4 ms·

So is it old, buried organic (flora,fauna) matter thats causing the methane ? I'm wondering a couple of things : 1) Is there any way arial or satellite imagin

by arjn 12y ago

So is it old, buried organic (flora,fauna) matter thats causing the methane ? I'm wondering a couple of things : 1) Is there any way arial or satellite imaging can help predict where these methane bubbles in the permafrost will occur ? 2) Could this be tapped as a resource ? P.S , is anyone else reminded of the "Spice blooms" from Dune ?

acomjean 12y ago
Landfills in the US are now esentially very large plastic bags. The problem is when the trash decays it produces methane (and other gasses), and having flamable gas in an many acre bag is bad.. So there are vents and the methane is captured. This is captured and piped to burn off. There are claims of generating power but the amount I've seen is not significant.
- g8oz 12y ago
  Landfill gas generation is quite significant. In the U.S alone as of 2013, 621 LFG projects were operational producing 1,978 MW. Another 850 MW worth of projects are candidates. See http://www.epa.gov/lmop/documents/pdfs/overview.pdf http://www.epa.gov/lmop/documents/pdfs/overview.pdf
agapos 12y ago
"So is it old, buried organic (flora, fauna) matter thats causing the methane ?" Yes, I believe so, though it could be still younger than the normal gas and oil fields (personal speculation). 1.) I think it may be possible, using a mix of infra and normal optical observations with a good algorithm to identify it on the images. Another but even smaller possibility would be the inspection of differences in the gravitational field * (though there may not be enough gas to be measurable this way). But for either of these to be even remotely possible, we would need a good idea of what to seek, namely a not-yet-popped methane lens under the permafrost. 2.) Unlikely. Suppose if we manage to find some intact ones, tapping into those would be dangerous to a currently unknown extent, maybe even compared to the normal hazards of working with explosive and flammable hydrocarbons. Secondly, the amount of gas may not be enough to clear the costs. Edit.: * Gravity gradiometry
noiv 12y ago
> Could this be tapped as a resource ? Methane is not a very useful resource, combustion results again in two greenhouse gases: Water and carbon dioxide.
- spacemanmatt 12y ago
  In the interest of being sure (because I'm interested) I had to second-guess that water is a greenhouse gas. NOAA had an interesting statement on it, which I'll just quote: "Water Vapor is the most abundant greenhouse gas in the atmosphere, which is why it is addressed here first. However, changes in its concentration is also considered to be a result of climate feedbacks related to the warming of the atmosphere rather than a direct result of industrialization." And now I'm left wondering how to unpack that, politically AND scientifically. Ah, the luxuries of Saturday morning browsing.

by arjn 12y ago

acomjean 12y ago

Landfills in the US are now esentially very large plastic bags. The problem is when the trash decays it produces methane (and other gasses), and having flamable gas in an many acre bag is bad.. So there are vents and the methane is captured. This is captured and piped to burn off. There are claims of generating power but the amount I've seen is not significant.

g8oz 12y ago
Landfill gas generation is quite significant. In the U.S alone as of 2013, 621 LFG projects were operational producing 1,978 MW. Another 850 MW worth of projects are candidates. See http://www.epa.gov/lmop/documents/pdfs/overview.pdf http://www.epa.gov/lmop/documents/pdfs/overview.pdf

agapos 12y ago

"So is it old, buried organic (flora, fauna) matter thats causing the methane ?" Yes, I believe so, though it could be still younger than the normal gas and oil fields (personal speculation). 1.) I think it may be possible, using a mix of infra and normal optical observations with a good algorithm to identify it on the images. Another but even smaller possibility would be the inspection of differences in the gravitational field * (though there may not be enough gas to be measurable this way). But for either of these to be even remotely possible, we would need a good idea of what to seek, namely a not-yet-popped methane lens under the permafrost. 2.) Unlikely. Suppose if we manage to find some intact ones, tapping into those would be dangerous to a currently unknown extent, maybe even compared to the normal hazards of working with explosive and flammable hydrocarbons. Secondly, the amount of gas may not be enough to clear the costs. Edit.: * Gravity gradiometry

noiv 12y ago

> Could this be tapped as a resource ? Methane is not a very useful resource, combustion results again in two greenhouse gases: Water and carbon dioxide.

spacemanmatt 12y ago
In the interest of being sure (because I'm interested) I had to second-guess that water is a greenhouse gas. NOAA had an interesting statement on it, which I'll just quote: "Water Vapor is the most abundant greenhouse gas in the atmosphere, which is why it is addressed here first. However, changes in its concentration is also considered to be a result of climate feedbacks related to the warming of the atmosphere rather than a direct result of industrialization." And now I'm left wondering how to unpack that, politically AND scientifically. Ah, the luxuries of Saturday morning browsing.