Talk:Methane

Energy High‑importance

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Energy, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Energy on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
High	This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale.

Molecular Biology: MCB

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Molecular Biology, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Molecular Biology on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
???	This article has not yet received a rating on the importance scale.
	This article is supported by the Molecular and Cell Biology task force (assessed as Mid-importance).

Global warming potential 3

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)

@Potosino: Yes, burning methane into carbon dioxide reduces the resulting greenhouse effect compared to simply releasing it into the atmosphere. This is why some green projects include capturing methane from sewage treatment plants or dairy farms and burning it to power the facility. The difference is mentioned on Global warming potential#Values; I added a note to this article. -- Beland (talk) 02:57, 21 June 2024 (UTC)

Methane - Removal of trace amounts from air

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: [email protected]

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)

I'm sure it's not the most energy-efficient way to get methane, but it would be worthwhile to add some mention of methane capture technologies to this article. Example sources:

• Removing methane from the atmosphere
• Capturing methane from the air would slow global warming. Can it be done?
• Practical constraints on atmospheric methane removal

-- Beland (talk) 06:17, 21 June 2024 (UTC)

Origin of methane

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)

Have some suggested phrasing? See also: Abiogenic petroleum origin (SEWilco 15:49, 15 Mar 2005 (UTC))

This interesting question is still unanswered. -- Beland (talk) 03:19, 21 June 2024 (UTC)

THE VEGAN ARGUMENT

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)

They MAY produce a higher output in humans, however humans are not Rumenants so direct methane output from humans is not comparable. Bogman bass (talk) 18:26, 29 January 2020 (UTC)

While cows or other meat animals are growing, they are using lots of energy to breathe, keep themselves warm, wander around to find food, and moo. The amount of energy we get from eating their bodies is far less than the amount of energy they ate over their lifetimes. In other words, we could get the same amount of energy and nutrients by eating a small amount of plant matter compared to the amount of plant matter it takes to make an equivalent serving of meat. Methane has more global warming potential despite its shorter lifespan, but the amount of methane vs. carbon dioxide emitted by the eater is potentially a small concern compared to the overall magnitude of plant matter (and energy) consumed. Also keep in mind that if forests or peat bogs are converted into dairy grazing land, that also makes global warming worse, and it takes more land to make meat than it does to make plants for human consumption. Here's an article with some charts showing the different global warming impact of various foods, and some of the contributing factors. -- Beland (talk) 07:10, 21 June 2024 (UTC)

Methane: uses: misstatement

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)

Fair enough; I've rephrased. -- Beland (talk) 07:12, 21 June 2024 (UTC)

History of methane

Does anybody know who first:

1. Identified methane?
2. Identified its composition?
3. Named methane? And why?
4. Identified each of methane's various sources (natural gas, biological...)?
5. Liquefied methane?
6. Synthesized methane?
7. Produced methane in industrial quantities?
8. Put methane to industrial use?

Thanks! Lockesdonkey (talk) 18:55, 11 May 2013 (UTC)

1 and 3 are now covered in the article. Answering the rest of the questions would certaily be interesting if anyone wants to research them, though would probably require spinning out a separate history article. -- Beland (talk) 07:14, 21 June 2024 (UTC)

Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment

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)

Rocket propellant

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)

@OsamaBinLogin: The paper cited in the Methane#Mars section mentions that the same process produces both CH₄ and O₂. The carbon from CO₂ goes to the methane, and there's plenty of oxygen from that and the water that hydrogen is pulled from. I've added a clarification to the article. -- Beland (talk) 07:25, 21 June 2024 (UTC)

VESPR Geometry Problem?

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)

@Jemoka: Hmm, yeah, it definitely depends on how skilled the reader is at interpreting these diagrams. I'm afraid the link above is broken for me. -- Beland (talk) 07:40, 21 June 2024 (UTC)

Inconsistent - 2015 to 2019 sharp rise

The figure in sub section Atmospheric methane seems to be inconsistent with this statement in the same sub section:

"From 2015 to 2019 sharp rises in levels of atmospheric methane have been recorded."

The rate of increase seems to have been roughly constant since 2007.

--Mortense (talk) 13:32, 26 July 2019 (UTC)

@Mortense: The claim is referenced; what source are you looking at to arrive at that conclusion? -- Beland (talk) 07:29, 21 June 2024 (UTC)

Instability

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)

@Jokem: What scale are you referring to? -- Beland (talk) 07:33, 21 June 2024 (UTC)