Sincere Question - Straight Answer

[SageBrush]

Is Methane not oxidized to CO2 and H2O when burnt as a fuel ?

[TimBikes]

Originally Posted by SageBrush

Is Methane not oxidized to CO2 and H2O when burnt as a fuel ?

True - but methane (on farms, for instance) typically arises from farm animals that have consumed plant material. That plant material would have originally taken co2 out of the air during photosynthesis. So I don't think it really counts as a net increase in co2.

In addition, co2 has much less "warming potential" than methane, so in theory it would be better to capture the methane and burn it than to release it directly.

[warrior]

Originally Posted by jadenn

I like this thread, interesting topic, sensible people

I know what you mean. I biked from Seattle going up to Vancover Island. Port Angeles back to Paso Robles on my Medici Grand touring.

[warrior]

Originally Posted by philobeddoe

no ...


every day, just about every American urinates and defecates into water

fact

Don't forget the Condumns!!

[jayman]

Originally Posted by SageBrush

Is Methane not oxidized to CO2 and H2O when burnt as a fuel ?

Assuming perfectly efficient combustion, here is how:

CH4 + O2 - CO + H2 + H20

2H2 + O2 - 2H2O

2CO + O2 - 2CO2

Originally Posted by TimBikes

In addition, co2 has much less "warming potential" than methane, so in theory it would be better to capture the methane and burn it than to release it directly.

I agree, especially when discussing methane clathrate. We absolutely do NOT want clathrates to melt on their own!

This will get complicated, so bear with me

The GWP or "Global Warming Potential" is calculated for a variety of gases, and typically are estimated over 100 years. The gases that also cause "radiative forcing" are important too. GWP isn't an exact science by any means, but it's useful to compare numbers

CO2 has a calculated GWP = 1

CH4 has a calculated GWP(100) = 25

HFC-23 has a calculated GWP(100) = 14,800

HFC-134a has a calculated GWP(100) = 1,430

SF6 has a calculated GWP(100) = 22,800

Chlorinated gases, such as Freon, also can cause ozone damage in the upper atmosphere

Until very recently, little attention has been paid to CH4. We've focused almost all of our collective attention on CO2. I much prefer efficient combustion of CH4, over letting it freely mingle in the atmosphere

[jayman]

Originally Posted by warrior

Don't forget the Condumns!!

No glove, no love!

[SageBrush]

Originally Posted by jayman

Assuming perfectly efficient combustion, here is how:

CH4 + O2 - CO + H2 + H20

2H2 + O2 - 2H2O

2CO + O2 - 2CO2



I agree, especially when discussing methane clathrate. We absolutely do NOT want clathrates to melt on their own!

Right, burning is better than melting. That is not clean, it is just less dirty. So, with the help of our friends like Tim here, we will reach the point where artic melt is inevitable.

[jayman]

Originally Posted by SageBrush

Right, burning is better than melting.

There is evidence that a clathrate "explosion" during the Cambrian. This article is fascinating

http://www.gps.caltech.edu/users/jki...ptesRendus.pdf

Leaving aside the issue of whether human activity itself will cause such an explosive methane release, there does appear to be geologic evidence of such events, at least from the Cambrian period

Although we should pay attention to CO2 I feel that we have failed to recognize the importance of potent and proven GHG's that can dramatically increase radiative forcing.

I think we have to consider not only unique Earth-based processes going on, such as geomagnetic reversals, but also solar and extrasolar events

[richard schumacher]

Originally Posted by SageBrush

Right, burning is better than melting. That is not clean, it is just less dirty. So, with the help of our friends like Tim here, we will reach the point where artic melt is inevitable.

It would be far better to stop using coal and replace it with... well, anything. But even methane produces only half as much CO2 per useful energy released as does coal. Given Hobson's Choice it would be better to burn methane than to simply dump it into the air, as would happen if those clathrates start to melt.

[jayman]

It is MUCH better to combust CH4 than to allow it to escape it into the atmosphere. CH4 has 25X the GWP of CO2