‘Exploding’ Lake Could Kill Millions Or Power The Country For 100 Years

The lake’s lethal combination of methane and carbon dioxide has residents fearing for their lives, but it’s also the country’s most vital and promising energy source.

Rwanda‘s Lake Kivu is one of the world’s three “exploding lakes” and is at serious risk of “overturn”, a process whereby huge amounts of carbon dioxide are released from under its surface, suffocating everyone in the surrounding areas. According to The Guardian, Rwandans are now systematically removing the gases from the lake in order to supply massive amounts of electricity to the country for the next 100 years. It’s not really a sustainable solution, but what the heck, Rwanda currently only supplies electricity to one in 14 houses.

The Guardian states: “Some scientists say that the ever-expanding volumes of carbon dioxide and methane in Lake Kivu, coupled with the nearby volcanic activity, make a limnic eruption (also referred to as a lake overturn, in which CO2 suddenly erupts from the lake) highly likely at some stage in the future unless degassing occurs. This has now begun with the extraction of some of the 60 billion cubic metres of methane in the water.”

Two lakes previous overturned in nearby Cameroon, which killed 1800 people. But Lake Kivu is 2000 times larger and thus presents a disaster threat of monstrous proportions, given that the area is also more densely populated.

No better description of a double-edged sword – give power to millions or let everyone die?

Images courtesy Nasa

Fast Company empowers innovators to challenge convention and create the future of business.

Discuss

(8 Comments)
  • [–]

    Todd

    Friday, August 20, 2010 at 9:51 AM

    You require more vespene gas!

    • [–]

      Shane Perry

      Friday, August 20, 2010 at 11:26 AM

      even if you don’t, you still do.

  • [–]

    matt

    Friday, August 20, 2010 at 10:09 AM

    lol, I just love how every avenue for energy (possibly the most positive thing in our lives), also inevitably could kill lots of people in horrible ways.

    • [–]

      Stefan

      Friday, August 20, 2010 at 8:53 PM

      yeah except solar, doesnt really have the same bang as a nuclear explosion XD

  • [–]

    Pedant

    Friday, August 20, 2010 at 10:36 AM

    I think you need to check your definition of “a double-edged sword”. A double-edged sword implies that there is both a positive and negative outcome to an action.

    In this case it is positive-positive, as the risk of overrun (catastrophic event) is reduced by tapping off the methane for power generation. Everyone wins, even the environment as the otherwise naturally released methane gas would contribute to global warming.

    Just saying…

    • [–]

      Bern

      Friday, August 20, 2010 at 11:33 AM

      It’s not that the methane will contribute to global warming, but that it will contribute to global warming more than the CO2 produced by burning it.

      As an overturning event will release that carbon anyway, then burning it off gradually over a long period could be considered to be ‘greenhouse neutral’, or even ‘greenhouse negative’, despite it being a ‘fossil fuel’ type source. The only question is when the overturning might occur. If it wouldn’t happen for another 1000 years, then burning the methane now is not good, on top of the 30-odd billion tons of CO2 we’re currently dumping into the atmosphere every year.

  • [–]

    Anthony Tam

    Friday, August 20, 2010 at 11:27 AM

    Insufficient vespene gas!

  • [–]

    pan.sapiens

    Saturday, August 21, 2010 at 4:17 AM

    From what I remember, there is serious concern that gas extraction could TRIGGER “lake overturn” at Lake Kivu, especially given that safety and environmental standards aren’t exactly world class in Rwanda.

Join The Discussion