Fatal methane or last chance for humanity ?

In the journal Nature Sustainibility (https://www.businessinsider.fr/us/stanford-scientists-to-stop-climate-change-by-emitting-more-co2-2019-6) Rob Jackson from the Stanford University proposes to destroy methane (CH4) and convert it into CO2.

His reasoning: after 20 years methane has a GWP (Global Warming Potential) of 80 t CO2eq/tCH4 so it must be captured and destroyed to transform it into CO2 witch has a life span of 100 years, thus postponing the problem by 80 years...

Unconsciousness towards future generations who will have to deal with this "heritage"...

Apres moi le deluge (After me the flood...) To Hell with the consequences ?

A few questions come to mind :

Why not try to valorize this methane in a sustainable way rather than just destroy it to transform it into CO2 ?

Why this equivalence to 20 years when methane has an average life of 10 years ?

Why does this value not take into account the very important methane feedbacks (Permafrost and methane clathrates/hydrates) ?

Why not think in terms of PRGP (Global Long-term Warming Potential) rather than PRG ?

To all these questions one single answer: if we take into account all these parameters (10-year methane lifetime + feedback + sustainable recovery) the CO2 equivalence value of methane is not 80 tCO2eq/tCH4 at 20 years old but 128 tCO2eq/tCH4 at 10 years old which corresponds to the real lifetime of methane, i.e. 60% higher...

This means that for every tonne of methane recovered, the equivalent of 128 tonnes of CO2 is removed from the atmosphere for 10 years.

Now let us talk about volume: 400 million tonnes of anthropogenic fatal methane are emitted every year; this value also increases every year in proportion to the growth of GDP, population and energy consumption of which 85% is fossile.

100 million tonnes of methane are burned each year in flaring (mainly from oil wells) and the World Bank is working to encourage companies to use this methane rather than flaring it with the GGFR (Global Gas Flaring Reduction Partnership). It is the exact opposite of the "solution" (...) proposed by Rob Jackson...

The 100 million tonnes of methane per year, sent into the atmosphere come from the wells and fossil fuel production.

200 million tonnes come from waste and agriculture. (source: Global Carbon Project).

Of these 400 million tonnes of anthropogenic fatal methane emitted each year and increasing each year, some of it is already captured and flushed, 100 million tonnes and 200 million tonnes could be captured and recovered.

300 million tonnes of anthropogenic fatal methane per year could therefore be recovered.

This recovery would reduce CO2 emissions by 38 (300 million tCH4 * 128 t CO2eq at 10 years old) billion tonnes at 10 years old. It is more than the 33 billion tonnes of CO2 emitted in 2018 by fossil fuels.

Carbon footprint at 10 years: 33 - 38 = - 5 billion tonnes of CO2 at 10 years is called decarbonation or NETS in the language of COP 21 (Negative Emissions TechnologieS) allowing us to stay below the 3,000 billion tonnes of CO2 emitted. Crossing this threshold would irreparably lead us to a temperature increase of + 2°C, 40 years later.

According to the IPCC, there are still between 8 and 12 years to act and limit CO2 emissions to stay below a 2°C increase in temperatures.

The only greenhouse gas that can slow CO2eq emissions in such a short period of time is methane (CH4). However, this does not mean that CO2 emissions should not be reduced. The 2 greenhouse gases that have the greatest impact on global warming are CO2 and CH4.The difference between these two main greenhouse gases is their respective lifetimes and therefore their impact over time: 100 years for CO2 and 10 years for CH4 (methane) but with an impact on global warming in terms of PGR (Perennial Global Warming Potential) much greater over its short-term lifetime (10 years) for methane :

128 tCO2eq/tCH4 at 10 ans

The problem with this fatal recoverable methane is that a large part of the deposits are spread over millions of small scattered deposits whose transport, of gas or waste, would generate more CO2 than it would save (Shadocks effect... french humour...) https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3BfcBSEqDIk).

It is therefore necessary to innovate and CREATE A TOOL to transform into electricity and heat (cogeneration), in-situ, all millions of small methane deposits, without conditions of quality or concentration. While doing so the CO2 resulting from the combustion of methane must be stored naturally by nutritious plants under glass to achieve zero CO2 emissions while feeding populations locally, in a decentralized way, without CO2 emitting transport.

Local energy + local food + decarbonation would also greatly reduce population migration ( https://www.weforum.org/agenda/2019/06/how-climate-change-exacerbates-the-refugee-crisis-and-what-can-be-done-about-it/

Methane makes it possible to produce decentralized electrical energy everywhere on Earth, but also to store energy without batteries or rare earths. It makes it possible to quadruple energy efficiency, to feed populations locally thanks to CO2 doping of greenhouse plant growth (X3 productivity), while massively decarbonizing everywhere on Earth, this is the goal of the NegaCarbOne project.

This destructive article by Rob Jackson leads me to multiply my contacts in an attempt to quickly find the 3 million euros in funding for the NegaCarbOne project.

The recovery of anthropogenic fatal methane is one of the best opportunities for humanity to ensure its long-term sustainability by using the benevolent activity of natural methanogenic bacteria, our energy slaves who produce abundant renewable energy from human waste free of charge.

Destroying this methane to transform it into CO2 without seeking to valorize it is a CRIME AGAINST HUMANITY AND THE FUTURE OF FUTURE GENERATIONS.

Problem: finding 3 million euros to finance the prototype while only reaching break-even in the 5th year is a risk ratio (inherent to any prototype) too high for financiers addicted to the short-term profits from HFT (High Frequency Trading)...

Therefore I'm appealing:

- multinationals, which can amortize their investments in innovative SMEs over 5 years and recover an additional taxes

- to ethical and climate-conscious Venture capitalists (venture capital)

- Ethical and conscious business angels wishing to fight global warming in concrete terms

HELP ME PRESERVE THE FUTURE OF OUR CHILDREN.

Methane, which is so dangerous for the climate, is also, paradoxically, an immense opportunity to save the climate and keep the rise in temperatures below a + 2°C increase.

Thank you for running this publication.

Hubert SERRET

+33 (0) 620 653 487

[email protected]