The results of 2016 expedition of N. Shakhova and I. Semiletov group in East Siberian Sea were published in March 2017. From drilled samples they concluded that the subsea permafrost melts up to 15 to 20 cm pro year. They observed the methane emissions with the largest flows in range of more than 1 kg/m2 daily. They estimate that the entire surface with similar emissions occupies already 10 % of East Siberian Sea, that means from 50.000 to 200.000 km2.
If the hotspots include 10 % of the entire ESAS surface, 200.000 km2 and on this surface, at the estimated quantities 1 kg/m2, we calculate annually emissions, we get 70 Gton. This is today 14 times more in one year, as it is (it should be) the entire methane quantity in the atmosphere (5 Gton). At lower surface margin we get approx. 20 Gton.
And if we stay at before 5 years measured real 200 g/m2, this gives on the estimated hotspot surface 5 times smaller annual quantity of emission, 14 Gton. Already this is almost 3 times of the entire "current official" methane quantity in atmosphere (IPCC).
Take into account that methane is in short time, because its atmosphere concentrations are only rising, 150 times stronger as CO2, and that these today's emissions are already doubling the entire Earth's greenhouse effect. The only solution to save the life on this planet, is to prevent these emissions, to capture them, to use THIS METHANE instead all other fossil energy. How much time do we have ??
It is a long text and yet I have hard time connecting it to your opening sentence about being irresponsible. Could you please write down in bulet points what do you find so perturbing in these programs?
I agree with you. Once the causes are identified, we can work toward mitigation.
The entire world (at least) expresses the efforts to increase energy consumption from renewable and clean sources. Exploring new fossil stocks is therefore in direct opposition with this urge. If we use the methane from gas hydrates and store "its" CO2 in the same space, it is just approx. 1:1 operation – we didn't spare anything to the atmosphere.
You must read articles of Natalia Shakhova and Igor Semiletov about their researching emissions of Arctic methane, only from East Siberian Sea. These are the only measured data we have today. I will append a presentation file, where the links to these articles are also listed. There are some other content in the first part of presentation, which you can leave off…
The current annual ENERGY EQUIVALENT of this, into atmosphere escaped gas is approx. the same, as the humanity produces and uses today from all sources, mostly from "classic" fossil fuels. So if we would burn the Arctic methane, we would get the same additional amount of CO2, as we produce it from today's fossil fuels. But these emission are rising quickly...
But the GWP (Greenhouse Warming Potential) of methane is for short times between 100 and 200 times largest compared with CO2 (for 20 years is this ratio approx 80). That means that escaped methane is capable to trap 150 times more Earth's warmth, as "its" CO2 would do, if this methane was burnt. It is the catastrophe for atmosphere and huge threat for the entire life on the planet. We must act with much larger time reserve, as waiting that average planet temperature rises for additional 2 or 3 degrees.
Methane GWP multiplied by some middle estimation of Arctic emissions (150 * 20 Gton) gives the same greenhouse equivalent, as 3.000 Gton of atmospheric CO2 has in the moment. The consequently raising air temperature means also absorption of more water into atmosphere (10 to 20%) and increasing greenhouse from this source, too. So in one (and each next) year we could get doubling (and doubling and…) of the entire atmospheric greenhouse and surface temperatures… This already shows in increasing number and intensity of storms and burning huge surfaces of Siberian taiga.
So, the nature gives us no choice. Arctic methane would have to be captured and used instead all today's fossil energy. Without searching any other sources and with all consequences if its CO2. In this sense also all alternate energy sources are questionable, because more solar or wind energy we will use, less Arctic methane would be necessary and it will escape unburnt in atmosphere… Unless if we burn it just to produce less harmful CO2… In any case we will have to do this, so it is better to take our energy from it…
I hope I was enough understandable… Best regards.
I'm still not entirely sure where the problem so I apologize for a possible false interpretation. You claim that instead of searching for new sources of fossil fuels should tap on methane that is released from melting permafrost, thus reducing the climate warming effect and eventually just switch fully to renewable sources like solar and wind energy. Is this a correct summary?
Not quite... My opinion, after tracing the work of Semiletov (and I'm not scientist, just engineer and writer), is that switching fully to renewables enables us not to use the fossil fuels, ok. And that means any fossil fuels... We wouldn't need then the Arctic methane, too...
Then we have 3 possibilities:
- Leaving these (not known and not controllable) Arctic emissions into atmosphere. This means extremely fast increasing of greenhouse with all consequences in climate, weather, destroying life, our food...
- Destroying methane (laboratory experiment reactors and theoretical ideas) with electromagnetic field of about 13 Mhz, which breaks the methane molecules. But the energy needed for this is from 10 to 100 times larger, as the methane carries with... Where to get it for such methane quantities ??
- Capture and simply burning this methane, as they do with oil-gas in the oil fields and along transmission lines. If today's Arctic emissions of 20 Gton annually carry approx. the same energy, as we produce on Earth, then we would produce 2 times more CO2, as only with using today's classic fossil energy. Where to store it (if at all) is other question... But if leaving in the air, we would increase our CO2 impact to the atmosphere 2 times... Other question is, how fast and how much thel Arctic emissions will increase...
The fourth possibility is to not using renewables at all (I am not advocating this, but it is an urge) and to switch with all fossil fuels to Arctic methane. We need capturing in some way in any case. It will be very difficult, because the areas are huge and emissions dispersed. The oil industry will have to make this shift and we can be still grateful for all their developed capacities... Maybe to try first with the largest seeps. In this case we produce approx the same quantities of CO2 and continue with same tempo of our participation to destroy this planet. But this is still the slowest way... If in this case we put CO2 back into methane hydrates, maybe ok... But also in this case we get a CO2 time bomb, because hydrates decay at conditions, far lower from normal freezing.
I personally will be extremely grateful for any other and better solution... Its one more thing - the humanity has enormous quantities of different, separated and not connected knowledge, but we still didn't learn to use it wisely and connected...
Regards, Milan
Kenneth,
You keep repeating that lie. The leaders in Paris did not dictate anything. far less that we should reduce atmospheric CO2 by 50 ppm. They obtained the agreement of all countries to reduce their emissions, an international agreement which your president is now reneging on.
You, and president Trump, may not see the dangers of business as usual, but the delegates at the Paris conference did. However, their promises are not being met and we are still heading for severe disruption of agriculture and rising sea levels which will bring disaster to billions of people around the world.
Ken,
You wrote " It is clear that your politics are giving you global warming myopia as you keep talking about Trump while believing what climate modellers want you accept... "hook-line-and sinker". That's "Chicken Little" scientific politics?"
Was James Hansen one of the leaders at Paris - No. Was Kassie Siegels one of the leaders at Paris - No! You have been caught lying so you resort to insults.
As far as polar bears are concerned, there can't be many left in the Bering Sea: https://earthobservatory.nasa.gov/IOTD/view.php?id=92084&src=eoa-iotd
...and it has happened exactly what I was afraid of. How can you expect to have any reasonable scientific exchange with so many emotions in play? Gentlemen, please cut this pointless squabble. Your exchange is on politics, not science.
@ MIlan, Concerning your points:
1) The emission from the melting permafrost is happening from about 10 000 years so it is hard to say how much the human kind should really worry about it. Perhaps we should but the nature of these emissions; highly dispersed and at very hard to access areas makes any form of control hardly possible.
edit: I had another thought but have not much of knowledge in this area so it will be a bit wild speculation. My question is "Is it possible to stop the CH4 emission from retreating permafrost at all? " After all ice at these latitudes is thermodynamicaly unstable most of the time since the last ice age and the only way to stop emission would be either to destroy anerobic conditions driving the methanogenesis as the melting goes on or to reenter into another glacial period. Both seems to be tough or very ''inconvenient" . In such case perhaps it would be easier to cut other methane emission sources like rice fields or pastures? I personally do not know but perhaps there is some trustworthy study where one tacke this issue.
2) Destroying methane is a weird idea on its own. Considering point 1 i see your suggestion as not very promising. Moreover the energy cost would be an anathema to any proposal based on it. If you really want to destroy methane then I would strongly suggest to explore the natural ways. There are numerous organisms striving on methane. Perhaps this approach would be more successful and applicable in a very difficult swampy areas.
3) Capturing CO2 from burned natural gas/oil/coal is probably the most realistic part-solution but it does receive a rather negative public reaction. At least it does in Germany. It has been forbidden due to justified risks of an uncontrolled release to the atmosphere form the on shore natural storages. Norway, on the other hand, is practicing it for many years pumping CO2 to under sea exhausted gas/oil reservoirs. So at the end the benefit is highly specific to the area and of course it is under a strong influence of politicians.
4) I think we all would not mind switching completely to green energy but lets be honest. How many countries can really afford it? Germany as not the poorest country on Earth is struggling a lot to reach 30%. How about India, Togo, Kamerun... (no intention to offend any of the citizens of these countries). I see here enormous issues on economic and political planes not to mention habits of people, quality of industrial processes and so on... . The change to green energy will take decades whatever we do, it will be a gradual process and perhaps at some distant point in the future we will need hydrocarbons just to make polymers. Still, we will need new sources of hydrocarbons to make this transition as smooth as possible. We all know that current known resources will be increasingly more and more expensive to exploit. Development of new technologies like e.g. methane from gas hydrates takes time, one, perhaps 2 decades and true to be told I prefer to have something at hand to apply in 20 years than search for solutions in panic.
Submarine volcanic eruptions causing regional warming and low September sea ice has now been identified to be responsible for the two major episodes of Arctic sea ice retreat during the past decade. See file attached.
I don't see the relevance of the of the geoengineering of CO2 for the question subject.
The Paris Accord does not demand CO2 capture so it is just a strawman in the discussion. There is no mention in the agreement text of any lowering of CO2 at all and the removal of 50 ppm CO2 as well as the 350 ppm goal is an invention made by Kenneth. The Paris Accord has a stated goal to limit the global warming to 1½ or 2 °C and the methods used are that countries have goals for how much they should reduce their emissions of greenhouse gasses. That means emitting less, not removing.
If anybody is in doubt that Kenneth is a troll and his statement are lies as Alistair says they can just search through the the actual agreement and write which page and line number they see the 50 ppm CO2 removal is mentioned.
Milan,
The emission rate you mention " in range of more than 1 kg/m2 daily. " seems very extreme. Is it possible this is the maximum that occur in hotspots on a few hottest days of the year? Is there a link to the actual report or full title and there it is published?
Kenneth,
You admit it is James Hansen not the Paris leaders who are advocating cutting CO2 to 350 ppm. So what you wrote was misleading. As is your snippet on the polar bears.
It is subtitled "hundreds of polar bears feast on a whale carcass on a Russian beach." But I can only count about 25. Thousands in an order too great. Moreover, the staple food of polar bears is seal cubs buried in sea ice. Where is the sea ice in that picture? No wonder the polar bears are flocking around the whale carcass. They are starving.
The Arctic is warming faster than the rest of the planet, so where it is now we will follow. The polar bears are starving now. It will be us next.
To get back to the original question, with the Arctic warming so fast the permafrost and the Arctic ocean sediments are now bound to warm and produce methane. The only way to prevent it would be to reduce atmospheric CO2 back to 350 or even 280 ppm. But even the Paris leaders would balk at that.
So perhaps mining it is the best solution, until we can find another solution, such as the requirement in California that all new houses should have solar panels.
Your denial that we can do anything to prevent the impending disaster only makes it inevitable.
The problem is much wider.
The most present gas in the bottom sediments is methane, as the product of the anaerobic degradation of organic matter In many cases (Baltic Sea) the eutrophisasion is caused by anthropogenic factors, what is not exposed due to the political reasons. Acoustics gives us the most effective ways to observe the whole process of production and the ebullition of the methane from the seabed. Due to high difference of the acoustic impedance of the gas and the water the gas bubbles are easily detected by the echo-sounder. The whole process of expulsion of the gas from sediment to the water and rising the bubbles towards the surface can be observed and quantified in detail by sonar
Here you can find more: Book Smart Sensing Technology for Agric. & Environ. Monitoring
Andrezj,
Ken's adhominem response illustrates why I thought it worth pointing out that he was lying. I won't be responding to him, despite the provocation. I have better things to do with my time.
It would be fantastic to see a page and line number as "facts and evidence to address the science." Obviously if Kenneth is actually a liar we will wait a long time.
Dear sirs and respectful scientists!
Please stop with such conversation. All !! We are not children.
I think that all of us see the extreme importance of solving the environmental problems, but every with his history, work, obligations and devotion knows different sources and information. We must accept and discuss other's arguments and proves and also tell other in a culture way, if something is not in accordance to our documented facts.
Our mission (of the entire humanity) is to keep this planet and not to show one's or other's (self)importance. We must act on the base of well documented and researched facts, but also on the base of less certain information, if it means a large danger for anything. In this case, I think, we must act in first case with enough big time reserve, because consequences will be too frightful, if we will wait for 1000% firm evidences...
In this moment I don't have time to write longer, but later I will make the answer to some set question in this discussion...
But anyway, thanks to all of you for such rich response. It shows the seriousness of the problem.... In the meantime, please read the presentation I appended in my second answer, just to see, from where the problematic numbers about methane emissions come...
Regards, Milan
Dear Jorge!
I will just add some direct links to the scientific articles, describing emissions of Arctic methane. More of them are listed in my presentation, I appended in my second writing in this conversation, where I am trying to explain the entire situation... I hope this will give at least the matter to think and that they will offer also enough evidence to other, who doubt here... You must look the "development" of the numbers in last years...
Note, that there are several western and also Scandinavian scientists, who oppose and try to diminish the importance of this happening. The capital and current economy is certainly not interest that these information would come out. And we have seen already many well paid "scientists", who served to these interests... It is not going of the methane itself, but of the consequences it will make in atmosphere...
Just observe the weather in last years - the number and intensity of big storms - and how fast these changes develop... The quantity of water in atmosphere increased due its warming, and the methane is contributing a lot to this warming...
Yes, the methane escaped and the temperatures were rising many times in last million Earth's years. But never so fast as today, they were occurring in similar extents, but lasted thousands of years . A question: why these changes, if they depend mostly on nature, are happening exactly in the time of the largest human exploitation and pollution of the planet (till now)? Why they didn't happen a hundred years before or why they didn't wait at least still few ten years, if they are really not dependent on people ??
With giving to these opposing "scientists" the same importance of information we are just losing the time to act, as I said, with enough big time reserve. What is possible and what is not - no single person can claim. The entire humanity, the politic and the scientific sphere especially must become united, if we want at least to try to save the planet. Only the TRUTH and NO SELF-IMPORTANCE and still less MAKING PROFIT from this urge !!!
The East Siberian Arctic Shelf: towards further assessment of permafrost-related methane fluxes and role of sea ice / N. Shakrova, I Similetov, … / The Royal society publishing / 2015
http://rsta.royalsocietypublishing.org/content/373/2052/20140451
The East Siberian Arctic Shelf: towards further assessment of permafrost-related methane fluxes and role of sea ice – Supplementary Material / N. Shakhova, I Similetov, … / The Royal society publishing / 2015
http://rsta.royalsocietypublishing.org/content/roypta/suppl/2015/09/14/rsta.2014.0451.DC1/Electronic_supplementary_material.pdf
Recent geological–geomorphological processes on the east Arctic shelf: Results of the expedition of the icebreaker Oden in 2014 / L. I. Lobkovsky, S. L Nikiforov, R.A. Ananiev, … / Oceanology, Vol. 55 / 2015
https://www.researchgate.net/publication/287971997_Recent_geological-geomorphological_processes_on_the_east_Arctic_shelf_Results_of_the_expedition_of_the_icebreaker_Oden_in_2014
Current rates and mechanisms of subsea permafrost degradation in the East Siberian Arctic Shelf / N. Shakhova, I Semiletov , ... / Nature Communications, Vol. 8 / 22.6.2017
https://www.nature.com/articles/ncomms15872
Subsea permafrost on East Siberian Arctic Shelf in accelerated decline - interview with Dr Natalia Shakhova and Dr Igor Semiletov / N. Breeze / EnvisioNation Communicating Climate / 24.6.2017
http://envisionation.co.uk/index.php/nick-breeze/203-subsea-permafrost-on-east-siberian-arctic-shelf-now-in-accelerated-decline
Russian scientists deny climate model of IPCC / Tomsk Polytechnic University / Eureka Alert / 15.8.2017
https://www.eurekalert.org/pub_releases/2017-08/tpu-rsd081517.php
Please, copy the links to your browser, I didn't succeed to make them working here...
Best regards to all, Milan
First, once again, I am only an "old school" computer engineer, but I've seen situations, where stupid questions or answers have triggered constructive discussions... :-) The ecology is my 20 years old "amore" and writing with (I hope) wide view to the problematic. I am not too deep in any of specific problem, because I know that the most problematic for the entire planet is the capitalistic freedom of robbing raw materials and changing of the society relations the most important change, if we want to try to save the planet...
But the methane case seems to me so threatening, that "changing our societies" will have to wait... I can tell only, what I have searched, found and read...
A geologist Malcolm Light, who proposed also project Lucy (destroying methane with EM field of 13,56 MHz in atmosphere (something like HAARP), proposed also drilling to lower the pressure in problematic emission sites.
I was thinking about this, but putting drilling platforms onto so sensitive sea floor as melting permafrost is, seems very risky for equipment and for making new damages in floor... From ships maybe... Also Russian scientists have not proposed this to their oil industry…
Second is my theory… From data about limiting pressures and temperatures to hold stable methane hydrates and from actual circumstances in Arctic shallow seas (too high temperatures and too low pressures, which don't assure that), it seems that pressure of free gas under the still firm frozen permafrost layer appeared with partial decay of hydrates – so much that the pressure to hydrates increased enough to prevent further decay and assured the stability again. Now, when the permafrost is melting (or melted entirely in some sites) and the free gas is leaking through, this pressure lowered and the hydrates began to decay again, trying to rise the pressure, but it is impossible…So we shall not try to damage additionally the floor…
So – covering (and catch and pump away, what the cover will hold), but the surfaces are really so big… Where to cover? Above the ice it can be questionable, because the weather situations, big storms and breaking winter ice are getting worse and worse because warming Arctic. The Chinese scientists developed some kind of foam, which absorbs gas, but not the water. This could be sunk deeper into water. This plastic (even huge amounts, made from oil, or gas, will also represent big danger to environment) would maybe also reflect the sunlight and prevent it to fall to the floor and contribute to the permafrost melting… Maybe the permafrost would begin to regenerate ???
More than year ago I wrote a simulation program to see with what light energy, what thickness of permafrost can melt in certain time… The light brings down to 50 m depth about 15W/m2 and to 100 m about 1 Watt. Even the diffuse light from merely cloudy summer sky… It came out disappearing approx. 3 meter permafrost in 10 years… Later the Russians published melting 15 to 20 cm in one year…
But if we already have to cover - (first the most active sites?) would it be better to cover the sea floor firmly - instead the melted permafrost. So that the cover would hold the gas (probably the largest problems will be at the edges of such cover) and enable increasing of pressure below again to that value, which will stabilize the hydrates ?? How to make that technically, I am not able to imagine… But probably so developed oil industry would have to find solutions…
Only in this case, maybe we would NOT have to use all this methane for our energy instead today's fossil fuels… And we will be again enabled to continue switching to renewable energy sources…
Jorge, you are geologist, I saw… I hope these stupid ideas will move something in debates with your colleagues…
Otherwise, I am trying to warn people and our politics about this, trying to achieve their larger international activity on this problem… The idea is to bring some scientists from this Arctic research circle in front of them and inform them from the "first hand"... But you can imagine the first results… So my current "jobless" occupation is writing a software, which will replace the politic(al, administrative and capitalistic free-will deciding and killing the planet). An attempt to realize a 20 year old idea, storing laws and rules in computer and compare projects for all equally… It's funny for now…
Best regards, Milan
Kenneth, yes, thanks.. I read briefly the results... But they are dated mostly before the time, the Russians published the first results of measurements in East Siberian Seas. I think, they are not relevant to today's happening. They also don't refer to this region... In the 1990's the changes were still so small that they could be consistent with the historical changes. Today they are not any more...
From 2013 to 2016 the product of estimated surfaces with the highest emissions and the highest emissions themselves increased for 100 times. Hundred times in three years!!! 20 times increased the surface and at least 5 times the maximal emissions. And also the surfaces with small and hardly noticed leaking expanded to almost entire ESAS... In the history temperatures many times rose in similar extent (just at few degrees higher levels), and CO2 and methane rose also proportionally. But this was going on in the periods of 10.000 years, really went up very slowly... And the permafrost didn't melt...Today this happens in very short time and much more exponentially... And what is interesting - why so abruptly exactly now and why didn't happen 50 years before or waited next 50 years after our highest robbing of the planet ??? The methane has relatively fast decay time in atmosphere, in 100 years to 20 %, and in history its increasing never went up faster than temperatures. Today does.
Also Shakhova in her last interview connects the natural and human reasons for this happening. But as scientist, she interprets only the results. They don't try to predict, what can happen. And she interprets the time of increasing temperatures in last interglacial period falsely, I think. I explained in my presentation, why. Look at the appended plot the periods of high temperatures. And that is the reason, that today the human reasons for this happening overtake the natural ones... And if you look videos with her interviews, the scientist almost cries, feeling so helpless at all ignorance and attempts to hide this danger on the account of still further robbing of the world...
Please read the articles, I listed lastly...
Regards, Milan
Well, I agree with both of you, Kenneth and Jorge, that the humanity (at such behavior) can not do much.
We were able to redirect river flows, to stop them, and that were failures, which destroyed much life, change precipitation and climate. These joined consequences were then already outside the human power. But no one in the name of industrial development and comfort (including me long time) protested, just rare of very widely informed scientists. These were beginnings of human geoengineering operation.
When years ago (and still today) debates and warnings about chemtrails were opened, I was worried about sprayed poisons, which we prove very hardly because of no access to the tropopause. But I tried to be neutral and I calculated on the base of studying modern bypass aircraft engines that much more damage to the Earth is made really with increased normal condensation (more water in much colder exhausts) and preventing insolation...
I always advocated that the planet will set a new balance, if we just stop burdening it with fossil energy, gases and waste (and too much people everywhere)... Far from I would be an advocate of large interventions into planet masses. But the humanity do so many activities, which interfere with soil, waters, air, and living nature, including burning energy and agriculture, that intentional interventions like "official" geoengineering seem drops in the ocean, although harmful because they throw systems out of balance and cause consequences, no one expected before...
And I was developing many years a theory of changing societies with much severe ecologically oriented rules, with suppressing free political and economical decisions... Even I accompanied the first information about Arctic methane, I thought we still have time to organize our societies properly not to endanger the nature and sources any more...
But this "eruption" of different new research up there, of new ways the gas is searching paths out, is telling that we crossed the safe line of our manipulations with the planet. With those "ideas" before I just wrote, what the other people proposed that we can do... Ok, I continued with what just in last weeks is falling to my head, with burning that methane instead today's fossil and with covering sea floor... But it was just answer to Jorge's "provocation" :-) There was no analyze behind...
But using that gas would change the short-term methane greenhouse warming potential (GWP, intriduced by IPCC) of 100 - 200 with GWP of CO2 (=1) (expand the exponential curve through known points (years, GWP) = (500, 15), (100, 25) and (20, 75) to (1year, 150)). It is essential that we accept measured quantities, affected surfaces and greenhouse "power" of methane. It is essential that we calculate and predict, what can happen, if this situation still expands... For if we will wait that it expands, there will be really no help and chance to act, even not with stopping all our burdening planet...
From this viewpoint I changed my opinion about really necessary geoengineering actions. If the methane emissions are really so large, then it will do no harm, if we try something. We can do much better or stay at the same level, just waiting that greenhouse burns us... Remember what atmosphere and temperature the Venus has...
About ozone, Jorge mentioned, just my feeling: If we don't have unusually long rainy periods in this time (some research found already up to 10% increased quantity of water in warmer atmosphere) and sometimes come also partly cloudy/sunny days with sharp formed (old) clouds, you can feel the difference:
At the sun the feeling is burning. It is not warm, not hot, but burning. When the cloud hides the sun, it is immediately cold. But we are in May, it should be warm here. The air and surface are still too cool. My opinion is that greenhouse gases are holding also the IR part of solar rays, not only the Earth's radiation, which don't warm the surface directly. On the other side the burning feeling tells that the UV rays are much stronger as in the past. The GHG's don't absorb them and the ozone is disappearing... But no one is measuring this and warning, the weathermen are quiet as mice. The authorities are trying to hide many unpleasant things on this planet and ozone is one of them...
Dear Milan,
Thank you for starting such a thoughtful conversation. However, I am a bit surprised about the title of your question: " irresponsible" which I think is very off-putting. Although I don't want to get involved in other above arguments, I just like to give my answers to your first question about our project.
The purpose of this project is to develop an efficient method to produce and exploit CH4 hydrates from hydrate-bearing ( including those deep sea, marine, and under permafrost ). One of this methods is injection of CO2-mixed during the CH4 recovery to increase the recovery factor of the reservoir. accordingly, this method not only enables the use of those releasing CH4 to environment( which you, us and all of science community as a whole concerned about) instead that conventional fossil fuels, but also makes it economically viable to store CO2 in such a huge reservoirs, and thus, reduces the CO2 concentration in the atmosphere.
To achieve this goal, in our recent work, we proposed an operational method:
Article CO2 Capture by Injection of Flue Gas or CO2–N2 Mixtures into...
we mechanistically investigated the capture process of CO2 capture from flu gas:
Article Insights into the CO2 Capture by Flue Gas Hydrate Formation:...
and we did and still doing much more works that you can find some of them in published works of this project for reaching our goal of economic
and sustainable CO2 storage and energy recovery.
Although CO2 storage and CH4 recovery through gas hydrate reservoirs is in it's infancy( you can easily see some of the main reasons in above controversial conversations: ) ), we believe that scientific community is strong enough to develop any applicable method in any field, and politicians, at some point ( some times when the problem gets unbearable) will listen to and follow the scientific methods.
There methane gas has been emitted out into atmosphere already.
COP26 took place last year, then COP27 this year, now G20 on.
The alert we have been sending around to leaders no action been though about on this matter. What's next?
Fatema
Those interested in methane should check out the recent eye-opening presentation by Dr Thomas Sheahen on Methane - The Irrelevant Green-house Gas available from https://icsf.ie.