![]() | This ![]() It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
|
|
Question: I'm no chemistry wiz, but it seems to me that if burning 1 methane molecule produces 1 CO2 molecule, then by extension burning one mole (16 g) of CH4 would produce one mole (44 g) of CO2. Isn't this relevant in terms of comparing the GWP of the two? I.e. burning/oxidizing one ton of methane would produce 2.75 tons of CO2. Therefore, if you take the GWP of CH4 to be 23, burning it would reduce the GWP to 2.75 (a factor of 8.4). Likewise, if you take the 500-year view of GWP and take the GWP of methane to be 7 (I'm getting this from the global warming potential page), burning the methane would still reduce it to 2.75 (a factor of 2.5). Can someone who understands chemistry tell me if this is correct? Worth mentioning? -- Potosino 02:15, 4 February 2007 (UTC)
I have a question.no
Are there chemicals that can remove trace amounts of methane from air?
Ideally, it should be possible to extract methane from these solvents to work them in a cyclic manner.
Manu Khemani
email: Manu_Khemani@rogers.com
09:59, 7 October 2003 24.192.17.162
— Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.192.17.162 ( talk • contribs) 09:59, 7 October 2003 (UTC)
The orgins of methane, according to the article, are mostly biotic, but how then interstellular clouds have methane too? Probably there are some natural inorganic processes which lead to methane, please write more about all of this. This is in some sense the simplest C-containing molecule, so the origins are of particular interest. 203.162.3.147 12:31, 13 Mar 2005 (UTC)
Vegans and vegetarians argue that we need to stop breeding cows and stop eating all meat because meat production is killing the planet. This is based on the claim that methane is 20 times worse than CO2 (GWP of 22). Though they ignore the shorter life span of CH4 against CO2. Methane sources listed across different articles seem to be wetlands, padi fields, tropical area, rubbish dumps, volcanoes, the sea (ocean sediments), peat bogs, coal mines, ponds, rivers, any rotting vegetation and grass eating animals - cows, buffalos and sheep. Am I right that foods such as greens and pulses cause a higher methane output in humans? Whereas, protein based foods (meat) don’t. If so, surely a vegetarian diet is worse for the environment?---- —Preceding unsigned comment added by Chrstoff ( talk • contribs) 22:35, 12 September 2009 (UTC)
In the section http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Methane#Fuel the fourth sentence in the paragraph, i.e. the statement: "In many cities, methane is piped into homes for domestic heating and cooking purposes" is incomplete/inaccurate/insufficient. It implies that residential methane piping is restricted to cities. In fact, many large suburban areas also feature piped 'natural gas'. Also, the implication disregards piped CH4 for industrial and commercial uses. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.67.225.15 ( talk) 12:01, 25 January 2012 (UTC)
Does anybody know who first:
Thanks! Lockesdonkey ( talk) 18:55, 11 May 2013 (UTC)
This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 8 January 2019 and 23 April 2019. Further details are available
on the course page. Student editor(s):
Ajohnson439. Peer reviewers:
Nuts4squirrels.
Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT ( talk) 03:58, 17 January 2022 (UTC)
The section on Mars starting at "Methane has been proposed as a possible rocket propellant..." discusses generating Methane on Mars for rocket fuel. Unfortunately, it neglects to mention Oxygen, also needed for the fuel, unless you come up with a different oxidant. (We're not on earth anymore!) From what I've seen, oxidizer tanks on liquid fuel rockets tend to be larger than for the fuel, so I'd guess that generating the oxidizer on mars would be a bigger problem. OsamaBinLogin ( talk) 01:42, 16 March 2024 (UTC)
The VESPR diagram on the fact sheet seems to be misleading — as a tetrahedral represented in the manner it is currently would seem to indicate that here is a difference in angle between the four hydrogens (more specificly, the "top" hydrogen with the rest) whereas, realistically, they exhibit uniformally 190º angle. See this image (0 lone pair and steric number 4) for an example of how one may represent it. -- jemoka ( talk) 9:41, 14 October 2019 (PST)
The figure in sub section Atmospheric methane seems to be inconsistent with this statement in the same sub section:
The rate of increase seems to have been roughly constant since 2007.
-- Mortense ( talk) 13:32, 26 July 2019 (UTC)
Wouldn't methane be a 1 on this scale? Similar to Propene?
Normally stable, but can become unstable at elevated temperatures and pressures (e.g. propene) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jokem ( talk • contribs) 02:23, 12 August 2021 (UTC)
![]() | This ![]() It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
|
|
Question: I'm no chemistry wiz, but it seems to me that if burning 1 methane molecule produces 1 CO2 molecule, then by extension burning one mole (16 g) of CH4 would produce one mole (44 g) of CO2. Isn't this relevant in terms of comparing the GWP of the two? I.e. burning/oxidizing one ton of methane would produce 2.75 tons of CO2. Therefore, if you take the GWP of CH4 to be 23, burning it would reduce the GWP to 2.75 (a factor of 8.4). Likewise, if you take the 500-year view of GWP and take the GWP of methane to be 7 (I'm getting this from the global warming potential page), burning the methane would still reduce it to 2.75 (a factor of 2.5). Can someone who understands chemistry tell me if this is correct? Worth mentioning? -- Potosino 02:15, 4 February 2007 (UTC)
I have a question.no
Are there chemicals that can remove trace amounts of methane from air?
Ideally, it should be possible to extract methane from these solvents to work them in a cyclic manner.
Manu Khemani
email: Manu_Khemani@rogers.com
09:59, 7 October 2003 24.192.17.162
— Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.192.17.162 ( talk • contribs) 09:59, 7 October 2003 (UTC)
The orgins of methane, according to the article, are mostly biotic, but how then interstellular clouds have methane too? Probably there are some natural inorganic processes which lead to methane, please write more about all of this. This is in some sense the simplest C-containing molecule, so the origins are of particular interest. 203.162.3.147 12:31, 13 Mar 2005 (UTC)
Vegans and vegetarians argue that we need to stop breeding cows and stop eating all meat because meat production is killing the planet. This is based on the claim that methane is 20 times worse than CO2 (GWP of 22). Though they ignore the shorter life span of CH4 against CO2. Methane sources listed across different articles seem to be wetlands, padi fields, tropical area, rubbish dumps, volcanoes, the sea (ocean sediments), peat bogs, coal mines, ponds, rivers, any rotting vegetation and grass eating animals - cows, buffalos and sheep. Am I right that foods such as greens and pulses cause a higher methane output in humans? Whereas, protein based foods (meat) don’t. If so, surely a vegetarian diet is worse for the environment?---- —Preceding unsigned comment added by Chrstoff ( talk • contribs) 22:35, 12 September 2009 (UTC)
In the section http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Methane#Fuel the fourth sentence in the paragraph, i.e. the statement: "In many cities, methane is piped into homes for domestic heating and cooking purposes" is incomplete/inaccurate/insufficient. It implies that residential methane piping is restricted to cities. In fact, many large suburban areas also feature piped 'natural gas'. Also, the implication disregards piped CH4 for industrial and commercial uses. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.67.225.15 ( talk) 12:01, 25 January 2012 (UTC)
Does anybody know who first:
Thanks! Lockesdonkey ( talk) 18:55, 11 May 2013 (UTC)
This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 8 January 2019 and 23 April 2019. Further details are available
on the course page. Student editor(s):
Ajohnson439. Peer reviewers:
Nuts4squirrels.
Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT ( talk) 03:58, 17 January 2022 (UTC)
The section on Mars starting at "Methane has been proposed as a possible rocket propellant..." discusses generating Methane on Mars for rocket fuel. Unfortunately, it neglects to mention Oxygen, also needed for the fuel, unless you come up with a different oxidant. (We're not on earth anymore!) From what I've seen, oxidizer tanks on liquid fuel rockets tend to be larger than for the fuel, so I'd guess that generating the oxidizer on mars would be a bigger problem. OsamaBinLogin ( talk) 01:42, 16 March 2024 (UTC)
The VESPR diagram on the fact sheet seems to be misleading — as a tetrahedral represented in the manner it is currently would seem to indicate that here is a difference in angle between the four hydrogens (more specificly, the "top" hydrogen with the rest) whereas, realistically, they exhibit uniformally 190º angle. See this image (0 lone pair and steric number 4) for an example of how one may represent it. -- jemoka ( talk) 9:41, 14 October 2019 (PST)
The figure in sub section Atmospheric methane seems to be inconsistent with this statement in the same sub section:
The rate of increase seems to have been roughly constant since 2007.
-- Mortense ( talk) 13:32, 26 July 2019 (UTC)
Wouldn't methane be a 1 on this scale? Similar to Propene?
Normally stable, but can become unstable at elevated temperatures and pressures (e.g. propene) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jokem ( talk • contribs) 02:23, 12 August 2021 (UTC)