Arctic methane capture and usage

Industry

Methane is a highly potent greenhouse gas and its reduction is given ever greater priority in international emission reduction policies. Given the increasing, and potentially catastrophic rate of methane release from the thawing Arctic and Northern permafrost, these regions are crucial in this endeavor. Apart from the methane release from microbial activity in thawing permafrost on land, methane also escapes in the form of hydrates which have been formed under sediments beneath the sea.

There are several ways to counter the increase of atmospheric methane such as: emission reductions strategies, increases of biological sinks, degradation of atmospheric methane, and methane flaring. Some have however suggested it might be possible to capture methane or methane hydrates and transform it into useful materials.

The capture part poses a first difficulty. Salter (2011) suggested it might be possible to physically cover certain areas in the Arctic to capture the hydrates escaping from permafrost sediments. Amongst several other techniques, this idea was also echoed in Lockley (2012) and Stolaroff et al. (2012). Another proposed method would inject CO2 into hydrate sediments, thereby potentially storing CO2, and allowing methane to be utilized, with Brewer et al. (2014) even conducting a small scale field trial. However, GESAMP (2019) notes that 'given the limited information currently available, it is too early to have clarity about the options that may be available for methane capture.'

A second issue relates to the transformation of the captured methane into useful products like hydrogen or methanol. Although recently several advances make future operationalisation more likely, it is currently still far off from being implemented at a large scale.

Technological Readiness Level (TRL)

Low 1

As GESAMP (2019) notes, there is little scholarship on the feasibility of methane capture from thawing Arctic permafrost. Moreover, there are significant concerns about the effect of some of the capture techniques, with Zhang and Zhai (2015) for example warning of massive methane leakage from hydrate capture technologies. The utilization of the captured methane also remains complicated, despite reports of recent progress in methane transformation technologies (Cho et al, 2021).

Technological Readiness Level (TRL)

A technology with a TRL of 1-3: TRL 1 – Basic; TRL 2 – Concept formulated; TRL 3 – Experimental proof of concept

Scalability

Low 1

It might be that certain measures could be able to capture methane or hydrates from concentrated sources, although given the huge surface area and logistical difficulties, Stolaroff et al, (2012) write that '[f]ew of the known mitigation measures appear applicable to large-scale aqueous sources.'

Scalability

Physically unable to scale; sub-linear/logarithmic efficiency of scalability

Timeliness for near-future effects

Unknown 0

Northern + Arctic potential

Unknown 0

Given the increased international attention for methane mitigation, methane release from Arctic permafrost could play a significant role. However, it is unclear how, and how much methane could feasibly be captured.

Global potential

Unknown 0

Cost - benefit

Unknown 0

Given the logistical difficulties and large surface area, significant costs are likely. If methane is transformed into useful materials, this will drive down costs.

Environmental risks

Unknown 0

GESAMP (2019) notes that there is insufficient information to judge this. But depending on the used techniques and materials, there could be environmental effects. For example from the degradation of material used to cover some areas as suggested in Salter (2011).

Community impacts

Unknown 0

There might be local benefits in terms of income or employment related to the production of materials from captured methane.

Ease of reversibility

Unknown 0

Risk of termination shock

Unknown 0

Legality/governance

High 3

It is likely that nation states could implement such measures on their own territory.

Legality/governance

Currently legal to deploy, with governance structures in place to facilitate it and/or financial incentives to develop it

Scientific/media attention

Medium 2

There is some renewed attention for methane capture in light of the recent global push for methane mitigation. This could also influence the debate on methane transformation in the Arctic context. In a popular article for Arctic Today, Yee (2020) for example writes that Rwanda is already using methane as energy, and asks: ‘Can we harness the Arctic’s methane for energy?’ However, to date, there have not been many detailed studies on the specific functioning of such technologies in the Arctic.

Scientific/media attention

Some attention within the scientific community, including published research and funding programmes; some media attention; some commercial interest

References

Babu, P., Yang, S. H. B., Dasgupta, S., & Linga, P. (2014). Methane production from natural gas hydrates via carbon dioxide fixation. Energy Procedia, 61, 1776-1779. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.egypro.2014.12.210

Brewer, P. G., Peltzer, E. T., Walz, P. M., Coward, E. K., Stern, L. A., Kirby, S. H., & Pinkston, J. (2014). Deep-sea field test of the CH4 hydrate to CO2 hydrate spontaneous conversion hypothesis. Energy & fuels, 28(11), 7061-7069. https://doi.org/10.1021/ef501430h

Cho Y, Yamaguchi A, Miyauchi M. Photocatalytic Methane Reforming: Recent Advances. Catalysts. 2021; 11(1):18. https://doi.org/10.3390/catal11010018

Lockley, A. (2012). Comment on “Review of methane mitigation technologies with application to rapid release of methane from the Arctic”. Environmental science & technology, 46(24), 13552-13553. https://doi.org/10.1021/es303074j

Reddy, Venkata Laxma, Kim, Ki-Hyun, Song, Hocheol (2013). Emerging green chemical technologies for the conversion of CH4 to value added products. Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews Volume 24, August 2013, Pages 578-585. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.rser.2013.03.035

Salter, S. H. (2011). Can we capture methane from the Arctic seabed? Retrieved April 6, 2018, from http://arctic-news.blogspot.co.uk/p/methane-capture.html

Stolaroff, J. K., Bhattacharyya, S., Smith, C. A., Bourcier, W. L., Cameron-Smith, P. J., & Aines, R. D. (2012). Review of methane mitigation technologies with application to rapid release of methane from the Arctic. Environmental Science & Technology, 46(12), 6455-6469. https://doi.org/10.1021/es204686w

Yee, A. (2020) Can we harness the Arctic’s methane for energy?, Arctic Today. Available at: https://www.arctictoday.com/can-we-harness-the-arctics-methane-for-energy/?wallit_nosession=1 [Accessed 22 July 2024]

Zhang, Y., & Zhai, W. D. (2015). Shallow-ocean methane leakage and degassing to the atmosphere: triggered by offshore oil-gas and methane hydrate explorations. Frontiers in Marine Science, 2, 34. https://doi.org/10.3389/fmars.2015.00034

Related ideas

Industry

Polar chimneys

Some have suggested modifying incoming and outgoing radiation budgets in the Arctic to mitigate the warming in the region.

Industry

Enhanced weathering (on land)

The concentration of GHGs in the atmosphere will have to be stabilized or lowered to mitigate or even reverse current global warming. To achieve this, current GHG emissions need to be reduced. Such mitigation strategies will however take time to deploy, and some emission sources will be difficult to mitigate. Moreover, since current atmospheric levels are already having a major warming effect, negative emission or Carbon Dioxide Removal (CDR) measures that reduce the amount of GHGs in the atmosphere are an active topic of research.

Industry

Built-environment albedo enhancement (white roofs etc.)

An increase in GHGs in the atmosphere leads to a greater amount of outgoing infrared radiation from the earth being retained. There are several SRM ideas that seek to compensate for this by reflecting more radiation back to space.

Permafrost patterns of tundra soil, Northeast Greenland National Park

Industry

Direct air carbon capture and storage DACCS

Atmosphere / solar radiation

Space-based solar radiation management

GHG emissions reductions and future negative emissions are the only sustainable solutions to stabilize or even reverse global warming as they counter the cause of the problem. However, such actions will likely take a while to materialize, and inertia in the climate system and “baked-in” warming already ensures major changes in global temperatures and the nearing of several tipping points. Solar radiation management (SRM) techniques seek to reduce global temperatures by reflecting incoming solar radiation. They would thereby not fix the underlying issue of the warming effects of GHGs, but are according to the United Nations Environment Programme (UNEP) Review on Solar Radiation Modification Research (2023) ‘the only known approach that could be used to cool the Earth within a few years’.

Ringed plovers (Charadrius hiaticular) arriving from the Arctic on Tromlingen, Raet National Park

Oceans & marine

Ocean Alkalinity enhancement

The oceans are the largest carbon sink for atmospheric carbon, and have taken up over 30% of anthropogenic emissions. Carbon uptake mainly occurs directly through ocean-atmosphere interaction or through weathering processes. Due to this uptake of carbon the oceans turn more acidic overtime, and since the start of the industrial revolution oceans have become 30% more acidic. This has all sorts of effects, as it for example impacts marine biochemistry, and prevents certain organisms from successfully growing.

Autumn at Mykland after forest fire 5 years ago

Land-based measures

Wildfire management

Fire is important to the healthy functioning of boreal ecosystems. However, as wildfires increase, they release greater amounts of GHGs into the atmosphere, contributing to climate change. While boreal fires typically contribute 10% of global CO2 emissions, in 2021, an extreme fire year, they accounted for 23% of global emissions (Zheng et al. 2023). Particulate matter in wildfire smoke (soot or black carbon, see also Black carbon mitigation) can also reduce albedo on sea ice and glaciers, enhancing ice melt (e.g., Aubry-Wake et al. 2022). Wildfires are projected to increase in both frequency and intensity over the coming decades (UNEP 2022). By 2050, wildfires in North American boreal forests alone could contribute close to 12 Gt CO2, almost 3% of the remaining global CO2 emissions to keep temperatures to below 1.5oC (Phillips et al. 2022a).

Industry

Atmospheric methane removal: Solar chimney and photocatalytic semiconductor technology

Methane is a highly potent greenhouse gas and its reduction is given ever greater priority in international emission reduction policies (see, for example, https://www.globalmethanepledge.org/). There are several suggested ways to remove atmospheric methane (see Nisbet Jones et al. 2021; and Ming et al. 2022; see in this report also iron salt aerosols and zeolites). One of the main issues with methane removal is that atmospheric methane concentrations are very low. This means that very large volumes of air, and related energy demands, are required, making the use of ventilators like those used for DACCS (see direct air capture) more complicated (Nisbet-Jones et al. 2021).