Easiest Website Builder ever! · Build your own toolbar · Free Talking Character · Email Marketing
powered by
bravenet.com
|
|
Hi Calvin,
I read your bio and have posted comments about gas flaring a long time ago and
it is an important topic.
Flaring natural gas is better than not flaring as the emissions of methane would
be worse than the carbon dioxide emissions produced from flaring. Yet, it would
be even better to use the methane as a fuel instead of wasting it.
The main problem with capturing natural gas for use as a fuel is that the
transport from remote locations is a difficult costly problem. One solution to
this is liquefied natural gas or LNG. To liquefy methane requires as much as a
third of the heating value of the gaseous fuel because it must be lowered to
-162 C which is very cold. By doing this, LNG is 600 times less in volume than
when methane is a gas. The gas can also be compressed but much more can be
transported if it is liquefied instead.
LNG transport will proliferate when oil becomes scarcer since methane is
becoming more plentiful. Methane is a better fossil fuel for greenhouse
emissions because it emits less carbon dioxide than other fuels. However, the
energy penalty for liquefying the methane offsets the benefits of LNG.
Furthermore, LNG has serious safety issues in both the transport and delivery to
port facilities. LNG is an extremely volatile fuel.
I suggest that you research thoroughly the LNG Industry since this may be part
of the solution to stopping flaring. If all the flaring from oil wells were to
cease, then the resulting extra methane would fuel the current methane needs of
Germany and France.
So, I am mostly an advocate of this industry as long as it continues to develop
properly. The safety issues are very important and I would love to see a
recycling of the energy used to liquefy the methane at the port terminal by
liquefying carbon dioxide piped from a coal power plant to be used to send via
ships to sequestration sites.
I have worked out some calculations on this scheme based on thermodynamic
properties of methane and carbon dioxide. Currently, the liquid methane is
heated via sea water at the port terminal so all the energy used to reduce its
temperature is wasted. If carbon dioxide under about 10 atmospheres of pressure
is used to heat the cold methane through a heat exchanger, then the carbon
dioxide becomes a transportable liquid. Injecting liquid carbon dioxide into
sequestration sites or even using it to squeeze out extra oil or methane can
increase supply, sequester carbon, and recycle energy used to transport LNG to
the port facility. This effort is a way to help reduce total greenhouse gas
emissions before the fuel is even used. It is a radical idea but as
technologies become available, it may serve as a means to increase the
efficiency of reducing emissions from the source energy before it even gets to
the consumer.
I know that many would like to see fossil fuels eliminated but this may be
unrealistic in the short term. I am a firm believer in using any fossil fuel to
its highest efficiency and to continually decrease the need for it. I also
think that any effort to lower emissions through sequestration or choosing the
best fuels to use would help as well. Also, it is difficult to use something
other than a concentrated energy source for transportation purposes. Fossil
fuels provide this at present.
Methane can be converted into hydrogen easier than other fossil fuels. If that
one carbon atom were stripped from it, then we produce 2 molecules of hydrogen
(H2) for every molecule of methane (CH4). If that carbon atom is sequestered
with the rest, then we have a zero emission fuel.
If you are serious about utilizing methane sources as fuel sources then this can
include methane capture from coal mining operations, landfills, and other
sources. This is being done but there is still potential to do more. Every
time we capture and use a methane molecule as a fuel we get a net 22 times
benefit toward emission reductions then if that methane molecule escaped to the
atmosphere instead. One methane molecule has 23 times the global warming
potential of one carbon dioxide molecule (using a hundred year atmospheric time
frame).
Eliminating heat islands through more reflective paved surfaces and cooler
building roofs, sequestration, renewable energy sources, higher energy
efficiency, voluntary conservation, smart urban growth, better agricultural
practices, choosing foods which reduce emissions, population reduction and
control, recycling of wastes, etc are part of the solution.
There are many good ideas and sometimes I feel we need to use as many as we need
to use to save the climate.
Best Regards,
Dan
bravenet.com