4 ms·

The amount of potential methane locked away in the Siberian and Canadian permafrost is frightening. However the amount of potential methane locked into the cont

The amount of potential methane locked away in the Siberian and Canadian permafrost is frightening. However the amount of potential methane locked into the continental shelf seabed is down right terrifying. If these two sources of greenhouse gases begin to form a positive feedback loop humanity is going to feel a world of hurt. It would lead us down a climate change road which we cannot recover from.

rhardih 10y ago
Hypothetically we're completely screwed already and nothing we do at this point matters: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Clathrate_gun_hypothesis https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Clathrate_gun_hypothesis
brianbreslin 10y ago
I wonder if it would be possible to harness these methane reserves for energy production?
- 24gttghh 10y ago
  That's basically what Natural Gas is. While it appears to burn the "cleanest" out of the fossil fuels, it still releases CO2 emmisions.
  - Diederich 10y ago
    Right. Many roots of the modern environmental movement trace back to the early 70s where smog in US cities was a thick, visible and almost always present irritant. That, and burning rivers. Very few of us had a clear understanding of global warming and climate change at the time. Indeed, some brief panicked warnings of an impending ice age have been endlessly presented and re-presented as proof that climate science is bogus. The term 'clean' was really all about particulate emissions. The shit that polluted the air and the water in visible ways. CO2 and methane missions are invisible and odorless, and so weren't really considered at the time. I'm not an expert on chemistry, but I believe that CO2 pretty much HAS to come out of any energy producing reaction of fossil fuels.
    - 24gttghh 10y ago
      This lines up with my understanding of the history as well. And actually, I found an article on phys.org that says to the contrary[0]! I was surprised myself. >Instead of burning methane (CH4), its molecular components, hydrogen (H2) and carbon (C), can be separated in a process called 'methane cracking'. This reaction occurs at high temperatures (750°C and above) and does not release any harmful emissions. https://phys.org/news/2015-11-energy-fossil-fuel-carbon-dioxide.html https://phys.org/news/2015-11-energy-fossil-fuel-carbon-diox...
- jackmott 10y ago
  sure, but that still releases the co2. at least you get something useful from the co2 though.

rhardih 10y ago

Hypothetically we're completely screwed already and nothing we do at this point matters: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Clathrate_gun_hypothesis https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Clathrate_gun_hypothesis

brianbreslin 10y ago

I wonder if it would be possible to harness these methane reserves for energy production?

24gttghh 10y ago
That's basically what Natural Gas is. While it appears to burn the "cleanest" out of the fossil fuels, it still releases CO2 emmisions.
- Diederich 10y ago
  Right. Many roots of the modern environmental movement trace back to the early 70s where smog in US cities was a thick, visible and almost always present irritant. That, and burning rivers. Very few of us had a clear understanding of global warming and climate change at the time. Indeed, some brief panicked warnings of an impending ice age have been endlessly presented and re-presented as proof that climate science is bogus. The term 'clean' was really all about particulate emissions. The shit that polluted the air and the water in visible ways. CO2 and methane missions are invisible and odorless, and so weren't really considered at the time. I'm not an expert on chemistry, but I believe that CO2 pretty much HAS to come out of any energy producing reaction of fossil fuels.
  - 24gttghh 10y ago
    This lines up with my understanding of the history as well. And actually, I found an article on phys.org that says to the contrary[0]! I was surprised myself. >Instead of burning methane (CH4), its molecular components, hydrogen (H2) and carbon (C), can be separated in a process called 'methane cracking'. This reaction occurs at high temperatures (750°C and above) and does not release any harmful emissions. https://phys.org/news/2015-11-energy-fossil-fuel-carbon-dioxide.html https://phys.org/news/2015-11-energy-fossil-fuel-carbon-diox...
jackmott 10y ago
sure, but that still releases the co2. at least you get something useful from the co2 though.