Search This Blog

Sunday, January 28, 2024

Offshore wind power

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Wind turbines and electrical substation of Alpha Ventus Offshore Wind Farm in the North Sea

Offshore wind power or offshore wind energy is the generation of electricity through wind farms in bodies of water, usually at sea. There are higher wind speeds offshore than on land, so offshore farms generate more electricity per amount of capacity installed. Offshore wind farms are also less controversial than those on land, as they have less impact on people and the landscape.

Unlike the typical use of the term "offshore" in the marine industry, offshore wind power includes inshore water areas such as lakes, fjords and sheltered coastal areas as well as deeper-water areas. Most offshore wind farms employ fixed-foundation wind turbines in relatively shallow water. Floating wind turbines for deeper waters are in an earlier phase of development and deployment.

As of 2022, the total worldwide offshore wind power nameplate capacity was 64.3 gigawatt (GW). China (49%), the United Kingdom (22%), and Germany (13%) account for more than 75% of the global installed capacity. The 1.4 GW Hornsea Project Two in the United Kingdom was the world's largest offshore wind farm. Other projects in the planning stage include Dogger Bank in the United Kingdom at 4.8 GW, and Greater Changhua in Taiwan at 2.4 GW.

The cost of offshore has historically been higher than that of onshore, but costs decreased to $78/MWh in 2019. Offshore wind power in Europe became price-competitive with conventional power sources in 2017. Offshore wind generation grew at over 30 percent per year in the 2010s. As of 2020, offshore wind power had become a significant part of northern Europe power generation, though it remained less than 1 percent of overall world electricity generation. A big advantage of offshore wind power compared to onshore wind power is the higher capacity factor meaning that an installation of given nameplate capacity will produce more electricity at a site with more consistent and stronger wind which is usually found offshore and only at very few specific points onshore.

History

Capacity

Global cumulative offshore capacity (MW).
Sources: GWEC (2011–2020) and EWEA (1998–2010)
An illustration of a hypothetical offshore wind farm in 1977

Europe is the world leader in offshore wind power, with the first offshore wind farm (Vindeby) being installed in Denmark in 1991. In 2009, the average nameplate capacity of an offshore wind turbine in Europe was about 3 MW, and the capacity of future turbines was expected to increase to 5 MW.

A 2013 review of the engineering aspects of turbines like the sizes used onshore, including the electrical connections and converters, considered that the industry had in general been overoptimistic about the benefits-to-costs ratio and concluded that the "offshore wind market doesn’t look as if it is going to be big". In 2013, offshore wind power contributed to 1,567 MW of the total 11,159 MW of wind power capacity constructed that year.

By January 2014, 69 offshore wind farms had been constructed in Europe with an average annual rated capacity of 482 MW. The total installed capacity of offshore wind farms in European waters reached 6,562 MW. The United Kingdom had by far the largest capacity with 3,681 MW. Denmark was second with 1,271 MW installed and Belgium was third with 571 MW. Germany came fourth with 520 MW, followed by the Netherlands (247 MW), Sweden (212 MW), Finland (26 MW), Ireland (25 MW), Spain (5 MW), Norway (2 MW) and Portugal (2 MW).

At the end of 2015, 3,230 turbines at 84 offshore wind farms across 11 European countries had been installed and grid-connected, making a total capacity of 11,027 MW. The history of the development of wind farms in the North Sea, as regards the United Kingdom, indicates three phases: coastal, off-coastal and deep offshore in the period 2004 through to 2021. Through the development of offshore wind power the Baltic Sea is expected to become a major source of energy for countries in the region. According to the Marienborg Declaration, signed in 2022, all EU Baltic Sea states have announced their intentions to have 19.6 gigawatts of offshore wind in operation by 2030.

Outside of Europe, the Chinese government had set ambitious targets of 5 GW of installed offshore wind capacity by 2015 and 30 GW by 2020 that would eclipse capacity in other countries. However, in May 2014 the capacity of offshore wind power in China was only 565 MW. Offshore capacity in China increased by 832 MW in 2016, of which 636 MW were made in China.

The offshore wind construction market remains quite concentrated. By the end of 2015, Siemens Wind Power had installed 63% of the world's 11 GW offshore wind power capacity; Vestas had 19%, Senvion came third with 8% and Adwen 6%. About 12 GW of offshore wind power capacity was operational, mainly in Northern Europe, with 3,755 MW of that coming online during 2015. As of 2020 90% of the offshore global market was represented by European companies.

By 2017, the installed offshore wind power capacity worldwide was 20 GW. In 2018, offshore wind provided just 0.3% of the global electricity supply. Nevertheless, just in 2018 an additional amount of 4.3 GW of offshore wind capacity was employed on a worldwide scale. In Denmark, 50% of the electricity was supplied by wind energy in 2018 out of which 15% was offshore. The average size of turbines installed was 6.8 MW in 2018, 7.2 MW in 2019 and 8.2 MW in 2020.

Costs

In 2010, the US Energy Information Agency said "offshore wind power is the most expensive energy generating technology being considered for large scale deployment". The 2010 state of offshore wind power presented economic challenges significantly greater than onshore systems, with prices in the range of 2.5-3.0 million Euro/MW. That year, Siemens and Vestas were turbine suppliers for 90% of offshore wind power, while Ørsted A/S (then named DONG Energy), Vattenfall and E.on were the leading offshore operators.

In 2011, Ørsted estimated that while offshore wind turbines were not yet competitive with fossil fuels, they would be in 15 years. Until then, state funding and pension funds would be needed. At the end of 2011, there were 53 European offshore wind farms in waters off Belgium, Denmark, Finland, Germany, Ireland, the Netherlands, Norway, Sweden and the United Kingdom, with an operating capacity of 3,813 MW, while 5,603 MW was under construction. Offshore wind farms worth €8.5 billion ($11.4 billion) were under construction in European waters in 2011.

In 2012, Bloomberg estimated that energy from offshore wind turbines cost €161 (US$208) per MWh.

Costs of offshore wind power are decreasing much faster than expected. By 2016, four contracts (Borssele and Kriegers) were already below the lowest of the predicted 2050 prices.

Offshore wind projects in the United States cost US$4,000 per kilowatt to build in 2023, compared to US\$1,363 per kilowatt for onshore wind farms. The cost of offshore wind has increased by 36% since 2019, while the cost of onshore wind has increased by only 5% over the same period.

Some major U.S. projects have been stymied due to inflation even after subsidies became available from the Inflation Reduction Act.

Future development

Offshore windfarms, including floating windfarms, provide a small but growing fraction of total windfarm power generation. Such power generation capacity must grow substantially to help meet the IEA's Net Zero by 2050 pathway to combat climate change.

The Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD) predicted in 2016 that offshore wind power will grow to 8% of ocean economy by 2030, and that its industry will employ 435,000 people, adding $230 billion of value.

The European Commission expects that offshore wind energy will be of increasing importance in the future, as offshore wind is part of its Green Deal. The development of the full potential of Europe's offshore wind energy is one of the key actions in the Clean Energy section of the Green Deal.

By 2050, the expectation is that the installed offshore wind power capacity will reach 1550 GW on a worldwide scale. Compared to the capacity of 2017 that corresponds to an 80-fold increase.

One of the advancements that characterises the current development within the offshore industry are technologies that allow for offshore wind projects further off the shore where wind availability is higher. In particular, the adoption of floating foundation technologies has proved to be a promising technology for unlocking the wind potential on deeper waters.

Economics

Comparison of the levelized cost of electricity of offshore wind power compared to other sources in Germany in 2018

The advantage of locating wind turbines offshore is that the wind is much stronger off the coasts, and unlike wind over land, offshore breezes can be strong in the afternoon, matching the time when people are using the most electricity. Offshore turbines can also be located close to the load centers along the coasts, such as large cities, eliminating the need for new long-distance transmission lines. However, there are several disadvantages of offshore installations, related to more expensive installation, difficulty of access, and harsher conditions for the units.

Locating wind turbines offshore exposes the units to high humidity, salt water and salt water spray which negatively affect service life, cause corrosion and oxidation, increase maintenance and repair costs and in general make every aspect of installation and operation much more difficult, time-consuming, more dangerous and far more expensive than sites on land. The humidity and temperature is controlled by air conditioning the sealed nacelle. Sustained high-speed operation and generation also increases wear, maintenance and repair requirements proportionally.

The cost of the turbine represents just one third to one half of total costs in offshore projects today, the rest comes from infrastructure, maintenance, and oversight. Costs for foundations, installation, electrical connections and operation and maintenance (O&M) are a large share of the total for offshore installations compared to onshore wind farms. The cost of installation and electrical connection also increases rapidly with distance from shore and water depth.

Other limitations of offshore wind power are related to the still limited number of installations. The offshore wind industry is not yet fully industrialized, as supply bottlenecks still exist as of 2017.

Investment costs

Offshore wind farms tend to have larger turbines when compared to onshore installations, and the trend is towards a continued increase in size. Economics of offshore wind farms tend to favor larger turbines, as installation and grid connection costs decrease per unit energy produced. Moreover, offshore wind farms do not have the same restriction in size of onshore wind turbines, such as availability of land or transportation requirements.

Operating costs

Operational expenditures for wind farms are split between Maintenance (38%), Port Activities (31%), Operation (15%), License Fees (12%), and Miscellaneous Costs (4%).

Operation and maintenance costs typically represent 53% of operational expenditures, and 25% - 30% of the total lifecycle costs for offshore wind farms. O&Ms are considered one of the major barriers for further development of this resource.

Maintenance of offshore wind farms is much more expensive than for onshore installations. For example, a single technician in a pickup truck can quickly, easily and safely access turbines on land in almost any weather conditions, exit his or her vehicle and simply walk over to and into the turbine tower to gain access to the entire unit within minutes of arriving onsite. Similar access to offshore turbines involves driving to a dock or pier, loading necessary tools and supplies into boat, a voyage to the wind turbine(s), securing the boat to the turbine structure, transferring tools and supplies to and from boat to turbine and turbine to boat and performing the rest of the steps in reverse order. In addition to standard safety gear such as a hardhat, gloves and safety glasses, an offshore turbine technician may be required to wear a life vest, waterproof or water-resistant clothing and perhaps even a survival suit if working, sea and atmospheric conditions make rapid rescue in case of a fall into the water unlikely or impossible. Typically at least two technicians skilled and trained in operating and handling large power boats at sea are required for tasks that one technician with a driver's license can perform on land in a fraction of the time at a fraction of the cost.

Cost of energy

Cost for installed offshore turbines fell 30% to $78/MWh in 2019, a more rapid drop than other types of renewable energy. It has been suggested that innovation at scale could deliver 25% cost reduction in offshore wind by 2020. Offshore wind power market plays an important role in achieving the renewable target in most of the countries around the world.

Auctions in 2016 for future projects have reached costs of €54.5 per megawatt hour (MWh) at the 700 MW Borssele 3&4 due to government tender and size, and €49.90 per MWh (without transmission) at the 600 MW Kriegers Flak.

In September 2017 contracts were awarded in the United Kingdom for a strike price of £57.50 per MWh making the price cheaper than nuclear and competitive with gas.

In September 2018 contracts were awarded for Vineyard Wind, Massachusetts, USA at a cost of between $65-$74 per MWh.

Offshore wind resources

Map of Global Offshore Wind Speeds (Global Wind Atlas 3.0)

Offshore wind resources are by their nature both huge in scale and highly dispersed, considering the ratio of the planet's surface area that is covered by oceans and seas compared to land mass. Wind speeds offshore are known to be considerably higher than for the equivalent location onshore due to the absence of land mass obstacles and the lower surface roughness of water compared to land features such as forests and savannah, a fact that is illustrated by global wind speed maps that cover both onshore and offshore areas using the same input data and methodology. For the North Sea, wind turbine energy is around 30 kWh/m2 of sea area, per year, delivered to grid. The energy per sea area is roughly independent of turbine size.

The technical exploitable resource potential for offshore wind is a factor of the average wind speed and water depth, as it is only possible to generate electricity from offshore wind resources where turbines can be anchored. Currently, fixed foundation offshore wind turbines can be installed up to around 50 metres (160 ft) of sea depth. Beyond that, floating foundation turbines would be required, potentially allowing installation at depths of up to one kilometre (3,300 ft) based on currently proposed technologies. Based on an analysis of viable water depths and wind speeds over seven metres per second (23 ft/s), it has been estimated that there is over 17 terawatt (TW) of offshore wind technical potential in just the 50 countries studied, not including most OECD countries such as Australia, Japan, the United States or Western Europe. Well-endowed countries such as Argentina and China have almost 2 TW and 3 TW of potential respectively, illustrating the vast potential of offshore wind in such locations.

Planning and permitting

Four offshore wind farms are in the Thames Estuary area: Kentish Flats, Gunfleet Sands, Thanet and London Array. The latter was the largest in the world until September 2018.

It is necessary to obtain several types of information in order to plan the commissioning of an offshore wind farm. These include:

  • Offshore wind characteristics
  • Water depth, currents, seabed, migration, and wave action, all of which drive mechanical and structural loading on potential turbine configurations.
  • Marine growth, salinity, icing, and the geotechnical characteristics of the sea or lake bed.

Existing hardware for measurements includes Light Detection and Ranging (LIDAR), Sonic Detection and Ranging (SODAR), radar, autonomous underwater vehicles (AUV), and remote satellite sensing, although these technologies should be assessed and refined, according to a report from a coalition of researchers from universities, industry, and government, supported by the Atkinson Center for a Sustainable Future.

Because of the many factors involved, one of the biggest difficulties with offshore wind farms is the ability to predict loads. Analysis must account for the dynamic coupling between translational (surge, sway, and heave) and rotational (roll, pitch, and yaw) platform motions and turbine motions, as well as the dynamic characterization of mooring lines for floating systems. Foundations and substructures make up a large fraction of offshore wind systems, and must take into account every single one of these factors.

Load transfer in the grout between tower and foundation may stress the grout, and elastomeric bearings are used in several British sea turbines.

Corrosion is also a serious problem and requires detailed design considerations. The prospect of remote monitoring of corrosion looks very promising, using expertise utilised by the offshore oil/gas industry and other large industrial plants.

Moreover, as power generation efficiency of wind farms downwind of offshore wind farms was found to decrease, strategic decision-making may need to consider – cross-national – limits and potentials for optimization.

Some of the guidelines for designing offshore wind farms are set out in IEC 61400-3, but in the US several other standards are necessary.

In the European Union (EU), different national standards are to be streamlined into more cohesive guidelines to lower costs. The standards require that a loads analysis is based on site-specific external conditions such as wind, wave and currents.

The planning and permitting phase can cost more than $10 million, take 5–7 years and have an uncertain outcome. The industry is putting pressure on governments to improve the processes. In Denmark, many of these phases have been deliberately streamlined by authorities in order to minimize hurdles, and this policy has been extended for coastal wind farms with a concept called ’one-stop-shop’. The United States introduced a similar model called "Smart from the Start" in 2012.

In the EU, the revised Renewable Energy Directive of 2018 has simplified the permitting process to help initiate wind projects.

Legal framework

The installation and operation of offshore wind turbines are regulated in both national and international law. The relevant international legal framework is UNCLOS (United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea) which regulates the rights and responsibilities of the States in regard to the use of the oceans. The maritime zone in which the offshore wind turbines are located determines which regulatory rules apply.

In the territorial waters (up to 12 nautical miles from the baseline of the coast) the coastal State has full sovereignty and therefore, the regulation of offshore wind turbines are fully under national jurisdiction.

The exclusive economic zone (up to 200 nautical miles off the baseline) is not part of the State's territory but is subject to the coastal State's exclusive jurisdiction and control for selected purposes, one of which is the production of energy from winds. This means that within this zone, the coastal State has the right to install and operate offshore wind farms and to establish safety zones around them that must be respected by all ships, as long as due notice of the installation has been given. Also, neither installations nor safety zones can interfere with sea lanes that are considered essential for international navigation.

Beyond the exclusive economic zones are the high seas, or the international waters. Within this zone the purpose of producing energy is not explicitly mentioned as a high seas freedom, and the legal status of offshore wind facilities is therefore unclear. In academia, it has been argued that the uncertainty of the legal status of offshore wind facilities on the high seas could become an object of interstate disputes over the rights of use. As a solution, it has been suggested that offshore wind facilities could be incorporated as a high seas freedom by being considered as ships or artificial islands, installations and structures.

As of 2020, energy production from winds on the high seas is not yet technically feasible due to the difficulties that follow from deeper water. However, the advancing technology of floating wind turbines is a step towards the realization of deepwater wind projects.

Types

Progression of expected wind turbine evolution to deeper water
Estimated technical potential for fixed and floating offshore wind in Vietnam in terms of installed power capacity in megawatts (MW) within 200 kilometers of the shoreline
Tripods foundation for offshore wind farms in 2008 in Wilhelmshaven, Germany

As a general rule, fixed foundation offshore wind turbines are considered technically viable in areas with water depth less than 50 metres (160 ft) and average wind speeds over 7 metres per second (23 ft/s). Floating offshore wind turbines are considered technically viable with water depths from 50 to 1,000 metres (160 to 3,280 ft). The displayed map of Vietnam provides an estimate of technical potential for that country for both fixed foundation and floating offshore wind turbines according to the water depth.

Fixed foundation

Most common types of fixed offshore wind foundations

Almost all currently operating offshore wind farms employ fixed foundation turbines, with the exception of a few pilot projects. Fixed foundation offshore wind turbines have fixed foundations underwater, and are installed in relatively shallow waters of up to 50 to 60 metres (160 to 200 ft).

Types of underwater structures include monopile, tripod, and jacketed, with various foundations at the sea floor including monopile or multiple piles, gravity base, and caissons. Offshore turbines require different types of bases for stability, according to the depth of water. To date a number of different solutions exist:

  • Most foundations are monopile (single column) base, six metres (20 ft) in diameter, is used in waters up to 30 metres (100 ft) deep.
  • Conventional steel jacket structures, as used in the oil and gas industry, in water 20–80 metres (70–260 ft) deep.
  • Gravity base structures, for use at exposed sites in water 20–80 m deep.
  • Tripod piled structures, in water 20–80 m deep.
  • Tripod suction caisson structures, in water 20–80 m deep.

Monopiles up to 11 metres (36 ft) diameter at 2,000 tonnes can be made, but the largest so far are 1,300 tons which is below the 1,500 tonnes limit of some crane vessels. The other turbine components are much smaller.

The tripod pile substructure system is a more recent concept developed to reach deeper waters than monopile systems, with depths up to 60 m possible. This technology consists of three monopiles linked together through a joint piece at the top. The main advantage of this solution is the simplicity of the installation, which is done by installing the three monopiles and then adding the upper joint. The larger base also decreases the risk of getting overturned.

A steel jacket structure comes from an adaptation to the offshore wind industry of concepts that have been in use in the oil and gas industry for decades. Their main advantage lies in the possibility of reaching higher depths (up to 80m). Their main limitations are due to the high construction and installation costs.

Floating

Blue H Technologies - World's First Floating Wind Turbine

For locations with depths over about 60–80 m, fixed foundations are uneconomical or technically unfeasible, and floating wind turbines anchored to the ocean floor are needed. Blue H Technologies, which was ultimately acquired by Seawind Ocean Technology, installed the world's first floating wind turbine in 2007. Hywind is the world's first full-scale floating wind turbine, installed in the North Sea off Norway in 2009. Hywind Scotland, commissioned in October 2017, is the first operational floating wind farm, with a capacity of 30 MW. Other kinds of floating turbines have been deployed, and more projects are planned.

Vertical-axis

Although the great majority of onshore and all large-scale offshore wind turbines currently installed are horizontal-axis, vertical-axis wind turbines have been proposed for use in offshore installations. Thanks to the installation offshore and their lower center of gravity, these turbines can in principle be built bigger than horizontal axis turbines, with proposed designs of up to 20 MW capacity per turbine. This could improve the economy of scale of offshore wind farms. However, no large-scale demonstrations of this technology have been installed.

Turbine construction materials considerations

Since offshore wind turbines are located in oceans and large lakes, the materials used for the turbines have to be modified from the materials used for land based wind turbines and optimized for corrosion resistance to salt water and the new loading forces experienced by the tower being partially submerged in water. With one of the main reasons for interest in offshore wind power being the higher wind speeds, some of the loading differences will come from higher shearing forces between the top and bottom of the wind turbine due to differences in wind speeds. There should also be considerations for the buffeting loads that will be experienced by the waves around the base of the tower, which converges on the use of steel tubular towers for offshore wind applications.

Since offshore wind turbines are constantly exposed to salt and water, the steel used for the monopile and turbine tower must be treated for corrosion resistance, especially at the base of the tower in the “splash zone” for waves breaking against the tower and in the monopile. Two techniques that can be used include cathodic protection and the use of coatings to reduce corrosion pitting, which is a common source for hydrogen induced stress cracking. For cathodic protection, galvanized anodes are attached to the monopile and have enough of a potential difference with the steel to be preferentially corroded over the steel used in the monopile. Some coatings that have been applied to offshore wind turbines include hot dip zinc coatings and 2-3 epoxy coatings with a polyurethane topcoat.

Installation

Several foundation structures for offshore wind turbines in the port of Bremerhaven

Specialized jackup rigs (wind turbine installation vessels) are used to install foundation and turbine. As of 2019 the next generation of vessels are being built, capable of lifting 3–5,000 tons to 160 metres (520 ft). The large components can be difficult to install, and gyroscopes can improve handling precision. Dynamic positioning has also been used to keep the vibrating pile driver steady when installing foundations.

A large number of monopile foundations have been used in recent years for economically constructing fixed-bottom offshore wind farms in shallow-water locations. Each uses a single, generally large-diameter, foundation structural element to support all the loads (weight, wind, etc.) of a large above-surface structure. Other types are tripods (steel) and gravity base foundations (concrete).

The typical construction process for a wind turbine sub-sea monopile foundation in sand includes using a pile driver to drive a large hollow steel pile 25 metres (82 ft) deep into the seabed, through a 0.5-metre (20 in) layer of larger stone and gravel to minimize erosion around the pile. These piles can be four metres (13 ft) in diameter with approximately 50-millimetre (2.0 in) thick walls. A transition piece (complete with pre-installed features such as boat-landing arrangement, cathodic protection, cable ducts for sub-marine cables, turbine tower flange, etc.) is attached to the now deeply driven pile, the sand and water are removed from the centre of the pile and replaced with concrete. An additional layer of even larger stone, up to 0.5 m diameter, is applied to the surface of the seabed for longer-term erosion protection.

For the ease of installing the towers and connecting them to the seabed, they are installed in two parts, the portion below the water surface and the portion above the water. The two portions of the tower are joined by a transition piece which is filled with a grouted connection. The grouted connection helps transfer the loads experienced by the turbine tower to the more stable monopile foundation of the turbine. One technique for strengthening the grout used in the connections is to include weld beads known as shear keys along the length of the grout connection to prevent any sliding between the monopile and the tower.

Offshore wind turbine components are large. Transporting of components between manufacturing and assembling facilities before the installation is to be minimized. As a result, offshore wind port facilities have been specifically built in the regions with high concentration of offshore wind developments. For large offshore wind farm projects, offshore wind ports become strategic hubs of the supply chain for the installations.

Installation capacity

Beyond 2022 there is expected to be a shortage of offshore wind turbine installation vessels (WTIVs), especially those capable of installing 10 MW+ turbines, with demand for vessels capable of installing offshore wind turbines projected to outpace supply by 2024.

“Offshore wind energy developers are starting to respond to the lack of WTIVs [wind turbine installation vessels] capable of installing offshore wind turbines of 12 MW and greater, but there is still uncertainty regarding the ability of the global fleet to handle planned installations of offshore wind capacity by the mid-2020s (Hartkopf-Mikkelsen 2020; Rystad Energy 2020). A Tufts University analysis of global supply chain impacts on the emerging U.S. offshore wind energy market indicates that the current global WTIV fleet is unprepared to install wind turbines of 12 MW and larger (Bocklet et al. 2021).”

Connection

Grid connection

An offshore structure for housing an HVDC converter station for offshore wind parks is being moved by a heavy-lift ship in Norway.

There are several different types of technologies that are being explored as viable options for integrating offshore wind power into the onshore grid. The most conventional method is through high-voltage alternating current (HVAC) transmission lines. HVAC transmission lines are currently the most commonly used form of grid connections for offshore wind turbines. However, there are significant limitations that prevent HVAC from being practical, especially as the distance to offshore turbines increases. First, HVAC is limited by cable charging currents, which are a result of capacitance in the cables. Undersea AC cables have a much higher capacitance than overhead AC cables, so losses due to capacitance become much more significant, and the voltage magnitude at the receiving end of the transmission line can be significantly different from the magnitude at the generating end. In order to compensate for these losses, either more cables or reactive compensation must be added to the system. Both of these add costs to the system. Additionally, because HVAC cables have both real and reactive power flowing through them, there can be additional losses. Because of these losses, underground HVAC lines are limited in how far they can extend. The maximum appropriate distance for HVAC transmission for offshore wind power is considered to be around 80 kilometres (50 mi).

Using high-voltage direct current (HVDC) cables has been a proposed alternative to using HVAC cables. HVDC transmission cables are not affected by the cable charging currents and experience less power loss because HVDC does not transmit reactive power. With less losses, undersea HVDC lines can extend much farther than HVAC. This makes HVDC preferable for siting wind turbines very far offshore. However, HVDC requires power converters in order to connect to the AC grid. Both line commutated converters (LCCs) and voltage source converters (VSCs) have been considered for this. Although LCCs are a much more widespread technology and cheaper, VSCs have many more benefits, including independent active power and reactive power control. New research has been put into developing hybrid HVDC technologies that have a LCC connected to a VSC through a DC cable.

In order to transport the energy from offshore wind turbines to onshore energy plants, cabling has to be placed along the ocean floor. The cabling has to be able to transfer large amounts of current efficiently which requires optimization of the materials used for the cabling as well as determining cable paths for the use of a minimal amount of cable materials. One way to reduce the cost of the cables used in these applications is to convert the copper conductors to aluminum conductors, however the suggested replacement brings up an issue of increased cable motion and potential damage since aluminum is less dense than copper.

Marine vessel connection

An offshore electricity recharging system named Stillstrom, to be launched by Danish shipping firm Maersk Supply Service, will give ships access to renewable energy while at sea. Connecting ships to electricity generated by offshore wind farms, the system is designed to cut emissions from idling ships.

Maintenance

Offshore wind turbines of the Rødsand Wind Farm in the Fehmarn Belt, the western part of the Baltic Sea between Germany and Denmark (2010)

Turbines are much less accessible when offshore (requiring the use of a service vessel or helicopter for routine access, and a jackup rig for heavy service such as gearbox replacement), and thus reliability is more important than for an onshore turbine. Some wind farms located far from possible onshore bases have service teams living on site in offshore accommodation units. To limit the effects of corrosion on the blades of a wind turbine, a protective tape of elastomeric materials is applied, though the droplet erosion protection coatings provide better protection from the elements.

Impressed current cathodic protection (ICCP) is used to protect wind turbine monopiles and floating wind turbine platforms. ICCP systems are increasingly popular as a solution against corrosion, as they do not require on-site monitoring, and are more eco-friendly and cost-effective than traditional galvanic systems. While traditional galvanic anode cathodic protection (GACP) systems operate on the natural driving force between two metals, ICCP systems use a continuous external power source.

A maintenance organization performs maintenance and repairs of the components, spending almost all its resources on the turbines. The conventional way of inspecting the blades is for workers to rappel down the blade, taking a day per turbine. Some farms inspect the blades of three turbines per day by photographing them from the monopile through a 600mm telephoto lens, avoiding to go up. Others use camera drones.

Because of their remote nature, prognosis and health-monitoring systems on offshore wind turbines will become much more necessary. They would enable better planning just-in-time maintenance, thereby reducing the operations and maintenance costs. According to a report from a coalition of researchers from universities, industry, and government (supported by the Atkinson Center for a Sustainable Future), making field data from these turbines available would be invaluable in validating complex analysis codes used for turbine design. Reducing this barrier would contribute to the education of engineers specializing in wind energy.

Decommissioning

As the first offshore wind farms reach their end of life, a demolition industry develops to recycle them at a cost of DKK 2-4 million ($300,000-600,000 USD) roughly per MW, to be guaranteed by the owner. The first offshore wind farm to be decommissioned was Yttre Stengrund in Sweden in November 2015, followed by Vindeby in 2017 and Blyth in 2019.

Environmental impact

Offshore wind farms have very low global warming potential per unit of electricity generated, comparable to that of onshore wind farms. Offshore installations also have the advantage of limited impact of noise and on the landscape compared to land-based projects.

Environmental considerations

As private offshore wind developers have become increasingly aware of the environmental side-effects, a turn to more sustainable methods of construction have occurred. This can be seen through partnerships with charities and local communities. In 2022, it was announced that Ørsted - a specialist provider in offshore wind and the environmentalist charity World Wide Fund for Nature (WWF) had developed a global partnership which aims to promote an increase in offshore wind infrastructure projects whilst also ensuring that beneficial impacts for biodiversity must be promoted and prioritised. Offshore wind provider Vattenfall declared a fifteen million pound investment package into the local area of Norfolk in order to support climate change based projects.

As the offshore wind industry has evolved and expanded on a rapid scale, a number of European Directives have been created concerning the necessary environmental considerations that must be taken into account by developers. In 2008, the European Marine Strategy Framework Directive was formed with its core element involving an Environmental Impact Assessment (EIA) which mitigates against any adverse effects towards the marine environment by offshore wind infrastructures. The EIA was implemented as a means of preventing further disturbance towards aspects including marine organisms, the seabed and the ecosystem as a whole that are generated from critical infrastructure such as offshore wind installations. If the development of an offshore wind infrastructure fails to comply with the measures associated with an EIA, the operator is obliged to compensate the environment in another aspect in order to nullify the damage it may create.

In November 2020, the European Commission announced the European Union Strategy on Offshore Renewable Energy to aid the target of climate change neutrality by 2050. The core part of the strategy is to expand Europe's offshore wind industry by using its role to incentivise collaboration between member states, publish guidance surrounding the role of wind development in light of EU law as well as to support various private-public projects.

Environmental concerns

While the offshore wind industry has grown dramatically over the last several decades, there is still a great deal of uncertainty associated with how the construction and operation of these wind farms affect marine animals and the marine environment. However, as the capacity of offshore wind has increased, a developing domain of academic research has continuously looked into a range of environmental side effects during the turbine life cycle phases of construction, operations and decommissioning. The various environmental consequences impact a range of marine species including seabirds, fish, seals, and whales.

The installation and deinstallation as well as the required maintenance of offshore wind structures have the potential to produce substantially negative environmental impacts towards the marine environment. The timing of such processes is key since it has been found that the presence of these activities during periods of migration and reproduction can have disruptive impacts towards marine wildlife such as seabirds and fish. In addition, the installation of offshore wind infrastructure has been claimed to be a key impactor in the displacement of marine wildlife such as seabirds, however the lack of available published work on this matter is limited.

A significant positive environmental impact of offshore wind installations is the potential for the creation of artificial reefs. Such reefs can indirectly facilitate the diversification of marine organisms, thus a variety of species can thrive. However, offshore wind farms have the ability to harm marine habitats due to an interference with the sediment on top of the seabed.

Evidence suggests from a study which was conducted surrounding noise offsets from offshore wind farms that the installation process can alter the physical and behavioural processes of animals such as porpoises and seals. The welfare of seabirds is at risk due to the potential for collisions with the turbines, as well as causing the birds to adjust their travel routes which can significantly impact their endurance as a migratory specie. Alongside this, the presence of offshore wind farms may cause seabirds to change their behaviour due to the visual and noise offsets.

It has been noted that all forms of underwater noise from offshore developments have the capacity to reduce the survival rate of marine animals. Since 2015, there has been a surge in whale deaths across the East coast of the United States of America. However, because construction of wind farms off the coast of New Jersey has not begun as of August 2023, it is unlikely that these whale deaths are linked to offshore wind; rather, vessel strikes and fishing net entanglements are the more likely culprit of these deaths according to NOAA.

Research conducted in Spain found that the visual presence of offshore wind farms can decrease the demand for recreational tourism, yielding negative national and local economic consequences for coastal communities that are home to a developing offshore wind industry. However, others have regarded this link as overstated, with part of the public opinion claiming support for the physical visual presence of the turbines. This sub-issue represents how research surrounding offshore wind is still relatively novel as well as through the introduction of new claims remaining highly contested.

The threat of invasive species has been noted as a significant environmental risk from offshore wind acting as a suitable home. The impacts can include the possible destabilisation of biodiversity due to the presence of alien species causing the distinction of other forms of marine life.

Marine spatial planning and the environment

As the offshore wind industry has developed, a range of environmental considerations have come to the fore concerning the spatial planning decision processes of the turbines. As demonstrated in the above section, a wide array of environmental concerns have been made in recent times concerning the relationship between offshore wind and the environment. As well as the commonly regarded considerations of wind conditions and profitability in the planning phase, the specific placement of offshore wind farms can have substantial benefits for the marine environment without harming business capital.

Collision-risk models are a fine example of how marine spatial planning has begun to incorporate environmental protections into its procedures. In 2022, the Scottish government published a study outlining a mathematical formula for its own collision risk model which calculated the potential for seabirds to collide into wind turbines.

A growing expectation is that the politics of spatial planning will become increasingly complex. As renewable energy targets need to be met, it has been claimed that the development of offshore wind was largely in part to solve the political issues that onshore wind infrastructures face, yet in reality these issues have been replicated. It has become difficult to balance environmental considerations in the planning process with relevant stakeholders such as local residents. The marine spatial planning of offshore wind farms is incredibly political, with an array of agendas and actors that seek to influence the process. However, as marine spatial planning offers a common legal framework, it has been claimed to be an overall benefit for environmental considerations to be realised in relation to offshore wind developments.

Largest offshore wind farms

Projects

Middelgrunden offshore wind farm, 3.5 km outside Copenhagen, Denmark

Most of the current projects are in European and East Asian waters.

There are also several proposed developments in North America. Projects are under development in the United States in wind-rich areas of the East Coast, Great Lakes, and Pacific coast. In January 2012, a "Smart for the Start" regulatory approach was introduced, designed to expedite the siting process while incorporating strong environmental protections. Specifically, the Department of Interior approved “wind energy areas” off the coast where projects can move through the regulatory approval process more quickly. The first offshore wind farm in the USA is the 30-megawatt, 5 turbine Block Island Wind Farm which was commissioned in December 2016. Many sportfishermen and marine biologists believe the bases of the five, 6-megawatt wind turbines off of Block Island are acting as an artificial reef.

Another offshore wind farm that is in the planning phase is off the coast of Virginia Beach. On 3 August 2018, Dominion Energy announced its two wind turbine pilot program that will be 27 miles offshore from Virginia Beach. The area is undergoing a survey that will last for 4–6 weeks.

Canadian wind power in the province of Ontario is pursuing several proposed locations in the Great Lakes, including the suspended Trillium Power Wind 1 approximately 20 km from shore and over 400 MW in capacity. Other Canadian projects include one on the Pacific west coast.

India is looking at the potential of offshore wind power plants, with a 100 MW demonstration plant being planned off the coast of Gujarat (2014). In 2013, a group of organizations, led by Global Wind Energy Council (GWEC) started project FOWIND (Facilitating Offshore Wind in India) to identify potential zones for development of off-shore wind power in India and to stimulate R & D activities in this area. In 2014 FOWIND commissioned Center for Study of Science, Technology and Policy (CSTEP) to undertake pre-feasibility studies in eight zones in Tamil Nadu which have been identified as having potential.

The Netherlands announced on 11 February 2022 that the government increased its offshore wind target to 21 GW by 2030. That would meet approximately 75% of the countries electricity needs. With this, offshore wind energy makes an important contribution to achieving the increased climate target of 55% less CO2-emissions.

Unconventional wind turbines

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Counter rotating wind turbines
Light pole wind turbine

Unconventional wind turbines are those that differ significantly from the most common types in use.

As of 2012, the most common type of wind turbine is the three-bladed upwind horizontal-axis wind turbine (HAWT), where the turbine rotor is at the front of the nacelle and facing the wind upstream of its supporting turbine tower. A second major unit type is the vertical-axis wind turbine (VAWT), with blades extending upwards, supported by a rotating framework.

Due to the large growth of the wind power industry, many wind turbine designs exist, are in development, or have been proposed. The variety of designs reflects ongoing commercial, technological, and inventive interests in harvesting wind resources more efficiently and in greater volume.

Some unconventional designs have entered commercial use, while others have only been demonstrated or are only theoretical concepts. Unconventional designs cover a wide gamut of innovations, including different rotor types, basic functionalities, supporting structures and form-factors.

Crosswind kite generator with fast motion transfer.

Horizontal axis

Twin-bladed rotor

Nearly all modern wind turbines use rotors with three blades, but some use only two blades. This was the type used at Kaiser-Wilhelm-Koog, Germany, where a large experimental two-bladed unit—the GROWIAN, or Große Windkraftanlage (big wind turbine)—operated from 1983 to 1987. Other prototypes and wind turbine types were manufactured by NedWind. The Eemmeerdijk Wind Park in Zeewolde, Netherlands uses only two-bladed turbines. Wind turbines with two blades are manufactured by Windflow Technology, Mingyang Wind Power, GC China Turbine Corp and Nordic Windpower. The NASA wind turbines (1975–1996) each had 2-blade rotors, producing the same energy at lower cost than three-blade rotor designs.

Downwind rotor

Nearly all wind turbines place the rotor in front of the nacelle when the wind is blowing (upwind design). Some turbines place the rotor behind the nacelle (downwind design). This design has the advantage that the turbine can be made to passively align itself with the wind, reducing cost. The main drawback is that the load on the blades changes as they pass behind the tower, increasing fatigue loading, and potentially exciting resonances in other turbine structures.

Ducted rotor

A research project, the ducted rotor consists of a turbine inside a duct that flares at the back. They are also referred as Diffuser-Augmented Wind Turbines (i.e. DAWT). Its main advantage is that it can operate in a wide range of winds and generate a higher power per unit of rotor area. Another advantage is that the generator operates at a high rotation rate, so it doesn't require a bulky gearbox, allowing the mechanical portion to be smaller and lighter. A disadvantage is that (apart from the gearbox) it is more complicated than the unducted rotor and the duct's weight increases tower weight. The Éolienne Bollée is an example of a DAWT.

Co-axial, multi-rotor

Two or more rotors may be mounted to a single driveshaft, with their combined co-rotation together turning the same generator: fresh wind is brought to each rotor by sufficient spacing between rotors combined with an offset angle (alpha) from the wind direction. Wake vorticity is recovered as the top of a wake hits the bottom of the next rotor. Power was multiplied several times using co-axial, multiple rotors in testing conducted by inventor and researcher Douglas Selsam in 2004. The first commercially available co-axial multi-rotor turbine is the patented dual-rotor American Twin Superturbine from Selsam Innovations in California, with 2 propellers separated by 12 feet. It is the most powerful 7-foot-diameter (2.1 m) turbine available, due to this extra rotor. In 2015, Iowa State University aerospace engineers Hui Hu and Anupam Sharma were optimizing designs of multi-rotor systems, including a horizontal-axis co-axial dual-rotor model. In addition to a conventional three-blade rotor, it has a smaller secondary three-blade rotor, covering the near-axis region usually inefficiently harvested. Preliminary results indicated 10–20% gains, less efficient than is claimed by existing counter-rotating designs.

Counter rotating wind turbine

Counter-rotating horizontal-axis

When a system expels or accelerates mass in one direction, the accelerated mass causes a proportional but opposite force on that system. The spinning blade of a single rotor wind turbine causes a significant amount of tangential or rotational air flow. The energy of this tangential air flow is wasted in a single-rotor propeller design. To use this wasted effort, the placement of a second rotor behind the first takes advantage of the disturbed airflow, and can gain up to 40% more energy from a given swept area as compared with a single rotor. Other advantages of contra-rotation include no gear boxes and auto-centering on the wind (no yaw motors/mechanism required). A patent application dated 1992 exists based on work done with the Trimblemill.

When the counter-rotating turbines are on the same side of the tower, the blades in front are angled forwards slightly so as to avoid hitting the rear ones. If the turbine blades are on opposite sides of the tower, it is best that the blades at the back be smaller than the blades at the front and set to stall at a higher wind speed. This allows the generator to function at a wider wind speed range than a single-turbine generator for a given tower. To reduce sympathetic vibrations, the two turbines should turn at speeds with few common multiples, for example 7:3 speed ratio.

When land or sea area for a second wind turbine does not come at a premium the 40% gain with a second rotor has to be compared with a 100% gain via the expense of a separate foundation and tower with cabling for the second turbine. The overall power coefficient of a Counter-rotating horizontal-axis wind turbine may depend by the axial and the radial shift of the rotors and by the rotors' size. As of 2005, no large, counter-rotating HAWTs are commercially sold.

Furling tail and twisting blades

In addition to variable pitch blades, furling tails and twisting blades are other improvements on wind turbines. Similar to the variable pitch blades, they may also greatly increase efficiency and be used in "do-it-yourself" construction

Wind-mill style

De Nolet is a wind turbine in Schiedam disguised as a windmill.

Archimedean screw

Instead of airplane-inspired wing blades, the design takes after the Archimedean screw turbine, a helix-patterned pipe used in ancient Greece to pump water up from a deeper source. 

Bladeless

Boundary layer

The boundary layer or Tesla turbine uses boundary layers instead of blades.

One modern version is the Fuller turbine. The concept is similar to a stack of disks on a central shaft, separated by a small air gap. The surface tension of air in the small gaps creates friction, rotating the disks around the shaft. Vanes direct the air for improved performance, hence it is not strictly bladeless.

Vaneless ion wind generator

A vaneless ion wind generator is a theoretical device that produces electrical energy by using the wind to move electric charge from one electrode to another.

Piezoelectric

Piezoelectric wind turbines work by flexing piezoelectric crystals as they rotate, sufficient to power small electronic devices. They operate with diameters on the scale of 10 centimeters.

Solar updraft tower

Wind turbines may be used in conjunction with a solar collector to extract energy from air heated by the sun and rising through a large vertical updraft tower.

Vortex

The Vortex Bladeless device maximizes vortex shedding, using the vorticity in wind to flutter a lightweight vertical pole, which delivers that energy to a generator at the bottom of the pole. The design has been criticized for its efficiency of 40%, compared to 70% for conventional designs. However, individual poles can be placed more closely together, offsetting the losses. The design avoids mechanical components, lowering costs. The system also does not threaten bird life and operates silently.

Saphonian

The Saphonian design uses an oscillating dish to drive a piston, which then connects to a generator.

Windbeam

The Windbeam generator consists of a beam suspended by springs within an outer frame. The beam oscillates rapidly when exposed to airflow due to multiple fluid flow phenomena. A linear alternator converts the beam motion. The absence of bearings and gears eliminates frictional inefficiencies and noise. The generator can operate in low-light environments unsuitable for solar panels (e.g. HVAC ducts). Costs are low due to low cost components and simple construction.

Wind belt

Windbelt is a flexible, tensioned belt that vibrates from the passing flow of air, due to aeroelastic flutter. A magnet, mounted at one end of the belt oscillates in and out of coiled windings, producing electricity. The inventor is Shawn Frayne.

Aerial

Concept for an airborne wind generator

Airborne wind turbines may operate in low or high altitudes; they are part of a wider class of Airborne Wind Energy Systems (AWES) addressed by high-altitude wind power and crosswind kite power. Wind turbines could be flown in high-speed winds using high altitude wind power tactics, taking advantage of high altitude winds.


When the generator is on the ground, then the tethered aircraft need not carry the generator mass or have a conductive tether. When the generator is aloft, then a conductive tether would be used to transmit energy to the ground or used aloft or beamed to receivers using microwave or laser.

The principle of the kite airborne wind turbine. Image source: Kitesforfuture
A possible flight path of the kite airborne wind turbine. Image source: Kitesforfuture

For instance, a system of tethered kites could capture energy from high-altitude winds. Another concept uses a helium balloon with attached sails to generate pressure and drive rotation around a horizontal axis. Circular motion of ropes transfer kinetic energy to ground-based generator.

Vertical

Vertical axis wind turbines offshore

Gorlov

The Gorlov helical turbine (GHT) is a modification of the Darrieus turbine design that uses helical blades/foils.

Enclosed blades

One design uses many nylon blades to run a generator. Its permanent magnets are on the tips of the blades, while the stator is a ring outside the blades.

H-rotor

The giromill is a vertical axis turbine that rotates one blade in one direction while another moves in the opposite direction. Consequently, only one blade is working at a time. Its efficiency is low.

Revolving Wing VAWT Wind Turbine

Revolving Wing Wind Turbines or Rotating Wing Wind Turbines are a new category of lift-type Vertical Axis Wind Turbines (VAWT) which use 1 vertically standing, non-helical airfoil to generate 360 degree rotation around a vertical shaft which runs through the center of the airfoil.

O-Wind turbine

A omnidirectional turbine which uses the Bernoulli principle to generate energy using wind from any direction. The design is spherical with a number of ducts across the surface, a pressure difference causes the rotation. The design won the James Dyson Award 2018.

Components

INVELOX

SheerWind's INVELOX technology was developed by Dr. Daryoush Allaei. The invention captures and delivers wind to a turbine. In a sense, INVELOX is a wind injection system, much like a fuel injection system for cars. It works by accelerating the wind. A large intake captures wind and funnels it to a concentrator that ends in a Venturi section and finally wind exits from a diffuser. Turbine(s) are placed inside the Venturi section of the INVELOX. Inside the Venturi the dynamic pressure is high while the static pressure is low. The Turbine converts dynamic pressure or kinetic energy to mechanical rotation and thereby to electrical power using a generator. The device has been constructed and tested, but has been criticized for lack of efficiency. As of 2017, prototypes are being installed.

Applications

Rooftop

Wind-turbines can be installed on building roofs. Examples include Marthalen Landi-Silo in Switzerland, Council House 2 in Melbourne, Australia. Ridgeblade in the UK is a vertical wind turbine on its side mounted on the apex of a pitched roof. Another example installed in France is the Aeolta AeroCube. Discovery Tower is an office building in Houston, Texas, that incorporates 10 wind turbines.

The Museum of Science in Boston, Massachusetts began constructing a rooftop Wind Turbine Lab in 2009. The lab is testing nine wind turbines from five different manufacturers. Rooftop wind turbines may suffer from turbulence, especially in cities, which reduces power output and accelerates turbine wear. The lab seeks to address the general lack of performance data for urban wind turbines.

Due to structural limitations of buildings, limited space in urban areas, and safety considerations, building turbines are usually small (with capacities in the low kilowatts). An exception is the Bahrain World Trade Centre with three 225 kW wind turbines mounted between twin skyscrapers.

Traffic-driven

Highway wind turbine

Proposals call for generating power from the energy in the draft created by traffic.

Education

Some installations have installed visitor centers on turbine bases, or by providing viewing areas. The wind turbines themselves are generally of conventional design, while serving the unconventional roles of technology demonstration, public relations, and education.

Saturday, January 27, 2024

Methanotroph

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Methanotroph

Methanotrophs (sometimes called methanophiles) are prokaryotes that metabolize methane as their source of carbon and chemical energy. They are bacteria or archaea, can grow aerobically or anaerobically, and require single-carbon compounds to survive.

Methanotrophs are especially common in or near environments where methane is produced, although some methanotrophs can oxidize atmospheric methane. Their habitats include wetlands, soils, marshes, rice paddies, landfills, aquatic systems (lakes, oceans, streams) and more. They are of special interest to researchers studying global warming, as they play a significant role in the global methane budget, by reducing the amount of methane emitted to the atmosphere.

Methanotrophy is a special case of methylotrophy, using single-carbon compounds that are more reduced than carbon dioxide. Some methylotrophs, however, can also make use of multi-carbon compounds; this differentiates them from methanotrophs, which are usually fastidious methane and methanol oxidizers. The only facultative methanotrophs isolated to date are members of the genus Methylocella silvestris, Methylocapsa aurea and several Methylocystis strains.

In functional terms, methanotrophs are referred to as methane-oxidizing bacteria. However, methane-oxidizing bacteria encompass other organisms that are not regarded as sole methanotrophs. For this reason, methane-oxidizing bacteria have been separated into subgroups: methane-assimilating bacteria (MAB) groups, the methanotrophs, and autotrophic ammonia-oxidizing bacteria (AAOB), which cooxidize methane.

Classification

Methanotrophs can be either bacteria or archaea. Which methanotroph species is present is mainly determined by the availability of electron acceptors. Many types of methane oxidizing bacteria (MOB) are known. Differences in the method of formaldehyde fixation and membrane structure divide these bacterial methanotrophs into several groups. There are several subgroups among the methanotrophic archaea.

Aerobic

Under aerobic conditions, methanotrophs combine oxygen and methane to form formaldehyde, which is then incorporated into organic compounds via the serine pathway or the ribulose monophosphate (RuMP) pathway, and carbon dioxide, which is released. Type I and type X methanotrophs are part of the Gammaproteobacteria and they use the RuMP pathway to assimilate carbon. Type II methanotrophs are part of the Alphaproteobacteria and use the serine pathway of carbon assimilation. They also characteristically have a system of internal membranes within which methane oxidation occurs. Methanotrophs in Gammaproteobacteria are known from the family Methylococcaceae. Methanotrophs from Alphaproteobacteria are found in families Methylocystaceae and Beijerinckiaceae.

Aerobic methanotrophs are also known from the Methylacidiphilaceae (phylum Verrucomicrobiota). In contrast to Gammaproteobacteria and Alphaproteobacteria, methanotrophs in the phylum Verrucomicrobiota are mixotrophs. In 2021 a bacterial bin from the phylum Gemmatimonadota called "Candidatus Methylotropicum kingii" showing aerobic methanotrophy was discovered thus suggesting methanotrophy to be present in the four bacterial phyla.

In some cases, aerobic methane oxidation can take place in anoxic environments. "Candidatus Methylomirabilis oxyfera" belongs to the phylum NC10 bacteria, and can catalyze nitrite reduction through an "intra-aerobic" pathway, in which internally produced oxygen is used to oxidise methane. In clear water lakes, methanotrophs can live in the anoxic water column, but receive oxygen from photosynthetic organisms, which they then directly consume to oxidize methane.

No aerobic methanotrophic archaea are known.

Anaerobic

Under anoxic conditions, methanotrophs use different electron acceptors for methane oxidation. This can happen in anoxic habitats such as marine or lake sediments, oxygen minimum zones, anoxic water columns, rice paddies and soils. Some specific methanotrophs can reduce nitrate, nitrite, iron, sulfate, or manganese ions and couple that to methane oxidation without syntrophic partner. Investigations in marine environments revealed that methane can be oxidized anaerobically by consortia of methane oxidizing archaea and sulfate-reducing bacteria. This type of anaerobic oxidation of methane (AOM) mainly occurs in anoxic marine sediments. The exact mechanism is still a topic of debate but the most widely accepted theory is that the archaea use the reversed methanogenesis pathway to produce carbon dioxide and another, unknown intermediate, which is then used by the sulfate-reducing bacteria to gain energy from the reduction of sulfate to hydrogen sulfide and water.

The anaerobic methanotrophs are not related to the known aerobic methanotrophs; the closest cultured relatives to the anaerobic methanotrophs are the methanogens in the order Methanosarcinales.

Special species

Methylococcus capsulatus is used to produce animal feed from natural gas.

In 2010 a new bacterium Candidatus Methylomirabilis oxyfera from the phylum NC10 was identified that can couple the anaerobic oxidation of methane to nitrite reduction without the need for a syntrophic partner. Based on studies of Ettwig et al., it is believed that M. oxyfera oxidizes methane anaerobically by utilizing oxygen produced internally from the dismutation of nitric oxide into nitrogen and oxygen gas.

Taxonomy

Many methanotrophic cultures have been isolated and formally characterized over the past 5 decades, starting with the classical study of Whittenbury (Whittenbury et al., 1970).  Currently, 18 genera of cultivated aerobic methanotrophic Gammaproteobacteria and 5 genera of Alphaproteobacteria are known, represented by approx. 60 different species.

Methane oxidation

RuMP pathway in type I methanotrophs
Serine pathway in type II methanotrophs

Methanotrophs oxidize methane by first initiating reduction of an oxygen atom to H2O2 and transformation of methane to CH3OH using methane monooxygenases (MMOs). Furthermore, two types of MMO have been isolated from methanotrophs: soluble methane monooxygenase (sMMO) and particulate methane monooxygenase (pMMO).

Cells containing pMMO have demonstrated higher growth capabilities and higher affinity for methane than sMMO containing cells. It is suspected that copper ions may play a key role in both pMMO regulation and the enzyme catalysis, thus limiting pMMO cells to more copper-rich environments than sMMO producing cells.

Arctic methane emissions

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Arctic methane concentrations in the atmosphere up to September 2020. A peak of 1988 parts per billion was reached in October 2019.

Arctic methane release is the release of methane from seas and soils in permafrost regions of the Arctic. While it is a long-term natural process, methane release is exacerbated by global warming. This results in a positive feedback cycle, as methane is itself a powerful greenhouse gas.

The Arctic region is one of the many natural sources of the greenhouse gas methane. Global warming could potentially accelerate its release, due to both release of methane from existing stores, and from methanogenesis in rotting biomass. Large quantities of methane are stored in the Arctic in natural gas deposits and as undersea clathrates. When permafrost thaws as a consequence of warming, large amounts of organic material can become available for methanogenesis and may ultimately be released as methane. Clathrates also degrade on warming and release methane directly.

Atmospheric methane concentrations are 8–10% higher in the Arctic than in the Antarctic atmosphere. During cold glacier epochs, this gradient decreases to practically insignificant levels. Land ecosystems are considered the main sources of this asymmetry, although it has been suggested in 2007 that "the role of the Arctic Ocean is significantly underestimated." Soil temperature and moisture levels have been found to be significant variables in soil methane fluxes in tundra environments.

Contribution to climate change

Main sources of global methane emissions (2008-2017) according to the Global Carbon Project

Main sources of global methane emissions (2008-2017) according to the Global Carbon Project

Due to the relatively short lifetime of atmospheric methane, its global trends are more complex than those of carbon dioxide. NOAA annual records have been updated since 1984, and they show substantial growth during the 1980s, a slowdown in annual growth during the 1990s, a plateau (including some years of declining atmospheric concentrations) in the early 2000s and another consistent increase beginning in 2007. Since around 2018, there has been a consistent acceleration in annual methane increases, with the 2020 increase of 15.06 parts per billion breaking the previous record increase of 14.05 ppb set in 1991, and 2021 setting an even larger increase of 18.34 ppb.

These trends alarm climate scientists, with some suggesting that they represent a climate change feedback increasing natural methane emissions well beyond their preindustrial levels. However, there is currently no evidence connecting the Arctic to this recent acceleration. In fact, a 2021 study indicated that the role of the Arctic was typically overerestimated in global methane accounting, while the role of tropical regions was consistently underestimated. The study suggested that tropical wetland methane emissions were the culprit behind the recent growth trend, and this hypothesis was reinforced by a 2022 paper connecting tropical terrestrial emissions to 80% of the global atmospheric methane trends between 2010 and 2019.

Nevertheless, the Arctic's role in global methane trends is considered very likely to increase in the future. There is evidence for increasing methane emissions since 2004 from a Siberian permafrost site into the atmosphere linked to warming.

Causes

Loss of permafrost

PMMA chambers used to measure methane and CO2 emissions in Storflaket peat bog near Abisko, northern Sweden.
Carbon cycle accelerates in the wake of abrupt thaw (orange) relative to the previous state of the area (blue, black).

Global warming in the Arctic accelerates methane release from both existing stores and methanogenesis in rotting biomass. Methanogenesis requires thoroughly anaerobic environments, which slows down the mobilization of old carbon. A 2015 Nature review estimated that the cumulative emissions from thawed anaerobic permafrost sites were 75–85% lower than the cumulative emissions from aerobic sites, and that even there, methane emissions amounted to only 3% to 7% of CO2 emitted in situ. While they represented between 25% and 45% of the CO2's potential impact on climate over a 100-year timescale, the review concluded that aerobic permafrost thaw still had a greater warming impact overall. In 2018, however, another study in Nature Climate Change performed seven-year incubation experiments and found that methane production became equivalent to CO2 production once a methanogenic microbial community became established at the anaerobic site. This finding had substantially raised the overall warming impact represented by anaerobic thaw sites.

Since methanogenesis requires anaerobic environments, it is frequently associated with Arctic lakes, where the emergence of bubbles of methane can be observed. Lakes produced by the thaw of particularly ice-rich permafrost are known as thermokarst lakes. Not all of the methane produced in the sediment of a lake reaches the atmosphere, as it can get oxidized in the water column or even within the sediment itself. However, 2022 observations indicate that at least half of the methane produced within thermokarst lakes reaches the atmosphere. Another process which frequently results in substantial methane emissions is the erosion of permafrost-stabilized hillsides and their ultimate collapse. Altogether, these two processes - hillside collapse (also known as retrogressive thaw slump, or RTS) and thermokarst lake formation - are collectively described as abrupt thaw, as they can rapidly expose substantial volumes of soil to microbial respiration in a matter of days, as opposed to the gradual, cm by cm, thaw of formerly frozen soil which dominates across most permafrost environments. This rapidity was illustrated in 2019, when three permafrost sites which would have been safe from thawing under the "intermediate" Representative Concentration Pathway 4.5 for 70 more years had undergone abrupt thaw. Another example occurred in the wake of a 2020 Siberian heatwave, which was found to have increased RTS numbers 17-fold across the northern Taymyr Peninsula – from 82 to 1404, while the resultant soil carbon mobilization increased 28-fold, to an average of 11 grams of carbon per square meter per year across the peninsula (with a range between 5 and 38 grams).

Until recently, Permafrost carbon feedback (PCF) modeling had mainly focused on gradual permafrost thaw, due to the difficulty of modelling abrupt thaw, and because of the flawed assumptions about the rates of methane production. Nevertheless, a study from 2018, by using field observations, radiocarbon dating, and remote sensing to account for thermokarst lakes, determined that abrupt thaw will more than double permafrost carbon emissions by 2100. And a second study from 2020, showed that under the scenario of continually accelerating emissions (RCP 8.5), abrupt thaw carbon emissions across 2.5 million km2 are projected to provide the same feedback as gradual thaw of near-surface permafrost across the whole 18 million km2 it occupies. Thus, abrupt thaw adds between 60 and 100 gigatonnes of carbon by 2300, increasing carbon emissions by ~125–190% when compared to gradual thaw alone.[30]

Methane emissions from thawed permafrost appear to decrease as bog matures over time.
However, there is still scientific debate about the rate and the trajectory of methane production in the thawed permafrost environments. For instance, a 2017 paper suggested that even in the thawing peatlands with frequent thermokarst lakes, less than 10% of methane emissions can be attributed to the old, thawed carbon, and the rest is anaerobic decomposition of modern carbon. A follow-up study in 2018 had even suggested that increased uptake of carbon due to rapid peat formation in the thermokarst wetlands would compensate for the increased methane release. Another 2018 paper suggested that permafrost emissions are limited following thermokarst thaw, but are substantially greater in the aftermath of wildfires. In 2022, a paper demonstrated that peatland methane emissions from permafrost thaw are initially quite high (82 milligrams of methane per square meter per day), but decline by nearly three times as the permafrost bog matures, suggesting a reduction in methane emissions in several decades to a century following abrupt thaw.

In 2011, preliminary computer analyses suggested that permafrost emissions could be equivalent to around 15% of anthropogenic emissions.

A 2018 perspectives article discussing tipping points in the climate system activated around 2 °C (3.6 °F) of global warming suggested that at this threshold, permafrost thaw would add a further 0.09 °C (0.16 °F) to global temperatures by 2100, with a range of 0.04–0.16 °C (0.072–0.288 °F) In 2021, another study estimated that in a future where zero emissions were reached following an emission of a further 1000 Pg C into the atmosphere (a scenario where temperatures ordinarily stay stable after the last emission, or start to decline slowly) permafrost carbon would add 0.06 °C (0.11 °F) (with a range of 0.02–0.14 °C (0.036–0.252 °F)) 50 years after the last anthropogenic emission, 0.09 °C (0.16 °F) (0.04–0.21 °C (0.072–0.378 °F)) 100 years later and 0.27 °C (0.49 °F) (0.12–0.49 °C (0.22–0.88 °F)) 500 years later. However, neither study was able to take abrupt thaw into account.

In 2020, a study of the northern permafrost peatlands (a smaller subset of the entire permafrost area, covering 3.7 million km2 out of the estimated 18 million km2) would amount to ~1% of anthropogenic radiative forcing by 2100, and that this proportion remains the same in all warming scenarios considered, from 1.5 °C (2.7 °F) to 6 °C (11 °F). It had further suggested that after 200 more years, those peatlands would have absorbed more carbon than what they had emitted into the atmosphere.

The IPCC Sixth Assessment Report estimates that carbon dioxide and methane released from permafrost could amount to the equivalent of 14–175 billion tonnes of carbon dioxide per 1 °C (1.8 °F) of warming. For comparison, by 2019, annual anthropogenic emission of carbon dioxide alone stood around 40 billion tonnes.

Nine probable scenarios of greenhouse gas emissions from permafrost thaw during the 21st century, which show a limited, moderate and intense CO2 and CH4 emission response to low, medium and high-emission Representative Concentration Pathways. The vertical bar uses emissions of selected large countries as a comparison: the right-hand side of the scale shows their cumulative emissions since the start of the Industrial Revolution, while the left-hand side shows each country's cumulative emissions for the rest of the 21st century if they remained unchanged from their 2019 levels.

A 2021 assessment of the economic impact of climate tipping points estimated that permafrost carbon emissions would increase the social cost of carbon by about 8.4%.  However, the methods of that assessment have attracted controversy: when researchers like Steve Keen and Timothy Lenton had accused it of underestimating the overall impact of tipping points and of higher levels of warming in general, the authors have conceded some of their points.

In 2021, a group of prominent permafrost researchers like Merritt Turetsky had presented their collective estimate of permafrost emissions, including the abrupt thaw processes, as part of an effort to advocate for a 50% reduction in anthropogenic emissions by 2030 as a necessary milestone to help reach net zero by 2050. Their figures for combined permafrost emissions by 2100 amounted to 150–200 billion tonnes of carbon dioxide equivalent under 1.5 °C (2.7 °F) of warming, 220–300 billion tonnes under 2 °C (3.6 °F) and 400–500 billion tonnes if the warming was allowed to exceed 4 °C (7.2 °F). They compared those figures to the extrapolated present-day emissions of Canada, the European Union and the United States or China, respectively. The 400–500 billion tonnes figure would also be equivalent to the today's remaining budget for staying within a 1.5 °C (2.7 °F) target. One of the scientists involved in that effort, Susan M. Natali of Woods Hole Research Centre, had also led the publication of a complementary estimate in a PNAS paper that year, which suggested that when the amplification of permafrost emissions by abrupt thaw and wildfires is combined with the foreseeable range of near-future anthropogenic emissions, avoiding the exceedance (or "overshoot") of 1.5 °C (2.7 °F) warming is already implausible, and the efforts to attain it may have to rely on negative emissions to force the temperature back down.

An updated 2022 assessment of climate tipping points concluded that abrupt permafrost thaw would add 50% to gradual thaw rates, and would add 14 billion tons of carbon dioxide equivalent emissions by 2100 and 35 billion tons by 2300 per every degree of warming. This would have a warming impact of 0.04 °C (0.072 °F) per every full degree of warming by 2100, and 0.11 °C (0.20 °F) per every full degree of warming by 2300. It also suggested that at between 3 °C (5.4 °F) and 6 °C (11 °F) degrees of warming (with the most likely figure around 4 °C (7.2 °F) degrees) a large-scale collapse of permafrost areas could become irreversible, adding between 175 and 350 billion tons of CO2 equivalent emissions, or 0.2–0.4 °C (0.36–0.72 °F) degrees, over about 50 years (with a range between 10 and 300 years).

A major review published in the year 2022 concluded that if the goal of preventing 2 °C (3.6 °F) of warming was realized, then the average annual permafrost emissions throughout the 21st century would be equivalent to the year 2019 annual emissions of Russia. Under RCP4.5, a scenario considered close to the current trajectory and where the warming stays slightly below 3 °C (5.4 °F), annual permafrost emissions would be comparable to year 2019 emissions of Western Europe or the United States, while under the scenario of high global warming and worst-case permafrost feedback response, they would nearly match year 2019 emissions of China.

Arctic sea ice decline

A 2015 study concluded that Arctic sea ice decline accelerates methane emissions from the Arctic tundra, with the emissions for 2005-2010 being around 1.7 million tonnes higher than they would have been with the sea ice at 1981–1990 levels. One of the researchers noted, "The expectation is that with further sea ice decline, temperatures in the Arctic will continue to rise, and so will methane emissions from northern wetlands."

Clathrate breakdown

Methane clathrate is released as gas into the surrounding water column or soils when ambient temperature increases
The clathrate gun hypothesis is a proposed explanation for the periods of rapid warming during the Quaternary. The hypothesis is that changes in fluxes in upper intermediate waters in the ocean caused temperature fluctuations that alternately accumulated and occasionally released methane clathrate on upper continental slopes. This would have had an immediate impact on the global temperature, as methane is a much more powerful greenhouse gas than carbon dioxide. Despite its atmospheric lifetime of around 12 years, methane's global warming potential is 72 times greater than that of carbon dioxide over 20 years, and 25 times over 100 years (33 when accounting for aerosol interactions). It is further proposed that these warming events caused the Bond Cycles and individual interstadial events, such as the Dansgaard–Oeschger interstadials.

Most deposits of methane clathrate are in sediments too deep to respond rapidly, and 2007 modelling by Archer suggests that the methane forcing derived from them should remain a minor component of the overall greenhouse effect. Clathrate deposits destabilize from the deepest part of their stability zone, which is typically hundreds of metres below the seabed. A sustained increase in sea temperature will warm its way through the sediment eventually, and cause the shallowest, most marginal clathrate to start to break down; but it will typically take on the order of a thousand years or more for the temperature change to get that far into the seabed. Further, subsequent research on midlatitude deposits in the Atlantic and Pacific Ocean found that any methane released from the seafloor, no matter the source, fails to reach the atmosphere once the depth exceeds 430 m (1,411 ft), while geological characteristics of the area make it impossible for hydrates to exist at depths shallower than 550 m (1,804 ft).

Potential Methane release in the Eastern Siberian Arctic Shelf

However, some methane clathrates deposits in the Arctic are much shallower than the rest, which could make them far more vulnerable to warming. A trapped gas deposit on the continental slope off Canada in the Beaufort Sea, located in an area of small conical hills on the ocean floor is just 290 m (951 ft) below sea level and considered the shallowest known deposit of methane hydrate. However, the East Siberian Arctic Shelf averages 45 meters in depth, and it is assumed that below the seafloor, sealed by sub-sea permafrost layers, hydrates deposits are located. This would mean that when the warming potentially talik or pingo-like features within the shelf, they would also serve as gas migration pathways for the formerly frozen methane, and a lot of attention has been paid to that possibility. Shakhova et al. (2008) estimate that not less than 1,400 gigatonnes of carbon is presently locked up as methane and methane hydrates under the Arctic submarine permafrost, and 5–10% of that area is subject to puncturing by open talik. Their paper initially included the line that the "release of up to 50 gigatonnes of predicted amount of hydrate storage [is] highly possible for abrupt release at any time". A release on this scale would increase the methane content of the planet's atmosphere by a factor of twelve, equivalent in greenhouse effect to a doubling in the 2008 level of CO2.

This is what led to the original Clathrate gun hypothesis, and in 2008 the United States Department of Energy National Laboratory system and the United States Geological Survey's Climate Change Science Program both identified potential clathrate destabilization in the Arctic as one of four most serious scenarios for abrupt climate change, which have been singled out for priority research. The USCCSP released a report in late December 2008 estimating the gravity of this risk. A 2012 study of the effects for the original hypothesis, based on a coupled climate–carbon cycle model (GCM) assessed a 1000-fold (from <1 to 1000 ppmv) methane increase—within a single pulse, from methane hydrates (based on carbon amount estimates for the PETM, with ~2000 GtC), and concluded it would increase atmospheric temperatures by more than 6 °C within 80 years. Further, carbon stored in the land biosphere would decrease by less than 25%, suggesting a critical situation for ecosystems and farming, especially in the tropics. Another 2012 assessment of the literature identifies methane hydrates on the Shelf of East Arctic Seas as a potential trigger.

A risk of seismic activity being potentially responsible for mass methane releases has been considered as well. In 2012, seismic observations destabilizing methane hydrate along the continental slope of the eastern United States, following the intrusion of warmer ocean currents, suggests that underwater landslides could release methane. The estimated amount of methane hydrate in this slope is 2.5 gigatonnes (about 0.2% of the amount required to cause the PETM), and it is unclear if the methane could reach the atmosphere. However, the authors of the study caution: "It is unlikely that the western North Atlantic margin is the only area experiencing changing ocean currents; our estimate of 2.5 gigatonnes of destabilizing methane hydrate may therefore represent only a fraction of the methane hydrate currently destabilizing globally." Bill McGuire notes, "There may be a threat of submarine landslides around the margins of Greenland, which are less well explored. Greenland is already uplifting, reducing the pressure on the crust beneath and also on submarine methane hydrates in the sediment around its margins, and increased seismic activity may be apparent within decades as active faults beneath the ice sheet are unloaded. This could provide the potential for the earthquake or methane hydrate destabilisation of submarine sediment, leading to the formation of submarine slides and, perhaps, tsunamis in the North Atlantic."
Methane releases in Laptev Sea are typically consumed within the sediment by methanotrophs. Areas with high sedimentation (top) subject their microbial communities to continual disturbance, and so they are the most likely to see active fluxes, whether with (right) or without active upward flow (left). Even so, the annual release may be limited to 1000 tonnes or less.

Research carried out in 2008 in the Siberian Arctic showed methane releases on the annual scale of millions of tonnes, which was a substantial increase on the previous estimate of 0.5 millions of tonnes per year. apparently through perforations in the seabed permafrost, with concentrations in some regions reaching up to 100 times normal levels. The excess methane has been detected in localized hotspots in the outfall of the Lena River and the border between the Laptev Sea and the East Siberian Sea. At the time, some of the melting was thought to be the result of geological heating, but more thawing was believed to be due to the greatly increased volumes of meltwater being discharged from the Siberian rivers flowing north.

By 2013, the same team of researchers used multiple sonar observations to quantify the density of bubbles emanating from subsea permafrost into the ocean (a process called ebullition), and found that 100–630 mg methane per square meter is emitted daily along the East Siberian Arctic Shelf (ESAS), into the water column. They also found that during storms, when wind accelerates air-sea gas exchange, methane levels in the water column drop dramatically. Observations suggest that methane release from seabed permafrost will progress slowly, rather than abruptly. However, Arctic cyclones, fueled by global warming, and further accumulation of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere could contribute to more rapid methane release from this source. Altogether, their updated estimate had now amounted to 17 millions of tonnes per year.

However, these findings were soon questioned, as this rate of annual release would mean that the ESAS alone would account for between 28% and 75% of the observed Arctic methane emissions, which contradicts many other studies. In January 2020, it was found that the rate at which methane enters the atmosphere after it had been released from the shelf deposits into the water column had been greatly overestimated, and observations of atmospheric methane fluxes taken from multiple ship cruises in the Arctic instead indicate that only around 3.02 million tonnes of methane are emitted annually from the ESAS. A modelling study published in 2020 suggested that under the present-day conditions, annual methane release from the ESAS may be as low as 1000 tonnes, with 2.6 – 4.5 million tonnes representing the peak potential of turbulent emissions from the shelf.

Hong et al. 2017 studied methane seepage in the shallow arctic seas at the Barents Sea close to Svalbard. Temperature at the seabed has fluctuated seasonally over the last century, between −1.8 °C (28.8 °F) and 4.8 °C (40.6 °F), it has only affected release of methane to a depth of about 1.6 meters at the sediment-water interface. Hydrates can be stable through the top 60 meters of the sediments and the current observed releases originate from deeper below the sea floor. They conclude that the increased methane flux started hundreds to thousands of years ago, noted about it, "..episodic ventilation of deep reservoirs rather than warming-induced gas hydrate dissociation." Summarizing his research, Hong stated:

The results of our study indicate that the immense seeping found in this area is a result of natural state of the system. Understanding how methane interacts with other important geological, chemical and biological processes in the Earth system is essential and should be the emphasis of our scientific community.

Methane releases specifically attributed to hydrate dissociation in the Svalbard appear to be much lower than the leaks from other methane sources.

Research by Klaus Wallmann et al. 2018 concluded that hydrate dissociation at Svalbard 8,000 years ago was due to isostatic rebound (continental uplift following deglaciation). As a result, the water depth got shallower with less hydrostatic pressure, without further warming. The study, also found that today's deposits at the site become unstable at a depth of ~ 400 meters, due to seasonal bottom water warming, and it remains unclear if this is due to natural variability or anthropogenic warming. Moreover, another paper published in 2017 found that only 0.07% of the methane released from the gas hydrate dissociation at Svalbard appears to reach the atmosphere, and usually only when the wind speeds were low. In 2020, a subsequent study confirmed that only a small fraction of methane from the Svalbard seeps reaches the atmosphere, and that the wind speed holds a greater influence on the rate of release than dissolved methane concentration on site.

Finally, a paper published in 2017 indicated that the methane emissions from at least one seep field at Svalbard were more than compensated for by the enhanced carbon dioxide uptake due to the greatly increased phytoplankton activity in this nutrient-rich water. The daily amount of carbon dioxide absorbed by the phytoplankton was 1,900 greater than the amount of methane emitted, and the negative (i.e. indirectly cooling) radiative forcing from the CO2 uptake was up to 251 times greater than the warming from the methane release.
In 2018, a perspective piece devoted to tipping points in the climate system suggested that the climate change contribution from methane hydrates would be "negligible" by the end of the century, but could amount to 0.4–0.5 °C (0.72–0.90 °F) on the millennial timescales. In 2021, the IPCC Sixth Assessment Report no longer included methane hydrates in the list of potential tipping points, and says that "it is very unlikely that CH4 emissions from clathrates will substantially warm the climate system over the next few centuries." The report had also linked terrestrial hydrate deposites to gas emission craters discovered in the Yamal Peninsula in Siberia, Russia beginning in July 2014, but noted that since terrestrial gas hydrates predominantly form at a depth below 200 metres, a substantial response within the next few centuries can be ruled out. Likewise, a 2022 assessment of tipping points described methane hydrates as a "threshold-free feedback" rather than a tipping point.

Ice sheets

A 2014 study found evidence for methane cycling below the ice sheet of the Russell Glacier, based on subglacial drainage samples which were dominated by Pseudomonadota. During the study, the most widespread surface melt on record for the past 120 years was observed in Greenland; on 12 July 2012, unfrozen water was present on almost the entire ice sheet surface (98.6%). The findings indicate that methanotrophs could serve as a biological methane sink in the subglacial ecosystem, and the region was, at least during the sample time, a source of atmospheric methane. Scaled dissolved methane flux during the 4 months of the summer melt season was estimated at 990 Mg CH4. Because the Russell-Leverett Glacier is representative of similar Greenland outlet glaciers, the researchers concluded that the Greenland Ice Sheet may represent a significant global methane source. A study in 2016 concluded that methane clathrates may exist below Greenland's and Antarctica's ice sheets, based on past evidence.

Reducing methane emissions

Mitigation of methane emissions has greatest potential to preserve Arctic sea ice if it is implemented within the 2020s.

Use of flares

ARPA-E has funded a research project from 2021-2023 to develop a "smart micro-flare fleet" to burn off methane emissions at remote locations.

A 2012 review article stated that most existing technologies "operate on confined gas streams of 0.1% methane", and were most suitable for areas where methane is emitted in pockets.

If Arctic oil and gas operations use Best Available Technology (BAT) and Best Environmental Practices (BEP) in petroleum gas flaring, this can result in significant methane emissions reductions, according to the Arctic Council.

Operator (computer programming)

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operator_(computer_programmin...