Flaring of methane is a last resort, as the CO2 generated still ends up in the atmos. Far better to capture the methane, use the energy, and capture the carbon.
Not all methane starts out as clathrates - in some cases it's directly vented from organic-rich mud and sediments in anoxic and low-oxygen waters. You need to be clear on the source before you try to control it. I will be working on my methane remediation paper over Xmas, and anyone interested in the subject is welcome to join as a co-author. I'd appreciate all the available assistance as I'm a lowly mech-eng grad with not a paper or a science degree to my name. A 2009/12/16 Neil Farbstein <[email protected]> > 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]<geoengineering%[email protected]> > . > For more options, visit this group at > http://groups.google.com/group/geoengineering?hl=en. > > > -- 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.
