10374016
story
Comments: 185 + - News: China To Tap Combustible Ice As New Energy Source on Friday March 12, @06:00AM
background: url(//a.fsdn.com/sd/topics/topicearth.gif); width:77px; height:80px;
earth
background: url(//a.fsdn.com/sd/topics/topicpower.gif); width:59px; height:66px;
power
background: url(//a.fsdn.com/sd/topics/topictech2.gif); width:60px; height:80px;
technology
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."
Related Stories
Your lucky color has faded.
All trademarks and copyrights on this page are owned by their respective owners. Comments are owned by the Poster. The Rest © 1997-2010 Geeknet, Inc.
Cobustible ice? (Score:2, Funny)
So Is This Why China Insists That Tibet is Theirs? (Score:3, Interesting)
90 Years worth of energy for the nation with the largest population in the world seems like sufficient cause for China to claim that Tibet is part of China and always has been etc, despite the fact that it has been independant for much of its history (although its also been occupied by one power or another for much of the rest of that history of course).
If Tibet had its independence this would be a terrific resource for the country to take advantage of in modernizing itself. As it stands I am sure it will be used for Chinese benefit and not Tibetan.
Re:So Is This Why China Insists That Tibet is Thei (Score:5, Interesting)
The combustible ice is merely a practical concern. As such, it's basically unimportant compared to the extremely vital matter of Never Losing Face Ever, which is probably the single most important core value in far-eastern culture. Not losing face is more important than life itself and *far* more important than minor things like a few petawatt-hours of energy.
You have to understand, if Tibet hadn't always been part of China, that would imply that the "liberation" of Tibet in the mid-twentieth century was an aggressive action, not a peaceful one, and that the PROC government acted in bad faith (especially as regards the Seventeen Point thing). Admitting such a thing would be an unfathomable loss of face and an unconscionable disgrace to every Chinese person. It would be better for the entire nation to commit ritual suicide than to allow such a thing to be said.
Parent
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.
Parent
Weapons of Mass Destruction (Score:3, Funny)
No, you see. Tibet had all that explosive ice -- essentially weapons of mass destruction. And this threatened China, who didn't want the smoking gun to be a mushroom cloud. So Shock and Awe was the only answer, an invasion that would only last a few weeks, and be paid for with the oil.
Oh Sorry, were we talking about CHINA? I'm sure the Chinese feel that what happened to Tibet was fo their own good, just as most Americans think what happened in Iraq was for their own good. Amazing how propaganda can influenc
Energy: Good - Mining: Problematic (Score:5, Insightful)
While there are mostly advantages in using this as a fuel, it might be an ecologic disaster to strip-mine the tundra. The Tibet - Qinghai Plateau is between 3 and 4,000 m above sea level and the climate is harsh. Areas that have been strip mined will recover slowly and the little soil that was there and allowed the tundra to grow will be removed, leaving only rocks and sands behind. It might take centuries to recover and will make life for the nomadic herders and the indigenous animals (many of them endangered) difficult if not impossible.
Another world (Score:3, Interesting)
It occupies an area of around 1,000 by 2,500 kilometers, and has an average elevation of over 4,500 meters.
The plateau is a high-altitude arid steppe interspersed with mountain ranges and large brackish lakes. Annual precipitation ranges from 100 mm to 300 mm and falls mainly as hailstorms. The southern and eastern edges of the steppe have grasslands which can sustainably support populations of nomadic herdsmen, although frost occurs for six months of the year. Permafrost occurs over extensive parts of the plateau. Proceeding to the north and northwest, the plateau becomes progressively higher, colder and drier, until reaching the remote Changthang region in the northwestern part of the plateau. Here the average altitude exceeds 5,000 meters (16,500 feet) and year-round temperatures average -4C, dipping to -40C in winter. As a result of this extremely inhospitable environment, the Changthang region (together with the adjoining Kekexili region) is the least populated region in Asia, and the third least populated area in the world after Antarctica and northern Greenland.
Wow, a Class L planet.
Say goodbye to Tibetan autonomy (Score:5, Insightful)
People who follow my many rantings, I mean posts on Slashdot will not be surprised to know I am very happy that this seems to be a win-win scenario for reducing the amount of methane getting into the atmosphere, something I've been VERY concerned about (http://slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=1572576&cid=31371302&art_pos=7).
Unfortunately I am afraid that this may be another excuse for China to subjugate the Tibetan people. While Chinese apologists may claim they are lifting them out of feudal poverty, I would think that is a choice that the Tibetan people should make for themselves. (Even though Americans and Europeans used "the White Man's burden" as an excuse for their colonial actions, that didn't make them right). The Dalai Lama has claimed many times that he only wants CULTURAL autonomy for Tibet, unfortunately it appears as if this is one thing the Chinese don't want; they want to make it another "Han" province. So they claim, the Dalai Lama really wants full independence despite the fact he has never advocated that and has, in fact, welcomed Chinese control over and development of Tibet.
Being from Korea, a country that narrowly escaped having it's own cultural identity from being stamped out by colonial Japan makes me sensitive to Tibet's plight. My parent's were forced to learn Japanese, have Japanese names and were forbidden to learn Korean or Korean customs. (This is in addition to many documented atrocities like "sex slaves".). For almost fifty years the Japanese occupied Korea, only their defeat in WWII prevented them from succeeding in this cultural genocide. (I'm sure the Japanese said they were "civilizing" Korea). Unfortunately I doubt the U.S. or anyone else is going to come to Tibet's rescue; well at least if the Chinese are going to ravage Tibet, they might help save the environment. So let us acknowledge and shed a tear for Tibet's sacrifice for all mankind.
While we're on the subject of China, here's an (outlandish) prediction. In twenty years they will have become the most powerful country in the world; they should just be passing the GDP of the U.S. and will have a population of about 1.5 billion (India will be the same size but much poorer). In the meantime, Russia's population should have FALLEN to less than a tenth of China's or about 125 million (or about the same number of excess males in China!). So, what about the Chinese making Russia a "deal", we'll buy eastern Siberia from you or, if you refuse our entirely reasonable price we'll just take it with our vastly more powerful military. Sure we might have a little nasty nuclear war but we'll survive (especially if we've developed effective missile defenses) and believe me you won't survive OUR attack. Remember, we have lots of cannon fodder, I mean conscripts who we can make die, I mean are willing to die for our country!
Now eastern Siberia might not sound like much but, in twenty years with global warming, it could be a pretty "hot" property (sorry). With it's vast land area right next door to China proper and huge amounts of untapped natural resources it'll be just the thing they want. If they've figured out how to harvest methane from the thawing tundra for energy generation well, more "power" to them (sorry!).
[On the other hand, if China and Russia went to war, (or were "tricked" into it by some other meddling superpower) it would QUICKLY solve the population problem as well as probably rid the earth of some excess heat due to Nuclear Winter!]
I thought China's population is to decline? (Score:3, Interesting)
"and will have a population of about 1.5 billion"
I thought I remember reading projections somewhere, which indicate that China's population is soon supposed to begin a pretty rapid decline, due to several decades of 'birth control' measures imposed by the government? Contributing even further to that, I had heard that there is a large imbalance in the population ratio between males and females, because, since parents were limited to one child, many of them chose to abort girls and 'try again' until they had
Re:I thought China's population is to decline? (Score:5, Funny)
And who wants to move to somewhere that is cold, inhospitable, underdeveloped and filled with relatively unfriendly people?
Leave Quebec out of this.
Parent
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
To answer the parent post: Yes, China's population WILL decline but it is still coasting upwards (all the people who were born before the "1 child" policy have yet to die). It is going to peak at about 1.5 billion around 2020 (and India's population will go soaring by it. Poor India). I did a little population research using (our friend) Mr. Google, if you doubt me it's your turn.
Next, you are right, China will *then* rapidly age unless they remove/have removed the "1 child" policy. Of course the techno
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
I had no idea those Japanese pillows could complain.
Re:well yeah, (Score:5, Interesting)
I'd tap that.
Actually, this is both interesting and apparently fits into the "suddenOutbreakOfCommonSense" category. If you ask me, it seems perfectly logical to not only stop it floating up into the air as it would do otherwise, but to also get power out of it.
Seems too good to be true. I wonder what the downside is.
Parent
Re: (Score:2, Funny)
I wonder what the downside is.
The gas is probably under a monastery of tibetan monks?
Re:the downside... (Score:4, Interesting)
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.
Parent
Re:the downside... (Score:5, Informative)
Parent
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]
Parent
Re:ANWR (Score:3, Interesting)
It looks like this article is referring to the Tibetan Plateau, more steppe than tundra, and even more sensitive to environmental damage. This stuff does not recover quickly from disturbance. And every bug IS sacred if you think your grandchildren might want to watch birds that migrate. The oceans are quite vast, yet it is distinctly possible we may have already permanently altered the entire system by polluting breeding areas and depleting or extirpating key species.
I've not yet been to Alaska, but I got o
Re: (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: (Score:2)
Seems too good to be true. I wonder what the downside is.
Other than the usual impacts of large scale mining, converting methane to CO2 is better than releasing the methane itself. There's at least some research going on to sequester and manage CO2, I'm not sure about methane.
Re: (Score:2, Interesting)
I wonder what the downside is.
One downside is that they will be stealing it from occupied Tibet.
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
That reminds me of a bit from BtVS: Spike "You won. All right? You came in and you killed them and you took their land. That's what conquering nations do. It's what Caesar did, and he's not going around saying, "I came, I conquered, I felt really bad about it." The history of the world isn't people making friends. You had better weapons, and you massacred them. End of story."
As far as TFA, anything that will help China deal with the incredible smog they generate that is so bad it can be detected in Califo [cbsnews.com]
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
Seems too good to be true. I wonder what the downside is.
The cold fart smell.
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.
Parent
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.
Parent
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
(b) You're correct - oxidation of one CH4 molecule produces one CO2 molecule and two H2O molecules.
Wait, your saying that using Methane as a fuel source will somehow create dihydrogen monoxide? And in twice the quantity that existed of mere methane?
Do you understand the danger? I suggest you educate yourself friend (http://www.dhmo.org/facts.html). Dihydrogen monoxide was consumed by every murderer on record at least 24 hours before their crimes! Releasing this much of the stuff in reckless!
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Re:well yeah, (Score:5, Informative)
Parent
Re: (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.
Oh and one other thing about the methane (Score:3, Interesting)
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
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.
Parent
Re:well yeah, (Score:5, Informative)
Parent
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.
Parent
Re: (Score:2)
As I understand it, each unit of methane has a consierably greater effect (more than an order of magnitude) than the same amount of CO2. But methane stays in the atmosphere for about a tenth the time of CO2.
On the other hand when methane decomposes in the atmosphere it becomes C02 and water anyway. So all in all, you're much better off burning the methane and benefitting from the energy than releasing it.
According to wikipedia, methane has a global warming potential of 72x CO2 over 20 years and 25x over 1
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
No, because if we don't burn the methane, that power will need to come from somewhere else. That somewhere else is probably coal, oil, or NG.
So, if we don't burn it, we get both sets of greenhouse gasses. If we do burn it, the need for other fossil fuels is reduced, resulting in the same ammount of CO2 from combustion AND less unburned methane. That means we would actually be reducing the quantity and speed of greenhouse gas emissions by burning this CH4.
Re: (Score:2)
Does the resulting CO2 from burning methane contribute less to greenhouse effect then the pure methane?
Yep. Burning methane in the presence of water releases CO2 and water, and thus the amount of CO2 released from burning a ton of methane is less than a ton of CO2. And, despite the fact that methane breaks down faster than CO2, it seems that one ton of methane can be up to 33 times more a contributing factor on warming than a ton of CO2.
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.
Parent
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.
Parent
Re: (Score:2)
funny that the growth of rice does release methane into the atmosphere.
Re:Name flipflop (Score:5, Informative)
Parent
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
Parent
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
There may be other ways it could have happened.
Just for example, if an insulative ice cap formed overtop a mass of biomatter (say, a bog) that was otherwise still warm enough to decompose, possibly with some water in between, you could end up with a mixture of methane and water ice forming below the ice cap as the whole thing cooled. A few thousand years later, melt off the top layer of ice, and you've got combustible ic
Re: (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 liter
Re: (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: (Score:3, Interesting)
You inadvertantly described the flaw with fuel cell cars.
You have water, and you crack it to make hydrogen, which makes the cars roll down the road. Sounds great doesn't it? But where does the energy come to crack the water? ----- Often the response is "just use solar" and that's fine, but if we have solar why not simply use the electricity directly in the car or house or other device? There's no need to add the additional water/hydrogen step.
Alternatively we could just use the same liquid fuel as w
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
You need to store that solar energy somewhere, and our current technology can store energy at a higher density in hydrogen than in batteries or capactors.
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
How many kids did your great-grandparents have? Do you think they wanted the 'extras' because they were going to need extra workers in a decade or two, or maybe so that the kids would support them in their old age? Oh, that's right, we're talking about BR