Regarding ECBM (Enhanced coal bed methane recovery) technology to contain global warming, CO2 is sequestered by coal seams and consequently recovered CH4 for energy use. But CH4 will be burned as an energy source and emit CO2 back into the atmosphere. I would like to see a demonstration of this. There is a theory that if all recovered CH4 was burned, there would be net storage of CO2, but I would like more references on that.
I have couple of documents like that, but not strong references about it: https://static.berkeleyearth.org/memos/fugitive-methane-and-greenhouse-warming.pdf
If anyone can help me, I'd appreciate it!
As per my understanding, You are considering a single track to notice Carbon in the form of Carbon dioxide but it's not. It's a complete cycle, which are linked to each carbon sink.
I'm hoping it'll help.
It is a complete cycle for sure, but specifically about ECBM technology it doest seem a very clear improvement. Maybe someone could help better if read my text, but it is missing some good references. IPCC didn't give the information I need:
Ihab Alfadhel and Shivam Kumar Sharma
" Negative CO2 balance
Another point of attention that may question the ECBM conception is whether, with the use of the technology, there would be actually a negative balance of CO2 in the atmosphere. The main economic objective of any CBM or ECBM project is the recovery of CH4. By producing more methane (CH4), this when burnt will emit more CO2 into the atmosphere, which is the exact opposite of the environmental goal.
It is estimated that burning 1 ton of CH4 can produce 2.27 tons of CO2, while burn 1 ton of C (the major constituent of coal) can produce 3.67 tons of CO2. In addition, new modern electric generator technologies transform 60% of the thermal energy produced into electricity while more efficient supercritical coal-fired power plants operate with 43% efficiency. Thus, the net result considering the same energy production, the carbon burned from coal produces 2.8 times more carbon dioxide than the methane burned. Although it is an important greenhouse gas, the methane is considered the “cleanest burning fossil fuel”. When compared with other types of hydrocarbon fuel, the combustion of methane is characterised by the release of less carbon dioxide and more heat (I don’t have serious reference about that – Richard Muller).
Ottiger et al. (2006) and Hansen et al. (2017) suggested that if all recovered CH4 were burned, there would be net storage of CO2, based on the CO2 balance and cycle. There would be a potential for a net reduction of greenhouse effect gas emissions from this storage option. The balance based on these calculations would still keep the technology as a CO2 negative emission solution.
Sampath et al. (2017) report that methane is the fuel that emits the least amount of CO2 per unit of energy released. The Global CCS Institute 2018 also refers to the environmental benefits through the burning of methane (considered by them the cleanest of fossil fuels) to meet energy demand, and not through the burning of carbon-rich fuels such as coal.
According to Sloss (2015), ECBM projects can be carried out before coal mining, sometimes as part of site safety requirements and sometimes as a means of harnessing this gaseous energy before moving to traditional coal mining methods.
CH4 is a powerful greenhouse gas in which its release should be avoided. However, according to Sloss (2015), at ECBM this gas would be collected under control. This would enable a global reduction in greenhouse gas emissions, together with an improvement in mine safety (US EPA 2015).
This is certainly one of the most important points of attention in the conception of the ECBM project in order not to generate an environmental contradiction."