4 ms·

If we could extract them at economic prices, that could have enormous significance. The resources of methane hydrate are enormous. By some estimates there are

If we could extract them at economic prices, that could have enormous significance. The resources of methane hydrate are enormous. By some estimates there are more of them there other fossils: http://pubs.usgs.gov/fs/gas-hydrates/ http://pubs.usgs.gov/fs/gas-hydrates/ On the other hand, if they start leaking we will have incredible strong greenhouse effect...

uvdiv 14y ago
Wikipedia claims those estimates are obsolete, and the new ones are an order of magnitude smaller: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Methane_clathrate#Reservoir_size https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Methane_clathrate#Reservoir_si... In which case the largest fossil-fuel resource is coal.
panacea 14y ago
Extracting and burning for energy is leaking.
- smackay 14y ago
  Methane is 25 times more potent as a greenhouse gas than carbon dioxide so you really need to burn it rather than just let it escape. Of course it just might be better to leave it frozen at the bottom of the ocean.
  - Retric 14y ago
    Methane unlike CO2 is unstable and breaks down fairly quickly producing CO2. So, it's really a short term problem.
    - smackay 14y ago
      Yes, that is true. The lifetime of methane in the atmosphere is 8 years compared to 100 years for carbon. The possible problem with extracting it is destabilizing the hydrates so you get a very large eruption which would release colossal quantities of the gas in a very short period of time. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Atmospheric_methane http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Atmospheric_methane has lots of useful information and http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Clathrate_gun_hypothesis http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Clathrate_gun_hypothesis has some interesting info on methane hydrate eruptions. Edit: got my eruptions and irruptions in a twist.
      - Retric 14y ago
        Extraction can lead to leaks and what would amount to localized coal fires. However, to get a meaningful eruption, on the global scale, you need to change sea temperatures over a large area. Which requires insane amounts of energy making it vary hard to do accidentally as part of said extraction.
    - Gravityloss 14y ago
      Though, the "25 times" takes the limited lifetime into account. The short term effect is much more. For example the so called "20 year global warming potential" is 72, compared to CO2's 1. More here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Global-warming_potential http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Global-warming_potential
ryanmolden 14y ago
The last New Scientist had an article on this. The primary unknown/concern was structurally destabilizing the seabed by extracting the methane. They were talking about replacing it with CO2 to keep the seabed stable, but said that was really only an idea and just extracting it was safe, you know, until the massive tsunami they cause kills 100,000 people <morbid joke/>

uvdiv 14y ago

Wikipedia claims those estimates are obsolete, and the new ones are an order of magnitude smaller: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Methane_clathrate#Reservoir_size https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Methane_clathrate#Reservoir_si... In which case the largest fossil-fuel resource is coal.

panacea 14y ago

Extracting and burning for energy is leaking.

smackay 14y ago
Methane is 25 times more potent as a greenhouse gas than carbon dioxide so you really need to burn it rather than just let it escape. Of course it just might be better to leave it frozen at the bottom of the ocean.
- Retric 14y ago
  Methane unlike CO2 is unstable and breaks down fairly quickly producing CO2. So, it's really a short term problem.
  - smackay 14y ago
    Yes, that is true. The lifetime of methane in the atmosphere is 8 years compared to 100 years for carbon. The possible problem with extracting it is destabilizing the hydrates so you get a very large eruption which would release colossal quantities of the gas in a very short period of time. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Atmospheric_methane http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Atmospheric_methane has lots of useful information and http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Clathrate_gun_hypothesis http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Clathrate_gun_hypothesis has some interesting info on methane hydrate eruptions. Edit: got my eruptions and irruptions in a twist.
    - Retric 14y ago
      Extraction can lead to leaks and what would amount to localized coal fires. However, to get a meaningful eruption, on the global scale, you need to change sea temperatures over a large area. Which requires insane amounts of energy making it vary hard to do accidentally as part of said extraction.
  - Gravityloss 14y ago
    Though, the "25 times" takes the limited lifetime into account. The short term effect is much more. For example the so called "20 year global warming potential" is 72, compared to CO2's 1. More here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Global-warming_potential http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Global-warming_potential

ryanmolden 14y ago

The last New Scientist had an article on this. The primary unknown/concern was structurally destabilizing the seabed by extracting the methane. They were talking about replacing it with CO2 to keep the seabed stable, but said that was really only an idea and just extracting it was safe, you know, until the massive tsunami they cause kills 100,000 people <morbid joke/>