Slashdot Mirror
'Exploding Lake' Provides Electricity For Rwanda
reillymj writes "There are three known 'exploding lakes' in the world, where volcanic gases build up near the lake bottom until they suddenly fizz over, suffocating people with huge amounts of carbon dioxide. But the lakes also hold methane and one of them, Rwanda's Lake Kivu, is being actively tapped as a source of natural gas to fuel a power plant on the lake's shore. The government hopes that within two years, the plant will be covering a third of the country's needs. By siphoning off the gas, engineers simultaneously defuse a ticking time bomb in the lake and provide power to local communities."
This is why we have science. Good stuff all around, assuming it doesn't get corrupted.
Here in the State's they do the same thing with Taco Bell toilets.
I don't know about you, but I think this is hugely awesome!
It also reminds me of a Stargate Atlantis episode.. I hope it goes better for the Rwandans.
First, because the carbon was already really in the environment, second, because the methane is a much worse greenhouse gas if released unburned?
I have been advocating this position since I first learned about the exploding lakes from the science channel in 8th grade! I am very glad someone finally got around to doing it. If only there was something they could do to stop the carbon dioxide eruptions.
Where is the mod rating for "scary"? Also,
When the water is brought up in a pipe to syphon out the dissolved CO2, you only need a small initial "push" - afterwards the bubbling of gas forces the flow / gives you a fountain. Why waste it? Seems like an ideal opportunity for small, simple turbine solutions...
One that hath name thou can not otter
... but won't burning methane for energy contribute to global warming?
Negative. It would be released anyway and methane is a worse greenhouse gas than the CO2 from burning it.
I am not in anyway affiliated with Max Cannon
It would be released at some point anyway (methane and also dissolved CO2), but in a much less controllable, much less pleasant way (lake Kivu is mentioned). By siphoning it out gradually, you can not only deal with the danger, but also get some useful energy as a bonus.
Also, methane is a much more potent greenhouse gas than CO2, so burning it prior to release actually lessens overall impact.
One that hath name thou can not otter
Where are the Brits, when you need them? They should be the world experts with this technology: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Johnny_Fartpants
Schroedinger's Brexit: The UK is both in and out of the EU at the same time!
quote 1;
The world's only two other known "exploding lakes", Monoun and Nyos, both in Cameroon, overturned in the 1980s. The clouds of carbon dioxide that burst through from the deep water left about 1,800 people dead from asphyxiation. But Lake Kivu is nearly 2,000 times larger than Lake Nyos, and is in a far more densely populated area. Cindy Ebinger, a professor of earth sciences at the University of Rochester in the US, who co-authored a study earlier this year that described Kivu as possibly "one of the most dangerous lakes in the world", said: "You don't even want to think about the scale of the devastation that could occur."
quote 2;
To harvest the methane, heavy water is sucked up through a pipe to the barge, where the liquid and gases are separated. The gas then enters a "scrubber" that separates the methane and carbon dioxide. Ebinger said reducing the overall concentration of gas in the water was a positive move, but warned that more studies were urgently needed to assess the potential environmental impact, especially relating to the unused water and carbon dioxide pumped back into Lake Kivu from the barges.
quote 3;
"With so many projects, if you don't understand everything, you can solve one problem and create three more," she said.
quote 4;
Regardless, Rwanda is proceeding at great speed".
Erm, is it just me or is there a lengthy "whatcouldpossiblygowrong" in there, Mrs. Ebinger?
"Kill 'em all and let Root sort 'em out"
Wrong. Of course it will contribute to global climate change..just not as such as it would otherwise.
The Kruger Dunning explains most post on
What are the possibilities of turning a somewhat "normal" lake (probably near enough to a volcano) into an exploding one? Politicians could even use the "think on the children" wildcard to justify that, if is somewhat possible with not so high investment.
Wrong, it's a net negative, the contribution has already been made, this would reduce it by the difference. And probably even more as you can always trap the CO2 and use it for soda instead of generating C02 for that purpose.
engineers simultaneously defuse a fucking time bomb
?
Yeah. Would you choose a neurosurgeon who pokes around people's brains in his spare time? I wouldn't.
What struck me in TFA was the scale of the project. 3.6 MW will provide 4% of the whole country's electricity needs.
To put it into perspective, the largest power plant in the world, Itaipu dam, has a 14000 MW capacity.
The second thing you said contradicts the first thing, because it would be meaningless to consider them without their mutual context. The question can only be understood as a comparison of the two outcomes.
Those thinking about long-term recovery, know the environment will be a big winner in the conversion to biofuels & biopower -- a cool site; Balkingpoints ; incredible satellite view of earth
FWIW:
Methane,
H
H C H
H
Carbon dioxide
O=C=O
The energy necessary to sever 2Oxygen from Carbon is orders of magnitude greater than breaking Methane into 4H2-O + C-O2
Add
O=Ta=O
And you end up with a reduction in the form of
H-O-T-C-O-C-O-A
a delicious, and more useful compound, although possibly not in much demand in Rwanda.
Need more Vespene Gas.
The third thing you said contradicts the first and second things, but only if the second thing is derived from the first thing, because it is meaningless to extrapolate the outcomes without the statistical evidence to prove the contextual comparison. Wait what am I saying?
What struck me in TFA was the scale of the project. 3.6 MW will provide 4% of the whole country's electricity needs.
Except it doesn't say that. TFA says that it supplies "more than 4% of the country's entire supply" not it's needs. Currently only "one in 14 homes have access to electricity". Demand will rise to drive electrical needs higher.
To put it into perspective, the largest power plant in the world, Itaipu dam, has a 14000 MW capacity.
Again wrong. Three Gorges Dam in China is the "world's largest electricity-generating plant of any kind." The "electric generating capacity of the dam will eventually reach 22.5 GW."
Falcon
Should there be a Law?
The party to the third part, in reference to the third party's part in the second part, which in part parts with the whole of the first part but not the second part, involves only the first party's involvement with the second and third parts, which are parts of an overarching first part that may partly be to blame for part or the whole of the issue at hand, the first part.
I don't post AC. I like my -1, Flamebaits. Trump/Sheen 2012 on the Batshit Insane ticket!
Smoooooooooke on the waaaaaterrrr....
And fire in the sky-ay...
I don't post AC. I like my -1, Flamebaits. Trump/Sheen 2012 on the Batshit Insane ticket!
Thanks for the link. Interesting article.
I think that I figured out a possible problem with the moderation system.
Perhaps moderators from different countries are moderating "us". That particular comment wasn't negative, controversial, or political. It is quite a ways down the page. It has a very positive tone. I can only assume that somebody from a foreign country looked at the 2 words, "grease" and "traps", and saw negative connotations. I tutor ESL, and try to learn languages, so I am keenly aware that we can't put 2 words together and then automatically get a correct interpretation of the resulting phrase. Also, many cultures don't use "the", so they might try to use it in English, but not understand the potential meaning. The last potential problem is that the moderator might have the URL thingy turned off: "[biodieselnow.com]". If we don't see that, then we might assume that the link might be goatse, without checking. We could easily check, but still... ;^P
So, in short, perhaps the moderator thought that "grease" = "greasy", which might produce, "You're close - in the States, we actually generate power off of the Taco Bell, which has greasy traps ...".
I'm not letting the moderator off of the hook. Rather, I'm trying to get a clearer understanding of this strange moderation problem that we have.
testing out my trending skills
How do people generate it for soda?
testing out my trending skills
It doesn't help trying to compare TWh and TW as we have no clue how many hours the things are running for.
Hydro is perfect for covering peaks because it comes up to full capacity within minutes instead of the hours required to start up with coal/oil or nuclear, so it is very likely that not all of those hydro units are not running all of the time.
3BR, 2BA brick house in great neighborhood, large porches and patios, 1 acre fenced yard with pool, conveniently located near schools, bus lines, restaurants, lake that occasionally explodes and kills everyone, city parks. New carpet! $175,000.
This sentence no verb.
CO2 is not dangerous at all if breathed in so I'm not sure what you're implying there.
It is dangerous in high enough concentations. I believe that the OSHA limit for 8-hr average exposure is 5,000 ppm and it is considered acutely toxic at levels above 4% or so.
Put that way everything is dangerous in high enough concentrations. Methane will cause asphyxiation in lower concentrations than CO2 will. For that matter carbon monoxide, CO, is more dangerous than carbon dioxide, ask NASCAR drivers.
Falcon
Should there be a Law?
Hydro is perfect for covering peaks because it comes up to full capacity within minutes instead of the hours required to start up with coal/oil or nuclear, so it is very likely that not all of those hydro units are not running all of the time.
Natural gas also is good for peak generation, for the same reason, electrical generation in natural gas power plants can be quickly ramped up if not already at full production.
Falcon
Should there be a Law?