Hi Folks, Any debate over the speed of and/or effects of the Arctic methane release appears to me to be as about as productive as debating the differentiation between driving a car into a wall at 160kmph or 190kmph. Either way, it will be catastrophic and we need to take immediate actions. Playing chicken with a tipping point is simply foolish and will be rather embarrassing for the few poor souls that *might* manage to survive the anthropocene.
This recent paper gives us some hope that we may have a means for methane capture. *New materials for methane capture from dilute and medium-concentration sources*<http://www.nature.com/ncomms/journal/v4/n4/full/ncomms2697.html#affil-auth> *Jihan Kim*<http://www.nature.com/ncomms/journal/v4/n4/full/ncomms2697.html#auth-1> ,*1* <http://www.nature.com/ncomms/journal/v4/n4/full/ncomms2697.html#a1> *Amitesh Maiti*<http://www.nature.com/ncomms/journal/v4/n4/full/ncomms2697.html#auth-2> ,*2* <http://www.nature.com/ncomms/journal/v4/n4/full/ncomms2697.html#a2> *Li-Chiang Lin*<http://www.nature.com/ncomms/journal/v4/n4/full/ncomms2697.html#auth-3> ,*3* <http://www.nature.com/ncomms/journal/v4/n4/full/ncomms2697.html#a3> *Joshuah K. Stolaroff*<http://www.nature.com/ncomms/journal/v4/n4/full/ncomms2697.html#auth-4> ,*2* <http://www.nature.com/ncomms/journal/v4/n4/full/ncomms2697.html#a2> *Berend Smit*<http://www.nature.com/ncomms/journal/v4/n4/full/ncomms2697.html#auth-5> *1* <http://www.nature.com/ncomms/journal/v4/n4/full/ncomms2697.html#a1>, *3 * <http://www.nature.com/ncomms/journal/v4/n4/full/ncomms2697.html#a3>, *4*<http://www.nature.com/ncomms/journal/v4/n4/full/ncomms2697.html#a4> & *Roger D. Aines*<http://www.nature.com/ncomms/journal/v4/n4/full/ncomms2697.html#auth-6> *2* <http://www.nature.com/ncomms/journal/v4/n4/full/ncomms2697.html#a2> *"Methane (CH4) is an important greenhouse gas, second only to CO2, and is emitted into the atmosphere at different concentrations from a variety of sources. However, unlike CO2, which has a quadrupole moment and can be captured both physically and chemically in a variety of solvents and porous solids, methane is completely non-polar and interacts very weakly with most materials. Thus, methane capture poses a challenge that can only be addressed through extensive material screening and ingenious molecular-level designs. Here we report systematic in silico studies on the methane capture effectiveness of two different materials systems, that is, liquid solvents (including ionic liquids) and nanoporous zeolites. Although none of the liquid solvents appears effective as methane sorbents, systematic screening of over 87,000 zeolite structures led to the discovery of a handful of candidates that have sufficient methane sorption capacity as well as appropriate CH4/CO2 and/or CH4/N2 selectivity to be technologically promising.".* ** When Dr. Jihan et al. reduces this knowledge into field level technology, it will still face the same basic engineering/technical challenges that polymer based CO2 capture faces. There is a need to reduce/eliminate the cost of air movement, address the energy needs for gas separation from the material and then there are the issues of gas transport/storage. On the issue of air movement, we have the use of wave action to provide 'free' air movement. Anyone interested in suggestions on the design of that type of system are welcome to PM. On the issue of gas separation, it maybe best to simply use (burn) the methane to cool local Arctic waters at the site of capture (ice production through *water spray absorption refrigeration*<https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Absorptive_refrigeration.svg>?). The resulting CO2 can be shipped/piped to micro algal photobioreactors. However, burning the methane within the Arctic would require robust BC capture filters as the Arctic BC issue is problematic on multiple levels. Beyond zeolite, the use of *Photodissociation*<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Photolysis>(at 121.6 nm) above the active ebulation fields may be worth attention. Lighting up the Arctic ebulation fields is not as far fetched as it first sounds. As long as the ESAS GHSZ is being unzipped, there will be an abundant supply of natural gas to energize the lights. Also, captured methane can potentially be used for non-pathogenic bacterial cultivation (as a feed stock for biodegradable plastic), yet the zeolite/methane release may require combustion. There are a number of questions that I would like to solve for concerning zeolite. Best, Michael On Tuesday, July 30, 2013 9:12:09 AM UTC-7, Greg Rau wrote: > > http://www.cam.ac.uk/research/discussion/a-response-to-methane-mischief-misleading-commentary-published-in-nature > > The 24 July news story about the potential cost of Arctic methane release > has provoked widespread coverage, including a critique in the Washington > Post. Here, Professor Peter Wadhams responds to some of the comments that > were made. > > The 25 July post by Jason Samenow on the global economic impacts of > methane emissions in the East Siberian Sea portrays the findings of our > research as misleading, a statement with which I strongly disagree. Our > work is based on a prediction of the magnitude and timing of methane > emissions from the thawing of Arctic offshore permafrost by a scientist who > has done extensive field work on this part of the ocean bed and is a > globally recognized expert. We calculated the financial implications of > these emissions for the world economy over a century and also considered > the effect of the emissions on increasing overall global warming, > obtaining a 0.6C figure by 2040. We rightly consider these to be > substantial figures, which deserve wide circulation among climate > scientists, and Nature and its referees agreed with us. > > In our analysis we showed that the overall cost of a given volume of > methane release is relatively insensitive to the rate of release or, within > limits, its timing, BUT that the cost is roughly proportional to the > overall volume of release. Thus, even if you worked with a different > projection by a lesser qualified scientist than Shakhova, and revised down > the figure and scale of the 60 trillion dollars accordingly, I suspect the > cost will still be substantial – and that is one clear finding: The > planetary cost of Arctic warming far outstrips any possible benefits to > shipping or natural resource exploration. > > In support of its skepticism about methane emissions the article quoted > authors who wrote before the enormous retreat of summer Arctic sea ice and > its oceanographic effects became so evident. The mechanism which is causing > the observed mass of rising methane plumes in the East Siberian Sea is > itself unprecedented and the scientists who dismissed the idea of extensive > methane release in earlier research were simply not aware of the new > mechanism that is causing it. > > What is happening is that the summer sea ice now retreats so far, and for > so long each summer, that there is a substantial ice-free season over the > Siberian shelf, sufficient for solar irradiance to warm the surface water > by a significant amount – up to 7C according to satellite data. That > warming extends the 50 m or so to the seabed because we are dealing with > only a polar surface water layer here (over the shelves the Arctic Ocean > structure is one-layer rather than three layers) and the surface warming > is mixed down by wave-induced mixing because the extensive open water > permits large fetches. So long as some ice persisted on the shelf, the > water mass was held to about 0C in summer because any further heat content > in the water column was used for melting the ice underside. But once the > ice disappears, as it has done, the temperature of the water can rise > significantly, and the heat content reaching the seabed can melt the frozen > sediments at a rate that was never before possible. > > The 2008 US Climate Change Science Program report needs to be seen in > this context. Equally, David Archer’s 2010 comment that “so far no one has > seen or proposed a mechanism to make that (a catastrophic methane release) > happen” was not informed by the Semiletov/Shakhova field experiments and > the mechanism described above. Carolyn Rupple’s review of 2011 equally does > not reflect awareness of this new mechanism. > > Therefore I robustly defend our research and commentary, and hope that > rather than dismiss the substantial risk such a methane release poses, the > response might be to support more intensive research on this problem. > > - See more at: > http://www.cam.ac.uk/research/discussion/a-response-to-methane-mischief-misleading-commentary-published-in-nature#sthash.0ULHFzzl.dpuf > -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "geoengineering" group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to [email protected]. To post to this group, send email to [email protected]. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/geoengineering. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.
