Methane hydrates may be a REALLY big part of our energy future. With more than 200 TRILLION, (ja, "trillion" with a t) cubic feet, the USGS estimated reserves contain enough energy to supply the entire US economy (i.e., all of our energy needs currently met by oil, coal, natural gas, nuclear, hydroelectric, geothermal, wind, solar, and whatever else) for 2,000 years.

Mining the Ocean

Of course, getting this energy will require work, and have some environmental impact.

Question is:

Will the environmental movement get on board, be neutral, or be obstructionist

Loaded question, eh? How about agree, disagree or remain neutral?

From the article:



I think the question here is where we want to focus the resources we have now, both in talent and dollars.

Burning anything isn't a clean energy source. At minimal, CO2 gets released into the atmosphere. If the ecosystem isn't capable of absorbing the released CO2, then CO2 rises in the atmosphere -- that's the basic idea of the carbon cycle:

More Info about the Carbon Cycle

A much better source of energy involves not burning carbon that has been locked up in the Earth for millions of years. Hydroelectric uses the sun's energy indirectly (sun evaporates water, water falls as rain and snow, water comes down the hill by gravity, water turns turbine). Solar electrical generation tech converts the sun's energy directly into electricity. Geothermal electrical generation uses the Earth's internal heat to produce steam that turns the turbine. Biomass burning does release CO2, but the ecosystem is capable of reabsorbing the gas.

Another alternative that has been successfully implemented involves capturing the energy in sea tides. And of course there's the wind generation idea.

Generate electricity with these alternatives and use the electricity to crack water into hydrogen and oxygen. Burn these two gases to reproduce the water -- that's the scheme that makes the most sense to me.

Environmentalists, ecologists, scientists and anybody concerned about bringing more CO2 into the atmosphere will be against this mining and for putting our resources into very clean, non-CO2 releasing alternatives.

The bottom line is this: We no longer need to poke holes in the Earth to extract fossilized fuels. The faster we go toward non-CO2 releasing alternatives, the better. If this is becoming a major movement on the planet, then good for us.

I have thought about methane hydrates as one possible source of future energy. On the other hand, there are some real problems. The technology for capturing this methane does not yet exist. Most of it is along continental shelves at considerable depth. It is not clear what the EROEI would be for this recovery if it could be achieved. Methane is also a highly potent greenhouse gas, so it is important that it be recovered with very little escaping. On the other hand, the possible release of methane hydrates as a result of rising ocean temperatures is one of the possible triggers that could rapidly accelerate global temperature increases. Therefore, it may become highly desirable to be able to identify the most vulnerable deposits and capture he methane before it is released into the atmosphere.

There are also some methane hydrates deposits under the tundra in Alaska, Canada and elsewhere in the arctic. Oil companies have done some experimentation with these deposits and are interested. They are the probable first source of commercial methane from hydrates. Recovery from these deposits will present the same type of environmental challenge that oil recovery in the arctic does.

In comparison to methane hydrates, improvements in energy end use efficiencies present a vast, economic, and environmentally benign opportunity using existing technology. I suggest we emphasize this opportunity first.

I know I've mentioned it before, but for mobile transport fuel, I'm a fan of biodiesel. The total replacement for gas & diesel used by planes, trains, autos & trucks in the US could be replaced, with no increase in efficiency, by biodiesel made from algae ponds covering a few thousand acres, a small fraction of the land in the US currently used for cropland and grazing. It's a closed carbon cycle, the carbon released by burning the oil is recovered by the growing algae, at least in net total terms.

Will the environmental movement get on board, be neutral, or be obstructionist

Like AM, I have two quibbles with this debate question:

First, it is pretty provocative. "Obstructionist" has such a negative connotation that there really cannot be a proper debate involving this term. "Getting on board" implies a bias towards the "rightness" of the cause which also hinders proper debate.

Second, the question seems to presume a monolithic nature to the "environmental movement". What can I say but that this is a logical fallacy.

So, I will answer this question instead:

Will those concerned with the environment agree, be neutral, or disagree?

Like petroleum, methane hydrates have served to sequester carbon and, more specifically, carbon dioxide. Recall that at one point the Earth's atmosphere had almost no O2; it was mostly C02. The actions of anaerobic life sequestered the carbon from the dioxide. This not only dramatically changed the composition of the atmosphere but also lowered the average temperature of the Earth (and giving rise to aerobic life). Methane hydrates (or clathrates) are generated by bacterial degradation of organic matter in [a] low oxygen environment. This means that using the fuel will send the previously sequestered carbon back into the atmosphere. What the effect will be is still being debated, but it is clear that consuming the fuel will not be for "free".

That said, catalytic conversion is much easier to do with methane than with petroleum. If this vast new fuel source involved ecologically responsible techniques for both access and consumption, then I think it is very likely the benefits would outweigh the costs. And this is the crux of the matter.

Most folks understand that society improves in direct proportion to energy consumption. What many people desire is a way to consume energy without a huge environmental hit. If and only if this can be accomplished will it supported by those concerned with the environment. For those who are not concerned with the environment, I suppose consumption of those fuels would be fine at any ecological cost .