Slashdot Mirror
Can Japan Burn Flammable Ice For Energy? (cnn.com)
dryriver writes: Japan is a country that currently has to import 90% of its fuels for energy generation, having very little in the way of oil, coal or natural gas reserves in the country. Since the Fukushima disaster, its 50-plus nuclear reactors have been mostly idle. This makes Japan one of the least self-sufficient countries in terms of energy generation in the developed world. But there is an untapped energy resource that Japan has in abundance: ice that has large quantities of methane trapped in it. These ice crystals hold a remarkable quantity of natural methane gas. It is estimated that one cubic meter of frozen gas hydrate contains 164 cubic meters of methane. Japan has so far spent over $1 billion on research and development efforts in order to find a way to efficiently extract the methane from the ice. Where is this methane rich ice located? Engineers have so far focused on Nankai Trough, a long, narrow depression 50 kilometers off the coast of central Japan, which had been extensively surveyed over many years. Analysis of extracted core samples and seismic data has revealed that 1.1 trillion cubic meters of methane -- enough to meet Japan's gas needs for more than a decade -- lies below the floor of the trough. Some experts think that if an efficient method is found to extract methane from flammable ice, it could change the energy map of the entire world. Flammable ice has either been found, or is suspected to be present in large quantities, off the coastlines of all 5 continents in the world (the linked article has a map showing the currently known locations). Ten years from now the price of energy around the world may thus not be set by how much oil, coal or natural gas costs at that point in time, but rather by how much methane extraction from flammable ice costs.
Once we cross certain threshold, all the remaining "flamable ice" will melt, and since methane is one of the most efficient greenhouse gas, we will turn Earth into second Venus.
That's a common misconception shared by journalist who write about shale gas and oil, etc.
The real question is not "how many dollars does it cost to produce a barrel", since dollar cost is an arbitrary value set by humans, but rather "how much energy does it cost to produce a barrel"?
This methane ice (clathrates, a trapping of methane in a crystalline structure of water) is only stable at pressure. So, if pulled to the surface - not difficult, because it is lighter than water is - it breaks down and releases the methane.
Prediction for end of Universe #42: Fencepost error in Quantum_bogosort.cpp
The 2011 Thoku tsunami killed some 16,000 people. Dead now.
The Fukushima Daiichi nuclear "disaster" killed Zero people directly. Maybe a dozen will die eventually. Maybe.
So you would think that the focus would be on tsunami protection. Better walls, better alerts etc.
But instead, it is on the nuclear "disaster". Which only happened as a result of a freak event. And lessons learned meant that the same would not happen again.
But they close down 50 nuclear plants. At huge cost.
Knee jerk reaction based on political perceptions and column inches of news print rather than any rational analysis.
That is what I was thinking too. But they signed the Paris Accord so that would mean they are being dishonest about their commitment to reducing greenhouse gasses. We all know that signatories to the accord have cut their greenhouse gas emissions already. Except for the US, which didn't sign the accord and has been increasing their greenhouse gas output every year. Oh wait, it is the opposite? Carry on.
The Clathrate Gun Hypothesis is the scary climate change idea, that we will heat up the planet until methane trapped in arctic soils and clathrates will start to be released, and, as methane is a really bad greenhouse gas, results in more warming, triggering the release of more methane, and forming a fast, tight positive feedback loop.
It's a really scary prospect.
Prediction for end of Universe #42: Fencepost error in Quantum_bogosort.cpp
second venus is unlikely as that requires over 3000ppm.
But unpleasant with a lower carrying capacity than our current population due to lower food production - sure.
She was like chocolate when she drank... semi-sweet at first and then increasingly bitter.
You've vastly underestimated the energy density of methane.
164m3 of methane is about 6GJ of energy (55MJ per kg, 0.656kg per m3, 164m3. 55 * 0.656 * 164 = 5.9GJ)
1 cubie metre of ice, minus the ~100kg of methne is 900kg.
Melting 1kg ice takes 333.5kJ of energy. Melting 900kg of ice takes 300MJ, so there's an excess of about 5.6GJ of energy per cubic metre. That assumes the ice is already at 0 degrees. Add on 3.6MJ per degree below zero to heat up 900kg of ice and 200kJ per degree to heat up 100kg of methane.
Assuming the ice is at -20 degrees, that's another 76MJ, still insignificant compared to the 5.9GJ of energy in the methane.
However, you don't need to burn anything to melt ice. It would take a while, but you can use the energy in the atmosphere to melt it, effectively for free. You can use a heat pump to speed it up, without using as much energy.
>> Ten years from now the price of energy around the world may be set by how much methane extraction costs.
This is a very naive statement. The cost of energy (or anything else) has never been set by how much it costs to produce, it's only ever set by how much they can get away with charging for it.
I'm probably being dumb here, but what does this mean, from the OP: "It is estimated that one cubic meter of frozen gas hydrate contains 164 cubic meters of methane". How does 1 contain 164?
Maybe you're getting figures from the same people who say drones have only killed 100 civilians. But putting the issue of deaths aside completely, nuclear power is unjustifiable based on cost alone.
It simply costs too much to build, to maintain, to secure, to decommission, and that's before getting to storing the waste for thousands of years. For the same startup cost you can build out wind and solar generation in a fraction of the time with none of the long term liabilities, and that's including pumped storage facilities to neutralize the baseline canard that is invariably brought up when discussing wind and solar.
Don't have the batteries that can do this. Too expensive. We don't yet know how to build the magic battery. The magic battery is cheap and high capacity and cheap and quickly chargeable and cheap and efficient in its charge and discharge cycle and cheap and easily recyclable / renewable and cheap. And most of all, it has to be cheap so people can afford it, otherwise they can't use it and the concept falls flat. Right now, falling flat is the only thing that solar / battery combinations can do. We just don't have that battery. We may never find that battery. That battery may not actually be possible. We don't know. We may never know. Counting on batteries for solar / wind viabilitiy is very risky.
"It is estimated that one cubic meter of frozen gas hydrate contains 164 cubic meters of methane". How does 1 contain 164?
Don't be dense.
The creatures outside looked from Alt-Right to Antifa; but already it was impossible to say which was which.
NO (x) removes methane from the atmosphere, and you result in more nitrates in the soil. So there is a response, and its quite a good one.
NOx is a powerful oxidizer, a neurotoxin, and destroys ozone. Also we don't have gigatonnes lying around. So not so good.
atmospheric methane levels have at times be MUCH higher than today (which is why there is so much trapped methane)
Nonsense. Methane clathrates form from methane from localized organic decay, not from the atmosphere. They can also form when NG leaks into the deep ocean. The only time atmospheric methane levels have been high is when clathrates were degrading, not forming.
one cubic meter of frozen gas hydrate contains 164 cubic meters of methane
Sounds like Americans have some problems working with the metric units.
Slashdot, fix the reply notifications... You won't get away with it...
Methane is a very potent greenhouse gas. I already foresee an accident involving this stuff that causes a huge release of methane. Plus, isn't this just more of the same? Burning fossil fuels? Turn the nukes back on, build out solar/wind/whatever else then phase out the nukes.
B.S.
Battery capacity has been rising about 5% a year for the last decade while battery cost has been dropping about 5% per year for the last decade.
Projections for just 2022 are for under half the price in 2015 ($50/kWH) and a third more power density than in 2015.
That's only 7 years away. It's not science fiction or magic.
Source: US Department of Energy.
Charts here.
https://cleantechnica.com/2016...
She was like chocolate when she drank... semi-sweet at first and then increasingly bitter.