Methane Adoption Comments, Answers, & Projections

Thank you for your comments (indented) on Methane versus Hydrogen as Fuel including:

"Hydrogen is difficult to store, but no one (except those who need it for
refrigeration) suggests liquefying it or keeping it under pressure.
Instead, it can be adsorbed into metallic sponges that hold almost one atom of hydrogen per atom of metal and release it in a controlled manner. The disadvantage is the weight of the sponge."

Most Texas homes, schools, and businesses have methane (commonly called natural gas*) delivered via a utility (90+% efficient transmission from source to each consumer) in addition to the electricity grid (at best 33% efficient transmission from source to each consumer).

Furthermore, the generation of electricity is less efficient than a fuel cell due to the limitations of engines although dynamo generators can have up to 90% efficiency. Therefore, electricity delivered over the grid will (at best) yield 18% of the fuel energy (60% X 90%X 33%) versus (at least) 45% yield (90% X 50%) of the same fuel delivered via a methane (natural gas) utility then converted to electricity via a fuel cell (and fuel cells are becoming ever more efficient).

The technology to store methane in a vehicle fuel container has been around a long time, is already being used in various applications with internal combustion engines designed to use gasoline http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Compressed_natural_gas, and is better for the environment than gasoline.

Additionally, coal gasification along with other methods of generating methane (including recycling) are much more efficient than burning coal to generate electricity http://www.fossil.energy.gov/programs/powersystems/gasification/index.html, and methane drawn from or prevented from entering the atmosphere then used as fuel will reduce the greenhouse effect by 95% for that particular amount because methane has 20 times the greenhouse effect of carbon-dioxide for the same amount of gas.

*Natural gas produced from a well is normally a mixture of methane with other hydrocarbons http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alkane#Linear_alkanes which are extracted for various uses before the methane is transported to customers.

"Hydrogen DOES have to be generated, but water electrolysis is the obvious choice, since the by-product is oxygen which freshens the atmosphere. Any energy source will do for the production."

Methane is also easily generated from other energy sources, is captured as a by-product of other processes, recycled from landfills / sewer systems / animal waste processing, might help with enhanced petroleum recovery, and can be taken directly from areas with high concentrations like the air close to swamps (i.e. wetlands), permafrost, or the ocean bottom.

"However, I wouldn't worry about depleting ozone. Hydrogen already exists in the stratosphere by the photolysis of water. Indeed, that may have been the original source of oxygen on the planet, leading to its utilization by lifeforms eventually. The hydrogen in the stratosphere escapes the atmosphere quickly because it is the lightest element known. Indeed, that escape is what permitted oxygen to build up in the early atmosphere (after all the free iron had been rusted)."

After some research, I agree with the statements in the paragraph immediately above.

"Methane is a more potent greenhouse gas than carbon dioxide. Indeed the methane clatherates (ocean bottom) and the methane locked up in permafrost will bring about a catastrophic warming if they are ever released. We need to pray that the current global warming can be turned around before the permafrost melts. Otherwise, we are toast...no two ways about it."

Compared to carbon-dioxide, methane is 20 times more effective as a greenhouse gas, and water 2 times as effective. However, water is much more abundant than any other greenhouse gas, and accounts for most global warming, which is part of the system that keeps the Earth habitable http://www.skepticalscience.com/water-vapor-greenhouse-gas.htm. Furthermore, if methane becomes more valuable (or even subsidized because of its benefits to the environment, economy, and consumers), then businesses will become very creative in capturing it from all possible sources.

"You should read the full article at http://www.american.com/archive/2009/june/emissions-control-myths-and-realities which came out the day after you sent your last email and has some interesting information like the three paragraphs below:

Diplomats from the world's major greenhouse-gas emitters met recently at the State Department to discuss a potential U.N. agreement to fight global warming. Commenting on a lack of attention paid by the Bush administration to the urgent need to address global warming, U.S. special envoy for climate change Todd Stern said, "They were not fundamentally looking for an international agreement."

Perhaps that is because international efforts have not succeeded thus far. Gwyn Prins of the London School of Economics and Steve Rayner of Oxford University say the Kyoto Protocol, “as an instrument for achieving emissions reductions, has failed ... It has produced no demonstrable reductions in emissions or even in anticipated emissions growth."

Meanwhile, the United States is having better luck at controlling its emissions, without the multi-billion-dollar mandates of Kyoto. According to the U.S. Energy Information Administration (EIA), carbon-dioxide emissions from the combustion of fossil fuels increased 0.7 percent in the United States from 2000 to 2006, far below the worldwide increase of 21.6 percent. During the same period, emissions grew 4.9 percent in Europe, 37.6 percent in the Middle East, and 52.3 percent in Asia. Major developing nations saw big increases. India, Malaysia, and China’s emissions increased 27.7 percent, 45.8 percent, and 103 percent, respectively.

I am confident that increasing methane use will reduce pollution (and greenhouse emissions) while increasing efficiency to improve our economy. Whether or not one believes that CO2 is the cause for global warming, moving to the hydrogen economy is not practical at this time, but increasing methane use as a fuel will move us toward both reduced CO2 emissions and improving the economy.

"It's a very smart idea: methane gas to supply methane fuel cells at homes to convert methane to electricity."

The first attempts on this development to my knowledge are by the state of Alaska to help their many remote communities http://www.alaska.edu/uaf/cem/ine/aetdl/projects/

"You did not mention the Earth's magnetic field which changes over time http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Geomagnetic_reversal, impacts
many aspects of our lives including climate http://solarb.msfc.nasa.gov/science/space_weather/impacts/climate.html, and has raised some concerns already http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/South_Atlantic_Anomaly."

Thank you for pointing out that I did not include Earth's magnetic field in the list of things that affect our climate. Also, I was not aware of the South Atlantic Anomaly or that some scientists think this might be the beginning of a magnetic pole reversal. Any additional information from any aspect is appreciated.

"I agree that the state of Texas should be involved in sponsoring development of methane based fuel cells. The energy companies will not develop smart alternatives to gasoline because they make big profits from high gas prices."The US Government sponsored deveopment of the computer industry, including the internet. Government sponsorship can work well. But the U.S. government won't buck Exxon or Haliburton, so Texas must look out for the citizens of Texas."

In addition to helping consumers, the environment, and our economy; Exxon, Haliburton, and all of the petroleum industry will benefit from going to a methane economy. Petroleum companies typically have at least one division named "Oil & Gas Exploration & Production". Natural gas technology is required for oil production, because normally oil & gas are found together in formations with gas on the top, oil in the middle, and salt water on the bottom.
.