> >So what effect could this have on the famous Hubbert's Peak of fossil > >fuel supplies down whose steep slopes we'll allegedly soon be > >tobogganing towards the end of CAWKI? Also, how do these apparently > >regular accidental discoveries of "new" energy resources reflect on > >all the assurances we've had that current knowledge of the extent of > >fossil-fuel reserves means that much more than it did in the past > >(damn all)? > > > >Not that Hubbert's Peak makes much sense to me anyway, even without > >methane hydrate, since there are immense reserves of coal and > >long-established technology for converting it into fuel. Nor does > >that make much sense because climate change will inevitably change > >the whole ball-game. > > > >Keith
Hello MM >A few quick points: > >I don't think mining this stuff is without its hazards. No, I don't think it is. >I think that anews >story I read last year implied that it was in a relatively delicate thermal >balance, or something, and one wouldn't want to tip that balance. I'm sorry >that I can't be more specific or accurate. There seem to be a number of objections, but perhaps the chief one is that methane has a lot to do with climate change, and the hydrate reserves could be a key part of the climate mechanism. Not that such quibbles have stopped us much in the past, or stopped our glorious leaders rather. http://healthandenergy.com/methane_hydrate.htm Methane Hydrate Historic Global Warming Linked to Methane Release >Ocean-releases of Methane bubbles have been suggested as a possible reason for >"Bermuda Triangle" mysteries (i.e.: they could kill folks on ships or affect >planes' flight). Not UFOs? Aw. Rather less romantic to get blown away by a sea-fart. Anyway, my main concern in posting these two articles was as a counterpoint to the Hubbert's Peak arguments, and I guess to thump my drum again on climate change being more important. That methane, and especially methane hydrate, is itself a factor in climate change, maybe a critical factor, perhaps underlines the importance of making a real effort at long last to find out how the thing works. David Teal wrote in a previous message: >Terry mentioned methane hydrate, the solid stuff. With global >warming now inevitable, it is important that these rich resources of >fossil fuel should be captured for use soon, otherwise they will >vaporise to methane in the atmosphere and become a VERY potent cause >of further warming. We've got a positive feedback timebomb with this >stuff! Damned if we do, damned if we don't? This seems to put the dilemma quite nicely: "Experts say that the entire reserve of methane hydrate in the waters near Japan could provide 6 trillion cubic meters of methane. This is enough to support Japan's expenditure of natural gas for a century. Since Japan imports 100% of its crude oil and 82% of all its primary energy (energy directly obtained from natural resources, such as oil, coal, natural gas, hydro, and geothermal), the prospect of gaining an extensive domestic pool of energy comes with high expectations. "The worldwide total of methane hydrate is estimated to be equivalent to 250 trillion cubic meters of methane gas. Research on this substance has been active overseas since the early 1990s, but attention is focused more on its potential to contribute to climate change than to provide energy. If temperatures were to rise on a global scale, causing some permafrost to melt, then massive amounts of methane would be released into the atmosphere to aggravate global warming. This would create a relentless cycle by melting yet more permafrost, thereby releasing even greater amounts of methane." http://jin.jcic.or.jp/trends98/honbun/ntj980623.html FLAMMABLE ICE: Methane Hydrate Opens Possibility for New Energy Now you'd think they'd resolve the second bit before rushing headlong into the first bit, wouldn't you? Well, you or I would, but "them"? Don't bet on it. I think this whole climate change disaster could have an upside. It's very belated (of course!), but the climate change study must be approaching about the biggest scientific study ever: >It's about damn' time science got involved in a detailed, integrated >examination of the biosystem... Maybe only climate change as the >header would serve to make it integrated enough to counter science's >great love of splintering itself in the name of specialisation, >learning more and more about less and less. This huge climate-change >study could turn out to be the most important thing they've ever >done, whatever the results for the global warming case. Bit of a lousy reason for it, and who knows if the upside will balance the downside, but maybe we might at last learn to stop fiddling with things we don't understand and then being amazed by the unfortunate "side-effects", if we even notice them, as they usually involve somebody else's "discipline". Need a new definition of that word too, or at least a return to the old one. >I agree with your "damn-all" how this sort of requires a re-working of >assumptions, but on the other hand, I'm a fan of human industry, and if we can >make use of this methane without overly upsetting some pre-existing balance of >nature, then I say it's an interesting prospect. The Second article mentioned >some very interesting claim as to a find that there is a rapid rate of new >formation of the Methane. Now *that* would be *really* interesting. Almost >like trees and biomass growing all the time on land, so if you harvested >only-so-much it would be a renewable resource or at least its finite nature >would be much-extended. "Only-so-much" being the important bit - how much would that be, and how would we find out? I'm a fan of human industry, but I'm not a fan of corporate industry, to whom finding out might mean not much more than how it might affect the bottom line on next quarter's results. >The second article also talks about involvement in the global climate cycle of >these hydrates. That sounds like it would ask for more study before >we mine it >as an alternative to petroleum. Yes. >As you say, the bottom line here is Global >Warming. If we can find some way to make non-renewable fuels less-damaging >under Global Warming Theory (scrubbing the atmosphere? Carbon sinks?) In a complex system like the climate, quick fixes - any "fixes" at this stage - are probably as likely to cause quick disasters elsewhere in the system and you end up making everything worse. There's much talk of such possibilities, but until we really understand how the climate works and what's involved, it sounds a bit like heroin addicts suggesting alternatives to cold turkey. Maybe one day there might be such alternatives, but right now the only way is to cut right down on energy wastage and develop renewable alternatives to fossil fuels. >then >maybe the Global Warming objection could be changed or modified, but >until then, >it is hard to see using newly found non-renewable hydrocarbon assets with >abandon. They would seem to just continue to make things worse. I'm sure that's true. So, without even trying hard, we have massive and apparently unknown reserves of methane hydrates, and nobody knows their potential or whether they should be exploited or not; huge oil shale deposits that may or may not become economically extractable; huge coal reserves that could easily be turned into fuel. Which would seem to leave the Hubbert's Peak projections looking a bit tattered. My main reason for questioning Hubbert's Peak isn't whether it's right or wrong, I keep saying it doesn't really matter. What matters more is that it doesn't lead to a clear view of the problem, nor to adequate solutions. Tim Castleman just posted in the Fuel and Fiber newsletter the two messages I crossposted here from the Stoves list, from Tom Reed and Laszlo Paszner. As we've done here a couple of times, Paszner does an estimate of how much biomass we'd need to replace fossil-fuel use, quite interesting. But Tim comments: "One thing Dr. Paszner is missing is the shorter time to harvest we may obtain using annual crops, however the more important point is the clear need to reduce consumption. Duh." Duh, yes. Focusing on Hubbert's Peak commonly leads to that omission. Mere substitution of fossil fuels is not the answer. But if you consider climate change, the need for reduction is obvious. Regards Keith >MM > > > > >Among the most surprising findings of the recent offshore drilling > >was the fast rate at which gas hydrate is forming. > > > >Ocean drilling plays a critical role in addressing questions about > >hydrates because it provides the only means available of directly > >sampling the material and the sediments that host them deep beneath > >the seafloor. In 1995, ODP researchers drilled into gas hydrates in a > >relatively stable area off the U.S. east coast. Scientists have > >estimated that area could contain enough methane to supply U.S. > >energy needs for more than 100 years. They also found evidence > >suggesting that hydrates are involved in the global climate cycle, > >and that they can cause massive landslides. ------------------------ Yahoo! Groups Sponsor ---------------------~--> Home Selling? Try Us! http://us.click.yahoo.com/QrPZMC/iTmEAA/ySSFAA/FGYolB/TM ---------------------------------------------------------------------~-> Biofuel at Journey to Forever: http://journeytoforever.org/biofuel.html Biofuels list archives: http://archive.nnytech.net/ Please do NOT send Unsubscribe messages to the list address. To unsubscribe, send an email to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
