Skip to content

Hydragas Energy – Extracting Methane from Water for Clean Energy

Year: 2021

  • Media: Publications, News & Press Articles

    Media: Publications, News & Press Articles

    Hydragas Publications, Papers & Videos

    1.  Nature Journal:  How dangerous is Africa’s explosive Lake Kivu? (nature.com)

    2.  GeExpro: A Long Road to Lake Kivu’s Potential https://assets.geoexpro.com/uploads/d6cfbd51-014a-4dc8-ac26-325b6a0364f3/Geoscience_Magazine_GEO_ExPro_v18i5_web%20v2.pdf

    3. Substack by Mose Jordan March 2024: https://medium.com/@mosesolutions/the-new-trillion-dollar-energy-source-035de9dd955a

    4. Substack by Philip Morkel December 2023:https://philipmorkel.substack.com/p/will-an-african-great-lake-kill-millions

    5. The Bureau of Investigative Journalism, October 2024: Corruption in the Award of DRC Gas Blocks in 2023 – Feedback. https://www.thebureauinvestigates.com/stories/2024-10-14/drc-calls-off-oil-and-gas-auction-following-allegations-of-backroom-deals

    6. Rwanda’s New Policy Direction on Sustainable Energy Generation February 2025 https://www.newtimes.co.rw/article/24156/news/energy/a-breakdown-of-rwandas-new-policy-on-sustainable-energy-generation 

    Our Mission

    Stay Connected

    Subscribe to our newsletter to stay informed about our latest publications, news, and press articles. Be the first to know about our new projects, breakthroughs, and achievements that contribute to climate impact solutions. Join us in our mission to harness the hydrosphere as a clean energy source and build a sustainable future for generations to come.

    Our Location

    123 Main Street, Anytown, USA
    Find Us

    Our Location

    123 Main Street, Anytown, USA
    Find Us
  • Recognition as a Top 1000 Climate Solution takes a lot of Proof

    Recognition as a Top 1000 Climate Solution takes a lot of Proof

    Does Hydragas have a Top 1000 Climate Solution?

    Applying for Accreditation

    The back-and-forth process that it takes to apply for accrediation as a Top 1000 Climate Solution is lengthy. Inevitably there is a lot of checking of facts and assumptions. After a prior exchange on an experts opinion on whether the gas in Lake Kivu is “fossil” or “renewable”, the first call was that “it must be fossil”. Fortunately the point was conceded with further evidence we provided. 

    It is a concern, almost at an alarming level, how easily experts can torpedo an application for a start-up’s funding with VCs. Some admit to taking seconds to dismiss some applications. I have seen some risible bloopers, posting them in a rogue’s gallery I keep for posterity. I would say the level of due diligence for this organisation is a number of steps higher on the ladder, but not completely infallible.

    There are quick and easy opinions out there that can snag a competition entry. Just the word “methane” invokes a negative reaction. As an Olympic sport it would attract the high-jumpers among the leaping-to-conclusions competitors. Fortunately, we’re over that obstacle, but more evaluators are waiting in ambush. 

    Another Batch of Questions

    A couple of them arrived today in a follow-up.

    “The two Experts saw a lot of merit in your Solution and highlighted both social and environmental benefits potentially arising from your Solution. They were very complementary of the level of detail and quantity of information which you had included in your application.

    “However, several comments were raised by the Experts about some key uncertainties about the future of your Solution. In particular, this related to the plan for the re-injection of CO2 into the lake, and the re-use of the CO2. The Experts felt that more time is needed for your Solution to develop and grow, allowing for a plan for these two points to be developed and implemented. Points were also raised about the need for more clarity on the scalability of your Solution, given that this is applied in a very specific context and is still at an early stage in development. 

    Scalability of Solutions is a vital component of the Solar Impulse Label, as we seek Solutions which can be applied in multiple contexts and where a clear plan is in place to expand and grow Solutions beyond the region/country where they are from. Given the ambitious nature of your project, concerns were raised that the project needs to be further along in its development before certainty can be given about its suitability for the Label.”

    Lake Kivu on a calm day, overlooking the volcano

    How do you carefully respond to a high-stakes question?

    In respect of the two areas of remaining concern to SIF, we are pursuing more detailed solutions to both concerns. While we accept that it may take some months to resolve more detail to those questions, we have developed concepts to deal with them. Here is a pair of answers I put forward, not in detail with proof, but an introductory summary of what will come:

    CO2 Disposition

    • Of all the experts that have been involved with the science and engineering of Kivu’s safety solution, Hydragas has paid more attention to the CO2 component than any others. You can’t resolve one without the other. We did a detailed mass balance of the CO2 within the lake during the extraction process and where it goes once extracted. Being a chemical engineer, I generally find that a thorough mass and energy balance exposes the deeper truths of what’s going on in an inarguable way. 

    • It was on this basis that two of us, both chemical engineers on the Expert Group, convinced the rest of the group how the lake gas inventory should be managed more effectively.The two US-based developers now using and building on the lake now have solutions with potentially dire consequences for lake stability. They displace huge volumes of CO2 into shallow water and out of the lake with their produced gas, which is nearly 50% CO2. We correct those issues quite dramatically, consigning most of the CO2. 

    • We are developing options to balance the CO2 in the lake over time by exporting CO2 to industries that convert it to protein or ethanol, or a new and efficient way to use it to accelerate plant growth in greenhouses. This graphic shows a summary of the complexity of potential CO2 disposition. It was done as part of my work with the Expert Group. 

    • We wanted to show mass balance issues in removing gases from the lake occur when the method is problematic. We can resolve and optimize the solution to this issue very neatly with our know how. We aim to demonstrate that with the project we intend to build as soon as possible. Once we can fund a larger engineering team, the updates and data will be completed quickly and efficiently. 

    Carbon Dioxide Balance in Lake Kivu for an extraction method

    A Top 1000 Climate Solution knows where the CO2 goes
    A simulation over time of CO2 distribution, based on flows from all sources

    Scalability of our Solution

    I was discussing this very point with investors this morning. There should not be too much concern with TAM as a target for our scalability, mainly from one salient point:

    The amount of methane dissolved in water globally (including methane in hydrates) exceeds the hydrocarbon energy content of all known (past and future) fossil fuels, including natural gas, oil, and coal. The resource is enormous.

    This was not my view, but that of the USGS and other research institutions. There is more data available on where all the CO2 in the world resides, showing a simple deduction:

    A corollary is that the amount of CO2 dissolved in water exceeds the amount in gaseous form in the atmosphere by a huge margin too. 

    How Big is the Problem?

    Both CH4 and CO2 are present in Lake Kivu and are present in millions of times greater quantities in other lakes and oceans. If exploited (this is not our aim, nor is it as economic to pursue scattered pockets of gas hydrates) gas from water bodies could dwarf the oil and gas industry.

    So why are these dissolved gas issues not demanding a huge amount of your attention? They are temporarily sequestrated in water, but how permanent is that as a solution? The warning signs are out, climate change is breaking the fragile stability. These hydrates and their gas content are liable to escape in certain locations as they are in the warming Arctic already, on land, and from the oceans. 10,000 gigatons are at risk of emission with global warming, 5,000 times more than gas from Kivu.

    An Absence of Solutions

    Since there are virtually no known solutions like ours to manage the threat from dissolved gases effectively, we have a problem. These resources are present globally in quantities millions of times larger than Lake Kivu’s gas resource in situ. If SIF wants to identify the availability of essential solutions for Climate Impact, then compare it to the many wind, solar, and a host of energy efficiency and storage technologies. These all have a role in limiting carbon impact but are readily available and abundant. SIF has recognised many of them as they have important. They are mature solutions in many cases and optimizing.

    But what of solutions for managing or stabilizing CH4 and CO2 emissions from water in the lakes and oceans? It’s a giant problem that’s barely getting any attention. It’s a new field. It’s part of why we seek recognition as a Top 1000 Climate Solution. 

    So to answer, do we have an opportunity to scale up and improve CO2 disposition? Are we a valid Top 1000 Climate Solution?

    Yes, we do. Can we? Yes, we can. Will we? That’s our mission, but it’s too big a problem to resolve on our own without large-scale funding from DFIs, and a large team, and hopefully SIF’s help too. Kivu is a microcosm of the problem, but its solutions provide a pathway to resolving much of that gigantic but unaddressed gas-in-water issue. The unfortunate thing is that it’s virtually and practically invisible out in the Arctic oceans and the tundra. It needs attention. We’re giving it all of ours.

     

    Gas extraction Pilot Test on Lake Kivu
  • Efficient Solutions: Hydragas’ Impact on Renewable Energy and Environmental Preservation

    Efficient Solutions: Hydragas’ Impact on Renewable Energy and Environmental Preservation

    Recognising 1000 Solutions

    A Cleantech Accelerator I completed prompted me to seek recognition for Hydragas. In fact, I had to read up on who qualifies for this label, awarded in recognition for top renewable energy solutions. It is a global recognition judged by the Solar Impulse Foundation (SIF) in Switzerland. Indeed to qualify, SIF must find you worthy of inclusion in their list. Their search was to end when they find 1000 Solutions that are worthy enough to help save the planet, but they have extended the search.

    The label is inspired by Bertrand Piccard’s historic flight of the SolarImpulse. As with his SolarImpulse flight, circumnavigating the globe under solar power only, it’s an ongoing process that has a worthy cause and a mission. Following the mission demonstrates the sort of commitment that characterised his approach to that venture. As a legacy, the SolarImpulse Foundation will recognise hard work, innovation, and commitment to the same cause.

    “Bertrand dedicates his life to demonstrating the opportunities lying in sustainable development and to raising interest in profitable solutions to protect the environment. He is a pioneer of new ways of thinking that reconcile ecology and economy, and uses his exploration feats to motivate governments and industries to take action.“

    Lake Kivu on a calm day, overlooking the volcano

    Does the Foundation seek out your Solution?

    Chances are the SolarImpulse Foundation wouldn’t be able to find you as a start-up. So to get around that, who discovers who qualifies for this label? Likely as not, you are in an under-funded start-up, with no PR budget. But by contrast to start-ups, listed Solution owners include giant corporations with big budgets. If it is a concern that big players dominate the list, the foundation appears to want to take care of that. At least they should.

    But it’s not enough to just ask for or to expect this recognition. Indeed, there is a prescribed application process to follow. It filters through a process to see if one created a solution of interest. If this meets their criteria, it is still further verified by their experts in the appropriate field.

    The adjudication process follows your completed application. This application form starts with information requirements, detailed data, reports, publications, and references by request. The completed application is forwarded to selected experts to scrutinize your submission of scientific material, based on their broader knowledge and category expertise. After scrutiny, experts eventually get their opportunity to interrogate your submittal. It’s akin to defending an academic thesis.

    I expect that their inquiry will be challenging. I say that I expect to be challenged, even with 10,000 hours of R&D on this topic under my belt. We know that the science behind it is complex, and often in dispute. It’s a common cause that it is not settled science. It’s a fast-changing field of developing theories and data discovery, with few subject-matter experts and many opinions. There is too little global experience on lakes like this one. More specific than that, Lake Kivu may just be the only one like this on Earth.

    Can we be one who qualifies for this label?

    “Our Solar Impulse Label awards efficient, clean, and profitable solutions with a positive impact on the environment and quality of life.“

    We sincerely hope that it is us who qualifies for this label. Indeed, the Foundation’s recognition of this as one of 1000 Solutions would give us a right to display this valuable, aspirational label. Therefore we might expect it to give us a credible platform. This helps to attract funding or convince investors. It may also be helpful for governments to assess competitors. Here we can say real experts have checked our claims and validated them. We would wear the label with considerable pride, being part of a select group that takes care of our planet.

    But for us, the greater recognition is what our Solution can do for the community stakeholders. For many of them, these impacts have real significance. It would be more meaningful than the outputs of Hydragas’ biogas recovery and power generation on Lake Kivu. Indeed these stakeholders are the communities, and the countries’ governments for can achieve environmental and safety benefits. The beneficiaries also include the users of the energy, our future investors, and the people employed by our organisation. But what are the positives of these claims? Can we back them up? Are there any negatives?

    How do we measure a meaningful difference?

    Gas recovery from source to end-use
    Gas Recovery from Source to End-user

    Rwanda’s head of the Lake Kivu Monitoring Program, the LKMP, asked this question of us as appointed experts. This was indeed our role in the expert advisory group, through which we offered such support. I had to illustrate the differences that alternate gas extraction methods make to positive engineering and economic outcomes. One has to examine each step of the process of turning the lake’s resource into useful energy. The steps give clarity on how seemingly minor losses cascade into a huge energy loss overall.

    Take the five steps in the above diagram for example:

    • Gas recoverability by Depth Zone: Of 5 zones, 2 have recoverable gas concentrations, while a shallower one has future potential. Most developers have designed to use one, or just half a zone. Hydragas can develop 2, potentially a 3rd. Gas extraction plants’ access to this resource for CH4 capture ranges from 46% to 100%.
    • Gas Plant Recoverability: The diagram shows how incoming CH4 splits up into six possible destinations. Only one output is useful energy. Hydragas’ multi-stage process gets 89% of the raw gas into the useful energy output.
    • Parasitic Power Losses: Legacy extraction plant uses too high a proportion of gas output to generate onboard power. This powers pumps and compressors, with legacy plants requiring 20-50%. By contrast, Hydragas’ extraction process uses just 2-6% for parasitic power production on board.
    • Generation Losses: Gas quality and pressure dictate which generation equipment one can use. Higher quality determines the use of higher-efficiency equipment. Legacy plants produce low-quality gas so engines operate at 33-41% efficiency. High-quality gas enables the use of 45-61% power plant efficiency.
    • Resource Degradation: The lake density structure breaks down with badly designed equipment and poor operational practices. The outcome is expected to cut the harvest period from 50 years, by up to 50%. The lake’s density structure’s ability to trap gas weakens over time. A weak trap allows gas to escape into shallow strata, where it is unrecoverable.
    • Total Losses Impact: Each outcome of the five steps seems modest. But multiplying them out shows our best competitor only delivers 10% of in-situ energy as power. Hydragas deliver either 35% (gas engines) or 51% (combined-cycle gas turbines).

    Positive impacts: will they make the list of who qualifies for this Label?

    Our view is that positive impacts decide who qualifies for this label. Here are our impacts:

    • We prevent an eruption that puts 2-5 million lives at risk from the emitted toxic gas cloud;
    • Our 89% recovery is far higher than the net outputs of any competitor;
    • Higher complete methane removal from the lake delays future gas build-up and eruption by centuries;
    • Methane removal increases the carbon capture and storage (CCS) capacity of the lake by 4 – 5 x to about 5 gigatons;
    • Generates 5 – 7 x more net power output to grid than any competitor;
    • Our gas extraction is 100% MPs compliant (the rules for safe gas recovery);
    • Reduces cost of power to the grid by 50-60%, compared to displaced diesel power;
    • The region’s total fossil fuel imports, including diesel and HFO, can be cut by about 50% – mostly in power generation;
    • Equatorial deforestation can be reversed by providing a new, cheaper, and more convenient cooking fuel;
    • Gas can replace wood fuel or charcoal, supplying it by pipeline. See the NASA picture below for deforestation evidence;
    • The value of energy produced from Lake Kivu increases by 400%, to $50 B over 50 years, excluding carbon offsets;
    • Per capita GDP impact, for 20 M people regionally, may improve by 15-25%.
     

    NASA Satellite view of Lake Kivu. Deforestation has decimated the equatorial forest in search of energy.

    NASA Satellite photo of Lake Kivu, in Central Africa