Methane clathrates are "mined" by vacuuming them up from the ocean bottom with underwater pipes that extend top the bottom of the ocean bed from ships anchored above. The equipment currently developed works but controversy and economics have kept the clathrates unmined. I guess they can be vacuumed up in a year or two if the funds are provided. As the world warms, ever bigger swaths of the ocean bed will bubble up methane. If we vacuum up the clathrates with sufficient numbers of mining ships we might be able keep up with the growth of methane out gassings! There are about 250 known undersea out gassing locations that have been found. I don't know what size they or what amount of equipment has to be built. But a crash program could catch a lot of the clathrates. I think it'll be alot more practical and easier to flare them.
On Dec 15, 12:38 pm, David <[email protected]> wrote: > RE: CH4 > > Would it be economically viable to capture the methane and burn it for > energy? Each CH4 -> CO2 + 2(H2O). > > CO2 is less effective as a GHG as I understand it. Condensation of H2O > in the atmosphere would release heat to space. > > I suspect it actually isn't. But I could be missing something. > > An idea I like is cloud seeding tropical depressions and tropical > storms. These storms are heat driven engines that draw their power > from the warm surface water of the oceans. Ultimately heat is pumped > into space. This would be heat that is not pumped to the poles. The > extra cloud cover would provide albedo where it really helps, at low > incident angles. > > Also, why not use ground / sea launched rockets to carry the seeding > aerosols? I'm sure there are propellents that are less harmful than > jet fuel. The propellents could produce the seeding material directly. > The rockets can be made out of inexpensive biodegradable materials. > Did anyone play with Estes model rockets as a kid? This is stuff that > can be scaled up cheaply I think. > > Another possible carrier would be hydrogen filled balloons. > > A good launch point for the Atlantic is West Africa. Just ride the > same trade winds that push the storms along. > > On Dec 15, 8:58 am, Brennan Jorgensen <[email protected]> > wrote: > > > > > The Arctic and Antarctic are classified as deserts with limited or > > variable cloud cover available for cloud seeding (correct me if I am > > wrong)? To my knowledge, cloud seeding is costly and would also > > involve the combustion of jet fuel that is, unfortunately, a > > limitation apparent in today's conventional technologies. In addition, > > if we just focus on cooling the Arctic would this not just increase > > the kinetic-heat-conveyor belt of the Gulf Stream transporting heat > > from the subtropics to the Arctic? > > > I would like to suggest that the highest climatic risk may involve > > the possibility of a methane release. Covering the permafrost with an > > environmentally friendly, biodegradable (maybe a 500+ year life) white > > plastic sheeting (derived from algae) may provide a less variable and > > more fail safe approach to hasten the albedo effect over critical > > zones. The white membrane with some innovative material science could > > also temporarily slow a or even partially absorb a potential methane > > out gassing. A risk assessment/GIS map could be devised for the > > permafrost with a corresponding deployment schedule. In this case the > > Central Siberian permafrost would most likey be considered the first > > critical zone for deployment. > > > Regards, > > > Brennan > > > On Dec 15, 5:47 am, Andrew Lockley <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > I note the use of cloud seeding by the Chinese, and its unexpected effect > > > in > > > causing huge snowfalls in Beijing. It seems that there may be two useful > > > geoengineering approaches with this technique, and I'd be interested in > > > hearing comments. > > > > 1) Rebuild ice - by inducing snowfalls over Greenland, Antarctica and the > > > Arctic, it would perhaps be possible to maintain ice. In Greenland, where > > > the height of the ice cap is critical, this would seem a particularly > > > appealing prospect. > > > 2) Albedo modification - Fresh snow is whiter than old snow, especially in > > > polluted areas. Is the albedo change worth pursuing? My guess is not. > > > HOWEVER, I suspect that triggering significant autumn and spring > > > snowfalls > > > in permafrost regions, we could potentially significantly modify albedo. > > > > I invite comments. > > > > A- Hide quoted text - > > - Show quoted text - -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "geoengineering" group. To post to this group, send email to [email protected]. To unsubscribe from this group, send email to [email protected]. For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/geoengineering?hl=en.
