You know... I'll put the verbal abuse to the side.
If I have a child in school, and a teacher sprays my
child with a fire extinguisher, I'll bloody well be
pissed off to no end. I don't CARE if it's only a Class
A, water-based fire extinguisher; that 1.) goes beyond
the appropriate method of keeping students engaged and
2.) goes beyond the intended emergency use of the
extinguisher. And if it's a dry chemical? You're spraying
that on my child?
No, while I believe I see the intent in your post (here's
a teacher who stood up for good, solid science), I argue
that there are more effective ways to debate and engage
students in a classroom. Period.
-Shawn
1.) Rather than hydrates being chemically altered by CO2, the implication
is that the process of trying to bury this CO2 could potentially disrupt
any already loose hydrates in that first 300 metres you mention. As you're
aware, the hydrates can then dissolve further in the water, the methane
turning to gas and rising as bubbles.
2.) Even the website for Mallik mentions that gas hydrates are also known
to cause seafloor instabilities. That fact alone should provoke a lot
of research in the feasibility of CO2 storage under the ocean floor.
3.) I don't dispute that hydrates are a possible alternative energy source. And
I certainly agree that the rate of consumption of fossil fuels is absurd. But Mallik
seems at a cursory glance a research project to determine production methods and
feasibility by drilling some permafrost cores. My primary concern would be how
invasive production techniques would be in order to mine the susbstance from
permafrost regions. As it is, the rate of loss of permafrost across the world. Mt. Kilimanjaro seems to have "already lost some 82% of its permafrost
since 1912 - and 33% of this in the past two decades." Alaska could
potentially lose "as much as the top 30 to 35 feet (10 meters) of discontinuous
permafrost thawing by 2100." Granted, it's hard to play fortune teller, but the
rate of loss of permafrost globally has increased quite a bit over the last two
decades. Depending on the depth of the hydrates in the permafrost regions,
it would seem logical that these hydrates could thaw and further escape into the
atmosphere. If this is true, above-ground hydrate mining doesn't seem so feasible.
You may know much more about this than I do so your thoughts are appreciated.
There has been some research for a number of years concerning the feasibility
of extracting methane hydrates from the ocean floor.
While not proven, there's quite a bit of speculation in the geological
circles that all it would take is one screw-up to disrupt the stability
of the ocean floor. This could potentially cause anything from tsunami
to large bubbles of methane percolating into our atmosphere. You think
CO2 is an issue? Methane is a much more fierce 'greenhouse gas'.
So not only is there potential to for CO2 to escape if not buried properly,
but a variety of other mishaps could occur that would potentially wreck
havoc. Hrmm. Doesn't seem like the most plausible choice of action.
Slashdot Mirror
You know... I'll put the verbal abuse to the side. If I have a child in school, and a teacher sprays my child with a fire extinguisher, I'll bloody well be pissed off to no end. I don't CARE if it's only a Class A, water-based fire extinguisher; that 1.) goes beyond the appropriate method of keeping students engaged and 2.) goes beyond the intended emergency use of the extinguisher. And if it's a dry chemical? You're spraying that on my child? No, while I believe I see the intent in your post (here's a teacher who stood up for good, solid science), I argue that there are more effective ways to debate and engage students in a classroom. Period. -Shawn
1.) Rather than hydrates being chemically altered by CO2, the implication
is that the process of trying to bury this CO2 could potentially disrupt
any already loose hydrates in that first 300 metres you mention. As you're
aware, the hydrates can then dissolve further in the water, the methane
turning to gas and rising as bubbles.
2.) Even the website for Mallik mentions that gas hydrates are also known
to cause seafloor instabilities. That fact alone should provoke a lot
of research in the feasibility of CO2 storage under the ocean floor.
3.) I don't dispute that hydrates are a possible alternative energy source. And
I certainly agree that the rate of consumption of fossil fuels is absurd. But Mallik
seems at a cursory glance a research project to determine production methods and
feasibility by drilling some permafrost cores. My primary concern would be how
invasive production techniques would be in order to mine the susbstance from
permafrost regions. As it is, the rate of loss of permafrost across the world.
Mt. Kilimanjaro seems to have "already lost some 82% of its permafrost
since 1912 - and 33% of this in the past two decades." Alaska could
potentially lose "as much as the top 30 to 35 feet (10 meters) of discontinuous
permafrost thawing by 2100." Granted, it's hard to play fortune teller, but the
rate of loss of permafrost globally has increased quite a bit over the last two
decades. Depending on the depth of the hydrates in the permafrost regions,
it would seem logical that these hydrates could thaw and further escape into the
atmosphere. If this is true, above-ground hydrate mining doesn't seem so feasible.
You may know much more about this than I do so your thoughts are appreciated.
-Shawn
There has been some research for a number of years concerning the
feasibility of extracting methane hydrates from the ocean floor.
While not proven, there's quite a bit of speculation in the geological
circles that all it would take is one screw-up to disrupt the stability
of the ocean floor. This could potentially cause anything from tsunami
to large bubbles of methane percolating into our atmosphere. You think
CO2 is an issue? Methane is a much more fierce 'greenhouse gas'.
So not only is there potential to for CO2 to escape if not buried properly,
but a variety of other mishaps could occur that would potentially wreck
havoc. Hrmm. Doesn't seem like the most plausible choice of action.