China Plans To Mine the Yellow Sea Floor

eldavojohn writes "Details are limited but state media is reporting on $75 million being put into a new research facility in Qingdao, Shandong Province that will conduct research into mining the sea floor. From the article: 'Scientists believe sea beds at a depth of 4,000 to 6,000 meters hold abundant deposits of rare metals and methane hydrate, a solidified form of natural gas bound into ice that can serve as a new energy source.' The research center's first goal is to do surveying and exploration with a new submersible named 'Jiaolong' (a mythical aquatic Chinese dragon). Hopefully these quests yield energy resources to meet growing demand for resources like liquefied coal in China."

Comments

What could possibly go wrong

[kge]

Releasing even more of one of the most effective greenhouse gasses (methane)..

Re:What could possibly go wrong

[geogob]

In the series "what could possibly go wrong", long before greenhouse gases, I'll worry about the people behind these operations. China sending people into the deep of the ocean for mining operations; considering how "stable" and "safe" surface mining operations are in China, I can only ask myself this question: "what could possibly go wrong"? And the answers comes naturally: Possibly a lot...

Re:What could possibly go wrong

[the eric conspiracy]

Look at it this way - sending a lot of people into the ocean to recover resources will solve two problems - too many people and not enough resources.

Unfortunately, this is what we do

[Anonymous Coward]

Anyone who is serious understands we can't keep gobbling up resources the way the West has been since WWII. Yet no one stops to think that moving to the suburbs and having kids is a huge contributor to the demand for resources.
The only good thing is that things will start getting more and more expensive as oil gets harder and harder to get, and therefore anything that depends on cheap energy (everything) starts getting not so cheap.
The next 50 years will be interesting, to say the least.

Re:Unfortunately, this is what we do

[khallow]

Anyone who is serious understands we can't keep gobbling up resources the way the West has been since WWII. Yet no one stops to think that moving to the suburbs and having kids is a huge contributor to the demand for resources.

You did think about this. But the vast majority of population growth is not in the developed world. Reality doesn't fit the narrative.

The only good thing is that things will start getting more and more expensive as oil gets harder and harder to get, and therefore anything that depends on cheap energy (everything) starts getting not so cheap. The next 50 years will be interesting, to say the least.

Eh, that's a really mean Calvinist strike you have there. I'm a bit more optimistic. Maybe things won't be quite as easy as they are with cheap fossil fuels, but we still do have a lot of free power hitting the Earth every day in the form of sunlight. I think we'll figure a workable substitute for fossil fuels in transportation and coal in electricity generation.

Re:Unfortunately, this is what we do

[Yvanhoe]

I guess we have to start do things like China does then :
- Stop having more than one kid : http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/One-child_policy
- Use high-speed rail for long distance : http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/High-speed_rail_in_China
- Switch unequivocally to nuclear power : http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuclear_power_in_China
- Build cheap electrical cars : http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/BYD_Auto

Funny. "Western elites" seem to know what is needed to be done but it looks like in Asia, they prefer to do than to talk.

Re:Unfortunately, this is what we do

[Bayoudegradeable]

You, too, are capable of some thought... Try this on for size... Population in the "not developed world" - How many iPods are those kids getting at Christmas? Elmo dolls? How many toys? What about XBox, PSP, Nintendo? Are they eating tons of beef and drinking gallons of milk produced in the "developed world"? What about the average caloric intake in the "not developed world"? Does it approach what fat American/European and developed Asian kids and grownups eat? How much energy goes into the production of their food compared to modern food? I would love to know exactly the ratios of child:resources in the developed and non-developed world. I think it's a fair guess (yup, that's all this is) that developed lifestyles over the span of a lifetime so far over-consume resources compared to those in the non developed world as to be scary. If I am wrong I would love to hear about it. (I didn't even get to construction, transportation, medicine, space exploration and defense spending) The non-developed world will not lead the way in consumption of resources until they become... the developed world. And then they join the all-you-can eat buffet. Calvin be damned (which he may be), it is going to be far beyond "interesting" in the next 50 years.

Paying the Cost to Be the Boss

[Doc Ruby]

If only the true costs of carbon pollution were built into the price of causing it, China's repressedly low labor costs couldn't govern the vast amount of pollution it generates.

The Tragedy of the Commons can be protected against by only government, not market, action.

Re:Paying the Cost to Be the Boss

[Doc Ruby]

Except pollution isn't created per capita. Most Chinese people don't produce more pollution than their ancestors did a century or a millennium ago, because they're not part of the global economy - they're stuck in the feudal economies of their areas, outside the cities, factories and mines that really pollute. Even without consuming much more than they did before indoor plumbing and the quality of life that they're stuck in. The US, meanwhile, counts nearly every resident in the global economy.

The actual measure is pollution per output. China consumes more energy than the US now, produces much more Greenhouse pollution, and vastly more pollution that isn't Greenhouse emissions. Yet China produces only 1/3 the output of the US. China therefore pollutes a lot more than 6x the amount the US pollutes per output.

Other countries also look better than they really are. China and the US together produce about 1/3 the total global output, much more than other countries do per capita. That output is consumed around the world. Those other people are outsourcing their pollution to the US and China, just as the US has outsourced much of its worst pollution to China.

All of which shows that markets have done nothing but shuffle pollution around to the lowest bidder. Which is why the people create governments to protect ourselves from getting dumped on when it's free.

Re:Paying the Cost to Be the Boss

[interkin3tic]

China is putting in more work to reduce pollution than anywhere else and luckily they didn't stop after the Olympics.

I thought they stopped most sources of smog only temporarily before resuming them after the games. And did they clean up their act anywhere besides Beijing? Because it's fine if they're trying to lower pollution in Beijing, but it's a big country. For those of us who don't live there, a coal plant 100 miles from Beijing isn't that much different than one in the very center.

Re:Paying the Cost to Be the Boss

[Shoe Puppet]

It's not about better or worse. The government requiring corporations (and people, by extension) to pay compensation for damage done to the environment doesn't interfere with the market any more than enforcing property rights does.

Re:Paying the Cost to Be the Boss

[clarkkent09]

If only people like you understood that free market != anarchy the amount of pointless nonsense written on slashdot would decrease. If you cause harm to others, including polluting their environment, you ARE supposed to pay for it. This is NOT inconsistent with the free market. If you don't believe me to accurately represent the position of free market libertarians, would you believe Milton Friedman? He supported tort in cases where it is practical (obviously measurable harm) and taxing where harm is hard to measure ( second half of the video: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KH0O_JjH06k )

Re:Paying the Cost to Be the Boss

[Anonymous Coward]

China is putting in more work to reduce pollution than anywhere else

I hope this is a fucking sarcastic joke?? China doesn't give a shit about pollution.

      http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/China_water_crisis

"China is facing a water crisis that includes water shortages, water pollution and a deterioration in water quality. 400 out of 600 cities in China are facing water shortages to varying degrees, including 30 out of the 32 largest cities.... the south has abundant water, there is a lack of clean water due to serious water pollution. Even water-abundant deltas like the Yangtze and the Pearl River suffer from water shortages."

http://factsanddetails.com/china.php?itemid=391&catid=10&subcatid=66

"About one third of the industrial waste water and more than 90 percent of household sewage in China is released into rivers and lakes without being treated. Nearly 80 percent of China's cities (278 of them) have no sewage treatment facilities and few have plans to build any and underground water supplies in 90 percent of the cites are contaminated.

Water consumed by people in China contains dangerous levels of arsenic, fluorine and sulfates. An estimated 980 million of China’s 1.3 billion people drink water every day that is partly polluted. More than 600 million Chinese drink water contaminated with human or animal wastes and 20 million people drink well water contaminated with high levels of radiation. A large number of arsenic-tainted water have been discovered. China’s high rates of liver, stomach and esophageal cancer have been linked to water pollution.
"

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Environment_of_China

But careful, chineese official censors are right there!! "This article may be inaccurate in or unbalanced towards certain viewpoints"

Air quality in China is shit. Chinese tourist come over to places like Toronto, itself smoggy during summer, and wander how it is possible for the sky to be this blue!

http://www.cnn.com/2007/TECH/science/06/04/china.environment/

But then CNN or BBC is only Capitalist Propaganda eh??? I guess you never heard of Fox News :P

Re:Paying the Cost to Be the Boss

[WindBourne]

They really are not. I just had a friend who got back in June from spending a month there. She was part of NOAA's group to study the pollution that is being emitted around the world. Oddly enough 7-10% of the air pollution in LA, CA, is from China. What they found is that all of the coal plants had scrubbers on them, but the ALL OF THE 150 PLANTS THAT THEY MEASURED WERE TURNED OFF. ALL. In addition, she said that it appeared that a number of them had never been turned on. Now, China is required by treaty with Japan, to scrub the coal, but apparently, the real wording was in Chinese and basically said that all plants had to have scrubbers. It NEVER said that they were required to be on. And China is still on pace to keep opening 1-2 new coal plant EACH WEEK. The ONLY thing that is going to slow this down is if the west will get smart. We need to tax ALL GOODS BASED ON WHERE THEY, and their primary component, COME FROM AND AMOUNT OF CO2, and ideally mercury, that is EMITTED FROM THAT REGION. Now, the SMART THING is to base it on the amount of emissions PER SQ KM. Sadly, EU wants it based on per capita, which is absolutely the worst metric going. It is impossible to track ppl and they float around. It will also lead to lying, as well as simple encourage ridiculous stats. BUT, by doing a per km^2, then it provides set limits for a nation and then they can manage it regardless. It also makes it easy for ALL OTHER NATIONS TO VERIFY IT.

Re:Paying the Cost to Be the Boss

[clarkkent09]

Ok, this will be my last reply since it's pointless arguing with an overexcited child or a loon (in case you are actually an adult).

The "Contract" you gave is just propaganda.

No it is not. That is exactly what the Tea Party movement is about. To say anything else, you will need to provide some evidence.

The point of the Tea Party (it's not a party)

Of course it is not. It's a reference to the Boston Tea Party. It's nothing to do with political "party".

is for Republicans to call yourselves something else

Not at all. Republicans tend to be closer to the ideals of the Tea Partiers, but by no means automatically. Did you even see what happened in the primaries this year. A whole crap load of established Republicans got voted out by the Tea Party preferred candidates because they did not stand for those ideals.

You never call for cutting the military/intelligence budget down from the $TRILLION+ to something actually justifiable like $200B.

And how did you pull that number out of your ass? A strong military is of course necessary for us to have but if we spend excessive amount on it, that is mainly the result of the government corruption (i.e. pork) that exists in both parties.

You want to get government out of healthcare, but hands off your Medicare.

No, we want all government programs including Medicare audited for constitutionality and for waste and cut back as necessary. I personally want Medicare completely eliminated, as well as the Medicaid, Social Security and all Unemployment Benefits. If we want to help our fellow citizens (and I do) we should do it voluntarily through charity. We have no right to do it with other people's money.

You talk about entitlement as if people aren't entitled to things like Social Security they paid into and which don't add a penny to the deficit.

Both parts of your statement are laughable. Social Security is a broken and bankrupt system, I can provide as much evidence for it as you like. Even so, I have not heard of any Tea Party supporters calling for it to be abolished without paying out the benefits to those who paid into the system. Even those who are open about ending social security like Sharon Angle would only phase it out for new people entering the workforce, not for those who already paid into it.

You never complained while you were voting for Bush/Cheney twice, but the moment a Democrat is elected you answer the call of your corporate funders and organizers like Dick Armey and Glenn Beck to "take back" your country - that you and your fellow Republicans brought to ruin.

The country has never actually had a government that was as fiscally irresponsible as the current one. The Obamacare alone will over time (esp if Dems stay in power and eventually turn it into a fully socialized system as they intend to) bankrupt the country. Along wioth SS, and other programs, we are heading for European style 70%+ income tax burden for our children just to fund all the entitlements.

As for the Constitution, you want to gut the 14th Amendment,

Who does? Some Republicans do want to stop the deliberate abuse of it with the "anchor babies" and I agree with it, but that has really nothing to do with the Tea Party. Even so we only want to do this through a constitutional amendment. We don't want to bypass or ignore the constitution, we want to amend it. There is a procedure for that provided in, guess what, the constitution.

ignore the 4th Amendment add a homophobia amendment...

All I can say to that is... What!?

and march with racists who really just prefer the original intent of the Constitution that protects slavery.

There is not once single piece of evidence that Tea Party is in any way racist. I might as well say that the Democrats want to burn live babies. Stating something doesn't make it true. On the other hand there is plenty of evidence that there is a deliberate policy among the liberals to smear the Tea Party, and in fact any opponent, as racist. Would you like me to provide some?

Perfect Balance

[Anonymous Coward]

The way I see it, as long as we dig up the bottom of the ocean fast enough, we can counteract the rising water levels due to global warming! The more we dig, the more we burn, the more it rises, the more we dig; nature back in balance~!
Horray!

Methyl hydrate apocalypse averted?

[Omnifarious]

Some people are worried that global warming will trigger a methyl hydrate apocalypse in which the vast stores of methyl hydrate locked into ice at the bottom of many bodies of water begins to boil and release all the methane into the atmosphere causing a greenhouse effect that's much, much worse than the CO2 one we're causing for ourselves now.

I suppose that having the methyl hydrate mined and turned into CO2 is better than having it released as methane. But that is somehow little comfort.

Re:Methyl hydrate apocalypse averted?

[canajin56]

It breaks down into carbon dioxide after about 10 years (8 point something).

Re:Religious Propaganda

[turgid]

The Jehovahs once brought round a leaflet containing exciting news of this new stuff that "scientists" had discovered on the ocean floor. The same "scientists" who all believe that god is a fact and believe in biblical creation.

This new fuel source was going to provide all our energy needs without mention of any damage to the environment and cost of extraction.

Mind you, when the earth is only a few thousand years old and the end of it is nigh anyway, why does it matter if you ruin the environment?

I believe China is getting a bit god-botherery these days.

Re:Minerals on the floor

[dbIII]

Since we don't have free energy we don't do stuff like distillation unless we have to. We have incredibly cheap energy in the form of coal and oil but it's just not cheap enough.

Methylhydrate Geyser

[SgtChaireBourne]

The pressure is keeping it from changing to gas. If you lift it, the pressure drops and it goes to gaseous state. If enough water above it is displaced by anything including bubbles, then the pressure drops and it goes to gas.

There is also the matter of the amount of sediment that the mining, if done on the surface of the ocean floor will stir up and how many years it will take to settle. Fish and other sea life do it in minutes. Sea life does not like changes in turbidity and there is the potential for very far reaching problems lasting a very long time. Water takes about 400 years to go full cycle from surface to bottom to surface again.

Fuel for chinese naval border disputes

[wdebruij]

While this research takes place in largely uncontested Yellow sea, any success could very well bolster the Chinese government's hawkish stand on naval borders.

The disputes with Japan and Taiwan are well known. It recently claimed sovereignty of regions of the South China Sea that are well beyond common UN agreements on sovereignty and openly challenged by ASEAN neighbors.

Even the Yellow Sea is not without conflict, in which even the US is directly involved. At the heart of the matter is what the article calls ``one element in what appears to be an attempt to turn the seas near it into a Chinese lake''.

Inaccurate title

[drmofe]

Should read: "China plans to tap fibre-optic cables on the sea floor".

Remember the "manganese nodules" cover story for Glomar Challenger from the 1970s?

Methane Hydrates = Global Disaster

[Bruha]

In addition to Coal, Tar Sands, and Oil Shale, if we burn these up, we will put the earth well on it's way to the "Venus Syndrome".

People in their 30's, their kids kids will surely suffer from this. It's time something was done about it. Getting a gas saving car does nothing but make it cheaper to buy carbon based fuels somewhere else, cap and trade is a complete hoax, it's time to start making renew-ables cheaper and tax usage of carbon based fuels across the board world wide. If we do nothing we may be responsible for killing everything on the planet.