Slashdot Mirror


Japan Extracts Natural Gas From Frozen Methane Hydrate

ixarux writes "For the first time ever, a Japanese company has successfully extracted natural gas from frozen methane hydrate off its central coast. The Nankai Trough gas field, located a little more than 30 miles offshore, could provide an alternative energy source for the island nation, reducing its dependence on foreign imports. 'A Japanese study estimated that at least 1.1tn cubic meters of methane hydrate exist in offshore deposits. This is the equivalent of more than a decade of Japan's gas consumption. Japan has few natural resources and the cost of importing fuel has increased after a backlash against nuclear power following the Fukushima nuclear disaster two years ago.'"

4 of 154 comments (clear)

  1. Re:Seems like a good step by pixelpusher220 · · Score: 5, Interesting

    Eh, depending on some variables maybe it isn't that bad.

    1. Assuming that they'd burn coal if they didn't use the methane.
    2. Assuming the energy released from burning the methane is similar to the energy released from burning coal (I don't know)

    then burning something that is inherently unstable like the Methane Hydrates in the oceans is far better than burning the coal. The coal is a nice stable solid at every human habitable temperature. They Hydrates aren't. If the ocean warms too much, the hydrates will just bubble out and poof, LOTS more methane in the atmosphere that didn't provide us anything useful - and we have the CO2 released from burning the coal.

    So the devil is in the details, and the best solution is burning neither methane nor coal, but if you have to pick, choose the one that isn't likely to spontaneously turn into another form thus making your situation much much worse.

    --
    People in cars cause accidents....accidents in cars cause people :-D
  2. Re:Seems like a good step by d34thm0nk3y · · Score: 5, Insightful

    If the ocean warms too much, the hydrates will just bubble out and poof, LOTS more methane in the atmosphere that didn't provide us anything useful...

    Additionally, methane is 25 times more potent as a grennhouse gas. So converting that to energy and CO2 gives you energy and a net reduction in the greenhouse effect.

  3. Re:Seems like a good step by starless · · Score: 5, Informative

    That seems better. "More than a decade" sounds too short term of an investment.

    According to the NY Times, the overall gas available may be more like 100 years' worth:

    Jogmec estimates that the surrounding area in the Nankai submarine trough holds at least 1.1 trillion cubic meters, or 39 trillion cubic feet, of methane hydrate, enough to meet 11 years’ worth of gas imports to Japan.

    A separate, rough estimate by the National Institute of Advanced Industrial Science and Technology has put the total amount of methane hydrate in the waters surrounding Japan at more than 7 trillion cubic meters, or what researchers have long said is closer to 100 years’ worth of Japan’s natural gas needs.
    http://www.nytimes.com/2013/03/13/business/global/japan-says-it-is-first-to-tap-methane-hydrate-deposit.html?hp

  4. methane has shorter lifetime by peter303 · · Score: 5, Informative

    Methane is less stable than CO2. Its lifetime in normal atmoshperic sunlight is about two decades. CO2 stays for thousands of years.