The green house effect of methane is about 85 x more potent than carbon dioxide. At the University of Stanford scientists are working on a project to use zeolite to convert methane into carbon dioxide
Harvey C. Turn methane into CO2 to reduce warming, experts propose. Scientific American 21 may 2019 (on line).
It is possible to break down the molecules of methane(CH4) into CO and H2. which is carbon-monoxide and Hydrogen respectively. But the production of CO and H 2 gets better due to increase in temperature within range of 650-1050 K, and slows down with increase in pressure say 1 and 20 atmospheric pressure which will result to a good yield (-92%) and produced to a 4:2:1 N2 . But with further oxidation will produce CO2 which also constitute GHG gas which are still responsible for global warming will also create more CO2 in the ozone layer adding up to the existing one and we know that, we have more CO2 in the atmosphere why would we want to add more by breaking down the molecules of methane? I do not think is worth the effort. We should be thinking of how to eradicate GHG which included mostly C02 which constitute large amount in the ozone depletion layer and not worrying much on breaking down the molecule of methane into C02.
Everyday I convert methane (Natural gas) to CO2 and water in my gas oven. The problem is not converting methane but to decrease its emission into environment. As soon as methane escapes into air, it becomes very diluted. Chemically, methane is one of the most non-reactive molecule. A direct selective oxidation of methane (e.g. to methanol) remains the challenging problem in chemistry. Methanol synthesis from natural gas via syngas (CO/H2) is a multi-billion busyness, which contributes to GHG mostly by emitting CH4.
Calistus Bengold Anarene " why would we want to add more by breaking down the molecules of methane? " You missed an important point: " The green house effect of methane is about 85 x more potent than carbon dioxide. " Decreasing the emission of methane by 1 molecule is an equivalent of removing 85 molecules of CO2.
Thus, the breaking dawn of methane escaped to air is much less efficient than decreasing its emission. For example, in food production chain one of the most efficient way is converting manure to biogas
If the objective is to reduce the climate impact of a source of CH4 which would otherwise be emitted to the atmosphere it is worthwhile converting it to CO2 before it is emitted.
Although CH4 is relatively stable (e-folding time > 12 yrs for large emissions) in the atmosphere it is eventually oxidized to CO2 anyway. Doing what you propose would reduce the total climate impact significantly since CH4 has a radiative efficiency more than 100 times higher than that of CO2.
One thing that matters from a system perspective is the resources used to convert CH4 to CO2. A very simple means of doing so is burning the CH4. Zeolite might be another. As long as the means (resources used) of converting it to CO2 does not generate other emissions of GHG with a higher impact than what you save when converting CH4 to CO2, the climate benefits are obvious.
Another question is what the source of your CH4 is and if it can be collected and put to better use than just destroyng it. It is after all a good energy carrier that can be readily used to produce heat and other energy products. It can also be used to synthesize both fuels and materials. As Calistus Bengold Anarene pointed out it can be croken down into CO and H2 which are the basic building blocks for many apllications in the chemical industry.
Good luck
I think it I support the idea of converting methane (CH4) into CO2 on the account that:
Methane has 25 times higher Global Warming potential than CO2 and therefore has more radiative effect.
- Secondly, an increase in methane will result in an increased production of tropospheric ozone which is also an important green house gas.
Although methane has a relatively lower life span (12 yrs) than CO2 (arguably 5-200 yrs) and would therefore have a relatively short-lived effect, it does not have such many natural fluxes compared to CO2. CO2 has many natural fluxes including photosynthesis, respiration and oceanic uptake. There are several large reservoirs of CO2 such as the atmosphere, upper and deep ocean and the biosphere which can conpensate for the increased concentrations resulting from the conversion from methane.
I will therefore go for the conversion@Jean Pierre Jost
- Badges
- Science topic
- Similar topics
- Biological Science
- Biochemistry
- Biomolecules
- Peptides