Hello,

We noticed you're browsing in private or incognito mode.

To continue reading this article, please exit incognito mode or log in.

Not an Insider? Subscribe now for unlimited access to online articles.

Kevin Bullis

A View from Kevin Bullis

DOE to Push Development of Huge Potential Source of Greenhouse Gas Emissions

The Department of Energy and the Alaskan Government are speeding up development of oil sands and methane hydrates.

  • April 19, 2013

Many environmentalists are protesting the proposed Keystone XL Pipeline because it would help facilitate the delivery of oil from Canada’s oil sands and, they argue, increase carbon dioxide emissions. They may have more reason to worry about what’s happening in Alaska. The state’s Department of Natural Resources is teaming up with the U.S. Department of Energy to speed up production of natural gas from a resource—methane hydrate deposits–that’s far larger than the oil sands in Canada, and could in theory lead to far greater greenhouse gas emissions.

Methane hydrates are essentially a frozen form of natural gas. According to a press release from the Department of Energy’s National Energy Technology Laboratory, “methane hydrates represent a potentially enormous energy resource, possibly exceeding the combined energy content of all other fossil fuels.”

Yet to protest either the development of methane hydrates or the construction of the Keystone pipeline may be a poor strategy for actually reducing greenhouse gas emissions. Arguably, the Canadian oil sands will be developed whether or not the Keystone pipeline gets built. And the sheer size of the methane hydrate resource has made it the subject of research outside of the United States—shutting off development here won’t stop it everywhere (see “Will Methane Hydrates Fuel Another Gas Boom?” and “Mining ‘Ice That Burns’”). In general, people will get at and use whatever energy sources make economic sense.

The only way to keep methane hydrates in the ground is for other sources of energy to make more economic sense. Doing that would require research to make sources like nuclear power cheaper, and likely taxing carbon emissions to make sources like methane more expensive.

Get stories like this before anyone else with First Look.

Subscribe today
Already a Premium subscriber? Log in.
Want more award-winning journalism? Subscribe to Insider Plus.
  • Insider Plus {! insider.prices.plus !}*

    {! insider.display.menuOptionsLabel !}

    Everything included in Insider Basic, plus the digital magazine, extensive archive, ad-free web experience, and discounts to partner offerings and MIT Technology Review events.

    See details+

    What's Included

    Unlimited 24/7 access to MIT Technology Review’s website

    The Download: our daily newsletter of what's important in technology and innovation

    Bimonthly print magazine (6 issues per year)

    Bimonthly digital/PDF edition

    Access to the magazine PDF archive—thousands of articles going back to 1899 at your fingertips

    Special interest publications

    Discount to MIT Technology Review events

    Special discounts to select partner offerings

    Ad-free web experience

/3
You've read of three free articles this month. for unlimited online access. You've read of three free articles this month. for unlimited online access. This is your last free article this month. for unlimited online access. You've read all your free articles this month. for unlimited online access. You've read of three free articles this month. for more, or for unlimited online access. for two more free articles, or for unlimited online access.