Via CNN Money h/t to GWPF
China is talking up its achievement of mining flammable ice for the first time from underneath the South China Sea.
Methane Hydrates: China’s Real South China Sea Goal?
Estimates of the South China Sea’s methane hydrate potential now range as high as 150 billion cubic meters of natural gas equivalent. That’s sufficient to satisfy China’s entire equivalent oil consumption for 50 years.
The fuel-hungry country has been pursuing the energy source, located at the bottom of oceans and in polar regions, for nearly two decades. China’s minister of land and resources, Jiang Daming, said Thursday that the successful collection of the frozen fuel was “a major breakthrough that may lead to a global energy revolution,” according to state media.
Experts agree that flammable ice could be a game changer for the energy industry, similar to the U.S. shale boom. But they caution that big barriers — both technological and environmental — need to be cleared to build an industry around the frozen fuel, which is also known as gas hydrate.
China, the world’s largest energy consumer, isn’t the first country to make headway with flammable ice. Japan drilled into it in the Pacific and extracted gas in 2013 — and then did so again earlier this month. The U.S. government has its own long-running research program into the fuel.
The world’s resources of flammable ice — in which gas is stored in cages of water molecules — are vast. Gas hydrates are estimated to hold more carbon than all the world’s other fossil fuels combined, according to the U.S. Geological Survey.
An image from Chinese state television shows gas extracted from flammable ice burning in the South China Sea.
And it’s densely packed: one cubic foot of flammable ice holds 164 cubic feet of regular natural gas, according to the U.S. Energy Information Administration.
Chinese state news agency Xinhua says that makes the fuel a strong contender to replace regular oil and natural gas. But like any fossil fuel, flammable ice raises significant environmental concerns.
Experts worry about the release of methane, a superpotent greenhouse gas with 25 times as much global warming potential as carbon dioxide. And although burning natural gas is cleaner than coal, it still creates carbon emissions.
The fuel source has a lot of potential in China, analysts at Morgan Stanley said Thursday, citing the country’s successful trial and government support to develop the industry.
But commercial production is unlikely in the next three years due to high costs, potential environmental concerns and technological barriers, the analysts said in a research note.
“If there is a real breakthrough,” they wrote, “it could be as significant as the shale revolution in the United States. Under such a bull case scenario, we’d expect a significant increase in offshore exploration and production activities.”
I’m not buying any announced breakthrough of methane clathrates. One only has to recall the video of the Deepwater Horizon flow at the seabed to understand how fast that “methane ice” is made. As soon as the hot gas hits the cold sea water it flashed into that ice, even so much as clogging the funnel-shaped “hat” they used in an attempt to capture the runaway break.
I would imagine most “breakthroughs” would be coatings on pipes that would prevent the sticking of the ice and therefore prevent clogging as the material rose to the surface facility. Then all it would take is a simple(!) dredging process. One would hope the mud would then be shunted to the ocean floor in another pipe.
The presence of clathrates is not news, the complexities and costs of mining it are not news, neither are the issues of whether methane is good or bad for the environment. With all of this “non-news”, I am left wondering why the Chinese have released this report?
The past history of Chinese “news” is that there is always an underlying reason – often manipulating markets (I could go into great detail how they managed to game the phosphate fertiliser market, but that is hardly news either). I suspect this report is calculated to further depress oil (and gas) prices, particularly in the US where margins for shale plays are already very tight. They could even be trying to undercut the Japanese investment in the extraction technology. Forgive me for being cynical, but the Chines have a history here that I can’t get past.
@Texas
“Also, China may be thinking about the strategic value of becoming less dependent on potentially hostile source countries. ”
Then China should avoid developing energy sources in hostile waters. Not very strategic!
“The U.S. could dramatically improve its position by developing a state of the art STANDARD nuclear power module – one that is used at all future nuclear power plants. And by recycling nuclear wastes. And deciding where to bury the wastes we can’t recycle. ”
US nuke plants are state of the art. Worked at many.
We have been recycling nuclear fuel for many years. Been there done that, got a pocket knife for working on a project.
We have decide long term storage of spent fuel will be in tunnels at Yucca Mountain. It is not actually buried. Worked on that project too.
You may be confused by statements made by Obama and Reid. The court of appeals explained it to them. When I say ‘we’ I am referring to the US Congress. ‘We’ would have to decide another place and that will not happen.
We are currently living near Las Vegas. The local media is also confused. The county that has Yucca Mountain wants the project because it creates lots of jobs. While many local communities do not have a problem with nuclear jobs, to change the location you have to find a state that does not have the equivalent of Obama and Reid.
Texas and New Mexico come to mind. Clear there are places there that are geologically suited.
My point is that the energy industry is not having a problem providing the finite amount of energy the world needs. We have numerous practical choices. Impractical choices are discussed by those not responsible for providing energy.
“US nuke plants are state of the art.”
Maybe on the nuclear reaction side, but not on the cooling / safety side. From what I understand all operational US reactors require active cooling. The Fukushima disaster was caused because it needed active cooling and after the tsunami, it couldn’t be provided.
The Westinghouse reactors currently being built in Georgia and South Carolina are state of the art and have passive cooling capability. In the event of a disastrous loss of active cooling, explosive charges blow out plugs that hold the cooling water in. After the cooling water is drained, the reactors are passively cooled by the air.
@Greg
How can they be safer, no one was hurt?
Did you work on the Westinghouse design? Can you provide provide probability risk analysis numbers showing a significant difference between active and passive features?
“After the cooling water is drained, the reactors are passively cooled by the air.”
Wow! I would be interested in seeing that statement in the FSAR. Go to the NRC web site and look it up.
http://www.westinghousenuclear.com/New-Plants/AP1000-PWR/Safety
“In the event of a design-basis accident, such as a main coolant-pipe break, the plant is designed to achieve and maintain safe shutdown condition without operator action, and without the need for ac power or pumps. Rather than relying on active components, such as diesel generators and pumps, the AP1000 plant relies on natural forces – gravity, natural circulation and compressed gases – to keep the core and the containment from overheating.”
From the FSAR:
19.1.2.1.1 Passive Safety-Related Systems
“The AP1000 design relies on passive safety-related systems for accident prevention and
mitigation. The passive systems rely on natural forces, such as gravity and stored energy, to
perform their safety functions (once actuated and started). For such systems to actuate and
start, certain active components, such as air-operated valves (AOVs) or check valves (CVs),
must open. Such components do not require ac power for operation (to open) or for control,
and no support systems are needed after actuation. This reduces significantly the risk
contribution from loss of offsite power (LOOP) and SBO events, as compared to operating
nuclear power plants. In addition, because of the passive systems, the AP1000 design
eliminates several important contributions to risk for operating nuclear power plants. These
risks are associated with failure of support systems (e.g., ac power and component cooling)
and failure of active components (e.g., pumps and diesel generators) to start and run. Finally,
the passive nature of the safety systems reduces the reliance on operator actions to mitigate
accidents, as compared to operating reactor designs. To fairly compare the AP1000 design to
operating and evolutionary reactor designs, using mostly active safety-related systems, the
potential impact of T-H uncertainties on the performance of passive systems must be
considered and appropriately included in the PRA models. The applicant’s analyses concluded
that the AP1000 design is robust with respect to T-H uncertainties. Section 19.1.10 of this
report includes a discussion of the staff’s review of this issue.”
The reason this has not been economically exploited in the US is because methane hydrate is well known in the pipeline industry. It is a major problem in wet gas pipelines so its properties are well studied. Heat alone is a very poor remedy and the most expensive. Reduction of pressure is far more efficient even considering loss of flow and stored energy over miles of pipeline. Inhibition chemicals like alcohols and glycol with pressure reduction are the primary methods.
What does this mean to mining ? Mechanical disruption and slurry transport to the surface are the most likely and these are expensive considering the energy density and mineral location.
You would need a fleet of autonomous underwater vehicles tethered to the surface, working with FM chirp sonar for formation identification and location. My shoot from the hip target price is more like 20-25$ per thousand cubic feet. For break even.
When I read news like this, it makes me laugh about “peak oil”.
Hint. Methane isn’t oil.
“Estimates of the South China Sea’s methane hydrate potential now range as high as 150 billion cubic meters of natural gas equivalent. That’s sufficient to satisfy China’s entire equivalent oil consumption for 50 years.”
A cubic meter is about 5297 cubic feet. That means 150 billion cubic meters is 5.3 trillion cubic feet, enough to build one terminal for export.
Either the reported number 150 bn m3 is wrong or the reporter did not understand what he was told.
“The world’s resources of flammable ice — in which gas is stored in cages of water molecules — are vast. Gas hydrates are estimated to hold more carbon than all the world’s other fossil fuels combined, according to the U.S. Geological Survey.”
I recall about 15-20 years ago, Tight Shale gas & oil was a pipe dream. (no pun intended) I vividly recall that in 2007/08, I bet NG would keep going up and shale gas would never really materialize. The reason I remember so well, was that I lost a lot of money on that bet in certain stocks. Shale gas, and a stranded NG market on the NA continent has ensured NG prices will remain low until sufficient LNG is built out, which maybe looks like USA will be very successful at. Canada, maybe not so much. Canada will continue to sell NG and oil below world price, because of failed societal grid lock and no substantial political leadership to have multiple access to tidewater on both coasts. And the USA has such a ready to access surplus continental supply of heavy oil and surplus gas.
I heard on the business news today that the USA is planning to sell down up to half half the the Strategic Petroleum Reserves capacity over the next 10 years(SPR capacity of 722 million barrels) it has over the next 10 years, up to $500 Million worth this year alone, and $16.6 Billion in the next 10 years to bring it down from a total supply of 688 million barrels today, (a 32 day supply) drawing it down to 432 million barrels within 10 years. (a 22 day supply) The oil and gas is already strategically located in situ ready for development and extraction, so in effect we now have an SPR wherever we have huge deposits and supplies. And in the homeland and friendly neighbors to the north where there is enough fossil energy to keep things going for quite some time. We won’t need the middle east in a few more years. And the price of oil will be capped globally at whatever price the US decides to sell at. A brilliant proposal by Trump designed to bring stability to global energy markets.
I wouldn’t bet against Methane Hydrates, knowing now what I failed to learn about the Shale revolution. And just wait until the shale fracking gets adopted all over the planet. We are no where near peak hydrocarbons. If flammable ice is someday available en masse, and we have natural cooling over the next 15 years making the whole climate debate a history lesson, then all the renewable energy that has or gets built will never be replaced in its short useful lifetime. Because we will have multiple century access to the cleanest fossil fuel energy that we are already familiar with, with infrastructure already in place.
@Greg (3.59am)
Gregs questionable statement, ‘…the reactors are passively cooled by the air.
What the Westinghouse web site says, ‘….and by providing natural convection air currents to cool the steel containment.’
The reactor is not air cooled.
While Greg did a good job of finding a link, The reason I asked was I did not think he understood the complexity of the issues.
‘State of the art’ is not a regulatory requirement. I am so old that PRA was not a tool we had. However, since existing operating plants have applied this tool and made design improvements, it is certainly could be argued that they are state of the art.
“in-vessel Retention of Core Damage. The AP1000 plant is designed to drain the high capacity in-containment refueling water storage tank (IRWST) water into the reactor cavity in the event that the core has overheated. ”
This a feature that BWR already have. The point is that there is more than one way get the job done. The limitation with passive system is the reactor power is limited.
Since the purpose of a power plant is to make electricity, bigger is better. From the standpoint of ‘state of the art, the AP1000 is going the wrong direction.
The Arctic Ocean also offers potential:
https://www.theatlantic.com/science/archive/2017/06/methane-burps/528654/?utm_source=atltw
Barents and Chukchi Seas are shallow epicontinental seas, like the South China and North Seas.