Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

There Is Gas Under the Tundra

lensculture.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

51–60 of 78 posts

Re: There Is Gas Under the Tundra

#51

Post by lisper »

nonbel wrote: post #47
_Microft wrote: post #3

... and it better stays there. Building up more capacity to extract fossil fuels is not what we should be doing right now.

You've got it wrong if you are worried about the greenhouse effect. If humans don't extract and burn the gas, the gas will be released as-is into the atmosphere by beavers thawing out the permafrost.[1] Natural gas is actually a stronger greenhouse gas than its combustion products.[2] [1] https://www.alaskapublic.org/2018/07/11/beavers-are-moving-i... [2] "Natural gas is thus a more potent greenhouse gas than carbon…

> Natural gas is actually a stronger greenhouse gas than its combustion products

But it naturally decomposes into CO2 in a few years once in the atmosphere, so the net effect is more or less the same.

The GP is right: it would be much better if the methane just stays where it is.

Re: There Is Gas Under the Tundra

#52

Post by strommen »

lisper wrote: post #51
nonbel wrote: post #47

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You've got it wrong if you are worried about the greenhouse effect. If humans don't extract and burn the gas, the gas will be released as-is into the atmosphere by beavers thawing out the permafrost.[1] Natural gas is actually a stronger greenhouse gas than its combustion products.[2] [1] https://www.alaskapublic.org/2018/07/11/beavers-are-moving-i... [2] "Natural gas is thus a more potent greenhouse gas than carbon…

> Natural gas is actually a stronger greenhouse gas than its combustion products But it naturally decomposes into CO2 in a few years once in the atmosphere, so the net effect is more or less the same. The GP is right: it would be much better if the methane just stays where it is.

The net effect is not even close to the same; it's far worse.

Methane is ~36x more potent as a greenhouse gas over a 100-year timespan. This includes the eventual decay to CO2.

Re: There Is Gas Under the Tundra

#53

Post by lisper »

strommen wrote: post #52
lisper wrote: post #51

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Natural gas is actually a stronger greenhouse gas than its combustion products But it naturally decomposes into CO2 in a few years once in the atmosphere, so the net effect is more or less the same. The GP is right: it would be much better if the methane just stays where it is.

The net effect is not even close to the same; it's far worse. Methane is ~36x more potent as a greenhouse gas over a 100-year timespan. This includes the eventual decay to CO2.

Source?

Here's what I have:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Atmospheric_methane

"Methane has a large effect but for a relatively brief period, having an estimated lifetime of 9.1 years in the atmosphere..."

Either way, the conclusion is the same: better to leave it where it is.

Re: There Is Gas Under the Tundra

#54

Post by nonbel »

lisper wrote: post #53
strommen wrote: post #52

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The net effect is not even close to the same; it's far worse. Methane is ~36x more potent as a greenhouse gas over a 100-year timespan. This includes the eventual decay to CO2.

Source? Here's what I have: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Atmospheric_methane "Methane has a large effect but for a relatively brief period, having an estimated lifetime of 9.1 years in the atmosphere..." Either way, the conclusion is the same: better to leave it where it is.

>"Source?"

I just searched "methane 36x more potent", here is a random result:

"CO2, by definition, has a GWP of 1... Methane (CH4) is estimated to have a GWP of 28–36 over 100 years" https://www.epa.gov/ghgemissions/understanding-global-warmin...

>"Either way, the conclusion is the same: better to leave it where it is."

So, you are in favor of the gas being released as methane then? Your reasoning is not clear.

EDIT:

To make it clear: Humans burning this gas for fuel leads to less greenhouse effect than would otherwise occur.

Re: There Is Gas Under the Tundra

#55

Post by lisper »

nonbel wrote: post #54
lisper wrote: post #53

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Source? Here's what I have: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Atmospheric_methane "Methane has a large effect but for a relatively brief period, having an estimated lifetime of 9.1 years in the atmosphere..." Either way, the conclusion is the same: better to leave it where it is.

> "Source?" I just searched "methane 36x more potent", here is a random result: "CO2, by definition, has a GWP of 1... Methane (CH4) is estimated to have a GWP of 28–36 over 100 years" https://www.epa.gov/ghgemissions/understanding-global-warmin... > "Either way, the conclusion is the same: better to leave it where it is." So, you are in favor of the gas being released as methane then? Your reasoning is not clear. ED…

I'm in favor of radical curtailment of the burning of all fossil fuels. Anything short of that is going to be catastrophic. Yes, I know this is a pipe dream at this point. But a boy can still dream.

Deciding whether or not to burn this methane is kind of like being adrift on the north Atlantic and deciding whether or not to burn the ship to stay warm.

Re: There Is Gas Under the Tundra

#56

Post by johnohara »

It was known for a long time that hydrocarbons existed below the ice in this location. Russia simply lacked the expertise to explore it properly and so it there it sat.

To my knowledge, only two companies worldwide possess the ability to explore in such harsh conditions: ExxonMobil and Royal Dutch Shell.

Russia, via Rosneft, opted to partner with ExxonMobil to explore the region and created the project photo-documented by the original post. It is known as Sakhalin-1 [1]. ExxonMobil is the principal operator and a 1/3 partner.

This article by CNBC [2] does a decent job of discussing the project and some of the economic and political issues involved. Personally, I found the contents below the fold the most informative and insightful.

Associated links: [1] https://www.sakhalin-1.com/ [2] https://www.cnbc.com/2016/12/13/exxon-mobil-could-tap-huge-a...

Re: There Is Gas Under the Tundra

#57

Post by nonbel »

lisper wrote: post #55
nonbel wrote: post #54

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> "Source?" I just searched "methane 36x more potent", here is a random result: "CO2, by definition, has a GWP of 1... Methane (CH4) is estimated to have a GWP of 28–36 over 100 years" https://www.epa.gov/ghgemissions/understanding-global-warmin... > "Either way, the conclusion is the same: better to leave it where it is." So, you are in favor of the gas being released as methane then? Your reasoning is not clear. ED…

I'm in favor of radical curtailment of the burning of all fossil fuels. Anything short of that is going to be catastrophic. Yes, I know this is a pipe dream at this point. But a boy can still dream. Deciding whether or not to burn this methane is kind of like being adrift on the north Atlantic and deciding whether or not to burn the ship to stay warm.

I think you are underestimating how much methane there is under there.

>"There is a huge amount of carbon stored in permafrost. Right now, the Earth's atmosphere contains about 850 gigatons of carbon. (A gigaton is one billion tons—about the weight of one hundred thousand school buses). We estimate that there are about 1,400 gigatons of carbon frozen in permafrost." https://nsidc.org/cryosphere/frozenground/methane.html

The beavers are going to do their thing and create comfortable habitats for themselves, which is melting the permafrost. So it looks like this gas is coming out one way or the other.

Re: There Is Gas Under the Tundra

#58

Post by fooker »

mrob wrote: post #35
fooker wrote: post #30

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>For example at 90% humidity the temperature limit is 35℃. This seems weird. A lot of tropical places are both hotter and more humid than this limit, and people seem to have adapted.

>A lot of tropical places are both hotter and more humid than this limit Where? As far as I can tell, the highest wet-bulb temperatures are around the Persian Gulf, and although they sometimes come close to the human survival limit, they do not yet exceed it. https://blogs.ei.columbia.edu/2017/12/22/humidity-may-prove-...

https://www.timeanddate.com/weather/india/kolkata/historic?m...

Re: There Is Gas Under the Tundra

#59

Post by mrob »

fooker wrote: post #58
mrob wrote: post #35

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>A lot of tropical places are both hotter and more humid than this limit Where? As far as I can tell, the highest wet-bulb temperatures are around the Persian Gulf, and although they sometimes come close to the human survival limit, they do not yet exceed it. https://blogs.ei.columbia.edu/2017/12/22/humidity-may-prove-...

https://www.timeanddate.com/weather/india/kolkata/historic?m...

Temperature exceeds 35C, and humidity exceeds 90%, but not both at the same time.

Re: There Is Gas Under the Tundra

#60

Post by Raphmedia »

24gttghh wrote: post #44
Raphmedia wrote: post #43

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Clarification: there are two risqué thumbnails to other articles. One of them is a breastfeeding mother and the other is a nudist male seen roughly from the side.

Exactly. This may or may not be NSFW depending where you are...better safe than sorry though!

Agreed. Added the clarification so that people who are from countries where such things are allowed in public won't avoid the article for nothing.
Post reply on HN