Drilling for methane in Alaska....

[Dr Mordrid]

Now if only we can get the enviro-wackos to shut up

Article....

Fire In The Ice: Gas Hydrate Project Could Unlock Vast Energy Resource In Alaska

Science Daily — Drilling is complete on an Alaskan North Slope well, cofunded by the Department of Energy, that could prove to be an important milestone in assessing America's largest potential fossil energy resource: gas hydrate.
>
The size of the global gas hydrate resource is staggering, holding more ultimate energy potential than all other fossil fuels combined, according to the U.S. Geological Survey (USGS). In the United States, where gas hydrate occurs beneath the permafrost of Alaska's arctic north and below the seabed offshore, the volume of this resource is massive. USGS estimates that the Nation's gas hydrate deposits contain 200,000 trillion cubic feet (Tcf) of natural gas. Compare this with a known recoverable natural gas resource of approximately 1,500 Tcf. If just one percent of the gas hydrate resource could be rendered producible, our Nation's natural gas resource base would more than double.
>

[Brian Ellis]

Methane?

Dunno why the polluters don't shut up.

[Dr Mordrid]

If you're so against burning most any fuel then why are you against 'global warming'?

Either we burn a fuel or we (theoretically) allow conditions to warm enough not to need them so much in northern regions.

Pick one.

[Brian Ellis]

If you're so against burning most any fuel then why are you against 'global warming'?

Either we burn a fuel or we (theoretically) allow conditions to warm enough not to need them so much in northern regions.

Pick one.

Now you're being stupid.

[Dr Mordrid]

No, sarcastic.

[lowlifecat]

cranky?

[Dr Mordrid]

Brian is cranky, I'm sarcastic .

[lowlifecat]

Brian is cranky, I'm sarcastic .

i know, but the least you could have done is made him a coffee

[Brian Ellis]

i know, but the least you could have done is made him a coffee

Provided the water isn't heated with natural gas! Prefer a nuclear reactor

[Dilitante1]

natural gas has no half-life, so why go nuke....?

[cjolley]

You want nukes?
Try tasting the coffee I make

[Dr Mordrid]

Try eating my chili

[az]

I'd kill for a good coffee and chili right now (with lotsa sugar and milk and bread, respectively)

[cjolley]

Cornbread & Chili
That sounds good right about now.

Speaking of methane, beans in that chili Doc?

[Brian Ellis]

natural gas has no half-life, so why go nuke....?

Natural gas DOES have a half-life. Technically, it is the folded-e lifetime, which is the number of years it takes for the concentration of methane to reach 1/e = 0.3679 of its original value. This can vary from about 8 to 20 years (it is not fixed like radioactive decay, which is a physical thing), as it depends on the concentration of reactive free hydroxyl radicals, which is also variable.

Nuke produces very little greenhouse gas per kWh generated. Methane is a powerful greenhouse gas, roughly 20-50 times worse than carbon dioxide. That's why nuke is preferable. Note that I don't pretend that nuke does not have its problems, but it is technically feasible to handle them. It is not technically feasible to remove the tens of billions of tonnes of greenhouse gases we pump into the atmosphere each year.