Is Natural Gas Renewable? I say yes it is.

Wind, solar, geothermal, hydropower, ocean waves, are all considered renewable. Good cases can be made that coal, oil, and nuclear are not renewable. I contend that natural gas should be considered renewable because it is continually being produced in short periods of time. 

All living things end up as methane which is just unrefined natural gas. Biogas can be made from any material that was once alive. This life can be animal or plant. Of course, plants make up the bulk of life. The oceans are full of plant life and they make up much more living space than the land mass because plants can grow at many levels. The oceans have far more natural gas than the land does. It is tied up in deposits called methane clathrates along the coasts. 

Methane continuously leaks from oceans, lakes, ponds, peat bogs, dung, bovines, etc. It is a good idea to use the dung, peat, industrial waste, etc. by turning it into biogas. Biogas is considered renewable by many and is the preferred source of natural gas for transportation in most areas. Methane released into the atmosphere is considered a threat by those concerned about global warming. All the more reason to support biogas being used. 

Biogas can be made in weeks of processing from the aforementioned materials.

See my topic on Biogas https://docs.google.com/document/d/1N-TLMeHsKYBCirxS0vbqMGHpU2SmyLuCc7bqp8eYXVM/edit

Tc-vfpWIsUokzXK7OP82PhIQPB7bCLToBVv8TkWOVqk8vnp0QVVG9WsFIO-HKfHXmH0v0e73AMbPIbZsjedBmXO_7uAsz--HKpYX_T3RDw5rKtwAkTkjk3muWhhAcJShh0KOnXE

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Back in the 80s I did some time in rural Korea. I saw a couple of villages set up to capture methane from the livestock, and use it, mostly for household cooking. 

I suspect the challenge is economics. How much does the system above cost? 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

On 1/18/2019 at 11:08 AM, ronwagn said:

Wind, solar, geothermal, hydropower, ocean waves, are all considered renewable. Good cases can be made that coal, oil, and nuclear are not renewable. I contend that natural gas should be considered renewable because it is continually being produced in short periods of time. 

All living things end up as methane which is just unrefined natural gas. Biogas can be made from any material that was once alive. This life can be animal or plant. Of course, plants make up the bulk of life. The oceans are full of plant life and they make up much more living space than the land mass because plants can grow at many levels. The oceans have far more natural gas than the land does. It is tied up in deposits called methane clathrates along the coasts. 

Methane continuously leaks from oceans, lakes, ponds, peat bogs, dung, bovines, etc. It is a good idea to use the dung, peat, industrial waste, etc. by turning it into biogas. Biogas is considered renewable by many and is the preferred source of natural gas for transportation in most areas. Methane released into the atmosphere is considered a threat by those concerned about global warming. All the more reason to support biogas being used. 

Biogas can be made in weeks of processing from the aforementioned materials.

See my topic on Biogas https://docs.google.com/document/d/1N-TLMeHsKYBCirxS0vbqMGHpU2SmyLuCc7bqp8eYXVM/edit

Tc-vfpWIsUokzXK7OP82PhIQPB7bCLToBVv8TkWOVqk8vnp0QVVG9WsFIO-HKfHXmH0v0e73AMbPIbZsjedBmXO_7uAsz--HKpYX_T3RDw5rKtwAkTkjk3muWhhAcJShh0KOnXE

Ron, you are showing how a biofuel can be produced.

From a logical perspective, how do you get more waste from the spent biofuel?  You seem to have missed that step.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The first thing to look up on this topic is the 'Sabatier Reaction', which was discovered in the very late 1800's. It shows how methane is produced from carbon dioxide and hydrogen gas using various catalysts.

Methane is an extremely stable molecule, described as having almost 'noble gas' properties similar to helium, argon, or krypton. This is one reason it 'shows up everywhere' in biology and geology from plant matter decay, forest fires, volcanoes, etc. It's also one reason why it is so difficult to transform into long-chain hydrocarbons, although ultraviolet light triggers the latter reaction in the atmosphere.

A lot of research has been focused on finding catalysts that convert CO2 and H2 to long chain hydrocarbons in one step, and there has been notable success with that in the last decade.

The initial problems were that such hydrocarbons could be synthesized, but they didn't produce a very specific product - one got all kinds of results that then required distillation. Recent work is producing catalysts that produce '99% pure' gasoline (isooctane), diesel (decane), jet fuel (naptha), etc.

These reactions take place in fractions of a second. Technically, we can make any hydrocarbon we want as quickly as we want, just as long as we have a 'green' source of hydrogen that's cheap enough to make it economically useful.

  • Like 1
  • Great Response! 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

On 1/18/2019 at 1:08 AM, ronwagn said:

Wind, solar, geothermal, hydropower, ocean waves, are all considered renewable. Good cases can be made that coal, oil, and nuclear are not renewable. I contend that natural gas should be considered renewable because it is continually being produced in short periods of time. 

All living things end up as methane which is just unrefined natural gas. Biogas can be made from any material that was once alive. This life can be animal or plant. Of course, plants make up the bulk of life. The oceans are full of plant life and they make up much more living space than the land mass because plants can grow at many levels. The oceans have far more natural gas than the land does. It is tied up in deposits called methane clathrates along the coasts. 

Methane continuously leaks from oceans, lakes, ponds, peat bogs, dung, bovines, etc. It is a good idea to use the dung, peat, industrial waste, etc. by turning it into biogas. Biogas is considered renewable by many and is the preferred source of natural gas for transportation in most areas. Methane released into the atmosphere is considered a threat by those concerned about global warming. All the more reason to support biogas being used. 

Biogas can be made in weeks of processing from the aforementioned materials.

See my topic on Biogas https://docs.google.com/document/d/1N-TLMeHsKYBCirxS0vbqMGHpU2SmyLuCc7bqp8eYXVM/edit

Tc-vfpWIsUokzXK7OP82PhIQPB7bCLToBVv8TkWOVqk8vnp0QVVG9WsFIO-HKfHXmH0v0e73AMbPIbZsjedBmXO_7uAsz--HKpYX_T3RDw5rKtwAkTkjk3muWhhAcJShh0KOnXE

Biogas as described above is renewable'

Conventional Gas is not. 

The UK has a potential to produce about 150 TWH of natural gas equivalent from biogas. Historically this gas, usually from sewage works and landfill sites was used to turn generators however there are many plants now which clean up the gas and inject it into the grid.

http://www.biogas-info.co.uk/resources/biogas-map/

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

(edited)

19 hours ago, ronwagn said:

So it is not renewable because NIck says so. OK , we can agree to disagree. I would venture to say that the earth creates more methane every day than mankind uses. Hard to quantify though. Anything that can be profitably used as biogas should be IMO.

https://docs.google.com/document/d/1N-TLMeHsKYBCirxS0vbqMGHpU2SmyLuCc7bqp8eYXVM/edit

Whereas you say it is Ron.........

I have heard similar assertions made about oil being renewable which kind of ignores the estimate that global accumulation of new oil equates to approximately 100 barrels per day. 

The key point:

Natural Gas in reservoirs has been formed over 100's of millions of years. Man kind is is likely to exploit that to exhaustion over 2-3 centuries. To all intents and purposes it is a non renewable resource.

In contrast biogas is made from anerobic  digested organic material that would have turned into Methane anyway if it was dumped in a landfill or aerobically digested into CO2 if dump on a field and exposed to air. 

Conventional gas is effectively locked out of the carbon cycle. Biogas isn't. 

 

 

 

 

Edited by NickW
  • Great Response! 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

On 1/20/2019 at 12:24 PM, Meredith Poor said:

The first thing to look up on this topic is the 'Sabatier Reaction', which was discovered in the very late 1800's. It shows how methane is produced from carbon dioxide and hydrogen gas using various catalysts.

Methane is an extremely stable molecule, described as having almost 'noble gas' properties similar to helium, argon, or krypton. This is one reason it 'shows up everywhere' in biology and geology from plant matter decay, forest fires, volcanoes, etc. It's also one reason why it is so difficult to transform into long-chain hydrocarbons, although ultraviolet light triggers the latter reaction in the atmosphere.

A lot of research has been focused on finding catalysts that convert CO2 and H2 to long chain hydrocarbons in one step, and there has been notable success with that in the last decade.

The initial problems were that such hydrocarbons could be synthesized, but they didn't produce a very specific product - one got all kinds of results that then required distillation. Recent work is producing catalysts that produce '99% pure' gasoline (isooctane), diesel (decane), jet fuel (naptha), etc.

These reactions take place in fractions of a second. Technically, we can make any hydrocarbon we want as quickly as we want, just as long as we have a 'green' source of hydrogen that's cheap enough to make it economically useful.

Let me guess, Meredith:  You got double-800's on your SAT's!  

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

On 1/19/2019 at 2:32 PM, John Foote said:

Back in the 80s I did some time in rural Korea. I saw a couple of villages set up to capture methane from the livestock, and use it, mostly for household cooking. 

I suspect the challenge is economics. How much does the system above cost? 

Biogas is doing very well. Reasons are that the raw materials are available everywhere. The biogas process and equipment is relatively simple. Biogas has the desirable clean recyclable source reputation. It lessens the need for disposal and also produces a residue used for fertilizer. Biogas https://docs.google.com/document/d/1N-TLMeHsKYBCirxS0vbqMGHpU2SmyLuCc7bqp8eYXVM/edit

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

(edited)

2 hours ago, NickW said:

Whereas you say it is Ron.........

I have heard similar assertions made about oil being renewable which kind of ignores the estimate that global accumulation of new oil equates to approximately 100 barrels per day. 

The key point:

Natural Gas in reservoirs has been formed over 100's of millions of years. Man kind is is likely to exploit that to exhaustion over 2-3 centuries. To all intents and purposes it is a non renewable resource.

In contrast biogas is made from anerobic  digested organic material that would have turned into Methane anyway if it was dumped in a landfill or aerobically digested if dump on a field and exposed to air. 

Conventional gas is effectively locked out of the carbon cycle. Biogas isn't. 

  

 

 

 

7

Most would agree with you, Nick. I am just arguing the other side of the story. Here are some references to help explain.

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

Global Methane Cycle. A diagram of the Global Methane Cycle.

http://www.newmediaexplorer.org/sepp/2005/02/01/global_warming_methane_could_be_far_worse_than_carbon_dioxide.htm  

Edited by ronwagn
added reference

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, ronwagn said:

Most would agree with you, Nick. I am just arguing the other side of the story. Here are some references to help explain.

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

Global Methane Cycle. A diagram of the Global Methane Cycle.

http://www.newmediaexplorer.org/sepp/2005/02/01/global_warming_methane_could_be_far_worse_than_carbon_dioxide.htm  

I don't really see how this is the 'other side' of the story. The bulk of atmospheric methane is of a biological source other than fugitive emissions from the gas industry. 

I support biogas as a technology - it has major potential and is available to all nations  so is ubiquitous so we are in agreement on that point. 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

10 minutes ago, NickW said:

I don't really see how this is the 'other side' of the story. The bulk of atmospheric methane is of a biological source other than fugitive emissions from the gas industry. 

I support biogas as a technology - it has major potential and is available to all nations  so is ubiquitous so we are in agreement on that point. 

So it sounds like you are saying conventional natural gas is a totally different category. It can be seen that way. All I am saying is that it all originated from living things and that the base amount is constantly being renewed. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

(edited)

10 minutes ago, ronwagn said:

So it sounds like you are saying conventional natural gas is a totally different category. It can be seen that way. All I am saying is that it all originated from living things and that the base amount is constantly being renewed. 

Its different by virtue of the fact its locked out of the carbon cycle and is effectively non renewable

It is not being renewed in fossil form to meet 0.00000000001% of current demand. As I said in a previous post the global accumulation of new oil is in the region of 100 barrels per day. Sounds low - well it took 100's of millions of years for the worlds current reservoir of oil (and gas() to form. 

You can no doubt apply comparable multiples to the formation of fossil gas. 

Edited by NickW

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, NickW said:

Its different by virtue of the fact its locked out of the carbon cycle and is effectively non renewable

Agreed.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

On 1/21/2019 at 3:20 PM, Jan van Eck said:

Let me guess, Meredith:  You got double-800's on your SAT's!  

My problem in school was I didn't believe half the stuff my teachers were trying to teach me. I probably did something in the 70% percentile on my SATs. I've simply studied renewable energy technologies persistently since the 1990's, and I have a good memory.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

All I can think of is the Challenger.  Hydrogen is extracted from water or gas I believe and is extremely volatile - just saying.  Also, Ocrazio-Cortez wants to ban cattle due to methane release (farts and burbs).  Scientists are actually working to find a way to genetically modify the microbial profiles to have the cattle digest their food more efficiently and emit less methane.  Yes, it is happening and It's probably paid with our hard earned tax dollars!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Sign in to follow this  
Followers 0