Researchers Extract Permafrost-Locked Methane from Gas Hydrates, Potentially Paving Way for Large New Energy Source
by Jeremy Elton Jacquot, Los Angeles on 04. 5.08
Image courtesy of kaet44 via flickr
The "flip-side" of having large amounts of methane gas gradually escape the Arctic's thawing permafrost is that some of it could eventually be harnessed to generate electricity. The first, crucial step was met earlier this week when Canadian and Japanese researchers, working in the Mackenzie Delta, successfully extracted methane from frozen gas hydrates locked deep below hundreds of meters of permafrost, as reported by NNS' Brodie Thomas.
Though considered risky - methane gas is roughly 23 times more potent a greenhouse gas than is carbon dioxide - the extraction of methane from these frozen hydrates could offer up a potentially huge source of energy; also found littering the sea floor, hydrates are formed under conditions of extreme pressure and cold when water and methane gas come together.
While not the first time they've managed to extract the gas from hydrates - they previously did so in 2002 - they were able to do so using significantly less energy, a consequence of lowering the pressure of the hydrates instead of heating them up as they were brought to the surface. No effort was made to capture the methane this time around, but Scott Dallimore, chief Canadian scientist with Natural Resources Canada, promisingly noted that a "sustained flow was observed."
The Japanese in particular are eager to determine whether the extraction process is both technically and economically feasible; the Mallik site in the Mackenzie Delta presents the best opportunity to tinker with the process as it is much easier and cheaper to extract the hydrates from there. Dallimore acknowledges that it may take upwards of several years before it is conclusively determined whether or not pursuing methane extraction is a commercially viable - and safe - venture:
"We need to undertake long-term research and development and quantify the amount of gas hydrates in the Delta if we want to realize the commercial potential. We also must address environmental issues including the processes controlling methane release in the natural environment."
Via ::Northern News Services: Researchers extract methane gas from under permafrost (news website)
See also: ::Carbon Dioxide Levels Hit Record High, Methane Levels Flat in 2006, ::Burning Methane Could Improve Hydro-Electric Power
curious to the formations of the gas in the land. permaforst covers countrys. i get the impression that its thin and spread out. this would make this hard to collect, and hard to move the collection point and feed enough to a power station.
my bigger concern is that the permaforst will melt on its own without our help. thus ending the world as we know it - by calculations.
this type of energy would go online to support growth, not replacement of coal. when they work out this to a T - russia is going to again be the gas king of the world.
When are we going to stop thinking that burning things is the answer to our energy needs. If there is Aliens flying around in the universe, do you really think they would be powering their ships by come crazy futuristic methane or liquefied coal generator that just tuned a turbine? Sheesh, when will we learn that burning Sh*t is not the answer. It is such a primitive act! And regardless of climate change (which is happening), it is just not efficient and sustainable!
Please critique if you wish
More needs to be done to find such alternative sources of energy, especially with the emerging trends in China and India.
http://acropolisreview.com/2008/03/china-hillary-clinton-barack-obama-john.html
Who's going to turn this into a carbon offsetting project? That could be a good way to finance this project...
The best solution would be to power everything by wind, solar, tidal, geothermal, etc. but if the methane is going to leak out, it would be better to capture it and burn it as fuel than to just let it leak out, since methane is a much worse greenhouse gas than carbon dioxide:
Methane (CH4) is 23 times more potent than carbon dioxide as a greenhouse gas. Burning one methane molecule emits four water molecules and one carbon dioxide molecule. The water just joins the water cycle and doesn't contribute to the greenhouse effect (even though water vapor is a potent greenhouse gas), but the CO2 resulting from burning methane is sure a lot more benign than methane itself. In doing this, we at least get a little bit of useful energy back.
The burning of hydrocarbons to produce energy that we subsequently waste seems to be incredibly stupid considering the myriad of other ways that these organics can be used. I suspect that future generations will curse our collective idiocy in squandering a valuable resource!
I thought the end of world stuff that was ruled out as highly unlikely was if the methane in the arctic came out? Now we are working on helping it do this as cheaply as possible? Some or all permafrost is going to go anyhow; but looking into the stuff that is expected to stay put and helping it get loose sounds bad to me.
Berkana is right, if the stuff is going to leak out anyway then in GHG terms its better to burn it. If its not going to leak out and we go looking for it then its yet another fossil-fuel, albeit one of the cleaner ones, i.e. natural gas.
On the impact of burning methane, while methane has a Global warming potential or GWP of 23, as Berkana says, that GWP is on an equivalent weight basis, i.e. one kg of methane is as bad as 23kg of CO2. But when we burn one molecule of methane and get one molecule of CO2, that CO2 molecule is 2.75 times heavier than the methane molecule, so instead of ending up with something 23 times less potent than methane it is actually 23/2.75, ~8 times less potent, still a damn sight better than letting it leak off.
/ Colm
I'm quite astonished that Treehugger is reporting on this development as if it's a good idea. Apart from the despoliation of sensitive ecologies, this will just pump yet more carbon into the atmosphere – carbon that's been sequestrated by nature. Its contribution to climate change will in essence be no different to burning oil or coal.
Not only would this prevent the emissions of methane, more natural gas (which is essentially what this is) would presumeably dispalace coal consumption, which releases twice as much CO2 (not to mention all other non-GHG pollutants). Natural gas is a fundementally cleaner fuel than coal.