into the engine to be vaporized, something.


      Along these grounds, why not recycle the water to a) cool the engine itself and b) drive a small turbine for added electrical power generation. Perhaps, this additional energy can be applied to a fly-wheel assembly for quicker accelleration.

    4. Re:Things to remember by Portent · · Score: 4, Interesting

      Actually methane hydrate is much better for transportation than liquid methane for two reasons.

      First, it actually contains more energy per unit volume than liquid methane.

      And second, it is much more difficult to liquiefy methane than to form the hydrate phase. Liquid form requires very very low temperatures, and very high pressure, while the hydrate phase can be attained at around the freezing point at much lower pressures.

      Transporting methane in the hydrate phase is very attractive for countries that don't have their own power sources (southeast Asia). 1 cubic metre of methane hydrate holds 160 cubic metres of gaseous methane.

      However, the infrastructure to use it efficiently is still under heavy development so it'll be a while before we see methane hydrate being used on a large scale.

    5. Re:Things to remember by DietHacker · · Score: 2, Interesting

      It could do "a) cool the engine" and might obliterate the need to recycle coolant. As to "b) drive a small turbine" - huh? Standing water does not drive turbines AFAIK. It needs to have kinetic (waterjet) or potential (waterfall) energy.

    6. Re:Things to remember by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Informative

      1) Hydrates are not stable at room temperature and pressure - you still have to keep them cold (-10 C). Granted, -10C is better than -100C, but you will still have to have a refrigeration unit or a pressurized tank.

      energy conservation: >90%

      standard technology (cooling trucks) sufficient.

      2) When you break the hydrate down, you have methane and water. You have to do something with the water - dump it on the ground, feed it into the engine to be vaporized, something.


      mass water to mass methane: 2:1, ie. breaking hydrates to gain 1 kg methane produces at max 2 kg water.

      dispose of in agriculture (sprinklers) or the sewers.

      vehicles using this tech could just dump their water, it's not *that* much compared to a decent rainfall.

      3) While hydrates may store more methane than storing the methane as a gas, I don't think hydrates store more methane per unit volume than storing the methane as a liquid.


      solids have an even tighter packing of molecules than liquids. it may be possible that these can store more energy per cubic meter. after all, you don't need a bulky high pressured tank...

      4) You are storing methane and water - you will have more mass per unit methane than storing just methane.


      don't need that heavy high pressure container. the saving in steel may be worth the loss for extra water.

      Those things said, this could be a good thing, in that anything that allows better storage and transport of methane makes it a more viable fuel source.

      it's not even that, it's perfect. imagine it's use for space travel: have methane AND water in a relatively compact form with you. optimal, i think.

    7. Re:Things to remember by SimJockey · · Score: 1

      I just did some quick figuring with what I have at hand, but I think LNG has a higher energy density than these hydrates. I get something on the order of 600 cubic metres of gaseous methane per cubic metre of liquid natural gas, using a molal volume for liquid methane of 37.7 cm^3/g-mol. (Reid, Prausnitz & Sherwood, 1977) Didn't use any compressibility, just ideal gas, but the difference is big enough that it shouldn't make enough difference to go the other way.

      --
      Laugh while you can, monkey boy!
    8. Re:Things to remember by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      First, it actually contains more energy per unit volume than liquid methane.
      And second, it is much more difficult to liquiefy methane than to form the hydrate phase.

      Good. It means that gas (not gasoline) for my car will be cheaper.

    9. Re:Things to remember by ColaMan · · Score: 1

      He's probably thinking along the lines of using the excess water from the fuel and excess heat from your exhaust to create steam to drive a turbine.

      --

      You are in a twisty maze of processor lines, all alike.
      There is a lot of hype here.
    10. Re:Things to remember by pyrote · · Score: 1

      gee, kinda like a turbo... my wager is the excess water will hae minimal impact on performance and be utilized for steam in some way.

      --
      THE WORLD IS GOING TO END!!!! eventually.
    11. Re:Things to remember by thynk · · Score: 1

      The water will be evaporized during combustion
      and the produced steam will provide an added force
      to the piston


      Sweet! I thought water in gas was bad, but now I know better. ::puts garden hose in tank:: This is a lot cheaper than *BUYING* gas! Oh.. you mean I need a special engine. Crap - anyone know a good autorepair shop?

      Seriously - it sounds like a good plan, but IANAAE

      --

      Good judgment comes from experience, and a lot of that comes from bad judgment.
    12. Re:Things to remember by Portent · · Score: 1

      I agree with you that it works out that way when you calculate it. However, I did a report on this for a course last fall, and that's what my research turned up. I'm not really sure how that works, but it's possible that there's a large difference between theoretical density of liquid methane, and the real one. It's also possible that the temperature/pressure at which it's commonly liquiefied are where gas and liquid are in an equilibrium. I found no explanation for this.

    13. Re:Things to remember by iamhassi · · Score: 1

      The left over water could be used for water injection, which may increase power and/or mileage, or perhaps the water could be used to help with cooling the engine.

      At any rate the water wouldn't need to be wasted.

      --
      my karma will be here long after I'm gone
    14. Re:Things to remember by john82 · · Score: 1

      Yep. IIRC water injection was used on certain models of B-52s (B-52G ?) to provide additional thrust. The general effect was F = ma. Here's a link that explains it quite well.

    15. Re:Things to remember by Anonymous+Cow+herd · · Score: 1

      solids have an even tighter packing of molecules than liquids.

      Like ice?

      --
      Ita erat quando hic adveni.
  19. One problem from the world of ice cream by Shoten · · Score: 4, Interesting

    Heat shock, it's called. When the temperature of your freezer goes up by even a fraction of a degree (and it need not go anywhere near as high as 0 degrees celsius), some of the ice melts. When the temperature drops again, it re-freezes, but in a slightly different location. That's why ice cream (especially the really expensive stuff, that doesn't have many or any stabilizers like guar gum in it) will develop that coating of ice crystals after it sits in the freezer a while. The ice is migrating from inside the ice cream to the surface.

    Now, what I have GOT to wonder is this...what effect might this have on ice pellets that contain lots and lots of tiny bubbles of methane??

    --

    For your security, this post has been encrypted with ROT-13, twice.
    1. Re:One problem from the world of ice cream by Duke · · Score: 4, Informative

      When the temperature of your freezer goes up by even a fraction of a degree (and it need not go anywhere near as high as 0 degrees celsius), some of the ice melts. When the temperature drops again, it re-freezes, but in a slightly different location.

      Bzzt. No. But thanks for playing.

      Whether a liquid or a solid, water is has a vapor pressure. If a system of ice and air is at the same temperature, there will be water vapor in the the air. The system will be (once there is enought water vapor in the air) in equilibrium - there will be no net movment of water from its ice form to its vapor form. But this is dynamic equilibrium, ice will be moving to vapor at the same rate that vapor is moving to ice. (Both processes - solid to gas and gas to solid - are called sublimation.)

      If there is a temperature difference in your freezer, the ice will move from the (even slightly) warmer spot to a colder one. However, the process, for instance, of having all your ice cubes smoothing their edges and attaching themselves to each other would occur even if the contents of the freezer were all at the same temperature. The ice is trying to get itself into its minimum energy configuration, where it would be one big sphere.

      If the top of the ice cream container is cooler than the rest of it, water will migrate to the top. The migration just requires a spatial temperature gradient, not a temporal temperature change.

    2. Re:One problem from the world of ice cream by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
      spatial temperature gradient

      I think I speak for everyone who read your comment when I say, 'NERD.'

      :-)

  20. Wait a minute.... by whazzy · · Score: 1

    ....Taco Bell has already perfected this technology....Eat their bean burritos(small pellet sized mashy burritos)and 'instantaneously' produce 'natural gas'.....

  21. Not from Concentrate by Rubyflame · · Score: 0

    Ugh, I can't stand gasoline from concentrate. The taste is horrible. Tropicana all the way!

    --

    All it takes is nukes and nerves.
  22. I'll say this much... by KC7GR · · Score: 2, Funny

    It certainly adds new meaning to the phrase "It gives me gas." I can just picture future parents of a teen on his/her first night out driving the family vehicle...

    "Dear, did you remember to give our son gas?"

    "Yes, I did. His trunk is full of it..."

    Etc.

    --

    Bruce Lane, KC7GR,

    Blue Feather Technologies

    1. Re:I'll say this much... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      agreed. this joke is no more funny or relevant than it would have been before this article about hydrates.

  23. Gas goes solid by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Yeah I know. It's called shit.

  24. It's great they're beginning to research hydrates by stuph · · Score: 3, Insightful

    There are literally thousands of tons of methane hydrates all bundled up nicely on the ocean floor next to small cracks and fissures that leak methane. Now that people are actually beginning to do real research into transporting them and extracting methane from the hydrates, perhaps it will be possible to mine these methane fields, where there is enough energy to last hundreds of years

    --
    --Less Thinkin', More Drinkin'...
  25. Methane hydrates by panurge · · Score: 4, Interesting
    It's true that there are vast reservoirs on the continental shelf- and a big fear of global warming is that it will cause the hydrates to start dissociating, filling the atmosphere with methane (=powerful greenhouse gas) and accelerating the warming process. It's the speed of warming, not the actual temperature, that is considered to be the biggest problem.

    Methane hydrates are not particularly high-energy-density fuels- wouldn't be suitable for automotives, for example-but the bigger a store the easier it is to keep cold (lower surface area to volume ratio) so I guess they could actually be useful as a way of storing large amounts of gas economically and safely, the role they are basically playing on the seabed right now.

    Basically, I just don't get the Japanese argument. Is it really going to be cheaper to transport several ordinary refrigerated trucks of methane hydrate than one very cold truck of liquid methane? It looks as if the technology might be more of a way to stockpile large reserves of gas. As electricity generation in many parts of the world is increasingly gas-fired using turbine generators, perhaps this is a way to protect fuel reserves and generator capacity better from terrorists.

    --
    Panurge has posted for the last time. Thanks for the positive moderations.
    1. Re:Methane hydrates by stuph · · Score: 3, Interesting

      with regards to the transportation, there are a couple of big bonuses, really

      the first is safety.. if a truck full of methane hydrates wrecks, so what, you've got these not-very-harmful rocks slowly melting and releasing methane into the air.. not a big deal..
      on the other hand, a tank full of pure, liquid methane would tend to ignite w/ the sparks of any sort of tank cracking.. not good

      also, it probably is cheaper to use regular, everyday refrigerated trucks and train boxes rather than getting a tanker truck specially made.. the safety requirements, pressure requirements, etc on one of those are HUGE

      --
      --Less Thinkin', More Drinkin'...
    2. Re:Methane hydrates by sickmtbnutcase · · Score: 1

      "Is it really going to be cheaper to transport several ordinary refrigerated trucks of methane hydrate than one very cold truck of liquid methane?"

      It might not be cheaper to transport it by truck, but once necessary facilities are in place you could start using trains, resulting in the cost of transportation per ton dropping considerably. Not to mention that you could sure move thousands of tons of this stuff with a train rather easily.

    3. Re:Methane hydrates by Alyeska · · Score: 4, Interesting
      First, safety: The safest method of shipping gas (liquified or not) is by pipeline. If turned to a solid, and overland transportation (train/truck) is necessary, risk goes up tremedously -- compare pipeline accidents to car accidents in the US to get an idea of what you're looking forward to... just because they "melt slowly" doesn't mean it's not an environmental catastrophe if they spill in a neighborhood or highway. With pipelines, you have control.

      But there's also the issue of "White Crude," not mentioned here. In Alaska, we have enough gas to fuel the world for years, but can't get it to market because it's so much cheaper to do so elsewhere. We and others are working on a chemical process that creates "White Crude," a room-temperature liquid, from NG. White Crude can be shipped within existing oil pipelines, separated easily at the terminus, and loaded into existing oil tankers. Once at port, white crude can be turned back into NG and distributed through pipelines to consumers.

    4. Re:Methane hydrates by SimJockey · · Score: 2, Insightful

      OK, I did a Google search and couldn't come up with anything on White Crude. Are you talking about GTL or gas-to-liquids technology? Reacting C1's to C5+ molecules to make them stable at room temperatures for shipping etc.

      --
      Laugh while you can, monkey boy!
    5. Re:Methane hydrates by Alyeska · · Score: 2, Informative

      Not sure the C1 to C5+ is the exact method, but yes, GTL at room temp = White Crude. (GTL is still term used for condensation as well, we're told to say white crude to differentiate...)

    6. Re:Methane hydrates by BigBadBri · · Score: 1
      'Fraid not - once the temperature rises or the pressure drops (at -4 C, the hydrate is only stable at ca. 20 atmospheres pressure, IIRC), yon solid would tend to degass quite violently, with a concomitant risk of explosion.

      At -10 C, of course, the hydrate is stable at a couple of atmospheres pressure, so if you don't crash, you're OK.

      It's mainly these problems that make mining the clathrates (old name for methane hydrates) from the ocean bed uneconomical.

      Damn physics, but there ya go...

      --
      oh brave new world, that has such people in it!
    7. Re:Methane hydrates by enronman · · Score: 1

      Liquid natural gas is at a much colder tempature than hydrates. It also requires a LOT more oxygen to sustain a reaction. To spark LNG into a flame it takes more energy, and the vaporixing LNG quickly smothers the fire. LNG is VERY safe. If your aware of a signifgant accident ever occuring with LNG please let me know. GET the facts about LNG www.energy.uh.edu

  26. Old news by Morgahastu · · Score: 0, Redundant

    Every kid knows its easier to deliver a flaming bag of poop then delivering a fart.

  27. The World is Becomming More Trek-ish by CyberLife · · Score: 0

    It seems to me that as time goes by, the world is becomming more and more like Star Trek. If I remember correctly (I'm too lazy to dig out my tech manual) the Enterprise D did something similar to this. They stored deuterium in a semi-frozen state and converted it upon use. In some cases they even used the slush fuel directly in fusion reactions.

    God, I'm a geek! :P

  28. net energy loss by layyze · · Score: 2, Insightful

    Assuming that the laws of thermodynamics still exist on this planet, I am curious if there would be some kind of net energy loss in this process. Factoring transportation, refrigeration, and changes in states it seems like a lot of energy is being used up in this process. Just a thought.
    Brazil had (has?) similar issues in using ethanol as a fuel. The machinery used to harvest and convert the sugar into ethanol used more fuel than was produced.

    --
    -dr. layyze f. tooth PhD
    1. Re:net energy loss by Alyeska · · Score: 1
      What the engineers are trying to do is reach that cost balance. There is also a net energy loss when you condense the gas into liquid for shipping, but that cost is recovered when the amount to ship a CF of gas is lowered.

      It's the same problem with White Crude (room-temp LNG by process) -- it works, but is currently too expensive to be viable.

  29. Beans by cyber_rigger · · Score: 2, Funny

    Beans, the ultimate solid gas pellet

  30. A little thin on the details by SimJockey · · Score: 2, Interesting

    If I was at work today, I'd fire up the LNG simulations to see exactly how many scf's of natural gas will fit in a cubic foot of LNG. I'm willing to bet it's more than 180. So you'd have to transport much more hydrate than LNG for an equivalent amount of natural gas.

    Also annoying that they mention nothing about pressure, as the fun way to get hydrates that I know about is to flash a high pressure stream of natural gas with a bit of water across a valve to lower pressure. Hydrates form and plug up the valve. Not a good thing, But the point is that pressure=compression costs. Nobody ever seems to give lifecycle energy costs for these new & improved technologies. And yes, I realize they are using a tank reactor, but I bet there are still some decent pressures involved to get reasonable yields.

    LNG has always been borderline on whether it makes economic sense. Places like Trinidad and Qatar are into it because they have such huge natural gas supplies in relation to their oil reserves that they can build huge plants and get some economy of scale. Customers are places like Japan (hence this bit of research) and the U.S. believe it or not. Latest numbers I heard are that LNG is competative with pipeline natural gas at about $4/MMSCF, depending on how far you have to ship it. With the strong prices of the last couple of years, the pace of projects is accelerating.

    --
    Laugh while you can, monkey boy!
    1. Re:A little thin on the details by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Informative

      Actually it turns out that the methane density in sI (structure I, there are a bunch of different hydrate structures) hydrate is considerably higher than LNG at equal pres/temp. Assuming full occupancy of the "cages" in the hydrate structure. I doubt it is the 180x quoted in the article, but it is higher.

      I used to do research on hydrates and the density issue was really non-intuitive but turns out to be true. It has to do with thermodynamic stability inparted by the massive amount of hydrogen bonding in the hydrate form.

      Excellent point on the pressure. What the story leaves out is that it takes a considerable amount of pressure to form the hydrates in any significant amounts. The reason being that methane is highly hydrophobic. So the kinetics of the reaction demand high pressure, although they are thermodynamically stable at lower pressure/temp than LNG. The reaction is highly limited by the amount of gas/liquid interface that you can get going in a reactor. Perhaps the japanesse have come up with a new reactor that makes a lot of gas/liquid contact w/o freezing it up in the process.

      If you would like to learn more about hydrates, the epicenter of research in the states is here:

      http://www.mines.edu/research/chs/

      Dendy Sloan has a book in its second or third edition that covers nearly all that is know about the current state of hydrates. Lots of great phase diagrams. Its required reading for anybody who is anybody in the hydrate field....

    2. Re:A little thin on the details by enronman · · Score: 1

      The costs of LNG are about $4. www.energy.uh.edu has a good paper about LNG written for the general public that goes over that information.

    3. Re:A little thin on the details by Wild+Wizard · · Score: 1

      > Actually it turns out that the methane density in sI (structure I, there are a bunch of different hydrate structures) hydrate is considerably higher than LNG at equal pres/temp.

      You can't have LNG at the temp/pres values that allow hydrates, which is the whole point they want an easier way of transporting the stuff not more of it

  31. energy cubes by LuxFX · · Score: 1

    Now they just need to make it in a brick form, and I will be happy knowing that at least something from Transformers is in the real world...

    --
    Punctanym: alternate spelling of words using punctuation or numerals in place of some or all of its letters; see 'leet'
  32. weight by TheSHAD0W · · Score: 1

    Uhm... How many molecules of water do you need to turn one molecule of methane into its hydrate?

    FYI, methane has a molecular weight of 16, while water has a molecular weight of 18.

    If, as the image on the web site seems to imply, it requires 20 molecules of water to encompass one molecule of methane, then we're talking 23 times the weight of the liquid methane. It would also take up around 20 times the space. Add on the refrigeration system that would be needed and it's just not practical, at least for transportation. (For long-term storage, it might have advantages.)

    1. Re:weight by BigBadBri · · Score: 1
      20x?

      If you're transporting your methane one molecule at a time, this would be true.

      However, it's water in bulk, with methane dispersed throughout, and in more of a cubic structure than the dodecahedron shown, so the packing efficiency gives roughly a 2-2.5:1 weight ratio, and a 2:1 space ratio.

      Each molecule of water would play it's part in transporting about 1/2 as much methane, and the extra space taken up is less than the water volume.

      Having said all that, I'm not at all sure that the hydrates are as thermodynamically stable as the article seems to imply.

      --
      oh brave new world, that has such people in it!
  33. Coming up next... by bj8rn · · Score: 1

    dehydrated water!

    --
    Hell is not other people; it is yourself. - Ludwig Wittgenstein
    1. Re:Coming up next... by BitHive · · Score: 1

      ...and if you think that's clever, you'll be pleased to know that I'm selling dehydrated water for just $10 a gallon! Send payment via Paypal.

    2. Re:Coming up next... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Just add milk. Am I the only UBER-geek in the world who read ALF comics as a kid?

  34. Re:Freaky - And here is a picture + other links by Maddog+Batty · · Score: 3, Informative

    The BBC also have a story including a picture from Geomar showing "burning ice" resulting in water dripping in some brave soles hands. As the Beeb's website says "Don't try this at home!"

    --
    wot no sig
  35. Solid Gas by Zugot · · Score: 1

    Them crazy Japanese. What will they think of next?

    Isn't innovation much cooler over in Japan?

    --
    -- Bryan
    1. Re:Solid Gas by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Yep, I'm waiting for dehydrated water.

    2. Re:Solid Gas by BattleTroll · · Score: 1

      It's not cooler, it's longer term. While US firms concentrate on innovations that pay off in 1 or 2 quarters, Japanese firms are looking out over decades or more. And regardless of what people might imply, R&D not altruistic but rather a long term survivability requirement.

  36. Sir, I feel compelled to congratulate you. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Awesome troll.

  37. More Than Meets The Eye? by edeloso · · Score: 3, Funny

    Is the next phase of development the transformation of gas into a cube-like dynamic solid called "Energon"?...

    1. Re:More Than Meets The Eye? by edeloso · · Score: 1

      Agh, if only I had noticed that someone had beat me to the punch...

    2. Re:More Than Meets The Eye? by jerde · · Score: 1

      Bah weep, grah nah weep. Nini bong!

      - Peter

      --
      INsigNIFICANT
  38. Pipelines are NOT safer by SuperBanana · · Score: 1
    just because they "melt slowly" doesn't mean it's not an environmental catastrophe if they spill in a neighborhood or highway. With pipelines, you have control.

    There are regular pipeline accidents. I remember one(I think gasoline pipeline?) levelled a neighborhood. Levelled. For about a two block radius.

    With a tanker, you only have to worry about what's in the tanker. Pipelines? There are MILES between control valves(ie, dozens of tanker-truck's worth.)

    In the particular accident I'm thinking of, the situation was made worse by the fact that they didn't have checkback valves installed, and all the material in the pipeline, which went up a hill right after the break, drained back down.

    The fire department had to sit and watch, basically, as blocks of houses disappeared.

    1. Re:Pipelines are NOT safer by Alyeska · · Score: 2, Informative
      Okay. That's one big incident -- kind of like looking at a jet crash with 300 victims and stating, "It is safer to travel by car than by air, as only a handful can die in a car accident."

      Look for how many hazardous chemical spills we had in the US by trucking or train in the last couple of years...

      When you use overland transportation, the variables increase -- thousands of potential collisions, more human error capable (as there are now thousands of drivers instead of a few pipeline controllers), weather variables, road conditions, etc.,etc.

    2. Re:Pipelines are NOT safer by TheLink · · Score: 2, Interesting

      I'd say piping gas is safer than trucking it, unless your pipelines are very exposed to trucks ;).

      As for car vs plane safety- depends on whether you are measuring per distance, trip, travel time etc.

      http://www.teemings.com/issue07/safety.html

      --
  39. Damit! by bj8rn · · Score: 1

    And I thought I was onto something :( Oh well, I guess I'll just have to start working on my non-alcoholic vodka again...

    --
    Hell is not other people; it is yourself. - Ludwig Wittgenstein
  40. Re:It's great they're beginning to research hydrat by oilisgood · · Score: 2, Informative

    The United States Minerals Management Service (MMS) has done an extensive amount of investigation and research on this topic. Since they regulate federal offshore waters, this has been a topic of interest to them. You can find out what is going on in hydrate research at MMS from these links: http://www.mms.gov/eppd/sciences/esp/hydrates/rese arch.htm
    http://www.mms.gov/tarprojects/

    Of course Japan would be pushing this technology because they have the largest know reserve of hydrates off their coast. In the U.S. there is a large reserve off the coast of South Carolina. Unfortunately this is in a development restricted area so research opportunities have been slow developing.

    Hopefully we will see more new stories about this type of research in the future.

  41. Didn't I read about this in Popular Science... by groman · · Score: 1

    I've read about solid Hydrogen/Oxygen storage for fuel cells and breathing respectively in Popular Science or somesuch magazine a long time ago(5-6 years?). That was however American researches. The fact that it makes news now, is probably because geeks think everything Japanese is cool. (Just joking). However, this is a damn cool technology and the ramifications are enormous. Fuel cells that run on hydrogen rods, anybody?

  42. discovery channel by bryanthompson · · Score: 2, Interesting

    had a good show about these methane type pockets on the bottom of the ocean. I think they were trying to explain bermuda triangle stuff. anyway, They said the pressure and coldness down on the bottom of the ocean made the methane solid. For some reason, if some of this solid methane became a gas, it'd release soo many bubbles of methane that it if there was a ship above it, the ship would lose bouyancy and sink. They showed a test done on a model ship in a testing pool, and the ship sank almost immediately.

    anyway, thats one source of solid methane... Don't know how usable it'd be, being on the ocean floor, but if they could find a way to mine it, it could be a sweet deal.

  43. The real question... by DJPenguin · · Score: 1

    ... if someone stole a bucket of gas would it be mist?

    1. Re:The real question... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      No, but it'd be a mistemeanor!

  44. Hydrogen is often stored as a hydride by Animats · · Score: 2, Interesting

    It's common to store hydrogen in a tank of metal hydride chips. The tank doesn't have to be as strong, and cyrogenic temperatures aren't required. It's also far safer; if damaged, the hydrogen comes out slowly as the hydrides outgas, so at worst you get a fire, not an explosion.

  45. I got it! by Chordonblue · · Score: 2, Funny

    In Soviet Russia, gas liquifies YOU! ;)

    --
    "...Well, there's egg and bacon; egg sausage and bacon; egg and spam; egg bacon and spam; egg bacon sausage and spam..."
  46. EROI by Michael.Forman · · Score: 1


    Often omitted in the discussion of alternative or modified energy sources is the concept of energy return on investment (EROI). It's defined as the ratio of energy provided for useful work divided by the energy required to extract and process the fuel source.

    If one expends energy overprocessesing the fuel, the net energy contributed to the system is reduced. For example, it's been published that ethanol requires 70% more energy to produce than it provides.

    Given that the global economic system exists almost exclusively on the ever-diminishing stored potential energy of the earth, it seems that reducing the EROI of an energy source should be avoided.

    Michael.

    --
    Linux : Mac :: VW : Mercedes
    1. Re:EROI by simonjester2424 · · Score: 1

      I am in complete agreement. Something that hasn't been mentioned though, is the amount of methane gas that is vented and burned because it cannot be safely stored and transported. For example the big stacks many oil drilling platforms have, if huge flames wasteing all that methane. Making it easier to store andtransport might mean getting at least some return on that energy,insteadof zero. Just a though

      --
      Beware of gifts bearing Greeks.
  47. Bring on the Energon Cubes by FuzzyBad-Mofo · · Score: 1

    For Great Justice

  48. How about the water shift reaction and C02 hydrate by memmel2 · · Score: 1

    Intresting I wonder how well the hydrates can be used as source for the well know water shift reaction which can produce carbon monoxide and hydrogen. It would be trivial to heat the hydrate in a closed reactor to get the pressures needed. You probably need to inject some extra hydrogen but this could be from a small hydride or the cool glass ball storage method. Also note CO2 forms hydrate to so the excess water can be used to sequester the C02 for later transformation back to methane. So the water present in the methane hydrate can be used to for C02 hydrates with hydrogen as the by product. Methane hydrate -> H2 + C02(Hydrate) http://www.netl.doe.gov/coalpower/sequestration/ca pture.html

  49. Gas, pellets.... by clambake · · Score: 1

    Ack ... so many ... jokes ... methane ... pellet form ... must ... hold back ... countless ... bad jokes...

  50. Re:Been there. Done that. by Tablizer · · Score: 2, Funny

    Tried to produce gas, came out solid.

    Your cubicle is probably not the most popular I can gather

  51. Interesting article by Afrosheen · · Score: 1

    I remember reading about a prototype car from Mazda called the HX-7 a few years ago. It had a rotary engine and was designed to burn hydrogen. The fuel delivery system used compressed hydrogen pellets, which were either theoretical at the time or undergoing development. The pellets would shoot into the tank and the tank would heat up, releasing the hydrogen under great pressure into the fuel lines.

    Too bad it never got built, but who knows, if Wired's issue before last is right, we might have it in a decade or so.

  52. Meanwhile in Crime news... by Stalcair · · Score: 1
    the European chapter of "Overeaters Anonymous" is still missing. The group was on its annual "Purge Fest" that served both as a reward for previous successful weight loss as well as a sort of "marti gras of eating" as the chaiman of this year's 500 member even told reporters. Apparently it was common practice to not just eat glutonous foods in general but to pick an assortment of foods that would result in discomfort, bloating and any of a number of specific "negative" side effects in order to psychologically set the stage for the next weeks beginning of "No-Crunch time." No-Crunch time is the crucible where only water and the barest of essential nutrients are combined with rigorous exercise resulting in a raised metabolism and raised awareness of how you can indeed conquer your eating disorder with the help of your bretheren.

    This years splurge was titled "Legion of Legumes" which would seem to explain why the members were last seen entering "Boha's Bean Paradise" in the outskirts of Tokyo wearing shirts with "Flatus is Fortuitus" and "Beano is for Whimps."

    --

    I seek not only to follow in the footsteps of the men of old, I seek the things they sought.

  53. Researched these things by 777333ddd · · Score: 4, Interesting

    Hydrates are quite interesting.

    Right out of College about 13 years ago I joined one of those huge Oil Companies and the main thing I did there for 2 years was study gas hydrates. The reason we studied them was in order to *prevent* their formation which is the opposite of what this article talks about. The problem with hydrates in the oil business is that under high pressure and low temperature they form ... and guess what conditions predominate in undersea pipelines?

    When oil comes from the formation, it is almost always mixed with water and some varying amount of gas or other hydrate forming HCs. Everything is fine up the wellbore and near the wellhead, but not too far away from the wellhead the fluid starts getting cold and these solid particles form. They can clog a pipeline if you don't take countermeasures. One is to run a device called a "pig" through the pipeline to clean them out. Another is to install insulation, heated lines, or inject lots of chemicals like MeOH to suppress the hydrates. But all of these things start increasing the production cost and/or decreasing capacity.

    So our research looked into creating chemicals that you could inject in very small volumes near the wellhead to inhibit the formation of hydrates.

    Anyway, all this hydrate study did make people think about the application of hydrates in the transport of natural gas (NG). I think it's a very interesting idea. Currently to get NG from a remote place to market, you need lots of big expensive gas turbines driving massive refrigeration equipment to create Liquified NG (LNG). Then you need these huge, wild looking LNG tankers. Then you need special port facilities to handle the super-cold LNG. The up front capex is so massive (think 10 billion plus for many potential projects) that no one just pays that upfront hoping the customers will show up. No. You get agreements on paper stretching out 30 years with customers and only THEN do you give the green light to the project.

    Hydrates certainly wouldn't need near the compressor/turbine expense of LNG development, and there might be a sweet spot in terms of pressurization and temperature you might strike. However the rest of the economics I'm not too sure about. If most of the cost of a project is the tankers and you need a lot more of them for Hydrate, then you might be better off with LNG. The other huge thing in LNG's favor is that we know it works and can calculate a cost.

    One interesting idea I saw floated once was the creation of hydrate subs. Huge deepsea vessels that would be able to stay cold and high pressure just by virtue of being well below the sea surface where those conditions are natural. Now unlike a typical sub, these guys would never surface and so would not need thick walls to handle pressure differences inside and out.

    Imagine one of these things scooping up hydrate from the ocean floor and carting it off to a disassociation plant on the seabed (preferably in a subsea canyon as closs to the coast as possible) that evaporated the hydrate gas into a regular gas pipeline.

    dave

  54. Mobil did this 5 years ago by Zapdos · · Score: 1

    at it's Dallas MEPUS office. Just the cost to replace the infrastructure is/was too high.

  55. Ocean Drilling Program by pk001i · · Score: 2, Informative

    ODP has been doing research into the area of gas hydrates for a while now. Not only can natural gas be turned into hydrate, but there are vast amounts of gas hydrate "stable" on the sea floor. Gas hydrates are also stable in certains areas of permafrost in the arctic. On an environmental note, it is not known exactly how hydrate. influences global climate change. Methane is 10 times the the global warmer that CO2 is. A large hydrate landslide off the northern coast of norway coincides nicely with an warm period. As sea level falls during an ice age, pressure on hydrates decreases, destabalizing them, and releasing methane into the atmosphere. This could serve as a natural buffer against ice ages. On an interesting side note, Gas hydrates have been proposed as the cause of the dissappearances in the bermuda. triangle. The theory is that a field of gas hydrates destabalizes right below a ship releasing a plume of methane gas. The water density will decrease. The ship sinks.

    --
    Opinions were like kittens, I was giving them away.
    1. Re:Ocean Drilling Program by denny_d · · Score: 1

      my uncle specializes in outfitting ships that transport natural gas. I popped a copy of this article and the /. refs. for his reading pleasure. Your reponse was by far the best referenced and most interesting IMO.
      dgd

  56. Ice-9 by BigBadBri · · Score: 1
    as per Vonnegut (Cat's Cradle) - y'all should read him - one of America's greatest novellists.

    --
    oh brave new world, that has such people in it!
  57. White Crude by Dragonshed · · Score: 1
    I found your comment interesting enough to do some research on. Using google I found a number of interesting articles/papers.

    Exerpts:

    Most processes for making white crude or its cousins involve three major stages.
    In the first, steam, oxygen and natural gas react to create a mixture of hydrogen and carbon monoxide called ''syngas.''
    In the second stage, the syngas is converted to wax.
    In the final stage, the wax is converted to one or more liquids -- diesel, jet fuel or the clear, nearly odourless white crude, which is suitable for movement through an oil pipeline. All of these products are remarkably free of troublesome pollutants like the sulphur, nitrogen and metals found in ordinary crude.

    BP Exploration announced it will move forward with a pilot gas-to-liquids
    (GTL) plant on the North Slope to get natural gas to market, as well as with
    ARCO's gas sponsor group that is working on an in-state gas pipeline and
    Liquified Natural Gas (LNG) facilities. So-called "white crude" made from
    GTL technology has significant environmental drawbacks, as well as
    efficiency losses. GTLs produce twice as much carbon dioxide as LNGs per
    unit (BTU) of energy burned.

    Links:
    Gas-to-liquids might be the break-through
    Alaska's Legislative Truth Squad

  58. already done centuries ago by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    usually there is a 'flush' just after the solid gas is released.

  59. Powdered water! by TeknoHog · · Score: 1

    Just add.. umm..

    --
    Escher was the first MC and Giger invented the HR department.
  60. Re:Been there. Done that. by PD · · Score: 3, Funny

    Here I sit all broken hearted
    tried to shit and only farted.
    Then one day I took a chance,
    tried to fart and shit my pants.

  61. hmm... Pellet form factor. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Pellets for the pet rabbit food,
    Pellets for the wood burning stove,
    Pellets for the new car.

    Are they interchangeable?

  62. LNG, a good source of info by enronman · · Score: 1

    www.energy.uh.edu has a good primer article on LNG written for the general public. Within a few months it will have a paper focusing on the safety of LNG. I'm working in part on these papers. LNG is a pretty darn good technolgy. This is nifty, but is it a great improvement? LNG can be delivered at a profit of about $4 right now with the price going lower as we speak. The big problem with LNG is that everyone assumes that it isn't very safe. The dangers of LNG have been greatly overstated. You can't build a recieving terminal, no one wants it in their backyard. I would be willing to bet pretty hard, that this technology will suffer the same problems. Great safe technology that no one will let you build.

  63. Re:Sign from God by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Amen!!

  64. Wasn't this invented in the US about 70 years ago? by MooseOnTheLoose · · Score: 1

    I remember the story, it was even fictionalized for one of the old sci-fi shows, maybe the original Outer Limits? But I had heard the story from my dad before that show ever aired. Basically, some guy walked into the U.S. patent office (back in the day when you could actually just show up with invention in hand) with an internal combustion engine (a minature automobile engine, or something similar) with an empty gas tank, and some pellets. When it was his turn to be seen, he showed that the tank was empty, put in a pellet, added plain water, and started the engine. The patent examiners told him to wait in an outside office for a few minutes while they discussed the matter among themselves. When they went back into the outer office to get the inventor, he had simply vanished, along with his engine and pellets. Vanished without a trace, it was as though he'd never existed at all.

    I have no idea where my dad first heard the story be he told it to me when I was quite young - I think he may have read it in a magazine or something. I remember when they showed it on the original Outer Limits (on our old black and white TV), he couldn't believe they were showing the story on TV, but of course everyone took that to be pure fiction.

    I'd be curious to know if there was any truth to the story - my dad seemed to believe it (I think he thought maybe one of the oil companies had something to do with the guy's disappearance) but for all I know it could have been WWII-era urban legend.

  65. Re:It's great they're beginning to research hydrat by geoswan · · Score: 1

    Make that 11,000 gigatons. There is also a significant amount of Clathrate locked up in the Permafrost. The cited article says there is more than twice as much energy locked up in Clathrates than in all other fossil fuels put together.

  66. Pressurized tank by A55M0NKEY · · Score: 1

    I think you'd want to keep your hydrates in a tank rated for holding pure methane at room temperature. Think of what would happen if the refrigeration units on your gas tank lost power on a hot summer day while your car was parked. The pressure of methane from the melting hydrates would crack a weak tank and start leaking methane. A passerby lights a ciggarette and BOOM!

    --

    Eat at Joe's.

  67. Liquid Fuels Rule by 4of12 · · Score: 1

    Liquid fuels, hydrocarbons, can be easily pumped from one container to another.

    Energy density is huge, too.

    They don't need to be kept under high pressure.


    A wise old professor educated me about just how indispensible liquid fuel hydrocarbons are to our modern economy about two decades ago.

    He also contrasted that heavy reliance on liquid hydrocarbons to the inevitability of their limited supply.

    I doubt solids or gases will displace liquid hydrocarbons soon. But I'm glad to see research into the alternatives because a day will come when the economics will force the transition to happen.

    --
    "Provided by the management for your protection."
  68. Miles per dollar, miles per tank by Bitmanhome · · Score: 1

    Who cares how much stuff it takes, I just wanna know how far I can go, and what it costs.

    --
    Not that this wasn't entirely predictable.
  69. Last Post! by alpg · · Score: 0

    They don't know how the world is shaped. And so they give it a shape, and
    try to make everything fit it. They separate the right from the left, the
    man from the woman, the plant from the animal, the sun from the moon. They
    only want to count to two.
    -- Emma Bull, "Bone Dance"

    - this post brought to you by the Automated Last Post Generator...