The world's governments are beginning to come to grips with the reality that crude oil is a finite resource. That forces them to face another reality. The amount of that resource available for running global human society is about to go into terminal decline. We are at or soon to arrive at peak oil. Many analysts believe, based on the data, that we hit that peak in the spring of 2005. Other more optimistic analysts believe that peak may still be as much as thirty years in the future. Even that (I am not conceding that projection. I am in the spring 2005 camp.) is close enough that the majority of people alive today will have to begin to adjust to declining global oil production in their lifetime.
Optimists point to the fact that we have moved beyond various energy sources, on which the entire society depends, many times in the past. We have always found a new, better energy source to replace them. Even since the beginning of the industrial revolution we have moved through water power, steam power, coal, natural gas, electricity, oil and nuclear. Oil, however, has been the most important and workable energy source that we have ever discovered and exploited.
Where do we go from oil? What will be the next, better energy source that can power human society. There are many who see electricity playing an increasingly important role, including driving transportation. To many that electric future will be increasingly centered on a nuclear energy renaissance. On the fringes they see electricity generation from wind, solar, geothermal, tidal, hydro, wave and a variety of other options.
But oil is used for much more than powering the family car. I have trouble visualizing electric planes and electric ships. Hell, most electric cars have a battery range of under 100 kilometers. And I don't think you can make plastics from electricity. Last I noticed it required hydrocarbons.
In one form or another, in fact, hydrocarbons have been the world's primary energy source since the beginning of the Industrial Revolution over 200 years ago. It answers one extremely important need; portability. Hydrocarbon fuels, especially oil and its derivatives, can be easily move from one place to another. They can also be used on board to generate the power used to move it.
What is the next energy source that will give us what oil, coal and natural gas give us today? You may be surprised to hear that it may be the other hydrocarbon fuel. A Great many scientists, industry leaders and governments throughout the developed world believe that will be methane. More specifically they believe it will be methane hydrates.
Methane hydrates (also called clathrates) are bubbles of methane gas trapped in a cage of ice crystals. Methane hydrate deposits occur in locations all over the world. The most concentrated deposits occur under the Arctic Ocean, under the ocean floor on most continental shelves, in locations like the Gulf of Mexico, the Bermuda Triangle, the Dragon's Triangle south of Japan, and in permafrost surrounding the Arctic ocean. It is reliably estimated that the amount of methane trapped as hydrates globally exceeds by many times the total combined oil, coal and natural gas reserves that have ever existed on earth.
A chunk of methane ice exposed to the air and ignited will burn until all of the methane in that ice has been consumed. Methane hydrates, however, require specific conditions of temperature and pressure to keep them contained within their ice cage. Reduce the pressure - for example, by reducing the sea level and the pressure of water above the deposit - or increased the temperature and the methane hydrate deposit becomes unstable and begins to release the trapped methane into the atmosphere.
That is a problem. Methane is a greenhouse gas. In fact, it is 21-23 times more powerful as a greenhouse gas than carbon dioxide. When the methane trapped in the hydrate is released it expands by about 170 times.[1] Methane is lighter than CO2, lighter than air. As a result it rises rapidly through the atmosphere up to the lower-density stratosphere. On the positive side methane remains in the atmosphere for only about 10-20 years. CO2 remains in the atmosphere for over 100 years.
Scientists studying global warming have long been seriously concerned about the possibility of large scale methane hydrate destabilization and methane release into the atmosphere. The greatest concern is about the large volumes of methane hydrates under the Arctic sea floor and that trapped in the vast permafrost zone surrounding the Arctic Ocean. That concern has now been heightened by recent discoveries of hundreds of methane plumes on the floor of the Arctic Ocean north of Norway and Siberia. [2] There is also evidence in pock-marked sea floors of large releases of methane plumes in the geological past. [3]
Paleoclimatologists now believe that large scale, natural methane hydrate releases have been partly but significantly responsible for short-cycle global warming and global cooling cycles in the past. The recent discoveries in the Arctic, in fact, are thought to suggest that methane releases have contributed to the global warming that has occurred since the last ice age 15,000 years ago. [2]
The problem is that these methane releases have a strong positive feedback loop. As they increase the warming of the atmosphere that warming in turn increases methane release which in turn increases warming which in turn releases more...... You get the picture. Acceleration of global warming through this positive feedback loop, by increased methane concentration in the atmosphere, far more than CO2 concentrations, represents, to paleoclimatologists, a far greater risk of pushing us into the Venus effect, runaway global warming.
When it comes to satisfying the world's energy lust, however, caution may be thrown to the wind. Powering down human society is never an option put on the table when politicians and other leaders discuss energy policies and strategies. We have proven over and over again that business as usual is the only model that will be considered. How else can we explain the tar sands, oil shale development, deepwater oil extraction, coal mines extending out under the sea floor, and more?
There are various technologies under consideration for extracting methane from hydrate deposits. Most involve some form of heating the hydrate deposits - one, probably the dumbest and most dangerous, even goes so far as to suggest using nuclear explosions beneath the deposit to heat it, also suggested by some as a means of releasing oil from tar sands and oil shale - causing them to release the methane which is then collected and piped to a processing facility of holding tank. Proponents of methane hydrate exploitation, conscious of environmental concerns, are quick to offer reassurances like ".....tapping into the gas hydrates assessed in the study is not expected to affect global warming, said Brenda Pierce, coordinator for the USGS Energy Resources Program." [4] The louder and more frequent such reassurances are, of course, the more it suggests they are trying to cover up the probability that the result will be the opposite.
There are many projects underway, funded by governments throughout the world (Japan, India, China, South Korea, Russia, Norway, Canada, the U.S.), aimed at developing commercially viable technologies for exploiting the planet's vast methane hydrate deposits. The selection of sites for these projects are, themselves, a clear indication of one of the primary roadblocks to using methane hydrates as a societal-supporting energy source. They have sought out test sites with high methane hydrate concentrations.
Most hydrate deposits are too small or too dispersed to be commercially exploited. Also, unlike oil and natural gas, those deposits are generally not capped in such a way that the geology can be used to contain releases. Most of those deposits on the sea floor, in fact, exist in unconsolidated, sandy or silt sediment. The geology surrounding them is inherently unstable, difficult to contain. Once the deposit, or any large portion of it, is destabilized it is very difficult to prevent unintended, uncontrolled methane releases into the atmosphere.
Okay. I very begrudgingly accept that our leaders are not going to consider powering down as a potential tactic in the face of our impending energy crisis. Sooner or later the human race is going to have to accept that reality but clearly society is not prepared to accept it now. But methane hydrates are not like the other fossil fuels. And our approach to exploiting them is going to have to be very different. The risk to the climate and the environment is so much greater than has ever been the case with other fossil fuels. Most importantly, methane hydrates are globally affected by exactly the same constrains; temperature and pressure.
Global warming itself - it doesn't matter whether it is naturally occurring or caused by human combustion of fossil fuels - is the greatest threat of tipping methane releases into a runaway warming mechanism. Scientists do not know with any certainty yet how much of a global temperature rise is necessary to reach the tipping point where methane hydrate release into the atmosphere accelerates out of control. They do know that once that happens the acceleration will be self-sustaining and self-accelerating.
If our leaders take the same cavalier approach with scientific warnings about runaway methane release that they have taken with warnings about CO2 buildup in the atmosphere, and the long-term, safe storage of spent nuclear fuel, we are headed toward a much more serious atmospheric and climatic disaster than global warming experts have thus far suggested. Methane releases from the ocean floors and from Arctic permafrost have not been built into any of the current global warming models as a factor, including those models supporting the IPCC reports. Considering that methane hydrate deposits exceed the total of all other fossil fuels by magnitudes and that methane is more than 20 times more powerful as a greenhouse gas than CO2, that should be extremely worrying to anyone who accepts the validity of the global warming theory.
Other material;
1) Starting A Runaway Global Warming Process
2) Hundreds of methane 'plumes' discovered
3) A large methane plume east of Bear Island (Barents Sea): implications for the marine methane cycle
4) Study: Tap natural gas from Alaska's frozen areas
Friday, December 05, 2008
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)

9 comments:
information for you..
=========================================================
Global Cooling or Global Warming ???
There is huge disagreement in the scientific community about global warming. Researchers on either side have no trouble finding data to support their chosen theory. Recent climatic events highlight the importance of not over interpreting short-term data - temperature fluctuations either up or down. The environmental alarmists who have been overstating connections between extreme weather conditions and a man-made warming trend are on the opposite side of other researchers who are sounding the warning bell about global cooling. Both sides of the issue must be careful to avoid distortion of facts to support beliefs...
read more...
http://hernadi-key.blogspot.com
=========================================================
There is also a growing body of scientific support that the build-up of GHGs in the atmosphere, whether natural or man-made, is responsible for BOTH global warming and cooling. Global warming is most dramatic at the poles and decreases the temperature variant between Arctic waters and Atlantic waters. This will eventually shut down the thermal halene conveyor that moves warm tropic water toward the poles. That event tips the northern hemisphere into an ice age and the world into global cooling. What you may interpret as distortion of facts may simply be different, and validly so, interpretations of the same climactic data supporting both sides of the arument.
You know, you don't really make much of a case that exploitation of hydrates would have any effect on climate. Other than to ridiculously mock the statement to the counter made by someone who I quarantee has spent much more time thinking about this than you have.
the methane hydrate deposit becomes unstable and begins to release the trapped methane into the atmosphere.
Into the atmosphere? Wow. It would release it into the sediment that is enclosing it. Unless these hydrates are exposed at the land surface.
Most hydrate deposits are too small or too dispersed to be commercially exploited.
How in the world do you know that?
Once the deposit, or any large portion of it, is destabilized it is very difficult to prevent unintended, uncontrolled methane releases into the atmosphere.
Any actual data to support this claim or is this totally conjecture?
Ummmm, first let me remind you that this is a blog, a source of personal opinion, hopefully always backed up by research but still opinion. It is not a peer-reviewed scientific journal, not Scientific American, Science or even Populat Science. Readers of this and any oher blog should always bear that in mind.
As regards your statement, "someone who I quarantee has spent much more time thinking about this than you have." A couple of points. Firstly you have no idea how much thought I have put into methane hydrates and probably just as little idea about the person you are refering to. So your guarantee is meaningless. Secondly, someone who has put a lot of thought into the exploitation of Methane Hydrates as an energy source and methane as a fuel will not necessarilly have put any thought into the possible environmental consequences of exploiting methane hydrate deposits. Nor are they likely, based on observed practices of energy companies, to have called in environmentalists or environmental opinion in their deliberations. It is somewhat akin to the Bush administration forming energy policy based on the deliberations of the NEPDG which was loaded with oil company executives and nary a naysayer in sight.
I would also suggest that the onus is not on me and others who have concerns about the possible consequences of exploiting methane hydrate reserves. The onus should be, must be - and the lack of this being my primary reason for writing articles such as this - on those who would proceed to do so without guaranteeing that their efforts will not pose an environmental risk. Without that we are going to end up with another tar sands or Baku or Orinoco oil sands or Exxon Valdiz.
I have, to answer your unasked question, thought a great deal about methane hydrates over the past half dozen years. I have read hundreds of papers, on both sides of the argument, over that time, far more than enough to establish an informed opinion. Alas, being 63, having suffered two heart attacks, having only 30% heart function and suffering from debilitating arthritis, I am not physically able to run off to the Arctic and conduct my own field tests. I must, therefore, rely on that material from others that I can read.
As regards to your requests for data to support my arguments, I would first remind you that this is opinion. I would also point you to the links provided in the article and, if that is insufficient, Google will point you to a couple of million additional pieces on methane hydrates, on both sides of the argument.
Sir: I understand that. It is more clear, however, if one says "it seems to me that...", or "in my opinion..." You have many statements here that would appear for all the world like statement of fact that have some basis to a layman. The big negative of blogs, I suppose.
From what you write about Dr. Pierce, who has been leading the USGS program in energy resource for many years, I am not at all inclined to give you the benefit of the doubt re: relative knowledge. You need to think about what you are saying here. Did you not accuse her of "covering up" the truth? And then lamely cover for yourself by saying..."Oh, its just an opinion, the onus isn't on me to actually back it up or anything!" Please. (And your response is of course more ridiculous...I have no idea what the "observed practices of energy companies" has to do with the USGS position. You do know that one is driven by profit motive and the other by public service don't you? Please think these things through before you go about tarring people with charges of dishonesty and cover up.
Ian, I appreciate your concerns and your contribution to this dialogue, even though I bristle at your repetitive use of the word "ridiculous" with reference to my position.
I can dig you out hundreds of references and quotes to support every statement that I have made in my article. For example;
>>>A L'Oreal USA Fellowship for Women in Science has been awarded to Florida State University alumna Laura Lapham, a postdoctoral research assistant and courtesy faculty member in FSU's Department of Oceanography, and this year, one of just five young women scientists in the nation selected for the prestigious $40,000 prize.[10]
Lapham's $40,000 award will underwrite new instrumentation essential to her geochemical research in the Gulf of Mexico on the formation and decomposition of deep-sea gas hydrates -- ice-like crystalline formations containing methane gas within the ice lattice.
"There is a lot of interest in gas hydrate deposits as a potential energy source," said Lapham, who collects samples of the hydrates, found in oceanic sediments on the sea floor, via a manned submersible vehicle. "Deposits of hydrates are thought to be the world's largest reservoir of methane, a powerful greenhouse gas and fossil fuel."
She noted that while hydrates are generally stable under high pressure, low temperature and saturated methane conditions such as those found in oceanic sediments and arctic permafrost, if they are destabilized, large amounts of methane could be lost from ocean sediments and reach the atmosphere.
"That's a concern," Lapham said, "because studies have suggested that methane-filled hydrates have been agents of climate change in the geologic past." <<<
Just one other point regarding your statement, "I have no idea what the "observed practices of energy companies" has to do with the USGS position. You do know that one is driven by profit motive and the other by public service don't you?"
The USGS, when it comes to energy issues, is not, in my opinion, driven by public service. It is driven by the policy wishes of the government and very much a puppet of the energy industry. So we will definitely have to agree to disagree on that one.
Methane hydrates development is not commercially viable now, nor will it be so in the future. Only the Japanese are making an attempt to "mine" methane hydrates.
Peak Oil is here now, and soon governments will be subsidizing oil extraction, unemployment, an heating oil. There will be no capital available for methane hydrates.
Independent studies (reviewed in the Peak Oil Report
http://www.peakoilassociates.com/POAnalysis.html
by Clifford J. Wirth) conclude that Peak Oil production will occur (or has occurred) between 2005 to 2010 (projected year for peak in parentheses), as follows:
* Association for the Study of Peak Oil (2007)
* Rembrandt Koppelaar, Editor of “Oil Watch Monthly” (2008 to 2010)
* Tony Eriksen, Oil stock analyst (2008)
* Matthew Simmons, Energy investment banker, (2007)
* T. Boone Pickens, Oil and gas investor (2007)
* U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (2005)
* Kenneth S. Deffeyes, Princeton professor and retired shell Geologist (2005)
* Sam Sam Bakhtiari, Retired Iranian National Oil Company geologist (2005)
* Chris Skrebowski, Editor of “Petroleum Review” (2010)
* Sadad Al Husseini, former head of production and exploration, Saudi Aramco (2008)
* Energy Watch Group in Germany (2006)
Independent studies conclude that global crude oil production will now decline from 74 million barrels per day to 60 million barrels per day by 2015. During the same time, demand will increase. Oil supplies will be even tighter for the U.S. As oil producing nations consume more and more oil domestically they will export less and less. Because demand is high in China, India, the Middle East, and other oil producing nations, once global oil production begins to decline, demand will always be higher than supply. And since the U.S. represents one fourth of global oil demand, whatever oil we conserve will be consumed elsewhere. Thus, conservation in the U.S. will not slow oil depletion rates significantly.
Alternatives will not even begin to fill the gap. And most alternatives yield electric power, but we need liquid fuels for tractors/combines, 18 wheel trucks, trains, ships, and mining equipment. The independent scientists of the Energy Watch Group conclude in a 2007 report titled: “Peak Oil Could Trigger Meltdown of Society:”
"By 2020, and even more by 2030, global oil supply will be dramatically lower. This will create a supply gap which can hardly be closed by growing contributions from other fossil, nuclear or alternative energy sources in this time frame."
http://www.energywatchgroup.org/fileadmin/global/pdf/EWG_Press_Oilreport_22-10-2007.pdf
With increasing costs for gasoline and diesel, along with declining taxes and declining gasoline tax revenues, states and local governments will eventually have to cut staff and curtail highway maintenance. Eventually, gasoline stations will close, and state and local highway workers won’t be able to get to work. We are facing the collapse of the highways that depend on diesel and gasoline powered trucks for bridge maintenance, culvert cleaning to avoid road washouts, snow plowing, and roadbed and surface repair. When the highways fail, so will the power grid, as highways carry the parts, large transformers, steel for pylons, and high tension cables from great distances. With the highways out, there will be no food coming from far away, and without the power grid virtually nothing modern works, including home heating, pumping of gasoline and diesel, airports, communications, and automated building systems.
This is documented in a free 48 page report that can be downloaded, website posted, distributed, and emailed: http://www.peakoilassociates.com/POAnalysis.html
I used to live in NH-USA, but moved to a sustainable place. Anyone interested in relocating to a nice, pretty, sustainable area with a good climate and good soil? Email: clifford dot wirth at yahoo dot com or give me a phone call which operates here as my old USA-NH number 603-668-4207. http://survivingpeakoil.blogspot.com/
And I don't think you can make plastics from electricity.
You can. By CO2+H20+electricity
I found this site using [url=http://google.com]google.com[/url] And i want to thank you for your work. You have done really very good site. Great work, great site! Thank you!
Sorry for offtopic
Post a Comment