[HN Gopher] NASA finds super-emitters of methane
___________________________________________________________________
NASA finds super-emitters of methane
Author : walterbell
Score : 728 points
Date : 2022-11-01 20:38 UTC (1 days ago)
(HTM) web link (www.smithsonianmag.com)
(TXT) w3m dump (www.smithsonianmag.com)
| idiotsecant wrote:
| Another example of why we need the 'regulation' that is so
| demonized.
| stetrain wrote:
| Hmm but if we make businesses do something that is not the most
| short-term profitable choice, then the shareholders may not be
| able to extract maximum value!
| ch4s3 wrote:
| This isn't a very good take. Business leaders are generally
| fine with reasonable regulations that are evenly applied and
| easy to comply with. The operations out there spewing methane
| are essentially free riding, and their competitors who don't
| do that probably want better enforcement. Obviously this
| isn't universally applicable to all conceivable regulations,
| but its true enough in this case.
| ohbtvz wrote:
| I personally don't care in any way about what business
| leaders are comfortable with. Our planet is burning. They
| should be uncomfortable.
| ch4s3 wrote:
| My point is that businesses aren't even necessarily
| against this kind of regulation. The reality is that
| controlling methane requires a lot of unsexy
| followthrough and monitoring, and international deal
| making. This is a political failure.
| rootusrootus wrote:
| We need it at the worldwide level, which is especially
| difficult.
| themitigating wrote:
| Not if you use force
| cowtools wrote:
| it is strictly impossible to establish a one-world
| government through force, at least given our current
| technology.
|
| If a country has the army of robots needed to make it
| happen, then you have two problems.
| steve_taylor wrote:
| It's impossible to establish a one-world government
| without force.
| lazide wrote:
| Good luck doing that on renewables and positive vibes!
| themitigating wrote:
| We can sacrifice for the greater good.
| lazide wrote:
| That 'we' sure is carrying a lot of weight. From the
| context of this thread, it seems likely most of the
| sacrifice would be from folks in Turkmenistan, who would
| be told to change at the point of a gun no? Likely
| leading to a non trivial death count from violence or
| starvation.
|
| I'm pretty sure you didn't ask them if they were Ok with
| that sacrifice.
|
| To quote C.S. Lewis - " Of all tyrannies, a tyranny
| exercised for the good of its victims may be the most
| oppressive. It may be better to live under robber barons
| than under omnipotent moral busybodies. The robber
| baron's cruelty may sometimes sleep, his cupidity may at
| some point be satiated; but those who torment us for our
| own good will torment us without end for they do so with
| the approval of their own conscience. They may be more
| likely to go to Heaven yet at the same time likelier to
| make a Hell of earth."
| themitigating wrote:
| In a democracy the population is responsible for voting
| in the government.
|
| In a dictatorship the population is responsible for not
| overthrowing the government.
| lazide wrote:
| You're still being incredibly vague on who you expect to
| sacrifice and how for the course of action you propose.
|
| Mind giving more than platitudes?
| themitigating wrote:
| I'm sorry. Let me throw out the hypotheticals in my head
| and these are not based on any real situation.
|
| 1. What if a small Eastern European country created a
| large nuclear reactor but didn't care about safety
| meaning that the probability of a meltdown that would
| effect Europe was X percentage. At what value of X is it
| acceptable to invade assuming all other methods of
| persuasion have been attempted.
|
| 2. If a country is polluting Y amounts of something that
| increases global warming by X and all methods of
| persuasion have stopped is invasion ever justified at
| some values of X and Y. You are considering the
| probability of and level of suffering of two events.
|
| A. The invasion B. The suffering caused by environmental
| damage.
|
| There has to be some conditions in which it is morally
| justified to invade a country
| lazide wrote:
| Considering Russia did #1 in Chernobyl and all they got
| was their own (well Ukraine's) land irradiated and a lot
| of strongly worded letters, the bar is practically a lot
| higher than you seem to think it should be.
| hackerlight wrote:
| Worldwide treaty to impose import duty carbon tax based on
| average country-level per-capita emissions. So exports
| coming out of Australia or Canada would cost the most.
| These two countries lose their international competitive
| advantage. Companies in these countries get angry at their
| local government. Local government acts to reduce
| emissions.
|
| A nice thing about this is it doesn't even punish poorer
| countries that much, despite the fact that they haven't
| transitioned as quickly as richer countries. Because
| they're poor, their economic activity is lower and they
| don't generate as much emissions, so the import duty would
| be lower.
| guelo wrote:
| Instead of the geopolitically-driven western trade regime we
| have today we should be basing trade relations on
| environmental standards.
| stetrain wrote:
| Yes, but that shouldn't prevent us from implementing it where
| we can first.
| Alupis wrote:
| Not if all your efforts are wasted because other nations
| won't follow in-step or do not care.
|
| This isn't grade school were trying your hardest gets you
| an 'A' for the day... in reality trying your hardest and
| failing is still failure.
|
| The US could do all the magical things and net zero
| emissions next year and it won't matter one bit. That's
| just reality... without a globally concerted effort, it's
| all just waste.
|
| But I realize there is a non-trivial amount of folks that
| believe doing _something_ , _anything_ is better than
| nothing - even if it is not logical and has no beneficial
| outcome.
|
| Perhaps we should put those energies into productive means
| of solving the problem instead of emotionally "feel-good"
| solutions. Why does developing countries use dirty energy
| production? What can we do to make it cheaper to use
| renewables instead? Can we make biodegradable plastics more
| attractive than traditional plastics? That's just
| scratching the surface...
| titzer wrote:
| So sick of hearing this. It's a leaky ship. You gotta
| plug _all_ the holes. Arguing about the order is _losing
| time_.
| llsf wrote:
| I would disagree, in this case, we have a combination of
| 2 issues:
|
| 1. Climate change due to CO2/etc. emissions
|
| 2. Fossil fuel (oil/gas/coal) peak
|
| Even if we do not care about climate change, as fossil
| fuel addicts, any decline of fossil fuel production would
| be catastrophic for the world wide economy.
|
| So, in this race to avoid fossil fuel, the sooner you are
| out of it, the more resilient you will be when pumping
| oil/gas/coal would be too expensive.
|
| Capturing all those methane gas, if not for the climate,
| but for usage is good for the national security.
| hackerlight wrote:
| Nirvana fallacy. Your efforts aren't wasted if others
| don't follow suit. A partial solution is better than no
| solution. At the least you're buying the world a few
| extra years to figure it out.
|
| Also, being the leader makes it easier for other
| countries to follow suit. Every country has a large bloc
| of cynical reactionaries within their borders pointing
| their fingers and saying "why would we do anything if
| other countries aren't?". If _you_ do things first, you
| disarm that narrative that 's going on in other
| countries, which makes it easier for their progressives
| to get change done locally.
| Alupis wrote:
| The "problem" countries are not going to start setting up
| wind farms just because the US can do it. These countries
| are burning coal for a reason... it's exceedingly cheap.
|
| Make something else exceedingly cheap and they will use
| it. Anything else is just a distraction and made to make
| you feel good at night while not accomplishing anything
| significant.
| hackerlight wrote:
| Firstly, many poor countries are doing some of that. Look
| at China. They don't like being covered in smog all the
| time and the respiratory problems that creates.
|
| Secondly, the cost curves are decreasing for a reason.
| It's because of investment in these technologies by
| richer countries. The richer countries pave the way by
| making the technology so cheap that it's irresistible and
| a better deal to poor countries. The way you make it
| cheap is by funding the transition yourself. The cost
| decreases naturally follow as part of R&D.
|
| Thirdly, rich countries _should_ subsidize the energy
| transition of poor countries. They 've emitted much more
| than poor countries per capita since the Industrial
| Revolution, so a de-facto retroactive carbon tax to fund
| poor countries' transition on an expedited timeline is
| only fair.
| Alupis wrote:
| > Firstly, many poor countries are doing some of that.
| Look at China.
|
| China is far from a poor country... by some measurements
| they outpace even the US.
|
| > Secondly, the cost curves are decreasing for a reason
|
| This is true - however we also need to recognize the
| technology is not ready today. It might be tomorrow, but
| throwing everything out and going full-in on green tech
| today is foolhardy. Some prominent states in the US
| already struggle to keep electricity on year round... how
| on earth can we expect new tech to not only do better but
| be cheaper in that environment? What chance do developing
| nations have if the wealthiest nations cannot solve this
| already?
|
| > Thirdly, rich countries should subsidize the energy
| transition of poor countries
|
| I agree on some level. However I do not agree with
| pushing unproven technology just because it makes us feel
| good day. That will just burn developing nations and make
| them less likely to trust us next time we come up with
| some amazing new solution to all their problems...
| stetrain wrote:
| Who is throwing out non-green power? My electricity in
| the US comes from majority gas and coal as it ever has.
|
| To make a significant change over 20-50 years requires
| big investments now. Making those investments does not
| mean we are throwing away everything else immediately.
| Alupis wrote:
| I don't know what state you're in, but California is
| really struggling with this at the moment.
|
| You can get green energy as-is (from your utility), but
| it's at a premium. Which means most don't opt-in for it.
|
| This is going on while the state already struggles to
| keep itself energized year round. The current state of
| green energy will only exasperate California's problems,
| since storage tech still has a lot of catching up to do.
| stetrain wrote:
| Is the root cause of California's energy issue because
| they are shutting down non-green energy production?
| Alupis wrote:
| One could make a pretty darn strong case the root of
| California's energy issue is because they've refused to
| build anything except "green" energy production
| facilities, despite current-day needs.
|
| No new hydro-electric dams in my lifetime. No new nuclear
| reactors (that I'm aware of at least) in my lifetime.
| Just either status-quo, or gobbles of unproven renewable
| tech that has yet to actually live up to expectations
| (affordable, always available renewable-power).
|
| People like to throw around big numbers showing CA's
| increased production over the years... but they don't
| throw around storage capacity which is really what
| matters for renewables. There is no storage capacity to
| speak of...
| stetrain wrote:
| I would consider both hydro-electric and nuclear to be
| beneficial power sources if both local air quality and
| global climate effects are the primary factors.
|
| I hear you that some "green" initiatives are poorly
| targeted but I don't think that means we should hit the
| brakes on regulating the things that are known climate
| issues (ie excess methane releases) or investment in
| improving our grid emissions.
| Schroedingersat wrote:
| So california brought online 30GW of gas since 2000, and
| it's the 5GW net of renewables that's the problem?
|
| Sounds like the issue is the fossil fuel lobby. Weird
| that delaying new renewables by a decade to build new
| nuclear or hydro aligns exactly with their interests.
| hackerlight wrote:
| > This is true - however we also need to recognize the
| technology is not ready today. It might be tomorrow, but
| throwing everything out and going full-in on green tech
| today is foolhardy.
|
| It is ready today. Look at Denmark. It's more expensive
| than coal but it's cheaper if you factor in the
| externalities, and it's cheaper than nuclear. Therefore,
| it's ready. Also, your second sentence is a non-sequitur.
| If it really was true that it wasn't ready, that's all
| the more reason to throw even more money at it in order
| to figure out how to make it ready.
|
| > That will just burn developing nations and make them
| less likely to trust us next time we come up with some
| amazing new solution to all their problems...
|
| How are you burning developing nations by subsidizing
| their energy such that they are financially better off
| doing it than not doing it? This reasoning does not make
| sense.
| Alupis wrote:
| > It's more expensive than coal but it's cheaper if you
| factor in the externalities
|
| Developing nations _do not care_ about your supposed
| externalities. Caring about these things is a luxury they
| cannot afford in the literal sense.
|
| > and it's cheaper than nuclear.
|
| This is almost entirely the fault of deliberately
| crushing regulation... but that's a political choice not
| a technical one.
|
| > Therefore, it's ready
|
| Hardly. Nobody as-of yet has developed a reasonably
| priced, long-lived and efficient means of storage.
| Without this missing key, all the wind farms in the world
| will not keep the lights on when the wind doesn't blow...
|
| > This reasoning does not make sense.
|
| You'd have burned them pretty badly if you compelled them
| to install solar even 10 years ago because of how
| inefficient it was compared to other cheaper means of
| energy production. Even in the past 10 years solar tech
| has come so very far... that is my point about it not
| being ready yet. We still have a long ways to go in
| renewables before they can realistically replace energy
| production in mandatory environments, ie. environments
| that don't have the luxury of trying out new expensive
| unproven tech and changing it as the technology develops.
| Schroedingersat wrote:
| > Developing nations do not care about your supposed
| externalities. Caring about these things is a luxury they
| cannot afford in the literal sense.
|
| Then _WE_ (the west) pay for the cost to eliminate the
| externalities. We will pay for them either way and the
| only reason they can 't afford it is we stole all their
| shit.
|
| > You'd have burned them pretty badly if you compelled
| them to install solar even 10 years ago because of how
| inefficient it was compared to other cheaper means of
| energy production. Even in the past 10 years solar tech
| has come so very far... that is my point about it not
| being ready yet.
|
| Utter nonsense. Slap in a combined CSP + PV station and
| call it done. Where >50% of the people live it's more
| reliable than coal or nuclear, the marginal costs stay in
| the local economy rather than going to rio tinto and
| paying half (unconditionally, no loan) costs
| significantly less than the externalities that reach us
| from a coal plant.
|
| There are areas where this doesn't work, but 1 coal, 1
| wind, and 2 solar is cheaper than 2 coal, and having ~2
| units of constant power and 1 unit of intermittent has
| more uses than 2 units of constant.
| hackerlight wrote:
| Developing nations don't need to care about externalities
| if wealthy countries subsidized their transition. I also
| note that we've pivoted from "problem countries", which I
| assumed to mean large countries like China or India,
| which themselves are fairly poor on a per-capita basis,
| to exclusively extremely poor countries, which excludes
| China and India probably because it's inconvenient for
| the narrative that they're transitioning by themselves.
|
| > Nobody as-of yet has developed a reasonably priced,
| long-lived and efficient means of storage
|
| You don't need storage to get the grid to 80%+
| renewables. Storage as a blocker is a political talking
| point that is not substantiated and not true. Denmark is
| the case study that shows why. Also, storage costs are
| linear decreasing on a log scale.
|
| > You'd have burned them pretty badly if you compelled
| them to install solar even 10 years ago because of how
| inefficient it was compared to other cheaper means of
| energy production. Even in the past 10 years solar tech
| has come so very far... that is my point about it not
| being ready yet. We still have a long ways to go in
| renewables before they can realistically replace energy
| production in mandatory environments, ie. environments
| that don't have the luxury of trying out new expensive
| unproven tech and changing it as the technology develops.
|
| You're repeating the same things that I've already
| addressed. You're not "burning" poor countries if you're
| paying for it. You can't "burn" a country by making them
| financially better off. It is not a logically coherent
| point. Also, the tech _is_ proven -- in actual practice,
| in reality, today, already implemented -- after you
| factor in the costs of externalities. And that picture
| will only get better and better as more money flows into
| R &D and the cost curve continues to decline as a direct
| consequence of that funding.
| xmonkee wrote:
| "The United States accounts for only about five percent
| of global population, but is responsible for 30 percent
| of global energy use and 28 percent of carbon emissions."
|
| https://www.eesi.org/articles/view/u.s.-leads-in-
| greenhouse-...
| oceanplexian wrote:
| And the USA is responsible for something like 25% of the
| world's GDP. So, the USA is much more efficient at per-
| capita economic output than the much of the world. You
| can manipulate statistics to rationalize all kinds of
| viewpoints.
| lmm wrote:
| Um, if you're responsible for 25% of economic production
| but 28-30% of harmful emissions, that doesn't sound like
| you're doing particularly well.
| idiotsecant wrote:
| That seems like a silly way to look at those numbers. It
| doesn't matter particularly how much stuff we make if the
| stuff we make is slowly creating an existential crisis
| for our species. The argument that 'well other people do
| it too' is an excellent way to make sure that nobody ever
| cuts carbon emissions. Someone has to be first, and the
| richest nation on earth is probably a great place to
| start.
| stetrain wrote:
| Well if the options are:
|
| 1) Try to improve what we can and hope others follow.
| Outcomes are either a global improvement in emissions or
| significant adverse climate effects.
|
| 2) Don't do that. Outcome is significant adverse climate
| effects.
|
| What's the argument for choosing 2)?
|
| Okay we might be at an economic advantage for 20, maybe
| 50 years? But then what?
|
| PS: I agree with your last statement. But I don't see how
| reducing excess methane emissions prevents us from
| pursuing those solutions as well. Nor would I categorize
| that as an emotional "feel-good" solution.
| anonymous_sorry wrote:
| To me the obvious solution seems like it would be to
| impose targeted tariffs on imports from countries that do
| not act to reduce greenhouse gas emissions, alongside
| taxes on domestic emissions.
|
| Does this happen? What are the difficulties with it?
| Alupis wrote:
| The countries producing majority of the world's emissions
| are doing so because they are using the cheapest forms of
| energy production available - not because they are evil
| doers or something nefarious.
|
| The only way to convince these nations to "go green" is
| to make green energy cheaper than the alternatives.
| Tariffing goods from these nations will not have the
| desired impact - the nation still needs cheap energy
| production and will not stop just because the US made
| their goods more expensive for it's own citizens.
| anonymous_sorry wrote:
| > The only way to convince these nations to "go green" is
| to make green energy cheaper than the alternatives.
|
| Or make greenhouse gas emissions more expensive.
|
| So you set the tariffs proportionnal to the assessed
| level of greenhouse gas emissions. Set them at a level
| where governments are incentivised to act to reduce the
| tariffs.
| Alupis wrote:
| The tariffs only hurt your own citizens.
|
| The nations that matter for emissions are not going to
| care about US tariffs...
| anonymous_sorry wrote:
| Well, in the same way higher energy costs hurt your own
| citizens, in the short term. But we need the price of
| greenhouse gas emissions to include the externalised
| costs involved, otherwise the market just makes the wrong
| choices.
|
| The measures can be revenue neutral - just reduce other
| taxes by an equivalent amount. Folks will have more
| money, and face higher costs, but will be incented to
| direct their spending to less polluting imports where
| possible.
| kelnos wrote:
| > _The tariffs only hurt your own citizens._
|
| The tariffs hurt the producer country if the cost of
| their imported goods becomes significantly more expensive
| than other sources, because then your own citizens will
| buy other goods. Yes, this does still hurt your own
| citizens, but it also hurts the producer country as well,
| if they can't find a market for their goods.
|
| Of course, this only works if most/all of the significant
| consumer countries all impose similar tariffs. And there
| are hopefully just better ways to achieve what you want.
| anonymous_sorry wrote:
| >Of course, this only works if most/all of the
| significant consumer countries all impose similar
| tariffs.
|
| The problem always seems to be one of international
| action. If we wait for global agreement, I think we're
| screwed. Every time I hear the argument "there's no point
| in us acting while China is building a coal-fired power
| station every nanosecond", I think of this. Half the
| problem is that we're effectively exporting a good
| proportion of our emissions - we can't wash our hands of
| that and use it as an excuse not to clean up our own act
| as well. This seems like the obvious answer to those
| objections to me.
|
| I think this is something that _could_ be designed to
| work incrementally. Obviously the more countries do it
| the better, but every time you increase the cost of
| burning fossil fuels, more marginal renewable energy
| sources become economically viable.
|
| > And there are hopefully just better ways to achieve
| what you want.
|
| It's been a couple of decades and we're still waiting...
| mtlmtlmtlmtl wrote:
| Of course it would matter. Just because it's not a
| solution doesn't mean it wouldn't give the rest of the
| world more time to follow suit.
|
| It's really scary to me how common this kind of false
| dichotomous thinking has become. It's everywhere, in
| politics especially.
| throwawaylinux wrote:
| If regulations make cleaner and more advanced industries
| less competitive, pushing production to cheaper places with
| less regulation and higher emissions intensity of
| production, then that could actually increase CO2 output.
| rootusrootus wrote:
| Perhaps it should not, but it will. Who is going to accept
| heavy regulation when their competition is not so
| encumbered?
| reillyse wrote:
| Lots of countries do this. It just takes leadership.
| Alupis wrote:
| This sounds great and all, but there is no evidence thus
| far to indicate any of the nations that actually matter
| for climate emissions care one bit about your nation's
| leadership.
| reillyse wrote:
| I'm not sure what nation you are referring to. I was also
| not proposing my nation was the leader so I'm confused.
|
| I would say the the US is one of the largest polluters on
| the planet and leadership in the US would change world
| wide pollution levels. Leadership is just that, leading.
| It's very easy for other countries to just point at the
| US and say "they don't practice what they preach, why
| should we do anything". And they are right. Why should
| they do shit when the richest country in the world isn't
| interested in changing their behavior.
| Alupis wrote:
| > I would say the the US is one of the largest polluters
| on the planet and leadership in the US would change world
| wide pollution levels
|
| You might be surprised if you look into this a bit. On a
| Per Capita basis, the US is barely in the top 10.
|
| Regardless, developing nations are not burning coal and
| petroleum because they hate the environment... they need
| cheap energy production - which is currently a failure of
| the green energy movement (ie. there is nothing cheap
| about it, it's a luxury at the moment).
| jiggyjace wrote:
| 'Regulation' is not a solution for countries that do not answer
| to the morals of the West, such as Turkmenistan, China, or
| Russia. Regulation should be demonized, for many situations it
| ends up being a hammer to a screw.
| SXX wrote:
| US, EU, UK and friends are still buy most of China's export
| and no doubt US corporations also capture majority of profits
| from all polluting manufacturing.
| pstuart wrote:
| There's always leading by example, as well as incentivizing
| via aid.
|
| This is not to dismiss the challenge, just that we shouldn't
| avoid hard problems just because they're hard.
| themitigating wrote:
| "Leading by example " having heard that in a long time I
| believe it's called "virtue signaling " now. That should
| tell you how well that would work
| fragmede wrote:
| If the haters had any virtue _to_ signal then they 'd
| just do that instead. You hate the game not the player,
| but that's just because you're* losing it.
|
| * you referrs to people that use that stupid phrase, not
| you
| idiotsecant wrote:
| It's interesting how so much of what we used to consider
| 'being a decent person' is now 'virtue signaling'. It's
| the most cynical, worthless meme to come out of the last
| 50 years and that's saying a lot.
| [deleted]
| BurningFrog wrote:
| To regulate Turkmenistan, you first need to rule it.
| tadfisher wrote:
| Regulation? This is government overreach. NASA isn't part of
| the Department of Justice, so where do they get off scanning my
| methane emissions? They should get a warrant. Before you know
| it, the government will set up cameras to catch speeders.
|
| Also, my gaseous emissions are protected by the First
| Amendment, so not even Twitter can stop them.
| woodpanel wrote:
| As if it needed more nails in the coffin, but the comments here
| are one more such nail for the myth that techies are staunch
| defenders against the surveillance state. Our beloved nerd-org
| NASA breaking new grounds in monitoring citizens, all for the
| right cause - what could possbily go wrong?
| [deleted]
| gryzzly wrote:
| This is why I want to work with GIS based on satellite data.
| Seems like great positive impact.
| DeathArrow wrote:
| >NASA finds super-emitters of methane
|
| I hope EU finds a way to regulate that and add more taxes.
|
| After regulating cow farts, this would be an appropriate
| extension.
| Tepix wrote:
| This whole topic raises a bunch of questions:
|
| - How hard is it to stop these leaks? How expensive?
|
| - If it's relatively cheap and easy, why hasn't it been done in
| the past already?
|
| - How can we excert pressure on emitters like Turkmenistan to
| stop the leaks?
|
| - How long does it take to do this?
|
| - How much of a difference will it make for the climate (and
| perhaps local cancer rates)?
| coffeeshopgoth wrote:
| Companies do have health and safety groups out there working on
| these things. Of course, the bigger the company the slower,
| more inefficient, and incompetent they tend to be. Prices can
| range - some things can be patched, but many times the reason
| for the leak is age and it requires a new piece of equipment.
| So, there you would have permitting to handle, expensing the
| equipment at either the field level or, most likely, well
| level, which would kill the "economic-ness" of said well/well
| pad which never sits well with a company and may make them
| rethink it and just plug the wells - equipment could be low to
| high hundreds of thousands - really depends on the piece and
| size. In terms of frequency, People are fixing these things
| daily, small projects to fieldwide initiatives. In terms of
| someplace like Turkmenistan, anything can be fixed with money.
| In that part of the world, your best bet is financial
| incentive. I mean, it is unethical, but just pay the
| "expediting fee" for the local warlord/mayor/president -
| usually a "donation" to an orphanage or fund that doesn't
| really exist. The cancer rates thing is interesting - the well
| in question is possibly a Marathon well. Their record isn't the
| greatest (Look into Paw Creek, NC and Marathon's "small leak"
| at their terminals there). No scientific data on this at hand,
| but as a person who works in oil and gas and chemicals with an
| oddly high number of friends who have had some type of severe
| cancers, I would say this would be hugely helpful to the
| general public.
| antris wrote:
| Our economic system has no built in incentives to stop these
| leaks. Considering how massive these leaks are, the budget to
| plug them shouldn't be a consideration. We're ruining our
| planet's livability with leaks like this, but since it's not
| profitable for anyone to do anything about it, we won't do it
| until there's enough political will behind it.
| yencabulator wrote:
| > - If it's relatively cheap and easy, why hasn't it been done
| in the past already?
|
| It provided no benefit that the shareholders cared about.
|
| There's a long history of resource-exploitation companies doing
| horrible things to the environment, and conveniently going
| bankrupt when they are near the end of operations. The system
| does not prevent that behavior well enough, nor does it punish
| the people who do it.
| reacharavindh wrote:
| I was looking for a lazy man's view - a map of all the super
| emitters of methane with color gradients or size coded spots. I
| was disappointed that it was purely technical and aimed at those
| who work in the field.
| mmaunder wrote:
| Will be interesting to see how this capability unfolds. They've
| proven this can be done using an instrument not even designed for
| the task. A specialized instrument may be able to detect other
| greenhouse emissions. Imagine the kind of high resolution
| accountability that might be possible. But does the political
| will exist in the US to expose ourselves that way? Our political
| donors that way? Our country as one of the largest emitters?
| ZeroGravitas wrote:
| It's now possible for independant charities to do this:
|
| https://www.methanesat.org/
| micromacrofoot wrote:
| The government would only publicize the emissions that benefit
| us politically, which are likely the primary polluters we
| already know about (China, India, etc).
| hinkley wrote:
| Corporations are multinational. The atmosphere doesn't care
| if that methane plume came from a plant in the US or a US-
| owned plant in Nigeria. Or on an rig in the North Sea.
| micromacrofoot wrote:
| Corporations are multinational, but politics still plays
| favorites.
| motokamaks wrote:
| The Primary polluters are still China and USA. India is a far
| 3rd and emits 50% less CO2 than the USA.
| https://www.statista.com/statistics/271748/the-largest-
| emitt...
| lob_it wrote:
| https://www.euronews.com/green/2021/06/22/ranked-the-
| top-10-...
|
| India can be #1 in most plastic dumped into the oceans.
| We're all #1 in our own special ways :p
| robocat wrote:
| I'm not sure what those figures are for. They list India
| with 126.5 million kg of plastic "dumped", yet the
| Phillipines is #1 with nearly 3x that amount of plastic
| waste going down its rivers into to oceans: 360 million
| kg (3.6 x 10^5 Metric tonnes) of plastic waste according
| to https://www.science.org/doi/10.1126/sciadv.aaz5803
| lob_it wrote:
| In other news, its obvious which region has trash
| problems
| bawolff wrote:
| There are a lot of countries out there, even if the us is
| unwilling to, it would be in the interest of many middle powers
| to do so.
| CarRamrod wrote:
| The history of remote sensing is more or less a 50-year long
| series of events like this:
|
| -Sensor system is designed and launched for specific mission
| goal
|
| -Someone finds an unexpected and important use for the data,
| completely unrelated to the original mission goal
|
| -Eventually a specialized platform for the unexpected use case
| is developed and launched
|
| -Someone finds a new use case for this data
|
| And the process repeats. LANDSAT 1 (formerly ERTS-A) was
| originally conceived to find undiscovered deposits of minerals.
| Turned out it was useful for a hell of a lot more than that.
| mturmon wrote:
| Such as this CO2 measurement, made from a dedicated instrument
| for the last ~8 years: https://ocov2.jpl.nasa.gov/science/
|
| It uses broadly the same technique as in OP -- spectroscopy to
| detect the absorption of sunlight from the presence of that
| particular chemical species. Because the above instrument was
| designed for the purpose, it's much more accurate and able to
| distinguish small variations in CO2, not "just" large plumes.
| rektide wrote:
| A reminder that Bush II redefined NASA's mission statement to
| exclude monitoring & observing the earth.
|
| This is part of a long & still alive political agenda, which,
| best I can tell, attempts to bring apocalypse to this planet.
| There's money to be made now, & even the end of the world is
| not to stop that. Ignorance & fantastical belief outweigh
| reason & observation in much of the political world, & when in
| conflict defunding observability & evidence gathering has been
| alarmingly popular in a vast vast amount of said political
| world.
|
| Heavens only knows how much more we'd know (and how much
| ealier) if this wasnt a mis-use of an instrument intended for
| other science, and instead an accepted & responsible & up-front
| role encompased in NASAs mission statement & their programme.
|
| https://www.ucsusa.org/resources/nasa-earth-removed-mission-...
| [deleted]
| amelius wrote:
| What would happen if this information was public?
| lob_it wrote:
| If the information was public, after remedying all of the
| methane leaks, we would still maintain above normal
| temperatures for a decade or two, then we would normalize
| temperatures around 2050, if all of the leaks were capped by
| tomorrow.
|
| Due to the toxic nature, I still wouldn't recommend sunscreen
| without knowing exactly what is in it.
| willsmith72 wrote:
| > Due to the toxic nature, I still wouldn't recommend
| sunscreen without knowing exactly what is in it.
|
| What? Are you a bot?
| lob_it wrote:
| It was a simple gesture implying that due to the hotter
| temperatures, sunblock may actually compound the problem.
|
| We can expect the above normal temperatures for a decade
| or two after the methane is contained. Don't toxify the
| body with sunscreen and make it worse.
|
| https://www.ewg.org/sunscreen/report/the-trouble-with-
| sunscr...
|
| Perhaps biddy biddy biddy :p
| willsmith72 wrote:
| Yeah I'd rather get some "potentially unsafe" chemicals
| in my body than definitely get severe skin cancers all
| over my body
|
| https://www.cancer.org.au/iheard/are-chemical-sunscreens-
| saf...
| lob_it wrote:
| You grow old with your own body. Thats obviously your
| problem
| mturmon wrote:
| Several questions ask to contextualize this measurement.
|
| Here's a highly-cited paper in _Nature_ (including some of the
| researchers quoted in the OP) that describes how an earlier
| survey of California methane emissions went:
|
| https://www.nature.com/articles/s41586-019-1720-3
|
| If I remember right, the state of CA asked for this survey. It
| was carried out by an instrument similar to that of the OP, but
| airborne, not on ISS as in OP.
|
| California has standards for methane emissions (e.g.,
| https://ww2.arb.ca.gov/resources/fact-sheets/oil-and-gas-met...)
| that are now covering landfills and oil and gas infrastructure,
| and dairies -- three of the largest categories of large emitters.
|
| (One effect of these regulations, that lay people may have
| noticed, is trying to get food waste out of the landfill stream,
| and into composting, so that it doesn't decay anaerobically and
| produce methane. In LA, for example, the LADWP is test-driving a
| program where food scraps - vegetables, but also meats and fats -
| are diverted into green bins.)
|
| Strengthened regulations on methane emissions from oil and gas
| infrastructure are part of this - I'm not saying the studies
| motivated these regulations, just that they are all part of
| policies heading in that direction.
|
| It is believed that large oil companies are aggressively selling
| off oil pumps/fields to get out from under this responsibility.
| (https://www.propublica.org/article/california-oil-wells-shel...)
|
| The ISS measurements in OP have covered (and will continue to
| cover) a much broader area than the California airborne survey -
| but with less spatial resolution - so presumably a broad survey
| of mid-latitude super-emitters will be possible in the coming
| months.
| rjsw wrote:
| Green bins for food waste don't work if you have Airbnb nearby.
| whatshisface wrote:
| Who are they selling them to, and how will _they_ get out from
| the responsibility?
| thinkcontext wrote:
| Bottom feeder companies that will squeeze some money out of
| them before declaring bankruptcy. Because of inadequate
| bonding requirements taxpayers will wind up footing the bill
| for cleanup.
|
| Its deja vu all over again with the coal industry.
| Invictus0 wrote:
| One of the companies they sell them to is DEC, which I invest
| in. These old wells are still profitable but only for
| organizations with lower cost structures that specialize in
| handling these sorts of end-of-life regulations and
| maintenances. State governments subsidize them to maintain
| the wells long into the future.
|
| https://www.div.energy/
| simonebrunozzi wrote:
| You made me think of this DEC [0], which of course is
| another thing. Which one is the DEC you are referring to,
| and how do you invest in it?
|
| [0]:
| https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Digital_Equipment_Corporation
| Invictus0 wrote:
| The link I posted is DEC's website. The name is
| Diversified Energy Corporation, DEC is their ticker.
| danuker wrote:
| Companies that exist only to enter such risky markets.
|
| The upside is turned into dividends. But if a law gets passed
| to make the owners clean up, poof, bankruptcy.
|
| The very definiion of "Limited Liability".
| ryanhuff wrote:
| My Orange County suburb recently mandated putting food waste
| into a separate can.
| Rebelgecko wrote:
| It's a statewide mandate (well, the separate can part isn't-
| some regions use the same cans for food waste and lawn
| clippings)
| datavirtue wrote:
| naikrovek wrote:
| > That's adorable. Meanwhile, the entire article circle is
| melting and fermenting.
|
| yeah this guy is right. if we can't fix it in a single
| swift stroke, it can't be fixed. (i just gave myself a
| headache from rolling my eyes so hard.)
|
| think of it differently, at least for a few seconds. what
| is significant change if not lots of small changes measured
| cumulatively? lots of individual people wanting gas for
| their cars contributed to oil companies (and others)
| polluting for profit; why can't individual changes also
| contribute to a solution?
| ericmcer wrote:
| Significant change is global infrastructure level
| changes, like no longer needing to commute to work.
| Changes that individuals really can't control. Your point
| is bad because most people and systems will not act until
| they feel the negative effects, so a few million people
| carefully composting might allow them to keep behaving
| irresponsibly for a few days.
|
| Look at the relationship between the size of cars being
| sold and gas prices. Any slack your individual efforts
| introduce into the system will get chewed up by someone
| else.
| DFHippie wrote:
| Also, doing a small thing personally can increase your
| commitment to the issue.
|
| If you find yourself doing something you think people
| collectively shouldn't do, you work to excuse yourself.
| This is classic cognitive dissonance. It is unpleasant
| and makes you angry and cynical. If you find yourself
| doing the _right_ thing in your own eyes, you improve
| your opinion of yourself and you may want more.
|
| And the people who are still doing nothing and dealing
| with cognitive dissonance accuse you of virtue signaling,
| as though this, whether or not it is true, is a greater
| sin than whatever they remain defensive about.
| Invictus0 wrote:
| It's part of a narrative to blame consumers for causing
| climate change, meanwhile industry pollutes far more. The
| pollution reduction per unit effort is much higher if you
| focus on heavy industry.
| lob_it wrote:
| https://www.wsj.com/articles/tougher-rules-on-methane-
| leaks-...
|
| Its a paywalled article, but you are correct that carbon
| credits and net-zero have excluded methane because of its
| wonderful smell :)
|
| "Long-awaited" means exactly zero has been implemented.
| Perhaps "the new net-zero", similar to soda marketing is
| in order.
| saagarjha wrote:
| Methane is odorless. It's the added mercaptan that gives
| it the smell you know about.
| lob_it wrote:
| Wonderful was just ambiguous enough to be oderless :p
| DFHippie wrote:
| > It's part of a narrative to blame consumers for causing
| climate change, meanwhile industry pollutes far more.
|
| True, but "ignore personal action and rail at industry"
| is part of another narrative that is probably still less
| effective at changing industry.
|
| If you find a polity where consumers are not taking
| individual action to address climate change, you will
| find it is not applying _more_ pressure on industry or
| politicians than a polity where consumers are taking
| individual action. If you attack the individuals who are
| taking action, you are attacking the political base that
| would support addressing climate change. Convincing them
| that their efforts are pointless, silly, and perhaps just
| vanity or arrogance, does not empower them. Industry is
| not quaking in its boots at the prospect that people will
| accuse all the composters and recyclers of virtue
| signaling and hypocrisy.
| parineum wrote:
| Guess who buys things from industry?
| 23skidoo wrote:
| I agree with you but it shouldn't be overlooked that
| industry makes shortcuts which are disastrous for the
| environment to pad their margins very slightly so the
| executives can get a bonus.
|
| The crux of the problem is the costs we allow to be
| externalized and the arduous legal process involved in
| getting a small fraction of the real damages paid. You
| shouldn't need a lawsuit to make a company pay for every
| penny of damage they did.
| mint2 wrote:
| > In LA, for example, the LADWP is test-driving a program where
| food scraps - vegetables, but also meats and fats - are
| diverted into green bins
|
| Moved to SF from LA area. Sf does the green bins and it's
| actually surprisingly nice to separate the compostable scraps
| out of the other trash. It keeps the trash bin much cleaner and
| much less stinky.
|
| If I moved back to an area that didn't require it, I'd still
| keep them separate and only re-combine at the curbside bin.
| QuercusMax wrote:
| Same here in Portland - we only have trash pickup every other
| week but the green bin weekly. Works nicely and the trash
| stays pretty fresh!
| jeffrallen wrote:
| I live in the country and I throw whatever the hell I want in
| my compost and my garden loves it. Next time you get a hyper
| specific instructions page about what to compost and not, do
| what I do: chuck it in the compost with everything else
| organic! :)
| tuatoru wrote:
| Be wary of rodents if you try to compost things with a high
| fat content. I hope you have good rat control.
| jeffrallen wrote:
| I outsource rat control to the neighborhood foxes and
| cats.
| varajelle wrote:
| Industrial compost is not the same as a garden compost
| though.
| riffraff wrote:
| We have compostable bin pickup twice a week in my hometown in
| Italy, a ton of things are compostable with industrial
| composters these days which you could not easily compost at
| home, also thanks to regulations (e.g. shopping bags, tea
| bags, some food packaging etc), so the other bins stay pretty
| empty.
| detritus wrote:
| Important to note that, at least in my experience, most of
| the 'plastic bags' in Italy are the compostable kind. In
| the UK they're still in the minotrity (I've only seen our
| version of the Co-Op offer them, for instance).
|
| You might wish to be wary about tea bags, mind - here in
| the UK our tea producers are still struggling to release
| bags free of thin heat-pressed polypropylene sealing
| strips... .
| webinvest wrote:
| I see entire apartment complexes that don't have recycling
| options at all, whatsoever.
| smeej wrote:
| I keep my food scraps in a bag in my refrigerator until it's
| time for curbside pickup. It definitely helps keep the smells
| and gnats away!
| TEP_Kim_Il_Sung wrote:
| In Turkmenistan a pit has been burning for over 40 years.
|
| In 1971, when the republic was still part of the Soviet Union, a
| group of Soviet geologists went to the Karakum in search of oil
| fields. They found what they thought to be a substantial oil
| field and began drilling. Unfortunately for the scientists, they
| were drilling on top of a cavernous pocket of natural gas which
| couldn't support the weight of their equipment. The site
| collapsed, taking their equipment along with it [...] Natural gas
| is composed mostly of methane, which, though not toxic, does
| displace oxygen [...] So the scientists decided to light the
| crater on fire, hoping that all the dangerous natural gas would
| burn away in a few weeks' time.
|
| https://www.smithsonianmag.com/travel/giant-hole-ground-has-...
| [deleted]
| tanto wrote:
| > Together, the Turkmenistan sources release an estimated 111,000
| pounds of methane gas per hour
|
| If this is happening all the time, then the number of global
| methane emissions due to human activity on this
| (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Methane_emissions) Wikipedia page
| can't be valid.
|
| Crazy how human negligence and greed might end humanity.
| BbzzbB wrote:
| >In 2019, [the President of Turkmenistan] appeared on state
| television doing doughnut stunts around the crater to disprove
| and correct rumours of his death.[14]
|
| Interesting proof of life.
| bertil wrote:
| Turkmenistan is a country that keeps John Oliver excited.
| That's saying a lot.
| proee wrote:
| From some Google Searches...
|
| 111,000 pounds of methane, multipled by factor of 80x, equal
| around 388M tons of CO2.
|
| A car produces around 4.6 tons of C02 per year. So this makes
| the emissions equal to about 84M cars driving around for a
| year. Google says there are around 1.46 Billion cars in the
| world.
|
| So this amount of greenhouse gas is around a 5.7% increase in
| our overall car emissions.
|
| (edited based on feedback below)
| ljf wrote:
| Quoting here but;
|
| Methane has more than 80 times the warming power of carbon
| dioxide over the first 20 years after it reaches the
| atmosphere. Even though CO2 has a longer-lasting effect,
| methane sets the pace for warming in the near term. At least
| 25% of today's global warming is driven by methane from human
| actions.
| chrisco255 wrote:
| What is meant by 25% of today's global warming? 25% from
| what baseline? From what median? From what time period?
| feoren wrote:
| I'm guessing: rate of carbon-dioxide-equivalent being
| added to the atmosphere each year.
| hotpotamus wrote:
| I'd assume the previous 10,000 or so years wherein humans
| created civilization up to about 1980.
| strainer wrote:
| It is somewhat deceptive framing, because methane can not
| accumulate in the atmosphere the way CO2 does. Its levels
| in the atmosphere will break down relatively quickly if
| we reduce output, unlike CO2. But the present level of
| methane in the atmosphere basically captures about 30% as
| much heat as the present level of CO2. That still leaves
| CO2 as significantly larger immediate problem and the
| much larger future problem. We must do what we can,
| observing that every little counts - a little, and every
| lot counts a lot.
| ljf wrote:
| Don't forget what methane breaks down into... Water
| vapour and co2. So it's not like it breaks down and is no
| longer an issue n
| guelo wrote:
| Also, the extra warming from methane can trigger
| unrecoverable tipping points, such as melting ancient
| glaciers and permafrost, whose effects will last for
| thousands of years.
| feoren wrote:
| No, 80x is about right for the 20-year time horizon;
| Wikipedia lists it as 86. You're right that the 20-year
| Global Warming Potential is lower than the 100-year, but
| the 20-year is already what the poster you were replying to
| was using. The 100-year is around 25 to 31.
| ljf wrote:
| They edited it after my comment, as they note.
| aeternum wrote:
| The issue is that this methane is not being oxidized. Burning
| the methane as it is released is an easy solve. Yes this
| increases CO2 at the ratio your specify (~1ton Methane to
| 2.75 CO2) but that is still much better than releasing it as
| Methane gas.
|
| Methane gas in the atmosphere causes 80x the greenhouse
| effect that CO2 causes.
| tildef wrote:
| Maybe I'm misreading something, but I don't understand the
| discrepancy. According to the wiki article, human output is 363
| megatons/year. 111,000 lb/hr = 55.5 tons/hr = 0.5
| megatons/year. Still a lot though!
| tanto wrote:
| I think you are right! Apparently I was misreading. Still a
| lot unnecessary waste one might say.
| hwillis wrote:
| Turkmenistan produces ~2.2% of global natural gas. Scaled
| across all producers, the result would be 20.2 MT/yr. Also,
| this is from a tiny part of Turkmenistan.
|
| > In Turkmenistan, EMIT identified 12 plumes from oil and gas
| infrastructure east of the Caspian Sea port city of Hazar.[1]
|
| That's around 50 miles away from the eastern edge of a 750
| mile wide country which is covered in oil fields and
| refineries[2].
|
| [1]: https://www.nasa.gov/feature/jpl/methane-super-emitters-
| mapp...
|
| [2]: https://www.researchgate.net/profile/Ippa-
| Uca/publication/31...
| [deleted]
| LatteLazy wrote:
| I find the cognitive dissonance on emissions stunning: we've made
| basically no effort to cut emissions for over 40 years, now
| people are shocked that there are a LOT of emissions happening.
| WTF did anyone expect? The power of people to believe "someone
| else is fixing it even though there is no reason they would" is
| incredible.
| boshomi wrote:
| >>Meanwhile, recently published studies set the estimate for
| total global methane emissions from the industry at 80-140
| million tons per year, while the International Energy Agency's
| (IEA) methane tracker estimates emissions at the lower end of
| this range.>>[1]
|
| [1] Progress on methane emissions by energy companies, but
| numbers still don't add up: UNEP | 31 October 2022 |
| https://news.un.org/en/story/2022/10/1130047
| 29athrowaway wrote:
| YouTube is full of trash burning tutorials. Some of them are
| exceptionally stupid and talk about "clean burners", which is
| essentially a burn barrel connected to a leaf blower, such that
| the smoke is dispersed, creating the illusion of "clean" air.
|
| Such dumb tutorials have hundreds of hundreds of thousands of
| views. Each video has dumb comments on them like "Oh yeah this
| burner is awesome, I made the same thing at home and it worked,
| thank you". YouTube declines to remove the videos.
|
| A burn barrel burns trash at a lower temperature than an
| incinerator and doesn't do any sort of filtering. A burn barrel
| can generate more pollution than a small city, including harmful
| chemicals like dioxin and furans.
|
| YouTube should ban all trash burning content. The makers of those
| videos should be deanonymized and be reported to environmental
| authorities. There should be a large crack down on stupid
| backyard burning content. It should be made illegal and each one
| of those residential superpolluters should be hunted down and
| thrown in jail.
|
| It is so upsetting to watch those videos, with people saying "I
| saved $50 burning my trash at home, I am so smart". Fuck!
|
| Also, the government should require garden equipment to have a
| fucking catalytic converter. But they won't because that will
| hurt their numbers. A gas powered leaf blower pollutes as much as
| a multitude of cars.
| oceanplexian wrote:
| While I sympathize with the sentiment, that creating some kind
| of censorship dystopia will magically solve the problem, the
| idea has no traction when most of the people doing so make less
| than $1 a day somewhere in a remote corner of the world. This
| is the problem I have with climate activism.
|
| The best way to reduce pollution is to raise the standard of
| living for people around the world. People who are wealthy can
| afford cleaner forms of energy, they can afford to dispose of
| trash cleanly, they can afford to recycle. People that are poor
| have nothing to lose and don't care about "environmental
| authorities". "Let's ban X", "Let's force people to do Y" and
| "Throw them in jail" is not a reasonable or effective way to
| solve problems. It also further divides people and does more to
| hurt your cause than to promote it.
| 29athrowaway wrote:
| We are not talking about energy, we are talking about waste
| disposal.
|
| And not having money is not a excuse for burning trash. In
| part, because burning some types of trash (pretty much
| anything other than yard trimmings, including food) will make
| you and your community incredibly sick, causing you to spend
| more money in the end.
|
| It's already illegal to burn trash in almost every
| jurisdiction on earth. I am just calling for the removal of
| content featuring activities that are already illegal.
|
| https://archive.epa.gov/epawaste/nonhaz/municipal/web/html/i.
| ..
|
| Then, is censorship a solution here? fuck yes. Let's fucking
| do it. I am all for the censorship of that content. The less
| of it, the better. Will that inconvenience some people?
| Fucking fantastic. No ad revenue for the morons working
| against society, making residential super-polluting videos.
| They should be in jail, not on YouTube.
| ratboy666 wrote:
| Oh, really?
|
| https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dry_dung_fuel
|
| https://www.nytimes.com/2018/09/21/climate/sweden-garbage-
| us...
| 29athrowaway wrote:
| They don't incinerate waste in open air, unlike backyard
| burn barrels. Also, burning happens at high temperatures,
| and emissions are captured.
|
| It's a completely different process than simply just
| burning trash in a barrel.
| throwaway821909 wrote:
| It's normally much easier to buy e.g. a computer, a
| mattress, various household chemicals than to get rid of
| them properly. We need to tackle one or both sides of this
| equation, or people will just dump stuff in their local
| river if you censor the burning video.
|
| It's the old piracy argument again, loads of money was
| spent trying to take down pirate mp3 sites without results,
| then Spotify comes along. But maybe recycling some of this
| stuff is really difficult, in which case the cost of
| dealing with it should be factored into the price.
| 29athrowaway wrote:
| A bad analogy for this case, because pirating mp3s
| doesn't give you, your family and your neighborhood
| cancer and doesn't generate fat soluble toxic chemicals
| that accumulate in wildlife, livestock and humans for
| decades.
| TexanFeller wrote:
| My family lived outside the city limits of a rural town and
| trash service wasn't even available to us. Us and every single
| family in that situation used a burn barrel. There are a huge
| number of people in America that have never done it any other
| way!
| yencabulator wrote:
| There was a waste dump / transfer station you could haul your
| trash to...
| [deleted]
| SoftTalker wrote:
| This is why trash pickup should be free. That way it will be
| disposed of properly instead of dumped on the side of the road
| or burned in backyard barrels. Yet most cities charge for trash
| pickup and are looking to charge even more or move to quantity-
| based fees.
|
| You get what you incentivize. If you want people to dispose of
| trash in the least damaging way, you have to make that the
| easiest and cheapest option.
| 29athrowaway wrote:
| True, but then you have a different problem: you incentive
| people to generate more trash.
|
| There must be a balance.
| sattoshi wrote:
| Never have I felt "incentivized" to produce trash. Most of
| my trash is because the government doesn't curb
| overpackaging of products.
| 29athrowaway wrote:
| Well, if you want to look for alternatives, join
| /r/zerowaste.
|
| https://www.reddit.com/r/ZeroWaste/wiki/index/
| aaron695 wrote:
| xwdv wrote:
| If things get really bad and these things are deemed bad for the
| planet, could a nation demand the facilities be shut down or else
| be destroyed by military strike?
| reillyse wrote:
| This concept is so strange. I'm not sure what country you are
| from, but I'm going to assume the US. Would you think it was OK
| if another country destroyed something in America because they
| thought it was damaging the environment. How about if they
| tried to force you to change your ways because of the
| environmental damage you were doing? Because guess what? The US
| is seriously over represented in pollution. Destroying the US
| might just solve the entire climate problem, I doubt that would
| be palatable ?
| sfink wrote:
| In addition, not that an addition is needed: please do not
| try to "fix" environmental pollutant sites by bombing them.
| It will not accomplish what you hope to accomplish.
|
| (No matter what it might look like while playing your video
| game.)
| xwdv wrote:
| So what do you propose, let super polluters keep burning and
| destroy the whole planet? I'd rather we just blow them away.
| Something has to give.
| slater wrote:
| The US had 215 atmospheric nuke tests. Shall we blow that
| country away, too?
| RandallBrown wrote:
| Neal Stephenson's latest novel sort of explores this idea.
|
| https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Termination_Shock_(novel)
| the__alchemist wrote:
| In a (without spoiling too much) remarkably ironic way vice
| this article's concern!
| ZainRiz wrote:
| Turkmenistan gas extraction company right now:
|
| "Gee, thanks for finding our leaks guys! You won't believe how
| much money we were just leaking into the atmosphere there."
|
| </dreams>
| [deleted]
| spoonjim wrote:
| All of the emissions reductions in the US aren't going to do
| anything if China keeps emitting at pace. We should not be doing
| anything unilaterally.
| titzer wrote:
| It's a leaky ship. Arguing over who has to fix their holes
| first is pointless dithering and finger-pointing.
| orthecreedence wrote:
| At least they're building fission plants. The US hasn't figured
| out that little hack yet, like it's some big mystery. Also,
| Chinese emissions wouldn't be so high if every other country
| hadn't offshored all their production to them.
| 3np wrote:
| Source: https://www.nasa.gov/feature/jpl/methane-super-emitters-
| mapp...
|
| Project site: https://earth.jpl.nasa.gov/emit/
| possiblelion wrote:
| So - looking at this it seems Turkmenistan [a repressive, North
| Korea style dictatorship] is destroying our climate system at an
| order of magnitude faster than anyone else. I'm well aware of the
| legacy that Iraq/Afghanistan have left in terms of international
| interventions into other countries; but if it is our common
| future on the balance, shouldn't we do something? Something more
| than just politely asking to stop?
| jvanderbot wrote:
| I've often imagined a dystopian future, hotter world where
| bombs are dropped on unauthorized coal / cement plants to
| prevent more sea level rise / super hurricanes, rendering those
| with no other options into partisan stone-age tribes.
| NegativeLatency wrote:
| You might enjoy this book which features similar events:
| https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Ministry_for_the_Future
| ZainRiz wrote:
| Like offering to pay to fix the leaks in their gas pipeline?
|
| Prob way cheaper than invading the country
| drekipus wrote:
| > Like offering to pay to fix the leaks in their gas
| pipeline?
|
| It's a nice offer in theory but I could imagine that would
| lead others to intentionally break their pipelines in order
| to get "fix-it" money.
|
| I'm reminded of the story of British Raj paying Indians for
| catching cobras.
| 1024core wrote:
| > Prob way cheaper than invading the country
|
| But they have oil....
| Retric wrote:
| It's a little over 1/1,000th of human released methane, so on
| it's own not that critical or that far above expectations for a
| country with a little over 1/2000th the global population.
|
| The issue is mostly that it's presumably cheap to fix unlike a
| billion cows all farting.
| tkk23 wrote:
| >The issue is mostly that it's presumably cheap to fix unlike
| a billion cows all farting.
|
| It's even cheaper to fix the farting cows: Just stop raising
| cows.
|
| Of course, if you want to supplement beef and dairy products,
| it's not that easy. But if we would believe that global
| warming and methane were a problem, we could make a
| difference within weeks.
| Retric wrote:
| Even just killing all a billion would be quite expensive by
| comparison. You can't exactly do it for 0.01$/ cow and
| fixing this would likely cost significantly less than 10
| million.
| tkk23 wrote:
| You have forgotten that all of those cows will already be
| killed, with a profit.
| Retric wrote:
| Not everywhere and especially not anytime soon. India has
| more than 3,000 institutions called Gaushalas maintained
| by charitable trusts that care for old and infirm cows.
| It's a whole religious thing.
|
| Also, enforcing rules isn't free. Trying to enforce a cow
| ban would get _really_ expensive.
| [deleted]
| orthecreedence wrote:
| What's the carbon cost of yet another idiotic hostile
| intervention?
| ordu wrote:
| Tax their oil profits with a methane tax? Stop buying their
| oil, while they didn't fix leaks? How about this?
| adontz wrote:
| Bring them democracy!
| themitigating wrote:
| Why don't we forget that since it's expensive. How about "fix
| the leaks or we'll bomb presidental palaces"
| steve76 wrote:
| jmath wrote:
| is it okay to say this is hilarious
| ccbccccbbcccbb wrote:
| Modern corporate raid how-to:
|
| 1. Define target
|
| 2. Draw plumes of methane over the target on satellite imagery
|
| 3. Set Greta at the target and take it over, pleading climate
| change
|
| 4. Remove the plumes from imagery
|
| 5. Continue target's operation as usual
|
| 6. Profit
| ccbccccbbcccbb wrote:
| Please relax, my dear downvoters, things like this never happen
| in your ideal world.
| _HMCB_ wrote:
| But is the world going to do anything about those spots?
| ElijahLynn wrote:
| Seems like this should be on the nightly news...
| fortysixdegrees wrote:
| Have they published a global map we can look at?
| akerr wrote:
| Yeah, let's name these super-emitters!
| alexfromapex wrote:
| They are still in the process of mapping:
| https://earth.jpl.nasa.gov/emit/mission/destination/
|
| I posted the original NASA article a few days ago, which has
| better info than this Smithsonian article:
| https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=33349999
| mturmon wrote:
| Note that the map they produce will be of surface properties
| (like mineral composition), not methane.
|
| The surface properties are the main intermediate product on
| the way to the climate-related overall goal
| (https://earth.jpl.nasa.gov/emit/science/objectives/).
| Namely, does the dust lofted from these deserts heat or cool
| the Earth?
| MichaelZuo wrote:
| How could a 2 mile long methane plume in New Mexico have been
| undetected for any significant amount of time?
|
| From what I understand basic environmental monitoring is done in
| 2022 around all major industrial facilities in the U.S.
| abruzzi wrote:
| what interesting is there is nothing there. The only something
| are gas wells which the whole area is dotted with, so my only
| guess is leaky gas wells?
| https://www.google.com/maps/@32.3761968,-104.0819087,4787m/d...
| whimsicalism wrote:
| Looks like Marathon Oil is the company
| metaphor wrote:
| Curious, how did you figure?
| whimsicalism wrote:
| Just the fact that every well I saw on street view was
| from that company.
| metaphor wrote:
| Good call. Thanks for clarifying.
| naikrovek wrote:
| holy crap there are a lot of oil wells in that area.
| coffeeshopgoth wrote:
| True story. I have worked oil and gas for a while and am
| familiar with this area. It can easily be a well not
| properly P&A'd (plugged and abandoned) - quite common down
| there. It is most likely a Marathon well (HARROUN COM
| #002), or it could be Eastland Oil (HARROUN A #007). If you
| want to get a better idea for yourself, you can check the
| EMNRD - https://ocd-hub-nm-emnrd.hub.arcgis.com/
| westurner wrote:
| Is there a way to IDK 3d earthen print a geodesic dome
| over the site and capture the waste methane (natural gas)
| into local tanks?
|
| TIL about CBG: Cleaner Burning Gasoline
|
| From
| https://twitter.com/westurner/status/1564443689623195650
| :
|
| > _In September 2021 we covered a new "green gasoline"
| concept from @NaceroCo [in Penwell, TX] that involves
| constructing gasoline hydrocarbons by assembling smaller
| #methane molecules from natural gas_
|
| From https://www.houstonchronicle.com/opinion/outlook/art
| icle/Opi... :
|
| > _The Inflation Reduction Act imposes a fee of [$900
| /ton] of methane starting in 2024 -- this is roughly
| twice the current record-high price of natural gas and
| five times the average price of natural gas in 2020._
|
| > _These high fees present a strong incentive_
|
| ... "Argonne invents reusable [polyurethane] sponge that
| soaks up oil, could revolutionize oil spill and diesel
| cleanup" (2017) https://www.anl.gov/article/argonne-
| invents-reusable-sponge-...
|
| FWIU, heat engines are useful with all thermal gradients:
| pipes, engines, probably solar panels and attics; "MIT's
| new heat engine beats a steam turbine in efficiency"
| (2022) https://www.freethink.com/environment/heat-engine
| coffeeshopgoth wrote:
| I hear what you are saying, and there is a ton of room in
| the E&P space for improvements of all kinds. You would be
| shocked at how incredibly we are behind technologically
| (I remember just last year over hearing someone say, "We
| just figured out our cloud strategy."). In terms of a
| dome over fields or units to collect stray methane, that
| may be an issue. We are loathe to construct "enclosed
| spaces" for gases as that can be a safety issue. It
| doesn't take much stray anything to kill you out there.
| We have all sorts of stories of people going into an
| enclosed space, passing out and dying, only to have more
| people die trying to get them out. Sounds bad, I know,
| but this is coming from someone who has come across a few
| dead bodies out in the field for various reasons - mostly
| just being stupid. Fees are funny in oil and gas - we
| complain about how much money we don't have and then
| spend it frivolously elsewhere. That inflation act, at
| the state level there are all sorts of those out there
| and some companies care and some don't. If you want to
| see something crazy, check out the NDIC (North Dakota
| Industrial Commission). In terms of oil and gas data,
| theirs is the most centralized, easily accessed, and
| complete in the country (NM isn't bad, CA used to be
| better, TX is garbage-which is odd, LA is god awful, and
| PA is meh). The NDIC keeps really good track of flaring,
| so to see how much natural gas is just burned up at the
| cost of getting the oil out (not such a great
| infrastructure for moving gas and historically the price
| hasn't been a good inducement to build any). To get the
| well level data, it is $150/year, but well worth it if
| you are working that basin and also in comparison to all
| of the data services out there.
| https://www.dmr.nd.gov/oilgas/stats/statisticsvw.asp
| westurner wrote:
| So there only needs to be a bit of concrete in a smaller
| structure that exceeds bunker-busting bomb specs and
| 'funnels' (?) the natural gas to a tank or a bladder?
|
| Are there existing methods for capturing methane from
| insufficiently-capped old wells?
|
| Are the new incentives/fees/fines enough to motivate
| action thus far in this space?
|
| OpenAPI is one way to specify integrable APIs. An RDFS
| vocabulary for this data is probably worthwhile; e.g.
| NASA Earth Science (?) may have a schema that all of the
| state APIs could voluntarily adopt?
|
| Presumably the CophenHill facility handles waste methane?
| We should build waste-to-energy facilities in the US, too
|
| FWIU Carbon Credits do not cover methane, which is worse
| than CO2 for #ActOnClimate
| coffeeshopgoth wrote:
| Natural gas isn't stored on site, it needs to be piped to
| the nearest plant to be processed and put into a sales
| line. Capturing methane from insufficiently capped old
| wells would not be economic in most cases. If a company
| was called out on it, they would just go dump more cement
| in it to make sure the gas is contained. 90% of the time,
| wells that are plugged are plugged well, the ones that
| aren't and are just abandoned maybe leak only 1-5
| thousand cubic feet per day - nothing worth doing
| anything about (to the company financially). Fines
| typically mean nothing to E&P with where they are now -
| though some have gotten clever about it - example being
| North Dakota keeps flaring down by whatever you are
| flaring you have to cut your oil production in some
| proportionate manner (oil is the more desired product) -
| though that was rescinded during the last big price down
| turn and am not sure if that is back in effect. To your
| statement about APIs - that is one thing the oil industry
| is terrrrrrible with. Our data collection and cleaning is
| abysmal. I agree with your statement, and I would be all
| for it, but E&P companies can't even get their own
| production numbers right - a good example is if you check
| out the fracfocus database where companies volunteer up
| their fracturing job compositions. Generally it is
| useful, but the people who input the data, similar to who
| would probably be handling this can barely spell and data
| cleaning would be a nightmare. waste to energy facilities
| are great, and there are some interesting things out in
| the oilfield but, like everything else, there needs to be
| more financial incentive for companies to build them/use
| them.
| westurner wrote:
| So, in 2022, it's cheaper to dump concrete than to
| capture it, but the new fines this year aren't enough
| incentive to solve for: capture to a tank and haul, build
| unprocessed natural gas pipelines, or process onsite
| and/or fill tankers onsite?
|
| Data quality: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Data_quality
|
| ... Space -based imaging.
|
| How long should they wait to up the methane fee if it's
| not enough to incentivize capping closed wells?
| coffeeshopgoth wrote:
| It is totally cheaper to dump some cement (it is mostly
| gel with a topping of cement). To P&A older wells maybe
| runs $12-25K (assuming, like, a 5-8k ft. depth
| conventional well)...and I may be running a little high
| on that number. That gets a small truck out there with a
| small crew to pull tubing and dump alternating layers of
| cement and gel (cement goes on the top and across
| formations that would be ground water bearing). Fun fact,
| if you have to go back into an abandoned well and you
| come across red cement at the top, that is indicative of
| someone losing a nuclear based well tool in there and to
| call someone before going further. A typical 7.5-10k foot
| lateral unconventional well (horizontal wells) down that
| way will run about $7-8 million depending (and 6 wells on
| average on a well pad), but aren't really the issue, but
| just giving you some numbers to sort of show that fining
| someone $100K for something serious isn't that big an
| expense and not really a deterrent. Natural gas lines are
| always a big deal to oil and gas companies - if you build
| it they will come. Most space in pipelines for operators
| is spoken for before they even dig the first trench.
| westurner wrote:
| Options:
|
| A. Privately and/or Publicly grant to P&A wells
| ($25k+ * n_wells) + ($7-8m+ * m_wells)
|
| B. Build natural gas pipelines that run past those well
| sites (approval,)
|
| C. increase the incentives/fines/fees
|
| **
|
| Shouldn't it be pretty easy to find such tools with IDK
| neutron detection and/or imaging at what distance?
| ZeroGravitas wrote:
| They passed laws 2 years ago to penalize this. Goes into effect
| next year.
|
| This wasn't a surprise. Laws had been previously passed
| specifically to allow this to continue.
| lob_it wrote:
| The BBC broke some news about a month ago regarding flaring
| emissions not even being included in the inspection numbers for
| oil.
|
| https://www.bbc.com/news/science-environment-62917498
|
| Its not in the US, but once its in the atmosphere, the
| whodoneit is long gone.
| gausswho wrote:
| It's been known for a while. Some resources I found on it:
| https://www.edf.org/sites/default/files/new-mexico-methane-a...
| and https://earth.stanford.edu/news/methane-leaks-are-far-
| worse-...
| MichaelZuo wrote:
| Huh so I guess:
|
| "Among the dozens of plumes of methane spotted by EMIT so
| far, one stretches for about two miles in the Permian Basin,
| a massive oil field southeast of Carlsbad, New Mexico. This
| source of methane emissions was previously undetected, writes
| Grist's Avery Schuyler Nunn."
|
| was incorrect.
|
| Odd for the Smithsonian magazine to not fact check this...
| msrenee wrote:
| Carlsbad, NM isn't a big town. Head Southeast from there and
| it's quite a large stretch of land that's not used for much
| besides oil exploration, some cattle grazing, and the WIPP
| site. The population density is so low in that area that it
| seemed like a good place to test ways of storing nuclear waste
| long-term. This is one of the places where they're working on
| figuring out a way to warn future civilizations not to try and
| dig up what is buried there.
|
| I'm not the least bit surprised it took aerial surveys to
| notice the situation.
| pojzon wrote:
| Or simply ,,How come we are finding out about that now and not
| in last 20 years..."
| lob_it wrote:
| themitigating wrote:
| Donald trump?
| lob_it wrote:
| Nah. It was more of a reflex response to why they (oc)
| wasn't informed decades ago.
|
| I was quite polite too and I did find new angles to enjoy
| with my golf swing the past decade. Still enjoying them
| to this day.
|
| Did you expend all of your energy on inaccurate data and
| inferior goals?
|
| Innocence is bliss. Ignorance is still ignorance.
| runnerup wrote:
| Sadly, the environmental monitoring is woefully inadequate,
| even next to the western hemisphere's largest industrial
| complex (Freeport, TX ... though its a bit better of an example
| to use or include Deer Park / Houston Ship Channel as well
| because it's part of America's 3rd/4th largest city). Below the
| dashed line is a copy/paste of a comment I made two months ago
| on a post of ProPublica's dispersion model and public health
| impact modeling of _self-reported_ emission events:
| https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=32549653
|
| I am very much looking forward to more and more satellites like
| this one and ESA's SENTINEL-5P and SCIAMACHY. But AFAIK they'll
| never be able to tell the difference between, say, ethyl
| acrylate vs. butyl acrylate (both incredibly toxic) or ethyl
| mercaptan vs. methyl mercaptan (both noxious/cause headaches at
| unbelievably low concentrations; ethyl mercaptan has an odor
| threshold of 0.35 parts per trillion).
|
| So if one plant makes one chemical, and another plant next door
| makes a similar chemical, these satellites might let the public
| know that one of the plants is leaking, but both still would
| have deniability - "it's the other guy across the street". And
| you'd still not actually know _which_ chemical you 've been
| exposed to.
|
| For that, you'd need monitoring stations with comprehensive
| sensor combinations at the property boundaries of each chemical
| plant.
|
| ------------------------
|
| I live in the western hemisphere's largest integrated
| industrial complex (Freeport, TX integrated with the eastern
| edge of Houston as well). Note that Freeport, TX has ZERO state
| or federal EPA VOC analyzers which can actually detect which
| chemical is leaking. They can only detect "this amount of
| something with {sulfur, N-O bonds, aromatic carbon rings} -- no
| clue what precisely though!". This is the same capability of
| the most advanced atmospheric pollution satellites. Completely
| fucking useless for an area which manufactures something like
| 15-20% of all USA domestic chemicals. The technology to measure
| individual chemicals exists, but the government isn't paying
| for it or installing it.
|
| The ENTIRE east side of Houston metropolitan area is dedicated
| to or "next door" to massive chemical manufacturing. This is an
| industrial area nearly equal to _the area encompassing all of
| Seattle /Bellevue/Redmond/Renton/Tukwila_. This massive area
| has only 3 air quality monitors which test for these kinds of
| chemicals[0]. During huge major events like the ITC fire[2],
| they often show no increased pollution at all. I lived next to
| leaks every day and because I worked in the plants I knew the
| smells - one day acrylates, next day thiols, next day
| hydrocarbons, etc. But the 3 monitoring sites over 10 miles
| from me showed nothing at all.
|
| Here is the one "correct" monitoring station near the chemical
| plants of Houston: [0]... but several of its analyzers are
| often offline/broken/pending maintenance. Here's a map of all
| the other ones: [1] Generally single/dual color dots mark "not-
| useful" monitoring sites which might measure only PM2.5 or
| Ozone, for example. The 4+ color dots are generally useful,
| they measure specific (large) families of chemicals so you can
| see very roughly _what_ is leaking, even if it doesn 't have
| "soot" in it.
|
| The data used by ProPublica is actually far worse than the
| woefully inadequate data collected by TCEQ/EPA air monitoring
| stations -- because what ProPublica used was "self-reported"
| data from the chemical plants. But I know from working in them
| and living next to them that many leaks are never reported and
| many leaks are never even known internally! Our government's
| data collection is a travesty. ProPublica couldn't use the real
| air quality measurements because having 2-3 points across 1000
| mi^2 is completely useless for the wind models they wanted to
| apply to the problem.
|
| We don't actually have any data. The government is failing us.
| They need to spend about $1 million per air monitoring station
| and build them along the perimeters of each plant so that leaks
| can be assigned to the offending companies, and they need to be
| built near housing so that we know how families are being
| affected. ITC fire which blanketed houston's sky in smoke: [2]
|
| 0:
| https://tceq.maps.arcgis.com/apps/webappviewer/index.html?id...
|
| 1:
| https://tceq.maps.arcgis.com/apps/webappviewer/index.html?id...
|
| 2: https://abc13.com/deer-park-fire-2019-itc-houston-air-
| qualit...
| fuzzfactor wrote:
| Familiar with trace quantities of Brutal Acrylate? How about
| 2-EH?
|
| A number of days after the water receded from hurricane
| Harvey I didn't need an instrument to smell the lingering 2EH
| that had washed in with it. Probably from Bayport and reached
| as far away as at least Genoa.
| kaushikc wrote:
| It is probably inadequate by design.
| vkou wrote:
| > We don't actually have any data. The government is failing
| us.
|
| It seems to be succeeding for the plant operators, though.
| fazfq wrote:
| yencabulator wrote:
| Related project/visualization: https://carbonmapper.org/
| anonymousiam wrote:
| Although methane does not survive for long within our atmosphere,
| it can trap more than 100x the heat for the same volume.
|
| https://climate.mit.edu/ask-mit/why-do-we-compare-methane-ca...
|
| Note that this article points out the potential contribution of
| the methane to climate change, but this would not be
| anthropogenic climate change as the gas is already in its natural
| form, just being released from underground.
| INGSOCIALITE wrote:
| _fart joke_
| madrox wrote:
| Worth noting that EMIT wasn't funded for this purpose. It was
| greenlit to measure and track dust (arguably still for climate-
| related purposes, but still!). This is a relatively minor example
| of why funding space-based science is so important. We're still
| seeing "accidental benefits" of deploying technology there.
| reillyse wrote:
| Cynical me thinks that if NASA tried to get funding for a
| project that could detect large scale methane plumes which
| might be used against the oil and gas industry they might just
| not be able to get that funding.
| neves wrote:
| Cynical me is always impressed in how much funding goes to
| find emitters outside the develop world:
|
| > "...emit methane at high rates span central Asia, the
| Middle East and the southwestern United States. By finding
| these sites from space, the satellite is bringing an
| important perspective to climate accountability,"
|
| USA could close all of its coal mines with the same money
| spent in emergency Covid vaccines
| chitowneats wrote:
| > USA could close all of its coal mines with the same money
| spent in emergency Covid vaccines
|
| Have we not recently been reminded that the true cost of
| reducing domestic energy production is much higher than the
| mere bottom line estimate of shuttering the production
| facilities?
|
| Germany and France might like a word. With Ukraine slowly
| shaking their heads in the background.
| reillyse wrote:
| All the more so for switching to wind and solar (and
| reducing usage). Nobody is saying cancel energy. Just
| that switching away from coal is probably a good idea.
| chitowneats wrote:
| Can the current energy demand of the United States be met
| cost-effectively with wind, solar, and batteries?
|
| I'm a huge proponent of these technologies but the answer
| to that question in 2022 is still no.
|
| "Ending" domestic coal production would cause a drop in
| GDP that would make 2020 look like child's play.
| 8bitsrule wrote:
| Stanford's Mark Z. Jacobson started writing papers a
| decade ago [0] that answers that question yes. The GDP
| will be immaterial if we continue to ignore the obvious.
|
| [0] https://energy.stanford.edu/sites/g/files/sbiybj9971/
| f/mark_...
|
| https://seec-
| tonko.house.gov/sites/sustainableenergyandenvir...
| m4jor wrote:
| Dont forget about nuclear. Still a great energy source.
| pasabagi wrote:
| Wait, why? Isn't solar or wind, depending on location,
| typically the cheapest form of power generation?
|
| Most of Europe is off coal. It's not really a necessary
| part of an energy mix.
| oceanplexian wrote:
| > Most of Europe is off coal. It's not really a necessary
| part of an energy mix.
|
| This is not exactly the best time to be talking about
| Europe's superior energy infrastructure.
| pasabagi wrote:
| I think there's a great deal of hysteria about Russian
| gas cutoffs. German bills are projected to be _lower_
| than UK energy bills over the winter[0][1], even though
| the UK has basically no dependence on Russian gas.
|
| A war is an unusual and extreme event, and when it's
| started by your major gas supplier, it's unsurprising
| that prices go up. It is, however, obviously not enough
| to write off the whole european energy policy just
| because when you stress test it, there are higher bills.
|
| It's no use if your 'sensible' energy policy results in 3
| degrees of global warming: that will be far worse than a
| high energy bill, or a war for that matter.
|
| [0]
| https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2022-08-22/uk-
| energy... [1]
| https://www.reuters.com/business/energy/german-energy-
| bills-...
| chitowneats wrote:
| They're off coal because they're on Russian natural gas.
| Until this winter, I suppose.
|
| Natural gas is a biproduct of oil and coal production.
| pasabagi wrote:
| Not really? Germany is a mid-range, slow-moving sort of
| country, and they get about 40% of their energy from
| renewables. They still get 30% of their energy from coal,
| but it's being fairly steadily phased out.
|
| Energy sources are fungible. Solar power is cheaper than
| coal in a lot of places, as is wind, and the US has a ton
| of natural gas to make up for the intermittency problem.
|
| I think you're mistaking a political problem for a
| technical one.
| chitowneats wrote:
| I think you're mistaking political problems for being
| implementation details that are easily fixed.
|
| Versus the reality in which they are the hardest problems
| that exist for humanity at the current moment.
|
| Russian gas is literally not replaceable by liquid
| natural gas, or any other energy source, as imports for
| most of Europe this winter.
|
| It's theoretically fungible on an infinite time frame. We
| do not live in a theoretical universe.
| pasabagi wrote:
| Sure, politcal problems are hard problems. However, your
| original post asserted that the current energy demand of
| the US _cannot_ be met without coal. You did not say they
| _will not_ , because of political pathology.
|
| It is, however, patently obvious that they can - many
| countries in Europe are doing that right now, and not all
| of them depend on Russian natural gas.
|
| Further, the only reason why EU states in the east depend
| on Russian natural gas is because Russia is close. The US
| is a gas exporter. They would need no such overseas
| supply.
| derefr wrote:
| Speaking as a non-American who doesn't fully understand
| the factors at play: why can't you guys just get your
| military-industrial complex to build you some
| nationalized nuclear plants on federal land in the middle
| of nowhere, where there aren't any NIMBYs to get in the
| way? (You could even just reuse the 'federal land in the
| middle of nowhere' that all your since-decommissioned
| nuclear-weapons testing facilities are sitting on!)
| Bluecobra wrote:
| We can't even agree on a place to store our waste in the
| middle of nowhere. Billions of dollars have been spent
| since the 1980's on Yucca Mountain and that still hasn't
| happened.
| NavinF wrote:
| Too many NIMBYs (where "backyard" refers to the whole
| country)
| SXX wrote:
| > build you some nationalized nuclear plants on federal
| land in the middle of nowhere, where there aren't any
| NIMBYs to get in the way?
|
| I'm not in the US, but I guess for the same reason why
| Sahara desert is not yet became world largest solar power
| plant. You can't just build power plants in the middle of
| nowhere since energy transportation infrastructure isn't
| free and there some laws of physics involved.
|
| Also I pretty certain that US government and especially
| military are well aware that centralization of power
| production is not good for resilience of the grid and
| national security. One huge centralised nuclear facility
| would be much easier target than hundreds and thousands
| of smaller power plants.
| derefr wrote:
| Who said anything about (geographic) centralization /
| "one huge facility"? Federal land is everywhere in the US
| (see the diagram:
| https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Federal_lands). There's
| lots and lots of "middle of nowheres" owned by the
| federal government, in pretty much every state, dispersed
| enough that each one is not _too_ far from easy grid
| connection.
|
| If you've ever seen what is done to wire up a
| hydroelectric dam in a "middle of nowhere" river valley
| to the grid, this wouldn't be all too different: clearcut
| a narrow straight-line path through a few hundred miles
| of wilderness, up and over and mountains/rivers/etc, and
| run some ultra-high-voltage transmission lines over them.
| Here's what that looks like in the abstract
| (https://www.bchydro.com/content/dam/BCHydro/customer-
| portal/...), and in practice
| (https://thumbs.dreamstime.com/z/powerlines-across-
| mountains-...)
|
| (It especially wouldn't be all too different, because
| most Federal land is in the Rockies, so these nuclear
| plants would likely be mostly built in almost exactly the
| same terrain as hydroelectric dams are built in, and so
| dealing with basically the same grid-routing challenges.)
|
| And while all those middle-of-nowheres would provide room
| enough for hundreds/thousands of those
| https://www.energy.gov/ne/advanced-small-modular-
| reactors-sm..., if you like, you really don't _need_ to
| go against efficiencies of scale; 20% of power in the US
| is already covered by just 54 plants, and those only in
| 28 states. Presuming some real "this land has no land
| value" places where you could build as big as you like,
| you wouldn't need to more than double that number to
| cover 80% (because you could do quite a few reactors per
| site.)
|
| Why would this be okay? Well, remember, nuclear is _base
| load_ generation; meaning that it doesn 't compete with
| (most) renewables, only with other base-load generation
| -- mainly oil/coal and hydro-power. All that distributed
| solar/wind/etc infrastructure that's good for grid fault-
| tolerance would still be there if China lobbed some
| missiles at the big plants.
| marcosdumay wrote:
| I'm not from the US, but the normal situation is that on
| places where nobody leaves there is also not enough water
| to cool down nuclear plants.
| Schroedingersat wrote:
| World Uranium production: 45,000T
|
| Natural Uranium required to start a 1GW nuclear reactor:
| 7500t
|
| New Net Renewable generation in US: 5GW (this is
| hilariously low. Compare 75GW in china)
|
| Cost per GW of nuclear: $10bn -- maybe half that without
| NIMBYS if we assume how much the military industrial
| complex charges for stuff is the sameas tye juclear
| industry.
|
| Us military budget: $750bn
|
| Proportion of US military budget to match China's current
| renewable growth: 50-100%
|
| Proportion of World Uranium production to match US
| renewable growth: 80%
|
| Proportion of World Uranium production to match China's
| current renewable growth: 1200%
|
| Proportion of world Uranium reserves to match China's
| current renewable growth for 1 year: 7%
|
| I mean, building nuclear reactors you never turn on is a
| better use of money than what they normally do, but they
| can hardly be out bringing democracy to Niger, Namibia,
| and Kazakhstan to get free fuel if they're busy building
| something useful.
|
| It would still massively reduce emissions though, simply
| by virtue of the fact that they wouldn't be burning
| millions of tonnes of oil for normal operations.
|
| Still better to build wind if you want electricity. If
| you've figured out how to make electricity teleport, then
| renewables can do it with almost no storage.
| derefr wrote:
| I think your key assumption here is wrong: uranium isn't
| fundamentally expensive. It's expensive because there
| isn't enough current demand for it to bring more uranium
| mines and enrichment facilities online. Uranium used to
| be cheaper (adjusted for inflation) per gram than it is
| now, because there used to be more of those facilities
| online than there are now. With increased demand, it
| would be cheaper again.
| Schroedingersat wrote:
| > Uranium used to be cheaper (adjusted for inflation) per
| gram than it is now, because there used to be more of
| those facilities online than there are now.
|
| This is both false and entirely irrelevant. The costs are
| driven by capital (and require supply chains that don't
| exist) not fuel. Minerals get more expensive to extract
| after you extract the easy stuff. Building out 100s of GW
| of new nuclear would require extracting the stuff that
| costs several times more than present -- to the point
| where fuel costs would be equal to the LCOE of solar.
|
| What is relevant is the entirety of world reserves are
| not enough to provide even US electricity + transport
| energy in PWRs. Loading 800GW of reactors uses almost all
| of it. Reprocessed MOX and what's left might buy you 20
| years of operation. Mines take quite some time to come
| online so the pace of production of new nuclear would be
| small compared to even the torpid rate of US renewable
| production.
|
| The PWR industry is nowhere near the scale of renewables,
| and it's impossible for it to get there.
|
| If you want to blow a trillion more dollars on trying to
| make it happen, put it into liquid sodium FNR research.
| At least that kinda-sorta works. You'll be quite
| disappointed when you finally get a design that is safe
| and scalable and see the price tag though. And even if
| you do go all in it will take decades to breed enough
| fissile material to make a dent.
| chitowneats wrote:
| We should. I would be a single issue voter for almost any
| candidate who proposed this. We should fill the state of
| Nevada with nuclear plants and export the energy as far
| as possible.
| daniel-cussen wrote:
| themitigating wrote:
| Switching over slowly and let the market adjust. Why must
| everyone make this argument as some sudden disruptive
| change?
| chitowneats wrote:
| We are switching over slowly. That's literally the status
| quo. The argument of "we could end coal for X dollars" is
| what introduces the idea of a discrete value into this
| discussion.
|
| How can you know what we will spend unless you specify a
| time interval? Clearly we won't be burning coal in 100
| years. Maybe not even 50. Or 30.
| themitigating wrote:
| I left out a variable that you hinted at so let me
| redefine what I meant.
|
| We need to move to green energy and not count sources of
| energy from unstable situations. Meaning Germany
| shouldn't have shut its coal plants relying on gas from
| Russia as replacement.
|
| The cold war ended in 1989 and first invaded Ukraine in
| 2014, with obvious hints at being authoritarian prior to
| that. Russia is not a friendly country and shouldn't have
| been considered one this quickly.
| chiefalchemist wrote:
| They said "could" not "should." It was, for me, context,
| a reference point. Such statements help push back against
| what is often misguided conventional wisdom. They shine
| light on our priorities, or the lack thereof.
| derefr wrote:
| The way that the USA would "close all of its coal mines"
| would involve replacing that production with different
| domestic energy production; not by becoming reliant on
| foreign energy markets.
| googlryas wrote:
| I never realized the southwestern United States was outside
| the develop world.
| datavirtue wrote:
| Seen Arizona lately? People are standing outside the
| polls with guns.
| [deleted]
| [deleted]
| [deleted]
| hilyen wrote:
| > The instrument can look for methane in the same way. "It turns
| out that methane also has a spectral signature in the same
| wavelength range, and that's what has allowed us to be sensitive
| to methane," EMIT principal investigator Robert Green said at a
| press conference, according to Space.com's Mike Wall.
|
| Lol "it turns out". Did they troll Congress and sell them a
| mineral detector? Of course they knew methane had a spectral
| signature.
|
| EDIT: No idea why people downvoting, I think it's hilarious and
| good we can detect it.
| blacksmith_tb wrote:
| I read that as "we built the detector to be sensitive to the
| wavelengths of the minerals we wanted to monitor, and methane's
| spectra are in that range, so it works well for picking it up".
| jacobjjacob wrote:
| Of course they could have known that beforehand, but it sounds
| like they weren't designing a methane detector so the fact that
| it works so well as one is what "turned out" I think. Also
| articles are really good and taking one quote from a big
| technical answer and making the speaker sound stupid
| mturmon wrote:
| Yeah, but CH4 detection was not why the mission was flown, so
| the PI is being careful to make this distinction.
| Robotbeat wrote:
| To put this in perspective, the 18300kg per hour from the Permian
| site is equivalent (over a 100 time horizon global warming
| potential) to a 500 Megawatt coal power plant's CO2 emissions
| (~1kg of CO2 per kWh of electricity) burning 24/7. Or, to put it
| another way, it accounts for the same emissions as about 0.3% of
| the entire US electricity grid.
| [deleted]
| grammers wrote:
| Wow, that's an important point. Nevertheless, it all adds up
| and keeps getting more.
| mort96 wrote:
| It's even worse than that, since that's the effect over 100
| years and we don't have 100 years. Over 20 years, 1 ton of
| methane is equivalent to about 80 tons of CO2 (compared to ~25
| tons over 100 years), so about 3x worse than your numbers.
| trashtester wrote:
| By what parameters do you think we don't have 100 years? When
| I read the IPCC reports, it seems that during the next 50
| years, we may see moderate increases in temperatures (1-3C,
| depending on scenario). While this may be bad in some areas,
| it's nothing compared to the worst case scenarios for
| 2200-2300 (up to 12C).
|
| A temperature increase of ~2C may at worst be comparable with
| a large pandemic or even WW2, just with the damage spread out
| over 2-3 generations. 12C, on the other hand, will leave
| large parts of the globe uninhabitable without technological
| assistance, and could wipe out a non-trival fraction of
| humanity if our tech doesn't keep up (still less hostile than
| Mars or Venus, though).
|
| But for the scenarios that go 150+ years into the future,
| methane is a pretty small contributor compared to CO2.
| mort96 wrote:
| Sorry, I shouldn't have written it like that. I suppose
| what I really mean is that it makes sense to look at the
| CO2 equivalent over a 100 year period when thinking about
| long-term climate change, but we're going to see large
| effects in the coming decades. The full sentence I
| should've written is something like, we don't have 100
| years _before we start seeing major changes_ , so the
| short-term impact should be a part of the conversation.
| trashtester wrote:
| > we don't have 100 years before we start seeing major
| changes
|
| I think perhaps (please correct me if you think I'm
| wrong) you're overestimating short term changes.
| Environmentalists tend to blame every disaster, flood or
| hurricane on climate change. This is like a mirror image
| to how the climate change deniers use every cold winter
| (or summer) as proof that climate change is a hoax.
|
| If you look at the data, the current effects of climate
| change is somewhere in the middle. At present, one could
| argue that the net effects of climate change are actually
| slightly positive. Deaths due to heat is going up
| slightly, but deaths due to cold is going down faster
| than the deaths due to heat is going up.
|
| By 2050, the adverse effects of the warming is probably
| greater than the positive ones, depending on scenario.
| Still, provided there is some technological and economic
| growth over the next 100 years, people living in 2122
| will most likely be wealther (and more food secure),
| healthier and safer than people that live today, even if
| the improvement will be less than over 1922-2022.
|
| > so the short-term impact should be a part of the
| conversation.
|
| But by then, the impact of methane released today is
| already much LESS than the 25x quoted. More like 10x, and
| falling rapidly from there.
|
| Also, there is the fact that changing policies takes
| time. One might even argue that there is an advantage to
| having a component to the warming where we will actually
| get a somewhat "quick" effect from cutting. Methane will
| contribute quite a bit to warming in the very short term,
| but as soon as we are able to stop releases, the effects
| will be gone within a generation, give or take (while CO2
| hangs around for centuries).
| bloudermilk wrote:
| It's hard to take this comment seriously when you haven't
| provided any of the relevant facts or sources to back this
| claim.
| Robotbeat wrote:
| Easily googleable numbers for total us electricity, about
| 475GW averaged over the year, about 1000 grams of CO2 per kWh
| for coal also pretty easily googleable (and can be derived
| with just basic facts like the heating value of coal of
| 35MJ/kg for nice anthracite, the fact that anthracite coal is
| nearly all carbon, the relative atomic mass of carbon and
| oxygen and therefore 12 parts coal will release around 44
| parts CO2, the fact that a coal power plant thermodynamic
| efficiency is around 35%, etc). (44/12)/(35MJ/kg * 0.35) in
| grams/kWh = 1078.grams/kWh.
|
| https://www.google.com/search?q=(44%2F12)%2F(35MJ%2Fkg+*+0.3.
| ..
|
| Global warming potential of CO2 over 100 year timeframe also
| googleable. These figures are all basic and pretty objective.
| (You May quibble about me choosing 100year timeframe vs 20
| year, but that's fine... it is still about the same order of
| magnitude.) More complicated to measure methane's atmospheric
| lifetime and infrared absorption proportions, but nothing
| really controversial.
|
| The EIA website also shows this stuff.
| l3uwin wrote:
| Same for your baseless snark, maybe provide some facts
| yourself
| throw10920 wrote:
| > you haven't provided any of the relevant facts or sources
| to back this claim
|
| It should be pretty clear that no sources are needed beyond
| using your eyes and looking at Robotbeat's comment - unless
| it's been edited, then it's rather obvious that no sources
| were provided, which was the claim being made.
|
| Saying "what are your sources" without further elaboration
| is typically a little rude and combative, but this kind of
| "no you" comment is flat-out ridiculous.
| Cthulhu_ wrote:
| They're not refuting the point or providing
| counterarguments, they're just questioning the lack of
| sources, which is valid.
|
| It's down to the person making a claim to provide evidence.
| If someone points out that there is no evidence provided,
| that someone doesn't need to provide evidence themselves.
|
| I mean yeah it's snarky, but it's a comment section on the
| internet.
| zekrioca wrote:
| https://www.eia.gov/coal/production/quarterly/co2_article/co.
| ..
| neRok wrote:
| Just to confirm the numbers myself;
|
| 18,300kg methane per hour * 24 hours * 365 days = 160,308,000kg
| (~0.160 million metric tonnes). At 25x CO2 equivalent, that is
| 4,007,700,000kg (4 million metric tonnes).
|
| This link about US electricity generation:
| https://www.eia.gov/tools/faqs/faq.php?id=74&t=11 shows 767
| "million metric tons" from coal, or 1.55 "billion metric tons"
| from all sources.
|
| 4 / 767 ~= 0.5%, so in the ballpark of the parent comment. Also
| possibly the second link is ton (~1016kg) vs tonne (1000kg),
| further tweaking the numbers.
|
| And just about the Permian basin, Wikipedia says it "accounts
| for 20% of US crude oil production and 7% of US dry natural gas
| production" -
| https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Permian_Basin_(North_America)#...
| So if all sites like this were measured, it might be more like
| 2.5% coal-use-equivalent?
| tremon wrote:
| _At 25x CO2 equivalent_
|
| Where do you get the 25x from? Wikipedia says it's 80x-100x:
|
| > over a 20-year period, [methane] traps 84 times more heat
| per mass unit than carbon dioxide (CO2) and 105 times the
| effect when accounting for aerosol interactions
|
| (from https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Atmospheric_methane)
|
| After that 20 years, methane decomposes into CO2 so its long-
| term contribution is 3x CO2 equivalent (due to the higher
| mass after acquiring the oxygen atoms), so its lifetime CO2
| equivalence can be higher or lower than 25x depending on
| which timescale you're looking at. Is the 25x an oft-used
| figure in the industry/literature?
| mort96 wrote:
| The 100 year global warming potential seems to be a pretty
| common way to compare greenhouse gases. It makes sense when
| you discuss things like, say, limiting warming to N degrees
| by 2100 or long-term climate change, but I agree that the
| caveat that "it's much, much, much worse on shorter time
| scales" should be emphasized way more than it is.
| Especially given the current situation.
| neRok wrote:
| It was just my first google result for "methane co2
| equivalent", and so the number came from this link (am
| Australian) -
| https://www.cleanenergyregulator.gov.au/NGER/About-the-
| Natio...
|
| You are right that there are different valid factors to
| consider, as can be seen here:
| https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Global_warming_potential
|
| But also, 25x vs 100x is a 4x difference, which doesn't
| affect the comparison to coal that much (it's still single
| digit % "at best").
| gowings97 wrote:
| HN'ers seething - you can't beat cheap fossil fuels for base
| load capacity (ask Germany)
|
| Only thing that trumps fossil fuels is nuclear - instead of
| the EU chasing Apple over USB-C ports, why don't they come up
| with some subsidies for better reactor designs?
| mort96 wrote:
| What does this have to be with satisfying base load
| capacity without fossil fuels? Or USB-C?
| gowings97 wrote:
| "What does this have to be with satisfying base load
| capacity without fossil fuels?"
|
| If you think inflation is high now, try making this a
| reality.
|
| The EU isn't a serious political body - instead of
| getting everyone at the table to solve hard problems,
| they chase nonsense.
| ClumsyPilot wrote:
| > The EU isn't a serious political body - instead of
| getting everyone at the table to solve hard problems,
| they chase nonsense.
|
| As opposed to gridlock in US congress or UK changing 3
| prime ministers in 1 year?
|
| There has been a marked decline in the quality of western
| political leadership, its not just EU
| bigbillheck wrote:
| It turns out they can do more than one thing at once.
| gowings97 wrote:
| "Or, to put it another way, it accounts for the same emissions
| as about 0.3% of the entire US electricity grid."
|
| And what % of US energy needs does that site supply to the
| grid?
| Robotbeat wrote:
| None comes from the leaks themselves. That's just wasted
| energy.
| zelos wrote:
| Thank you: kind of incredible that the author of the article
| didn't think to include that kind of information.
| hirundo wrote:
| Looking forward to AR apps that map pollutant emissions from such
| data and project it as you travel about, making the invisible
| conscious. There will be more public pressure for reform if the
| public can see the see the point-source IRL.
|
| If popularized that data could move real estate prices, with
| political fallout.
| quadcore wrote:
| Tangential weather info here. October 2022 was the hotest October
| ever recorded in France, 3.5degC above normal, 1degC above
| previous record. It was essentially 30degC a few days ago, with
| moskitos and all. Records have been pulverized this years every
| month since June in France. We've had 40degC for weeks (it was
| almost never the case in the 80'/90' when I was a child, 34degC
| was rare and considered very hot everywhere but in Corse). And
| Ive noticed a mind-blowing 36degC _at 11:30pm_ in late June.
|
| Cant refrain myself to say Im worried. Feels like things might go
| Hollywood in no more than 10 years really.
| [deleted]
| cratermoon wrote:
| Remember That Huge Methane Plume? https://www.kunm.org/local-
| news/2016-08-23/remember-that-hug...
| [deleted]
| [deleted]
| Bhurn00985 wrote:
| And now what ?
|
| Anyone knows what actions will be taken based on this data ?
| kelseyfrog wrote:
| Everyone has always had the option to vote with their dollars.
| If we allow ourself to be eco-capital-realists for a moment, we
| have to conclude that living on a habitable planet is simply
| not that important for most people.
| hwillis wrote:
| > Everyone has always had the option to vote with their
| dollars.
|
| Imagine for a second that this was an actual election. To
| vote for fossil fuels, people just have to call a phone
| number or drive to a polling place (gas station).
|
| To vote for carbon neutrality -that is, to be actually carbon
| neutral- a voter has to buy a new, more expensive car. They
| have to stop flying. They have to change everything they eat.
| They have to plant a bunch of trees. They have to spend
| hundreds of dollars on renewable electricity to ensure at
| least _someone_ is getting renewable power, even if it isn 't
| them personally. Or they can just stop using electricity, I
| guess.
|
| Imagine an election where you had to fulfill all those
| requirements for a year in order to vote annually. Would you
| say that voters "had the option" to vote? I wouldn't.
|
| Money has unequal power depending where its spent. You
| personally, trying to buy renewable electricity, have to
| spend hundreds of times more than a large scale coordinated
| action. Think of it as like the economy of scale.
| diob wrote:
| nomel wrote:
| I think this is an extremely privileged perspective.
| kelseyfrog wrote:
| For a brief moment before civilization-wide collapse, we'll
| be able to generate a lot of shareholder value.
| nomel wrote:
| I don't see how that's related. My point is that not
| everyone has the luxury of choosing to buy more
| expensive, eco friendly, goods. Some people have to pull
| from the bin of mass produced garbage food, rather than
| going down the street and paying 4x for something
| sustainably sourced.
|
| The _very first_ consequence of being poor is that you
| have to live further from work. Burning up 4 extra hours
| a day, on a bus, isn 't possible for everyone.
|
| The statement
|
| > Everyone has always had the option to vote with their
| dollars.
|
| is privileged nonsense.
| roflyear wrote:
| I don't think anyone is upset with those people.
| Generally people on HN are wealthy.
| themitigating wrote:
| That's not what people think. They don't care because it
| won't effect them.
| roflyear wrote:
| I care. I went vegan.
| hwillis wrote:
| That's clearly incorrect. 43% of Americans think global
| warming will pose a serious threat in their lifetime[1]. If
| they could just "vote with their dollars" then the US would
| have seen immense changes in renewable energy and EVs in
| the past 20 years.
|
| There are 3 factors:
|
| Market forces make it extremely difficult to create large
| change at the personal level. You can't crowdfund grid-
| scale renewables. Even if you have the option to pay extra
| for renewable power, it does almost nothing- renewable
| power has zero marginal cost, so it will _always be sold
| anyway_. Your impact on how much supply is built is
| marginal, unless you can pool your money into a huge fund,
| which is not a program that exists, because people instead
| want to take advantage of existing political processes, but
| unfortunately...
|
| Political forces make it extremely difficult to create even
| _small_ changes. 30% of Massachusetts voted for Trump.
| _Every_ state has a relatively high proportion of
| conservatives, and our political systems are all designed
| to make compromise very difficult. At its absolute worst,
| in the US congress, only _2 bills per year can be passed_
| without a supermajority, due to budget reconciliation.
| Surprise, not much gets done.
|
| Finally, 30-40% of the US just flat out thinks its bullshit
| and are against it on principle. Many of them are quite
| happy to actively fight against the majority, and it's
| _spectacularly easy_ for them to do so. Not being wasteful
| is in fact much harder than being wasteful, so one asshole
| can wipe out the careful effort of many good people.
|
| [1]: https://news.gallup.com/poll/355427/americans-
| concerned-glob...
| themitigating wrote:
| Sorry, I should have been more clear. Some people don't
| care, enough that we can't change right now. You detailed
| more clearly what I wasn't trying to say.
| [deleted]
| kelseyfrog wrote:
| Let me get this straight. You're saying that markets cannot
| optimize for futures beyond the lifetime-horizon of their
| participants?
| hotpotamus wrote:
| My plan is to move a bit north before the wet bulb temperatures
| in the southern US get too bad. I'm thinking ruralish Michigan
| for my retirement.
| prottog wrote:
| The Great Lakes area is a good place to be to shield yourself
| from natural disasters of any kind, including any extreme
| climate events to come, other than maybe another ice age.
|
| For what it's worth, I live in the Gulf Coast, which is home
| to some of the highest wet-bulb temperatures in the country;
| and temperatures here appear to be moderating, if anything.
| The average temperature in the state of Mississippi, for
| example, remained virtually constant over the last century,
| rising by 0.1oF, compared to the nationwide average of 1.8oF.
| hotpotamus wrote:
| Yep, South Texas here, but I wouldn't call it the Gulf
| Coast, though I do go fishing there once in awhile. I'm
| sick of the humidity and locally speaking we break
| temperature records nearly every summer now. The Great
| Lakes are my best bet for the future, yes.
| roflyear wrote:
| A lot of methane comes from animals. See here:
| https://www.iea.org/reports/methane-tracker-2020
|
| If you care about this, you should stop eating meat, or reduce
| your meat consumption.
| diob wrote:
| https://i.kym-
| cdn.com/entries/icons/original/000/036/647/Scr...
| roflyear wrote:
| Hmm?
| Bhurn00985 wrote:
| Done already, been vegetarian for the past 5 years, what's
| your next suggestion ?
|
| Also https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Whataboutism
| roflyear wrote:
| I don't think it is whataboutism to say please go vegan!
|
| Next suggestion, get other people to go vegan :)
| jakub_g wrote:
| Since Turkmenistan was mentioned, mandatory link:
|
| https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Darvaza_gas_crater
|
| > One of the more popular theories is that Soviet geologists
| intentionally set it on fire in 1971 to prevent the spread of
| methane gas, and it is thought to have been burning continuously
| ever since.
| xen2xen1 wrote:
| I'm not quite sure, does burning it make it less harmful?
| josephpmay wrote:
| Yes, burning methane converts it to CO2, which is much less
| harmful of a greenhouse gas
| lob_it wrote:
| https://www.bbc.com/news/science-environment-63083634
|
| It looks like cancer and leukaemia for surrounding
| populations too, so capping or capture protocols may not
| kick the can as far.
| [deleted]
| labster wrote:
| In general CO2 is a far less potent greenhouse gas than CH4,
| largely because there is already a permanent low level of
| carbon dioxide in the atmosphere. In a few decades the
| methane will oxidize to CO2, but in the meantime it's like 40
| times more potent. Better to burn it.
|
| (Not sure if CH4 is inherently stronger than CO2 because of
| more possible quantum states, but I suspect atmospheric
| abundance is the main factor (without looking it up))
| antod wrote:
| My layperson understanding was that the more atoms/bonds a
| molecule has, the less transparent it was to IR. Diatomic
| molucules like oxygen and nitrogen were pretty much
| transparent, molecules like CO2 and H2O were in the middle,
| and bigger ones like CH4 were less so.
| labster wrote:
| I have a hazy understanding from the atmospheric
| radiation course I took a decade back, but if I recall
| correctly the vibrational states of a two-atom molecule
| are simply not at affected by infrared. To be a
| greenhouse gas, you need the, uh, rotational states
| provided by three or more atoms. Or something like that?
| I was always more of a dynamicist and barely scaped by in
| atm chem (it's almost all free radical chemistry). Anyway
| you definitely need a third atom.
| jakub_g wrote:
| Not an expert but quickly googling: Methane is 84x more
| contributing to the warming than CO2 over the first 20 years,
| per kg emitted.
|
| It persists in atmosphere shorter than CO2 though, so a 100
| year coefficient is 28x.
|
| Source: https://climatechangeconnection.org/emissions/co2-equ
| ivalent...
| hinkley wrote:
| Any other use of methane besides combustion most likely
| ends up releasing the exact same amount of energy as
| burning it.
|
| For instance, nitrogen fertilizer eventually breaks the
| hydrogen bonds and ends up back in the atmosphere.
| hinkley wrote:
| Was there not some point where someone might have thought it a
| good idea to sink a gas wellhead half a mile away to drink that
| milkshake instead of letting it burn for 50 years?
| selimthegrim wrote:
| These are the same people that thought draining the Aral Sea
| for cotton was a good idea.
| [deleted]
| [deleted]
| MonkeyClub wrote:
| stuaxo wrote:
| COP27 is about to start, that would be a good time for countries
| to agree to do something about these starting this year.
| LatteLazy wrote:
| China and the US have already committed to take no serious
| action. Here in the UK we have the same policy. The EU
| prevaricates (who can blame them). India also isn't planning to
| do anything. COP27 is a giant waste of time with champagne.
| prottog wrote:
| > is a giant waste of time
|
| It accomplishes politicians making themselves look good to
| the electorate. Of course, the champagne doesn't hurt ;-)
| lob_it wrote:
| https://www.bbc.com/news/science-environment-63083634
|
| The article indicated a 20% rise in cancer rates in populutions
| around these oil sites from 2015 to 2018.
|
| We can only wonder how many decades this has been occuring in
| oil-rich countries with poor recordkeeping.
| renonn wrote:
| comice wrote:
| I for one am glad the US is finally looking into who on earth is
| causing these awful climate problems. Turns out it is
| Turkmenistan and "likely Russia".
| momento wrote:
| It's not just Turkmenistan.
|
| >These facilities, equipment and other infrastructure that emit
| methane at high rates span central Asia, the Middle East and
| the southwestern United States.
|
| What I am curious about is how do we actually hold these large
| scale emitters accountable and enact change? It's not enough to
| simply know about the problem.
| omgJustTest wrote:
| Stupid question: How much is this actually contributing to
| climate change?
|
| Any climate scientists who make active predictions about how much
| we don't know?
| barbazoo wrote:
| > Methane is more than 25 times as potent as carbon dioxide at
| trapping heat in the atmosphere
|
| It's a pretty potent greenhouse gas.
|
| https://www.epa.gov/gmi/importance-methane
| Georgelemental wrote:
| Methane is a much more potent greenhouse gas compared to CO2,
| but also stays in the atmosphere much less long (on the order
| of a few decades).
| khuey wrote:
| The way methane "exits" the atmosphere is by becoming CO2,
| so it's strictly worse.
| mirekrusin wrote:
| Methane becoming CO2 means it also produces H2O + a lot
| of heat, correct? Enough heat to use it as energy source
| for example.
| tmtvl wrote:
| Yes, biogas is primarily methane, and it's one possible
| energy source that can be (is?) used while transitioning
| away from fossil fuels.
| Pokepokalypse wrote:
| CO2 plus H2O (water vapor is also a highly potent
| greenhouse gas).
| trashtester wrote:
| When methane is released, each molecule casues 120x more
| warming than a CO2 molecule. As it decays (with a half
| life of ~10 years), it falls exponentially towards a
| floor of 2-4x worse than CO2 (it's 4x after 100 years and
| continues to decay from there). This is called Global
| Temperature Potential (GTP).
|
| Even after 50 years, it's "only" 10x worse than CO2.
|
| GWP is the average for all years, compared to CO2. For
| methane, most of this is contributed within the first 20
| years after release. GWP is primarily useful for
| estimating the effect of constant steady state emissions.
| For instance, if we emit both methane and CO2 at constant
| rates from now to 2122, the heating from the methane is
| about 25x worse than from CO2. (CWP100=~25). (calculating
| this gives the same integral as averaging over 100
| years).
|
| However, if we're not looking at constant emissions, but
| instead large bursts where all the gas is released at
| once, it makes more sense to use the GTP curve.
|
| Here is a nice plot that visualizes this: https://pubs.rs
| c.org/image/article/2018/EM/c8em00414e/c8em00...
|
| Edit: strictly speaking, the above reasoning assumes the
| Earth cools rather quickly. Actual cooling once heat has
| been trapped can be 10-20 years, however, meaning the
| maximum temperature is reached about 10 years after the
| release, and it will take 20+ years for all the heat to
| escape Earth after the methane itself is gone.
|
| https://pubs.rsc.org/image/article/2018/EM/c8em00414e/c8e
| m00...
| CrazyStat wrote:
| The 25x number is already accounting for the fact that
| methane doesn't stick around as long. It's based on
| 100-year GWP calculations [1]. If you look at shorter
| timescales methane is relatively much worse.
|
| [1] https://www.epa.gov/ghgemissions/understanding-global-
| warmin...
| lob_it wrote:
| It looks like if methane emissions were completely capped, we
| would still have above normal temperatures for decades before
| 20th century temperature norms were restored.
|
| Who would be best to explain that in laymen terms?
|
| Organics may offset some co2, so rainforest regrowth in brazil
| and other largescale projects may manage the aftereffects
| better.
| Zild wrote:
| The answer is actually not that easy to find when searching for
| less than 5 minutes.
|
| The amount of CO2 in the atmosphere is apparently 440 ppm. CH4
| (methane) is 1.85 ppm.
|
| At identical concentration levels CH4 is 84 times more
| impactful greenhouse effect than CO2 over the course of 10 to
| 20 years and 28 over 100 years. So it should be about 35% of
| the global CO2 effect short term (which is not the total but
| close, probably ?), so highly significant. Curiously the number
| that I found is around 10-20% so either my numbers are wrong or
| other graphs I found use confusing units.
| quickthrower2 wrote:
| 440PPM?
|
| Yikes: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=12608421 seems
| like yesterday
| rowanG077 wrote:
| Methane is a very strong greenhouse gas. But the upside is that
| it doesn't stay in the atmosphere for long. The half life of it
| is something like 9 years.
| nomel wrote:
| Would it be ecologically responsible to set these leaks on
| fire?
| datavirtue wrote:
| Depends on who you ask. Today it's tomato soup and epoxy,
| tomorrow it's C4 and a cell phone. It won't be long before
| we have conversations about nationalizing fossil fuel
| companies.
| s1artibartfast wrote:
| At which time it turns into CO2 which stays around longer,
| and water which I believe is a more potent greenhouse gas
| than either
| Georgelemental wrote:
| Water falls to the earth as rain
| s1artibartfast wrote:
| Something like 90 or 95% of the greenhouse effect is from
| water vapor. The only reason we really care about
| atmospheric CO2 is because we think that it triggers more
| atmospheric water which is the real driver of global
| temperature change.
| Pokepokalypse wrote:
| warmer atmosphere == higher capacity to hold water vapor.
| pkaye wrote:
| According to the article, it lasts shorter time in the
| atmosphere compared to CO2.
|
| > Since methane only lasts in the atmosphere for about ten
| years, compared to the centuries that carbon dioxide sticks
| around, reducing methane emissions could contribute to slowing
| global warming sooner,
| thinkcontext wrote:
| Scientists tend to talk about greenhouse gases' global
| warming potential (GWP). A common figure used for methane is
| it has the GWP 20x that of CO2 over 100 year period. This
| takes into account that the methane at first traps a lot of
| heat and then it breaks down to CO2 and traps less heat.
|
| Another consideration is that as the concentration of methane
| in the atmosphere rises the rate at which it breaks down
| slows.
| namuol wrote:
| Worth mentioning that CH4 ultimately turns into CO2.
| idiotsecant wrote:
| At which point it reacts with ozone to form carbon dioxide
| and water. It's like saying the best way to destroy water is
| by freezing it.
| thinkcontext wrote:
| As of 2015 it was estimated that methane made up 16% of the
| human contributions to global warming [0] So, significant but
| by itself not necessarily worrying.
|
| However, there are a number of other factors that do make
| methane particularly worrisome. First, the concentration of
| methane in the atmosphere is going up much faster than CO2,
| this despite the fact that it decays into CO2 after about 10
| years. Further, the higher the concentration of methane the
| slower its rate of decay, so it stays in the atmosphere
| trapping heat for longer.
|
| Finally, and most worrisome, there appears to be a feedback
| loop with warming and methane release from permafrost.
|
| [0] https://www.c2es.org/content/international-emissions/
| temptemptemp111 wrote:
| marricks wrote:
| Really hoping this was outside our solar system and indicative of
| life, TBH.
___________________________________________________________________
(page generated 2022-11-02 23:02 UTC)