Friday, March 29, 2013

METHANE HYDRATES ARE UPON US


Picture of drilling rig at site of methane hydrate field experiment on Alaska’s North Slope.On March 12, Japan announced that it successfully captured methane from off shore methane hydrates for the first time in history. This new source of fossil fossils is a bit of a brow raiser. According to the article, there is estimated 7x10^14 cubic feet of methane gas trapped in hydrates on the sea floor. As we all know, methane burns cleaner than CO, but is 25x more potent of a radiative forcer. Methane hydrates have potential to completely replace coal in the not to distant future, but is this worth risking the release vast amounts of methane into the atmosphere? The biggest current contributor of methane release comes from production and transportation, so using it on such a scale is kind of scary.   
Picture illustrating methane hydrate molecular structureOne positive however is that CO2 can actually be sequestered during production. Methane hydrates are a type of clathrate, a molecular lattice (in this case made up of water) that traps molecules in its structure. On March 27, ConocoPhilips conducted an experimental methane hydrate collection technique in which involves pumping captured CO2 into methane hydrates. The methane is then released from the lattice replaced by  CO2 which is then trapped. Although CO2 will still be released upon burning methane, it is still a little bit closer towards being carbon neutral.

The article also brought up the idea that global warming could cause methane hydrates to melt. Considering 1L of hydrate contains 168L of methane gas, it wouldn't take long for a tremendous global warming event to occur. However, according to the USGS a "catastrophic methane hydrate release" is very unlikely because the majority of methane hydrate occur in very deep waters where their structure is very stable.

1 comment:

  1. This is really cool! I like that you acknowledged that harvesting methane hydrates is not clean but merely cleaner. I would like to know what the projected cost of peak efficiency for the process is, and how long it would take to achieve it, because if we accept a timeline of 50 years before the whole world goes to hell in a handbasket, then this technology may be useless.

    ReplyDelete