Slashdot Mirror
Burning Ice Drilled from Alaska's Slope
bagboy writes to tell us that as sources of renewable energy are being sought, BP has announced a new method of extracting natural gas from ice underneath Alaska's North Slope drilling fields. "Scientists with the federal Energy Department paid $4.6 million to drill for the hot ice just below the surface of the Milne Point well, which is situated northwest of Prudhoe Bay. [...] Now, scientists from around the world are waiting for pieces of this strange ice to conduct their own tests and determine whether Alaska's frozen grounds contain untapped, clean-burning energy."
Now, scientists from around the world are waiting for pieces of this strange ice to conduct their own tests and determine whether Alaska's frozen grounds contain untapped, clean-burning energy.
Clean-burning? Sure. But at $4.6 million a gallon, I'll stick with oil.
I wonder if I use bold in my signature, people will notice my posts.
a snowball's chance in hell of ever working.
if memory serves correctly, natural gas = CH4
so the chem reaction:
CH4 + 2O2 -> CO2 + 2H2O
Seems like a lot of CO2 for being such a clean energy source.... but what the hell do i know?
Soot, maybe not, but this would still be adding CO2. Hydrogen is what I would call clean burning -- it produces water. Though hydrogen isn't a fuel, but rather a fuel storage mechanism.
Scientists with the federal Energy Department paid $4.6 million to drill for the hot ice just below the surface of the Milne Point well, which is situated northwest of Prudhoe Bay
I guess Prudhoe Bay is OK. As long as it's not in ANWR a few hundred miles away. I guess there is no wildlife at Prudhoe Bay.
There is no "I disagree" mod for a reason. Flamebait, Troll, and Overrated are not substitutes.
I liken it more to Transparent Aluminum.
--------========+++Dont Feed The Lab Techs+++========--------
There are tons and tons of the stuff at the bottom of the oceans. It's called methane clathrate and I'm sure it'd be easier to extract than ice.
"A door is what a dog is perpetually on the wrong side of" - Ogden Nash
whether Alaska's frozen grounds contain untapped, clean-burning energy.
Whats their definition of clean burning? Presumably this is some form of natural gas, which means it will release CO2 when burned. Less dirty, maybe...
I thought "Hot Ice' was stolen diamonds. Guess I better quit watching those old movies and get with the modern term. Mining (drilling?) this stuff could cause problems, it has to be melted and the water left over has to go somewhere. I suppose they could just make the water back into snow or ice and no harm with that.
I want to be known as the person who quotes the name "Ice Hugger" for those who complain that destroying Ice for energy is going to destroy the world.
This is certainly not renewable.
Yes, I'm left. You have a problem with that?
It's almost certainly methane hydrate.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Methane_hydrate
Clean burning energy? Only if the burning bit is our whole planet.
... just remember that if you mod something "flamebait" in the threads for this particular submission, they should automatically also be modded "insightful".
"Dhooo"
Stupid global warming; lost my renewable energy.
makes CO2 (greenhouse gas) - if you want to burn it you need to find a way to sequester the carbon
Hey, don't worry, I'm pretty sure they have that stuff in the Canadian north as well. We'll need a pretext for the invasion though. Has Celine Dion been classified as a WMD yet?
looks like global warming is not enough, now we melt our remaining ice actively.
So burning polar ice is the plan to prevent greenhouse gases from melting polar ice? What kind of Bizarro world is this?
Some people have a way with words, and some people, um, thingy.
If we melt the ice to get the natural gas, isn't it just like circumventing the CO2 part of global warming? All the melted ice will just make more dark, solar-energy absorbing dirt.
There folks in Pennsylvania that will tell you that they have clean burning coal. And compared to what is coming our of a number of mines in China, they are correct. Of course, the west tells you that we have the clean burning coal. And compared to the east coast, it is. Now the methane folks say that they are clean burning, and compared to coal, they are. But The only true clean buring is pure hydrogen. And I would not be surprised that down the road somebody will show that there is a side reaction that occurs if you are not using pure O2 as opposed to air (i.e. creation of [NS]Ox )
I prefer the "u" in honour as it seems to be missing these days.
This mixture forms all over the contenental shelves. And, as pointed out here, in Alaska as well http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Methane_hydrate.
s -selling-solar.html
There has been an ongoing effort, especially by the Navy, to figure out ways to exploit these deposits. The rapid release of the methane may be a hazard to drilling and shipping and is also considered a possible cause for rapid climate change in the past.
--
Solar really is clean. http://mdsolar.blogspot.com/2007/01/slashdot-user
"the few remaining bit of ice left on the planet"
are you for real? there is litterally billions of tons of ice on this planet. i'm going to just assume you've never even been outside your own little burb on this one.
i think i know whats going on here, your one of these people who needs to feel self rightgeous about something, but because the world you live in is really quite good, you make up this imaginary enemy to attack. your own confusion is eveident in the fact you advertise an anti war demonstation in a thread about drilling for methane trapped in ice
If you mod me down, I will become more powerful than you can imagine....
As others have pointed out clean has nothing to do with CO2, but sulfur and NOx gas which cause acid rain and smog and things like that, CO2 is not harmful to people or plants in any quantity that will exist here on Earth naturally or man made. Global warming while it may be real is not anything this planet hasn't been through many many times in the past, change or die the planet will go on with or without Venice under water and with or without polar bears. It will be better for many species and areas and they will thrive in a high CO2 warm earth. Mass quantities of acid rain is good for nothing alive.
all you dimwits making posts about melting ice before global warming does it, i'd hate for you to think your orginal or funny, it's already been posted about 50 times.
If you mod me down, I will become more powerful than you can imagine....
By your logic, anything that releases CO2 is contributing to Global Warming, am I correct?
:P
:/
Well, in that case, let's kill all the animals. Dogs, cats, cows, every last one. After all, they're creating dangerous CO2. And then we can all starve to death and we'll die too. That should teach us for breathing. *cough*
Or maybe you could read up a bit and see what happens to that CO2.
No disrespect or flamebait in any way. It just gets on my nerves when people assume that CO2 is the driving factor behind global warming. (Cow farts are more dangerous than CO2. So do the world a favor and eat steak.)
By the way, good job at shamelessly plugging your political views in a scientific discussion.
"Cool Slashdotters"?
This is a step in the wrong direction - burning this natural gas will still produce greenhouse effect, causing all this ice to really become hot sooner than we would prefer. Even burning fast-growing wood would be more ecologically friendly.
I was going to tell you to go change a lightbulb, but then I realized you already did.
You're quite right on on topic.
Coming on the heals of this article Fuel Tanks Made of Corncob Waste, this could be quite serendipitous.
They use lots of Natural Gas for taxis in China. I asked a driver about it, he claimed it to be about half the cost per mile compared to gasoline. Seeing how the tank dominated the trunk of these taxis, I suspect it could rupture in a rear end collision. I doubt these particular taxis would be permitted on American roads, but perhaps the new "Corncob Waste" tanks will make them smaller, safer, and economical for American use.
While methane releases CO2, it still decreases our reliance on foreign oil sources. I think de-funding terrorism is higher on most Americans to-do lists than stopping Global Warming. You can argue whether these priorities are out of wack, but I'm sure this is the way most will see it.
I personally think we Should drill for oil in Alaska as well as pursuing these other cleaner sources of energy. Failing to do so will only result in more reliance on Coal and even worse ecological damage as we rip up the Earth for Tar Sand and Oil Shale. Oil is a passing fad. We will have fusion someday, but for now we have little choice but to use what is at hand. This isn't to say conservation is not good also, just that some conservation measures fail the unintended consequences test. The DOE has an over 20 billion dollar year budget, the world barely can scrape together 15 billion over a 10 or 15 year time span for ITER. If we through 5 billion a year at it, I bet we'd have commercial fusion up and running in under 10.
Letter To Iran
Remember the old ice bullets? Just imagine tanks firing flaming snowballs! They might not do much damage but they're likely to scare the hell out of the enemy. Just dress our troops in red suits with horns and they'd think they were fighting the devil himself with a legion of demons.
If it's at Milne Point, why don't we just ask Eeyore?
-- Jim Crigler In 1937, I began, like Lazarus, the impossible return. -- Whittaker Chambers
Well, we definatly want to slow global warming in order to stop the hot ice from melting. So sure, there will be ice huggers but probably in a different sence.
Those three words come up in searches revealing some interesting, if not bizarre porn...
"burning ice" is absolutely NOT a renewable energy source. one should not even mention these words in the same context.
to the day when we tell the Arabs to take their oil and shove it.
No. Only releasing CO2 that has been locked out of the ecosystem for an extended period of time affects climate change. All the rest is already factored into the system, and simple cycles around between plants and animals.
That's the standard line from the pro-oil PR companies, yes. But it's absurd. The CO2 already in the ecosystem, as I pointed out above, is not contributing to climate change. It's in balance already. The old 'cows farting' line is quite warn out, and completely discredited. Only *new* sources of CO2, such as those locked up in fossil fuels, and which therefore add substantially to the atmosphere when burned, contribute to climate change.
This is a key point that people unsure on climate change are being fooled by. It shows a fundamental lack of understanding of the relationship between plants, animals and CO2.
How long before the US invades canada?
Seriously, they have vast oil feilds trapped in sand, huge oldgrowth forests, and now tons of methane traped in glacial ice. Our friendly neighbor to the north might want to start reinforcing its boarders. Im not advocating the invasion.
Im simply warning its becoming inevitable, at this rate.
That's not really true. We have had climate change in the past, but not this fast. We're seeing changes that would have taken tens of thousands of years in previous changes take tens of years instead. And that's because we're digging up billions of tons of CO2 and pumping it into the atmosphere. No-one's done that before. Things haven't happened this fast before. Even the conservative reports are saying that in 10 year's time, we'll have hundreds of millions of environmental refugees because of changed rain patterns, not to mention other people's land simply being under water.
someone notify david bowie...
On a side issue, you actually can have cold steam. You just have to give the water particles enough energy to go from a liquid state to a gaseous state. This energy need not be heat energy and can easily be kinetic energy - the mechanism that's used by the vapuorisers you can easily buy at the pharmacy.
CO2 is not pollution, it's incredible aerial fertilizer!
(I am only half kidding)
You know what my secret is? Hot Ice. Hot Ice? You HEAT up the ICE CUBES! It's the best of both worlds!
When you take energy that has been stored for millions of years (such as oil or methane in the ground) and burn it, you are releasing its energy (which has been out of circulation for a while) as heat into the atmosphere. Do some calculations and see that since we started burning oil, we've unleashed a disturbing amount of energy into the atmosphere - enough to cause some global warming on its own without even considering the greenhouse effect.
It's like printing an enormous amount of new currency. Sure, you can spend it, but there are consequences to releasing that much new currency into the economy.
scientist 1 "our ice is melting! ON NOES!"
scientist 2 "hey i've got an idea let's mine ice and burn it"
guinness guys "BRILLIANT!"
So now instead of burning fuel which causes global warming and in turn melts the ice, we'll have cleaner fuel which doesn't melt the ice, and all we have to do is melt the ice to get it!
I love it when a plan comes together.
No no no. You got it all wrong. You slowly warm the ice cubes in an alcohol solution. I'm going to begin some preliminary experimentation this evening with an eye towards large scale experiments this weekend. I'll let you know how it goes.
And could someone please explain whatever this has to do with renewable energy? It's really just another source of non-renewable energy
--
That's really the part about climate change I don't understand: "We're seeing changes that would have taken tens of thousands of years in previous changes take tens of years instead." My understanding, at least, is that reliable weather data on a tens of years scale is only available for the last several hundred years.
Long term trends can exhibit high variability (above and below the trend) in the short term. We know in the past that over its history the earth cooled and warmed cyclically; we know the "larger trends" such as Ice Ages, Interglacials, &c. But what do we know about the short term variation around those trends.
My guess is it's close to little if anything.
But I don't know. If someone wants to comment on this particular topic I'd be appreciative.
Because it tends to selectively absorb in the wavelength range that reflected IR from the earth's surface is in. Energy comes in, bounces up ... and bounces right back down. Ergo, "greenhouse".
So um from your stop the war site,(http://www.stopwarcoalition.org/about.php) just exactly what does "Justice for Palestine " look like, and what the $%@$%# does it have to do with invading Iraq for oil?
m
Is it anything like what Muslims around the world call for daily?
("The Hour [Resurrection] will not take place until the Muslims fight the Jews, and kill them. And the Jews will hide behind the rock and tree, and the rock and tree will say: 'O Muslim, O servant of Allah, there is a Jew behind me, come and kill him!'")
43. Sahih Muslim, vol. 4, pp. 2238-2239; Sahih Bukhari, vol. 3, p. 1070, no. 276, and p. 1316, no. 3398; Sahih Ibn Hibban, vol. 15, p. 217, no. 6806, and others.
If it is the the total destruction and removal of a race, and total religious and political domination by Islam through a violent and bloody war. I would say that your views don't match what you are saying, and you are supporting the most extreme and oppressive ideology that has ever crossed our planets surface.
Either you are Dhimmi, or practicing Taqiyya. http://www.jcpa.org/phas/phas-marcus-crook-f05.ht
There are a number of ways of tracking historical temperature and CO2 levels. One leading way is by drilling into ice ( ironically ) to extract 'cores' that can be sliced up an analysed. The ice traps a number of indicators of environmental variables, in much the same was as the fossil record is created, and new layers are added to the top each year. Analysis of radioactive isotopes present in organic matter gives us an incredibly precise indicator of the date that something was initially frozen. These combine with CO2 levels trapped in the ice and other indicators that allow scientists to build a precise map of conditions over an extremely long term.
So basically, yes we do have accurate data about long-term climate change activity, and the most striking difference that we're seeing now is that the temperature and CO2 levels have always moved together, but never moved this fast.
For more info, and from a decidedly conservative source, the Stern Report ( Stern is an old World Bank Chief Economist, so you don't get much more conservative / establishment than him ) is very eye-opening. He drives the point home very strongly that:
a) Climate change is happening rapidly
b) Our CO2-producing activity is the main driving force behind it
c) Already it will have massive costs monetary and human costs
d) The best plan is to invest massively in a phased shut-down of all CO2 producing activities, to minimize future costs
There are other reports due out soon, including a multi-phased UN report which is coming in the next month or so.
Forgot to comment on this one.
Cheney is a big oil trader, in the same vain as Bush. I hardly think it's off-topic to communicate to other link-minded people that he's coming to Australia, and that there's a demo on today, considering we're talking about fossil fuels, renewable resources, and all. Just because you don't personally agree that burning fossil fuels is wrong, doesn't mean that I shouldn't let others on the left know about what's going to be a great day of activity against one of the most oiled-up neo-cons around
Those Arabs will give us the flag-burning of a lifetime if we ever fuck with them. I bet you didn't think of that, did you?
it's natural gas idiot - it's as clean burning as it gets.
Even cleaner than a pure H2/O2 mix? Didn't think so.
Burning methane produces CO2, which is a greenhouse gas. It is not clean-burning in that sense.
It's official. Most of you are morons.
Cold steam would be sublime.
Or you can just decrease the pressure. I remember seeing a demonstration once where water was placed in a beaker that was sealed at a near-vacuum. Even whenever submerged in liquid nitrogen, the water was still boiling and steaming.
sorry i should have clarified there - it's as clean burning fuel as you can get. the supply chain and plants for processing it are all in place so for any real world comparision, it's the cleanest fuel we have - h2/o2 aren't atually used by anything yet, although i'm all for cleaner fuels i'm a realist and hydrogen isn't viable just yet.
If you mod me down, I will become more powerful than you can imagine....
No, idiot. It's as dirty as it gets. It releases CO2. You didn't do well at comprehension at school, did you? Well, "clean burning" generally refers to having low amount of sulfur and nitrogen oxide products as a result. Nitrogen and sulfur oxides are smog and acid rain respectively. Methane is pretty good about not producing much of either. You didn't do well in chemistry at school, did you?
09 F9 11 02 9D 74 E3 5B D8 41 56 C5 63 56 88 C0 is the magic number.
I doubt these particular taxis would be permitted on American roads,
better not tell these people, or these people these people.
Many states have a tax credit for companies that convert a certain percentage of their fleet to CNG. The tanks used are usually rated for enough higher pressure than is ever put into them that they can take a reasonable amount of crushing without rupturing. And for pointy stabbing, they are small enough to discharge before getting hot enough to explode, and that's assuming it encounters a strong spark on its very fast journey upwards, which is unlikely.
- Disclaimer: Information in this post deemed reliable but not guaranteed.
Easy.
Stop paying taxes to the Bush admin.
~
Sigh.
/. whose author or editor does not feel it necessary to include outright falsehoods.
It would be nice to see a science article linked on
Clathrates have been known about for a long time. Extracting them economically is an interesting interim move to extend the natural gas supply. Here's a nice summary of the potential and problems with this fossil-fuel energy source, in which the authors somehow manage to convey information and not wilfully and deliberately mislead their readers.
Blasphemy is a human right. Blasphemophobia kills.
Vandan, first I appreciate your response. The debate/discussion surrounding climate change is currently too uncivilized for truth to associate herself. I am a layman, economist by trade, geek by choice; that said: This drives directly to my question. I can see, patently, that good data exists about the long term trends. Long term cycles and trends can and do, though not always, exhibit short term variation. Separating the two is in fact one of the great challenges for economists in analyzing data. Economists, though, generally deal with much more recent and sufficient data. Lucky us. Interpreting the past is hard be it history, economics, or (in my estimation) climate science because the data is generally insufficient; we only have a certain number of data points within our set; we cannot directly observe the events in question; we rely upon what is left to us in books, writing, ruins, and yes ice cores. Is that sufficient data to make projections such as the Stern, IPCC, and other such reports? Climate change is happening, has been happening, and appears likely to happen again (if the data I'm familiar with and my interpretation is correct). How accurately can we separate man's impact, if any, from natural variation (assuming we know something about the natural short-term variation, if any)? I'm in a confused climate about the whole thing. I can only follow the science so far before the bounds of my own knowledge take hold.
Good question. It means the right to their own land, for one thing. It means a dismantling of the terrorist, fundamentalist state of Israel and replacing it with an inclusive, secular state ( which Palestine was prior to 1947 ). It means the right of return for all Palestinian refugees - something which the Israelis have always argued Jews should have, regardless of whether they've ever actually lived there before.
As for what it has to do with oil, it's simple. Israel is funded and supported by the US to keep their watchdog in the area. If you remove the US's ability to grab oil in the Middle East, suddenly Israel becomes nothing more than a horrible liability. Once US support is removed from Israel, it will collapse, and Palestinians will be able to move forward to a just single-state solution.
Your quote from God-knows-where lacks any real connection to the issue. You are trying to point out that there are some Muslim extremists. I don't deny that. But I do point out that it is our policies which are creating these extremists, and that we also have our share of extremists. The fundamentalist Jewish position ( Zionist ) is equally as harsh against others and humanity as your quote suggests of Muslim extremists.
Israel was founded on just such principles. The dominant Palestinian position has been far more moderate, even to this day. Keep in mind that Israel carried out mass genocide against the Palestinians, and treat them as aliens in their own land. 50 years of this kind of treatment will of course create a lot of people who are angry, to say the least, with their occupiers. But it is a lie to suggest that the Palestinians want the 'total destruction and removal of a race'. What they want, and what they voted for when electing Hamas, is the total destruction of the state of Israel, which is a different thing to the destruction of a race. The racist fundamentalist state must go. The Jews who want to remain in the area can do so, but under a secular Palestinian state.
The Israelis and the US, however, are not interested in a single-state solution, but instead push for a so-called 2-state solution, which in practice has meant continual erosion of traditional Palestinian land, continual escalation of violence, continual increasing in illegal 'settlements' in Palestine, an Appartheid wall that cuts up Palestine into tiny, inaccessible islands in a sea of Israeli occupation, trade barriers, etc, etc, etc. This 2-state solution has been tried for many years under Arafat, and as failed. This is why Hamas has come to power - because Palestinians understand that there simply can be no dealing with Israel - that they will continue to erode Palestine until it doesn't exist.
In many ways the actual cause of climate change is a moot point. The climate is changing. This is having adverse effects on the world now, and is going to have truly horrific effects on the world in the future. Let's assume that humanity is not the cause. Nonetheless it seems like reducing carbon emissions will help to reduce the global temperature. Why don't we give it a shot? It seems like trying something would be better than sitting on our hands.
Pretty much every report I've come across that considers the issue says that the projected costs of climate change on the economies of major western nations (eg. Australia, the US, Europe) is far greater than the cost of drastically reducing carbon emissions. Seems like it might be a good idea to take a mild risk rather than wait till you're certain that climate change is happening but the sea is lapping around your ankles.
I think it's more like this: http://www.chattem.com/products/icy.asp
Again, read the conservative, establishment reports, keeping in mind they come through establishment filters. The facts are getting to the point where even long-term critics are having to make major concessions. For example here in Australia, Howard has been forced in the past year to switch from being a self-confessed 'climate change skeptic' to admitting that climate change is happening and that human activity is the main driving force behind it. Separating man's impact is as easy as graphing the rate of change of temperature during previous climate change periods ( ie previous tipping points when we entered / exited ice ages ), and comparing them to now. That's the basis of all the recent reports that state that human activity is to blame for rapidly increasing temperatures and melting ice caps.
... HOWEVER ... they won't do anything that will 'harm the economy'. This comes from Bush, Blair and Howard regularly. They say "If we reduce our carbon emissions and others don't ( eg China ), then we pay the price is economic prosperity while China continues to burn all the carbon that we would have burned )". This is a powerful argument. One point to make is that it is basically conceding that there *is* climate change. This is good. But then it attempts to pass the buck and prevent anyone from doing anything about it, for fear of losing trade. The answer to this is that a global strategy for dealing with climate change / CO2 emissions is needed.
The neo-conservatives have all but abandoned arguing against the scientific consensus. There are still the energy companies who are clinging to this strategy, but it is really a lost cause for them now. What the neo-conservatives are now arguing is that climate change ( as in abnormally fast, human-driven climate change ) is real and something needs to be done about it
It all depends on your focus. From the point of view of acid rain and other pollutants, sure, natural gas is 'clean' in that respect. But that's not where all the focus is recently. The focus is on CO2, and in that respect, natural gas is not 'clean'; it's a greenhouse gas.
This energy need not be heat energy and can easily be kinetic energy - the mechanism that's used by the vapuorisers you can easily buy at the pharmacy.
Ah, but "heat" is just the name we give to kinetic energy where we've neglected to keep track of the particles' *directions* of movement and just have a good idea of their average *speeds*. It's really just a question of the scale at which you can afford to keep track of velocities accurately.
isnt that like... water??
most comes from termites. Although it sucks when they eat your house(hint, good gutters, dry foundation and at least two cinder blocks high off the ground to stop that), they are some of the most beneficial critters out there. We'd be brontosaurus ass deep in chunks of wood all over without them. And there's some good research out there now trying to see how we can use what they use to "digest" wood to make endless supplies of good liquid fuel for transportation, and NOT have to use food crops.
The poor are slammed for "being lazy" when in reality economics dicatates that there will be many poor for every one rich person, and the rich still refuse to establish an acceptable floor to how low the poor can go.
Everything that ends up in legislation is bribed there, including provisions which wind up killing people by making pills for deadly diseases too expensive.
We still go to war, we still take every opportunity to ruthlessly stamp out dissent and competition..
The only thing that makes our world different from the world 500 years ago is brutal murders are now institutionalized rather than random.
VLC FOR MAC IS DYING! IF YOU DEVELOP, PLEASE SAVE IT!!
The same goes for the carbon in the methane. For these reasons it is not correct to suggest (as the posting does) that this is a renewable energy source. The CO2 and H2O released by burning the gas doesn't just automatically return to where it came from.
Okay, what other power source do you advocate?
Hydro: Not feasible for most of the world, also ecologically disastrous due to destruction of wetlands.
Wind: Not feasible for most of the world, expensive to maintain.
Solar: Not yet feasible for most of the world, unpredictable energy output, initially expensive, solar panel efficiency is getting better though.
Nuclear (fusion): Still at least a decade from being able to actually produce energy.
Nuclear (fission): Probably the cleanest method of electricity generation. Cleanup from accidents and disposal of waste is a bitch. Subject to NIMBY syndrome.
Geothermal: Might work for the VERY few places which could use it.
Coal: Even dirtier than natural gas, less efficient and more, NOx/SOx.
Biomass: Carbon neutral if you have a good method of rapid biomass production. Doesn't cut it on its own for power production yet. Algae farming may change that in a few years.
Methane: Rather efficient combustion (more so than biomass or coal), relatively low production of nitrogen and sulfur oxides.
The "hydrogen economy" is a good idea, but any method of large scale H2 production requires energy from one of the above sources.
09 F9 11 02 9D 74 E3 5B D8 41 56 C5 63 56 88 C0 is the magic number.
FTFA
BP says it new this form of methane was under the tundra all along.
Sean Doogan the author of this article is certaintly qualified to be a Slash editor...
I advocate an immediate end to the oil wars, US funding of global terrorism ... in particular Israel, and a diversion of all war spending to renewable technology research. You are generally correct when you say that each individual renewable technology won't provide a magic bullet solution. But the reason they can't provide now is that there's no money going into R&D. It doesn't make any sense for the energy companies to invest in it, because they'd be throwing their own money into a technology that they can't profit from. They'd prefer to 'claim' and then drill oil, coal, uranium, etc, which they can process and sell back to us. They can't follow the same methods with renewable technology, as it's far more decentralised, and lends itself far more to community-based production and distribution, as opposed to centralised production and distribution.
The same reasons also apply to governments, who are in the pockets of big energy companies.
But the trillion dollars that Bush is asking for from congress for the next 12 months, for example, could instead be spent on renewable R&D. The point is that no-one is going to do this for us. The only way we can get enough R&D money organised is via a sustained campaign targetted at our politicians, forcing them to spend public money on public R&D. Individuals are largely powerless to affect the situation, and the path of least resistance is to burn all the oil, then burn all the natural gas, then split all the uranium, etc, etc, with no concern for the environment impact.
So you're right. No one single technology will save us. But massive public R&D in multiple directions in renewable technology is the way we have to push forward.
How do you cleanly make H2?
Electrolysis requires a hell of a lot of electricity.
Zn/HCl is acceptable for extremely small quantities of H2, not for any sort of medium/large scale.
Steam reforming requires CH4, high temperatures (lots of electricity), catalysts, and separation of the products (1CO2 and 4H2 as products from CH4 and 2H2O)
Chlor-alkali requires a lot of heat (again from electricity), and mercury catalysts.
Thermochemical hydrolysis requires heat (from electricity) and FeCl2 in non-catalytic amounts.
Generation of H2 requires a lot of electricity or heat at some point. It is pretty damn inefficient. The whole "hydrogen economy" which Bush proposed a few years back was honestly little more than an attempt to get more nuclear plants built, since it is the cleanest way of generating the power to make H2. Frankly, methane is one of the cleaner ways to feasibly generate energy right now. It may make some CO2, but it can be used almost anywhere, and is cleaner than oil or coal.
09 F9 11 02 9D 74 E3 5B D8 41 56 C5 63 56 88 C0 is the magic number.
Am I the only one that saw "hot ice" and thought "ice-nine"? .... ah-whoom.
Portable versions of Firefox, GIMP, LibreOffice, etc
We really need to take some of our melting ice caps and burn them so we can melt more of our ice caps away.
Currently hooked on AMP
I made a lightbulb joke then complemented the poster?!? Mod the grandparent up!
so...Allesus! what huge fucking waste of money and time! i thought we were supposed to be looking for RENEWABLE energy sources! how is natural gas trapped in ice millions of years ago any better than oil formed millions of years ago?
Yeah.... I remember back in the early 90's, I took a telemarketing job for "Stanley Steemer Carpet Cleaners", and was surprised to find they were in the process of converting a number of their vans to run on natural gas. The biggest issue I recall they had was much less mileage per fill-up, and a gas pressure gauge that wasn't very linear. (Drivers complained that when the natural gas level started getting low, the gauge wouldn't accurately reflect it. It would suddenly drop to near empty and they would sometimes get stranded, needing a tow back to a station they could fill back up at.)
Hopefully those issues were all worked out over the years though....
Twice in one day I've answered myself. Do I hear and echo? I forgot to mention an application in desalination. See this patent: http://www.freepatentsonline.com/5553456.html
It's totally renewable. All you have to do is establish a lot of "polar bear" clubs all along the shores of the world's oceans, and convince people that farting in ice-cold water with the group is more fun and socially redeeming than farting in their nice warm hot-tub or bath, back home.
In fact, if we could convince a couple billion people and the same number of horses and cattle to start doing that now, we could completely sponge up the excess CO2 in the environment today.
What is more - we just changed some gun laws yesterday so his team can carry them - lookout! - Cheney's got a gun!
before 1947 this region was "secular" because it was a British mandate. While there are secular arabic regimes, they are not democracies and its clear that any future palästinian state will neither be a democracy nor secular.
The "dominant Palästinian position" is not moderate especially not farer moderate. The PLO charta from the 60s calls for removal off all the Jews from this area that came after the 20s, ditto Hamas.
A single state solution will turn into a bloodbath because of extremissts on both sides.
makes CO2 (greenhouse gas) - if you want to burn it you need to find a way to sequester the carbon
Burning and converting methane into CO2 is much cleaner than allowing methane to be emitted into the atmostphere. Methane is more than 20 tymes more potent then co2 as a greenhouse gas.
FalconShould there be a Law?
While methane releases CO2, it still decreases our reliance on foreign oil sources. I think de-funding terrorism is higher on most Americans to-do lists than stopping Global Warming. You can argue whether these priorities are out of wack, but I'm sure this is the way most will see it.
However that overlooks the fact that many care about global warming and some of them may feel justified in becoming a freedom fighter/terrorist striking against the US because it is the major emitter of greenhouse gases. Could Tuvalans feel justified for a terrorist attack against the US because they will loose not just their home but their country when global warming causes the ocean to raise thus submerging Tuvalu?
FalconShould there be a Law?
Your comment seems to only address CO2, which even if CO2 was the worse part of "cow farts" as you put it, your comment does not take into account that the number of livestock likely is increasing, while our rainforests and other "CO2 eaters" are decreasing.
However.. "Manure management" is one of the key sources of methane emissions ( http://www.epa.gov/methane/sources.html ). Methane is one of those greenhouse gases that people tend to attribute to such things as.. I dont know.. global warming...
So yeah.. Manure == bad... and things such as livestock DO have a measurable affect on the amount of NEW greenhouse gases released into the atmosphere.
Actually, the same argument that can be made for fossil fuels and global warming can be made here: it's carbon that was statically trapped that will now be released into the atmo.
110100 1101000 1101000 1100110 0 1101111 1101000 1100011 1
Or you can just decrease the pressure. I remember seeing a demonstration once where water was placed in a beaker that was sealed at a near-vacuum. Even whenever submerged in liquid nitrogen, the water was still boiling and steaming.
You can't have liquid water at liquid nitrogen temperatures. The coldest you can possibly have liquid water is about 250K at 200MPa.
http://www.lsbu.ac.uk/water/phase.html
Tim.
God said, "div D = rho, div B = 0, curl E = -@B/@t, curl H = J + @D/@t," and there was light.
The British don't have it in their power to 'make' anything secular. Look at the problems they had with their occupation of Ireland. Palestine was secular. Period. Israel changed all that. The PLO and Hamas wish to be rid of all the Israeli occupiers is an understandable position considering what they've had to endure. But still, a majority of Palestinians just want to live in their own country in peace. They would be more than willing to accept a single-state solution, even if it meant that some of the occupiers stay around to clean up the mess they've made.
As for this single-state solution turning into a blood bath, you're missing an important point. It HAS BEEN a blood bath since the illegal creation of Israel. A collapse of US support for Israel would surely cause an initial increase in violence, but then it would subside as a more stable solution materialised. No-one who defends Israel ( or US foreign policy ) is in any position to be lecturing others on decreasing violence! And unfortunately, when you have a situation as dire as the Palestinians, a violence is going to be part of the re-organisation. At least it will tend toward a just solution, which a 2-state solution never will be. Israel, as an illegitimate, fundamentalist, racist, fascist state, must be destroyed, and a secular Palestinian state should replace it. Crying foul over violence against the poor Israelis just doesn't cut it.
No I didn't mention that, but I don't deny it either. I agree that we should stop cutting down trees to graise animals for food. It's incredibly inefficient, and not sustainable on a global scale. You're right there.
That's where you're going off course
Methane is comprised of carbon that has just recently been captured by plants, which were then eaten by an animal, which produced methane. There is NO net increase in carbon. It's just cycling around the ecosystem. It would only increase CO2 levels if animals ate coal or oil and turned that into methane. But good old methane from animals is just part of the existing balance. It's all about where the carbon came from .
They say "we can't change the huge planet. We're too small and insignificant". But if we change the retention of the solar radiation one tenth of a percent, we're adding a lot of energy to the system.
True, we could give the planets' surface a good rub down as hard as we like and we're never going to raise the temperature of the earth to any measureable degree. But we don't have to. Just syphon off a small part of the sun's influence.
It doesn't matter if the number of carbon atoms in the system is the same. The point is that the carbon has changed form - as methane it is a far worse greenhouse gas than CO2 would be.
Its necessary for all life on earth,
What part of "trace amounts" don't you understand ?
BTW, methane is FAR FAR greater a greenhouse gas than CO2.
Methan that's trapped in solid form under the ocean isn't a gas at all. What part of "gas" don't you understand ?
I breath CO2 all the time, doesn't seem to hurt me.
Do the world a favor and breathe a 10% CO2, 20% O2 and 70% N2 mix for ten minutes. The other six billion people will thank you for your heroic effort.
Fargin' iceholes
- Sunk costs
- Technological momentum
If you invest a lot of money to capture methane from clathrates, you are going to want to continue to use methane regardless of the consequences (look at our situation WRT coal and oil if you have any doubts!). Technological momentum is the tendency of actively-used technologies to get the most R&D, engineering improvements and cost reductions with manufacturing experience. If you need the non-carbon alternatives but you haven't been producing or using them, they are going to be much worse off due to greater cost, worse reliability, etc.There's no reason not to use non-carbon alternatives even if GW is a fiction. Generally, they are cleaner and otherwise more desirable than historical practice. This is why we should be driving them hard regardless.
Sustainability and energy independence essay
Which in turn brings us to an invisible tin hat. Nice!
Clathrates protect us from "Iceball Earth" scenarios. Clathrates structures are more pressure sensitive then temperature sensitive. When water is deposited on land as glaciers during an ice age, sea levels fall. This destabilizes millions of years of Clathrate deposits and helps to flip the climate back into a warm cycle. At least there is a strong possibility of this.
Simply Put: Clathrates in melting permafrost contribute to global warming immensely. But Clatrates underwater protect us from death by permanent ice age. So it is quite possible that if we do find a way to harness this energy, then it's a real devils bargain we're getting into.
Man, we had enough problems with global warming. Now we're going to help it along by burning all the ice. This will lead to a lot of H2O in the atmosphere (H2O is the leading greenhouse gas). We need to stop this before we all die!
Sam McGee?
Probably came from moss or algae. Any biomass will decompose if left buried. Methane is one of several gasses released. Microbes do a lot of that work It'll happen anyway, but Microbes accelerate the process. Methane is just one of thier waste products. Here it got trapped in the ice. Doesn't have to be from bioligical origins either. Anything with carbon and hydrogen but no oxygen will release methane if you wait long enough. Also the area is not near old enough to be from dinosaurs. This was only 25 ft below the surface, bottom of the permafrost layer. Probably laid down after the last Ice Age. May not even be old enough for mammoths. Be nice to ask a real geologist.
Everybody knows 3 people with my name.
Methane is not stable. It combines with things quite quickly. Sure, it's a worse greenhouse gas, but it's only around for a short time anyway.
I'm not too concerned about Cheney's aim :)
But the police this morning were unbelievable. We were outnumbered probably 50 to 1. We were standing around looking at each other, talking, etc. I was being interviewed by a reporter. Then 2 lines of police went around the back of us. Everybody watched, thinking, "OK. Why are we being surrounded?". Then about 10 police attacked 2 girls ( one of them 16 years old ). They pushed them to the ground, then started beating them up. We of course tried to pull them off, but then we got kicked in the back by other police. When it was over, an ambulance carried the 2 girls away. It was completely unprovoked. As a socialist, I can't say I'm particularly surprised. Saddened though.