GOOGLE Frozen Methane Hydrate - I am sick of peak oil soothsayers

http://www.fossil.energy.gov/programs/oilgas/hydrates/index.html ^

[_Jim]

My only postulation was that CO2 in a beaker traps heat more efficiently than air.

It looks like a 'new' field of science has just been invented by the mind of a layman ... paraphrasing: "CO2 in a beaker traps more heat than air" ... how does that work exactly?

What factors are at work here: conduction, absorption, emittance, reflection maybe?

Are you referring to a 'standard atmosphere' for the air parcel - can a greater amount of water vapor be specified to see how that affects the 'trapping' (your word) of 'heat'?

[ndt]

"What factors are at work here: conduction, absorption, emittance, reflection maybe?"

Absorption of longwave radiant energy.

[_Jim]

So ... this CO2 continually absorbs longwave (radiant) energy?

Wouldn't this result in an ever-increasing temperature?

No emittance takes place what-so-ever?

[ndt]

"Wouldn't this result in an ever-increasing temperature?"

Well in the case of a beaker, which I assume we must have under a heat lamp the increasing difference between outside and inside temperatures would result in an increased rate of convective heat loss to the lab. Eventually reaching a stable temperature at an ever so slightly higher temperature.

Let me guess, you are going to take a simple statement that is clearly accurate (i.e. C02 traps heat more efficiently then air) and rather then point out the flaw that you appear to think is there, you will try to question in greater and greater detail until I just go away. That about right?

So here. Just tell me what is wrong with the statement so we can cut to the chase and save both our times.

[_Jim]

I want you to explain how the 'heat trapping' takes place with CO2.

Then I would like a comparison made with water vapor.

Then we might go into how that translates into other scenarios.

[ndt]

"I want you to explain how the 'heat trapping' takes place with CO2."

I will on one condition. You first answer the question...

Does CO2 trap heat more efficiently than common air?

[ndt]

OK, now I see where you are going with this.

The question should be with water vapor being equivalent, does air with a higher percentage of CO2 trap heat better then air with a lower percentage of CO2.

Does that make you happier?

[Mad Dawgg]

"The problem with hydrates is getting them from where they are to a place where we can use them."

Yep, it all boils down to efficiency. IIRC Oil takes 1 unit of energy for a return of 4 units of energy. (Drilling, storage, transportation, refining)

The best return on energy invested in any of the "alternative" fuels at this time is 1 unit for 2 units. (according to all the info I can find on the net and books and such)

Until that changes or we run out of oil, Oil is gonna be our main energy source.

[_Jim]

You first answer the question...

I dunno ... you have failed to answer several of my questions already.

I would feel more inclined to answer yours now *if* you had been more forthcoming earlier.

[ndt]

"I would feel more inclined to answer yours now *if* you had been more forthcoming earlier."

Seeing as it's the very core of what you chose to critique the fact that you would refuse to state your opinion on it is quite telling.

[Berosus]

I don’t know if this will give us the energy independence we need, but it will lower my heating bill in the winter, now that I’m in a gas-using house.

[Mr170IQ]

> my car doesn’t run on natural gas.. saying a natural gas discovery is going to solve the oil problem is kinda like a shortage in gold being solved by discovering more zinc

Natural gas can be catalytically combined with oxygen to form methanol (quite easily, I might add). Methanol can be used directly in ‘flex-fuel’ cars, or it can be catalytically converted directly into gasoline.

http://yarchive.net/chem/gasoline_make.html

It’s not quite as simple as cracking crude oil into useful fuel fractions, but it’s not too difficult either.