Could a nuke ignite sub-surface methane?

  • Thread starter Thread starter rockhouse
  • Start date Start date
  • Tags Tags
    Methane Nuke
Click For Summary

Discussion Overview

The discussion centers around the hypothetical scenario of using a nuclear weapon to address the BP oil leak and the potential for igniting sub-surface methane. Participants explore the feasibility of ignition, the conditions required for combustion, and the consequences of such an event, touching on both theoretical and practical implications.

Discussion Character

  • Exploratory
  • Debate/contested
  • Technical explanation

Main Points Raised

  • One participant questions whether a nuclear explosion could ignite methane at the BP leak, acknowledging the complexity of the situation.
  • Another participant notes that combustion generally requires oxygen, which is typically absent in sub-surface environments.
  • A follow-up suggests the possibility of pockets of seawater containing oxygen that could somehow facilitate ignition, although the participant expresses uncertainty about the physics involved.
  • A different perspective proposes an alternative method involving a large bag to contain the leak, suggesting it could be a short-term solution without addressing ignition directly.
  • One participant asserts that a nuclear explosion would not ignite the methane due to the lack of oxygen but warns that the heat could melt methane hydrate, potentially releasing gas that might ignite at the surface if a flame source is present.

Areas of Agreement / Disagreement

Participants express differing views on the possibility of igniting sub-surface methane, with some arguing against it due to the absence of oxygen, while others speculate on alternative conditions that might allow for ignition. The discussion remains unresolved regarding the overall feasibility and implications of using a nuclear device in this context.

Contextual Notes

The discussion highlights limitations in understanding the specific conditions under which combustion could occur, the role of oxygen in ignition, and the potential consequences of melting methane hydrates. There are also unresolved assumptions about the effectiveness of alternative solutions proposed.

rockhouse
Messages
42
Reaction score
0
I'm not sure if this is the right spot for this question...if not could the mods move it please?

If a nuke was used on the BP leak, would there be a chance that it could ignite the methane?
I know there's lots of variables and factors but, if it was possible to ignite it, what's the chance of that happening? And if it did ignite huge pockets of methane, what would happen down there?
This whole BP leak thing is tragic...but interesting too.
 
Earth sciences news on Phys.org
Burning generally requires oxygen.
Sub surface is generally lacking in air.
 
^Yeah, i was just wondering if pockets of sea water containing oxygen could be under the surface and could ignite somehow.
I'm not real keen on the physics of it all.
 
An old practice for large bullet wounds when medical supplies are not handy is to insert a 'tampon' into the wound.

As it absorbs the blood, it expands to conform to the shape of the wound, preventing excessive bleeding very quickly.

It seems like something along the same principle might work in this case.

A rather large 'bag' could be inserted into the flow area. It could contain a pipe with a remotely controlled 'cap'.

The bag is expanded with water or such.

The pipe would serve a couple functions. One, it could be used to get the bag into place. Two, it could be used to relieve some of the pressure when needed.

I can foresee that it would need to be a rather tough bag so that it doesn't get torn by rocks or such.

But it seems like it might work as a short term solution.


Kevin Randolph
 
A nuke would not ignite the sub-sea methane as no oxygen would be available to support combustion. However a more damaging event could occur if the heat released would melt the methane hydrate bed causing a huge gas bubble to rise to the surface and ignite on the surface if a flame source were available. In any case a large quantity of greenhouse gas would be released to the atmosphere (either CH4 or CO2).
 

Similar threads

  • · Replies 40 ·
2
Replies
40
Views
7K
  • · Replies 7 ·
Replies
7
Views
2K
  • · Replies 34 ·
2
Replies
34
Views
9K
  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
2K
Replies
12
Views
6K
  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
4K
  • · Replies 49 ·
2
Replies
49
Views
30K
Replies
14
Views
10K
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
2K
Replies
3
Views
9K