China To Tap Combustible Ice As New Energy Source 185
lilbridge writes "Huge reserves of "combustible ice" — frozen methane and water — have been discovered in the tundra of the Qinghai-Tibet Plateau in China. Estimates show that there is enough combustible ice to provide 90 years worth of energy for China. Burning the combustible ice may be a far better alternative than letting it just melt, releasing tons of methane into the air."
Re:well yeah, (Score:5, Informative)
"Does the resulting CO2 from burning methane contribute less to greenhouse effect then the pure methane?"
Very much so. It really is a win win.
Re:well yeah, (Score:5, Informative)
Re:well yeah, (Score:5, Informative)
Yes, methane is a much more potent greenhouse gas than carbon dioxide. Over the twelve or so years it lasts in the atmosphere, it would have about twenty times the effect of the CO2 produced from burning it.
Not just that, but it oxidises to CO2 in the atmosphere anyway, and if it's used as an energy source, you can also factor in the CO2 that isn't being emitted from alternative sources.
If it's practical to tap the methane, it's a win-win situation.
Re:well yeah, (Score:1, Informative)
Unless America is planning on returning the land taken from the native tribes it destroyed (oh yeah that's right, there's no one to give them back to since most of them were murdered), I don't see how whining about occupations will contribute to progress. Countries fight wars, crush revolutions, and sometimes occupy neighbors. It's part of life - deal with it. China is no worse than anyone else so get off your high horse.
Re:well yeah, downside (Score:4, Informative)
As a sidenote: the earth has gone through numerous hot and cold periods; the CO2 levels rising can also be the *result* of a heating earth, instead of being the cause. The CO2 infrared absorption lines and it's presence in the atmosphere are both very small: it has just a very little real effect on heating up the air. CO2 will escape from water when the temperature rises though... We know temperatures are rising, so we can expect to see the level of CO2 rising too.
Not wanting to turn this into another climate change flamewar - but it's both a cause and a result; when it's something else doing driving the change (e.g. the sun), carbon dioxide increases as a result of the temperature increase and it amplifies the initial driving force through a positive feedback, when it's carbon dioxide doing the driving (as it appears to be at the moment), the temperature increase is the result itself.
There's a quick way to check whether the increase is coming from the oceans - photosynthesis has a slight preference for carbon-12 over the heavier carbon-13, so if fossil fuels are responsible for the rise, the carbon-13 ratio should be decreasing. If the oceans are temporarily overwhelming the biosphere, it should be increasing.
Guess which one it is. [ucsd.edu]
Also, the carbon dioxide increase in the atmosphere is lower than our emissions. Nature is busy trying to remove it from the atmosphere, let alone being a source itself.
Re:Name flipflop (Score:5, Informative)
Re:well yeah, (Score:1, Informative)
Re:well yeah, (Score:5, Informative)
(a) And what exactly does methane turn into as it floats around in the atmosphere?
(b) You're correct - oxidation of one CH4 molecule produces one CO2 molecule and two H2O molecules.
Re:well yeah, (Score:2, Informative)
Tens of thousands of years, or until a chlorophyll-using plant gets hold of it - whichever comes first.
Your post is a classic example of the kind of selective misdirection employed so liberally by climate change fanatics. Actual science doesn't matter if it doesn't support your dogma.
Re:So when was our environment methane? (Score:5, Informative)
Methane hydrates are believed to form by migration of gas from depth along geological faults, followed by precipitation, or crystallization, on contact of the rising gas stream with cold sea water
Re:well yeah, (Score:4, Informative)
So, one tonne of methane burns with four tonnes of oxygen to form 12/16 * 44/12 = 2.75 tonnes of CO2. (and also 2.25 tonnes of water)
Still makes it a sensible energy source though.
Re:well yeah, (Score:5, Informative)
Re:the downside... (Score:2, Informative)
I like to admire the Asian tundra on Google Earth, and think about what a paradise it must be for mosquito predators, birds and such. I guess now we will be trying to discover how much environmental degradation is required to crash that eco-system. Too bad.
Um... tundra is permanently frozen ground. Not a lot of mosquitoes can lay their eggs in a puddle of ice. Think frozen desert (Death Valley, not ice cream). You could even call it something like Mars on Earth. Not a big ecosystem to crash there.
Re:Tons of methane? (Score:3, Informative)
Now, if we say "thirty tons", then that is a specific amount (thirty times two thousand pounds). Similarly, "three metric tons" is a specific amount. The number makes it literal (assuming it's a literal number; "sixty gajillion tons", on the other hand, is back in the realm of absctraction, because a gajillion is not a specific number).
Re:well yeah, (Score:5, Informative)
The water vapour from burning methane (or anything else) is completely irrelevant (unless you're planning to burn the methane in the stratosphere)
Water vapour is a feedback, not a forcing. 70% or so of the surface of the Earth is open water. It's constantly evaporating and falling back as rain.
So quickly does the water vapour reach equilibrium that you could instantaneously remove ALL the water vapour from the atmosphere and not have any significant effect on the climate. Within a couple of weeks the water vapour will be back. The thermal inertia of the oceans and atmosphere will be amply sufficient to stop a catastrophic temperature fall during those two weeks.
CO2, OTOH, is a forcing. Instantaneously remove all the CO2 and the temperature will start to drop. As the temperature drops H2O will start to condense out. Within a few millennia we'd be back into a deep ice age. (Slowly, mainly from vulcanism, the CO2 will be replaced in the atmosphere and, with the right orbital forcings, eventually the planet would escape from the ice age again)
Or add CO2 to the atmosphere and the temperature will go up. That will cause more H2O to go into the atmosphere which will cause the temperature to rise more. Eventually an equilibrium will be reached but it takes centuries to millenia for the ocean temperature and hence water vapour to reach equilibrium for any significant step change in CO2.
Tim.
Re:the downside... (Score:5, Informative)
Re:Oh and one other thing about the methane (Score:3, Informative)
Re:the downside... (Score:5, Informative)
Um... tundra is permanently frozen ground. Not a lot of mosquitoes can lay their eggs in a puddle of ice.
More accurately, tundra is permanently frozen subsoil. In most areas the top layer of soil melts each summer, and due to the impermeable permafrost layer beneath, tundra areas tend to be very boggy.
As a result, Tundra areas can have some of the highest concentrations of mosquitoes in the world: http://www.athropolis.com/arctic-facts/fact-mosquito.htm [athropolis.com]
Re:well yeah, (Score:3, Informative)
But most importantly, it allows useful work to be done, meaning some other fossil fuel doesn't need to be burned. Sure, we're still releasing stored carbon into the atmosphere, but it was headed there anyway and we're able to offset another hydrocarbon fuel.
Re:well yeah, (Score:2, Informative)
Within a few millennia we'd be back into a deep ice age. (Slowly, mainly from vulcanism, the CO2 will be replaced in the atmosphere and, with the right orbital forcings, eventually the planet would escape from the ice age again)
Tim.
I think you mean Glacial period and inter-glacial period.
We are currently in an ice-age(you can tell because we have ice-caps that stay there all year)
Re:Tons of methane? (Score:3, Informative)
In case anyone thinks he's joking, he's not [cambridge.org]. "Tons" means lots in the UK. (Though personally, I like "shedloads" or "shitloads" more)
Re:So Is This Why China Insists That Tibet is Thei (Score:5, Informative)
That's originally. But if you know Chinese history, China breaks up into some 2 to 10+ countries every 250-400 years after its first unity. And the final goal and hope of every scholar and power are to unite the country. In those countries, many are formed by non-Chinese civilizations, and somehow, they also share the same goal, unite China, including themselves. Now back to modern history. When Republic of China was still fighting to unite the country, Tibet decided to join Republic of China. It break away again when the communist party come in power. But being in China for a few hundred years, most Chinese already see it as part of the country (and China have a lot of civilizations living in their own place within China all the time, so we're also used to that). So basically, the communist party and even Republic of China see it as part of the country. It's more like "unite the country" instead of "invade it". Note that Republic of China (Taiwan) does not recognize the independence of Mongolia until a few years ago, under the very same reasoning, and many Chinese people who know how the history is still very angry about that. Because Chinese already see the Qing Dynasty area as "China". And the rule of Chinese based culture is, a country always have a chance to break up, but must finally be united.
Anyway, the "liberation" (in Communist term) of Tibet had never been and will never be see as "invading" in China, so I don't think we'll ever see that as "lose face". It's never in Chinese question. Also, it IS a peaceful action. In fact, a very peaceful one. How did the government of the then Tibet and Dalai Lama remained safe after the communist's conquer? Because they were just forced out of the palace and power but were not hurt. It was a war to unite another piece of land in Chinese view, and this is probably as peaceful as it could have been.
No, I'm not communist. No I'm not from mainland. But I know the common Chinese view better than you. Don't use western view when trying to interpret other culture's history. It simply doesn't work because people don't think the same way as you.
Re:well yeah, (Score:2, Informative)
Well to be fair H2O is also a greenhouse gas.
Yes, but a higher concentration of H2O gas in the atmosphere will result in rain, which (among other effects I'm sure you're familiar with) will dramatically decrease the amount of H2O in the air. Given that it needs to be -79C (-110F) to start raining (or, more accurately, snowing) CO2, it'll be a while before the earth has an effective way to reduce CO2 levels in the atmosphere (don't get me started on trees). Another problem with this idea is that CO2 snow will immediately sublime back to CO2 gas at higher temperatures ("higher" as in -78C or -109F).
So basically, we need an ice age to stop global warming caused by CO2. Irony, thou art a heartless bitch.
Re:ANWR (Score:3, Informative)
And Minnesota mosquitoes are mere twin-engine jobs. Alaska mosquitoes are jet-propelled. :)
Seriously, in MN you can get by with a good coating of OFF! but in AK it won't even slow them down. Folks there use a thick slather of "bear grease" to avoid terminal mosquito-caused anemia (as I mentioned above, actually thought to be the leading cause of death in caribou).
Re:well yeah, (Score:3, Informative)