Free Republic

Eventually erf pharts will kill us all. Search on “lake turnover” and see what we’re up to.

Why? This has been successful in other locations.

Well, if it emits carbon dioxide, clearly it is unacceptable and must be stopped at all costs.

The actual reasoning by any leftist is:
Well, if it PRODUCES USABLE ENERGY, clearly it is unacceptable and must be stopped at all costs.

Sounds like a pointless thing to do.

Longwall mining has also been done without a history of the surface ground collapsing. This process is not intended for shallow coal but depth with plenty of coverage.

The thing to know is that when a layer of rock breaks the rock lumps when piled together occupy more space than the solid rock. As a rule-of-thumb the bulking is about 60%. So that when the roof over the working area break and collapses, about twice the seam height of rock has collapsed, it has filled the hole where the coal used to be, and reaches up to the solid layers of rock above, to hold them in place. The confinement of the rock around each piece allows it to regain some strength, and so collectively the broken rock behind the working face (called the goaf or waste) will carry the weight of the ground from about twice the seam height, all the way to the surface, and with the other end of the “bridge” as it were resting on the confined coal ahead of the working face.(While the width of this bridge varies with depth, coal and rock strength etc, for an initial estimate you can imagine it as being around 500 ft).

What happens to the overburden when the seam of coal burns away? I know in longwall mining it tends to drop. I’m thinking tsunami. Kowabunga Dude!

Not. If it produces useable energy, it is unacceptable and must be stopped at all costs. The greenies don't want solar power plants in the desert either.

Well, if it emits carbon dioxide, clearly it is unacceptable and must be stopped at all costs.

Far different technology recovering different sources of Fuel.

This process converts coal to syngas. It is not in anyway appicable to recovery of Methane Hydrates.

However, that work is progressing forward as well and some recovery has already been accomplished in Alaska.

One step at a time for gas hydrates
http://www.petroleumnews.com/pnads/672064283.shtml

Following success with the Mount Elbert gas hydrate stratigraphic test well on Alaska’s North Slope in 2007, the U.S. Department of Energy and BP are working on plans for a first-of-its-kind, long-term gas hydrate production test, Brent Sheets, regional manager for the Energy Department’s National Energy Technology Laboratory Arctic Energy Office in Fairbanks, told a meeting of the Alaska Support Industry Alliance on Jan. 8.

- - - - - -

A major gas source for the future?
http://www.petroleumnews.com/pnads/594305786.shtml

On Nov. 12 the U.S. Department of the Interior announced the release of the U.S. Geological Survey assessment of technically recoverable gas from gas hydrates on the North Slope. As reported in the Oct. 26 issue of Petroleum News, the assessment estimates a mean recoverable gas resource of 85 trillion cubic feet, with a possible range of 25 tcf to 157 tcf, from a 55,000-square-mile region that encompasses the central and southern North Slope; a major portion of the National Petroleum Reserve-Alaska; much of the coastal plain of the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge; and some nearshore areas of the Beaufort and Chukchi seas.

- - - - - - -

Picking the test site
http://www.petroleumnews.com/pnads/87647001.shtml

Researchers engaged in a multiyear joint government, industry and university project to investigate the production of natural gas from gas hydrates under Alaska’s central North Slope are selecting a site for a long-term production test. And drilling from the Prudhoe Bay field L pad into some nearby stacked, hydrate-filled sands seems the most likely scenario for setting up the test environment, said Tim Collett of the U.S. Geological Survey and Ray Boswell of the U.S. Department of Energy in the latest edition of the DOE “Fire in the Ice” newsletter.

And, while the site evaluation progresses, DOE and BP are forming an Alaska North Slope joint industry project, to seek broader participation in the gas hydrate research, Collett and Boswell said.

In a parallel project, ConocoPhillips is working with DOE to plan a test of gas hydrate production by injecting waste carbon dioxide into hydrate deposits.

This process is far beyond just theory. It has been in operation for quite some time.

Commercial UCG has been successfully operated for more than 40 years at the Yerostigaz facility in Angren, Uzbekistan. Yerostigaz is the only remaining UCG site in the former Soviet Union.

UCG produces a high quality synthetic gas (syngas), containing carbon monoxide, hydrogen and methane.

Linc Energy
http://www.lincenergy.com.au/pro-aus.php

Linc Energy has been active in Chinchilla, a rural location in the Surat Basin, about 300 kilometres from Brisbane, for 10 years with its Underground Coal Gasification (UCG) technology. Gas to Liquids (GTL) operations began in 2008. UCG operations began in July 1999, with the development of Generator 1, the first UCG trial field. Synthesis gas (syngas) was first produced in December 1999. Production of syngas from Generator 1 continued for two years, proving process control and environmental stability.

Hopefully this technology is developed, because there is a pressing need to use it elsewhere.

There are huge, undersea deposits of methane ice (Methane clathrate, methane trapped in water ice), trapped in ice fields under the sea floor in some places. Unpredictably, one or more of these fields tends to explode, blasting immense amounts of methane gas into the atmosphere. The US is estimated to have 200,000 trillion cubic feet of methane in hydrate systems in (Alaskan) permafrost regions and surrounding waters.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Gas_hydrates_1996.svg

Unlike human activity, were one or more of these fields to erupt, it *would likely* be enough to botch up the climate. However, there might be a solution.

Undersea mining of methane ice could be done robotically, then because it is in the sea floor sediment layers, water ice could be substituted for the missing methane ice to prevent collapse from water pressure. The methane ice would be transported into a low pressure situation, where the methane would be released, then mixed with oxygen and combusted.

The resulting byproduct of CO2 would likewise be returned to the methane ice mine, as an inert gas to prevent any danger of combustion.

Thus, a lot of energy would be produced, there would be less likelihood of a catastrophic methane ice field failure.

More info:

http://www.semp.us/publications/biot_reader.php?BiotID=301

Remember reading about geothermal years ago. Sounded promising. Guess there was never lots of details. This sounds a bit out there though.

And I don’t mean out there ... in the North Sea.

It is interesting thought that Norway has more coal than even the United States (supposedly), but it is unfortunately mostly beneath their coastline.

I forgot about those W Va. fires. Horrendous is right.

Doesn’t seem all that appealing.

CO2 is plant food. Years ago when I worked in college as a part-time floral deliveryman, one of the most pleasant assignments in the wintertime was to go collect potted plants to move from the greenhouse of the the florist on the outskirts of town to the retail stores downtown and in the mall.

This was an especially nice job when it was 20 below zero outside. The greenshouse people always told me to take my time loading the van because they needed the CO2 which I exhaled. I was glad to do so not only because of the pleasant ambient temperature inside, but because of the concentration of oxygen. I told them they could charge people admission just to be in that environment during the winter. Warm weather, of course, was a different story since they kept the greenhouse only cool enough to keep the workers inside from passing out. Most houseplants don't particularly mind temperatures in the high 80's or low 90's.

Here's one in Russia that's rather more mysterious.

Fascinating story. I've read up on Centralia, and it is simply amazing what has happened (and is still happening) there.

You imagine a much larger volume of coal than reality.

What if after they were done and the large hole filled with Sea Water dropping the worlds oceans a few thousandths of a millimeter...

See, my quixotic mind at work.**

Yours and mine! I’m getting flashbacks of horrendous underground coal fires in WV—fires that burnt uncontrolled for years, may be still burning.

That and peat bog fires here in NC. Started by lightning or forest fires, they burn out huge areas that eventually fill with water.

Centralia land rush! eBay look out, here we come!

What was that news story years ago. Big hole in the bottom of a lake drained it. Wonder where the water went.

IIRC, a bunch of folks drilling for oil or natural gas in Louisiana put their drill into a salt mine. I don't recall if they were guilty of poor navigation, or the salt mine was poorly mapped. In any case, the lake went into the mine.

OK ... "bing" ...

Wiki has an article about it.

Geothermal really does have a lot of potential but it has to be in ring of fire or hot ground areas like areas around the rockies and other parts of U.S.. Run the pipes underground and instead of water you can use a gas. Works almost like a nuke plant generating steam to spin a turbine.

What was that news story years ago. Big hole in the bottom of a lake drained it. Wonder where the water went.

Imagine if a big hole formed in the North Sea. Drain the worlds oceans or just drop sea level many many miles.

See, my quixotic mind at work.

Especially since it is under the ocean.

Thanks. I read a lot but some how I missed this technology advancements.

As I said lots of questions in my mind. I guess it’s cheaper to bring it to the surface.

Seems as though it would be really expensive building the infrastructure need to accomplish this.

Whenever I see an energy scheme like this, I suspect that what's being 'mined' is a government subsidy program - and that as soon as the subsidy runs out, the players will decamp. No evidence of that in the article, but that's not to say it isn't so.

“Burning it underground may keep that there”

certainly would for the particulates & sulfur, which is the important stuff. CO2 is perfectly harmless.

Gas is released in the process which is gathered like in a Natural Gas field with wells.

- - - - -

For those interested in more information about Underground Coal Gasification:

http://www.coal-ucg.com/publishedarticleonucg.html

http://www.undeerc.org/programareas/undergroundcoalgasification.aspx

http://www.ucgp.com/

http://www.ergoexergy.com/

The seam is irregular so the heat keeps moving around, but from a tech standpoint I don’t see why they wouldn’t. Been meaning to go up there one of these days and have a look around.

Has this been done any where? Commercially or other wise.

Seems like a massive system of pipes/duct work would be need to get that heat, or other energy released, to the surface to be used for whatever purpose.

Seems as though it would be really expensive building the infrastructure need to accomplish this.

Coal is almost 50% of the US electricity supply, read that a while back some where. Burning coal emits CO2, sulfur and some very fine particulates.

Burning it underground may keep that there but I wouldn’t think so. There have been advances and methods now to burn it cleanly and safely.

With these advancements, does it need to be burned underground? Would that not some how damage the earth around it and cause sink holes or something?

Very interesting article. But only begs more and more questions in my mind.

Don’t see why not.

 

Beam me to Planet Gore !

Wouldn’t it be easier just to tap into the reserve of natural BTU’s.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0BooOfsZgac

Most research suggests the UK will need a marked boost in generating capacity in order to meet its growing energy requirements over the next ten years. The combination of rising energy demand, and the closure of nuclear and ageing conventional plant, mean that without new investment the UK faces a near 20,000MW energy shortage by 2016.

Wonder if this can be adapted for Centralia, which is still burning.

Well, if it emits carbon dioxide, clearly it is unacceptable and must be stopped at all costs. /s