Slashdot Mirror
China Successfully Mines Gas From Methane Hydrate In Production Run (oilprice.com)
hackingbear writes from a report via OilPrice.com: In a world's first, China has successfully extracted gas from gas hydrates in production run in the northern part of the South China Sea. According to the U.S. Department of Energy (DOE), global estimates vary, but the energy content of methane in hydrates, also known as "fire ice" or "flammable ice," is "immense, possibly exceeding the combined energy content of all other known fossil fuels." But no methane production other than small-scale field experiments has been documented so far. The China Geographical Survey said that it managed to collect samples from the Shenhu area in the South China Sea in a test that started last Wednesday. Every day some 16,000 cubic meters (565,000 cubic feet) of gas, almost all of which was methane, were extracted from the test field, exceeding goals for production mining. This is expected to help cut down China's coal-induced pollution greatly and reduce reliance on politically sensitive petroleum imports controlled by the US. "The production of gas hydrate will play a significant role in upgrading China's energy mixture and securing its energy security," Minister of Land and Resources Jiang Daming said on Thursday.
What does it matter to cut down on carbon emissions if all you are doing is replacing them with methane?
Remember, there are no stupid questions. But there are a lot of inquisitive idiots.
I am beginning to get concerned that a sizable number of innovations are coming from the "East." Not much from the "West" these days. I am afraid that we may become inconsequential in the next few decades.
Think...
High speed trains; latest mobile technologies; the public transit system in New York is [several] decades behind that in Shanghai; the Chinese recently flew their own manufactured passenger plane and have the AG600 - the world's largest amphibious aircraft.
But I am sure we can catch up if we dedicate resources appropriately.
they're mining Manganese Nodules from the sea floor like we did (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/GSF_Explorer). There's more going on here folks.
Because we don't do science anymore, and technology only after every imaginable pressure group has been satisfied. The California high speed rail uses tech that is off-the-shelf in Europe and Asia.
Last I checked, the Shanghai Maglev was German technology. But other than that, yes, anytime you empower a nation to build because they're the lowest cost supplier that can actually do the job in numbers, you will get an economic boom there. Eventually they become self-sufficient where they too start competing in high tech industries with the rest of the developed world. So the transition from a developing nation to one that is developed is a natural progression. It happened with the Roman Empire, spanning to Europe, across the Atlantic to the America, now back to China, and soon Africa. Now, it's important to note that having a functional government is key here. Pure anarchy and pure totalitarianism are far too extreme to be conducive to mass economic output.
Life is not for the lazy.
Why the above is a bunch of bullshit:
https://www.skepticalscience.c...
https://skepticalscience.com/c...
The greenhouse effect is a real thing. Deal with it.
"When information is power, privacy is freedom" - Jah-Wren Ryel
Since you are cut-and-paste reposting what you already posted, I will cut-and-post what I already replied:
The difficulty here is that you are mixing up stuff that's correct, and stuff that isn't.
For the longest time earth was flooded with CO2 18 times higher than we have today,
That part is true. The Earth has had more carbon dioxide in the past,
and it was colder.
This part is not true. In general, when there's more carbon dioxide it's warmer, and when there's less it's colder.
We had more CO2 in THE FUCKING ICE AGE.
First, to be pedantic, let me remind you that we are in an ice age right now: there are permanent ice caps on the planet that don't disappear in the summers. The detailed place we are in the cycle is that we are in an "interglacial" period, but overall, yes, we're still in an ice age.
It's quite well accepted that the glaciation cycle is driven by Milankovitch variations, the pattern of solar insolation (short for "incident solar radiation," by the way) across the northern and southern hemisphere. Carbon dioxide and water vapor, however-- the greenhouse gasses in the atmosphere-- are the amplifiers that turn the relatively small insolation changes into global temperature changes.
As the cycle of increase of glacial and interglacial periods go, the record is very clear: glacier advance correlate with reduced carbon dioxide, and glacier retreat trends with increased carbon dioxide. So, no, your statement is backwards-- if by "in the fucking ice age" you mean "during the ice covered periods of the current cycle", then, no, we had less CO2 in the atmosphere in the fucking ice age.
The graph you link, with a minimum increment on the time axis of 100 million years, doesn't show the ice age cycle (with time periods three orders of magnitude shorter than that). Here's a graph of temperature and carbon dioxide over the last four glaciation cycles:
http://earthguide.ucsd.edu/virtualmuseum/images/VostokIceCore.html">http://earthguide.ucsd.edu/virtualmuseum/images/VostokIceCore.html
The rest of your post seems to have equivalent random mixing up of facts. You write:
I don't know why you idiots just don't do your own research but keep repeating nonsense just because someone else said so.
But that seems to be exactly what you are doing-- posting a scrapbook of random unrelated stuff without, as far as I can tell, making any attempt to understand it. Here are some links:
https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/what-thawed-the-last-ice-age/
http://earthguide.ucsd.edu/virtualmuseum/climatechange2/07_2.shtml
It never fails. I read an interesting article, then scan the comments for some insight from people who know far more than I do about the subject, and it doesn't take long for all of it to devolve into heated name-calling, because a bunch of grown children can't disagree politely.
We're already well past the point where the planet can safely absorb the byproducts of fossil fuel burning. So the Malthusian issues are just as severe as people have been saying all along.
Yeah, I mean really who wants to live on a greener more fertile planet
https://www.nasa.gov/feature/g...
.......... The fact is, there's enough carbon dioxide and methane in the atmosphere to make it opaque in the wavelengths that those gases absorb. ........
You are quite right. Well done!!!
You have just told us in effect that the greenhouse effect caused by these gases is real. Though I suspect you didn't understand the science you just quoted. When you have worked out just what wavelengths these gases are transparent to and what wavelengths they are opaque to, and which direction the energy at these various wavelengths are going, and the consequences of this, and all the other boring actual science, please come back and explain to the other deniers in a bit more detail.