Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Methane leaks from US gas fields dwarf government estimates

nature.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

81–90 of 97 posts

Re: Methane leaks from US gas fields dwarf government estimates

#81

Post by roenxi »

24gttghh wrote: post #4

In case you're wondering, burning natural gas does produce ~half the CO2 you would release from burning various types of coal, [0] the dirtiest (yes, much worse than all of the nuclear power accidents combined[1]) of all methods of electricity production. But it still produces CO2! And at the rate at which natural gas is taking over a greater share of the energy production of the world economy, we are still looking a…

> yes, much worse than all of the nuclear power accidents combined[1]

I'll get it out of the way up front; I'm absurdly pro-nuclear.

Sunlight and radiation are both essentially high-energy, carcinogenic radiation. Technically, I'm sure they are very different, practically they are very similar.

I'd be really interested to know how the amount of sunlight reflected of a solar panel stacks up against something like the radiation levels in the Fukushima exclusion area after, say, 10 years. People ignore sunlight because it is familiar, but from an engineering perspective it is quite hazardous.

Without having any evidence on the subject whatsoever, I'd not be at all surprised if workers at an industrial solar plantation to be at higher risk of cancer than workers at a nuclear plant. I'd love to know how a solar plant working normally stacks up against a rare nuclear disaster by the numbers.

Re: Methane leaks from US gas fields dwarf government estimates

#82

Post by mklarmann »

tajen wrote: post #48
thaumasiotes wrote: post #36

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Methane contains just as much carbon as carbon dioxide does. (By volume; by weight it would be a lot more.)

...but is 84x more potent as a greenhouse gas as if we burn it.

If we not burn it, actually

Re: Methane leaks from US gas fields dwarf government estimates

#83

Post by arbitrary_name »

forapurpose wrote: post #70
deepinsand wrote: post #62

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Founded rigup.com to try address this issue. Improving the quality of the cement casing is a huge factor, along with hiring competent workers and scheduling inspections. It all comes down to creating financial incentives. IIRC, Obama's proposed fracking regulation (that most presumed Hilary would run with) called for regular visits of sites. Sadly it never passed. Once Trump undid the only thing Obama got through, fe…

> companies had no incentive to worry anymore I know what you are saying, but I want to add that it's insane: The owners of the companies have to live in this world, as do their decedents. Also, they are not all sociopaths who don't care if people die and suffer. I think it's a mistake to think they cannot be persuaded otherwise. Perhaps it's the powerful propaganda machine that runs through the WSJ and other busines…

Don't be so naive, my friend. There is ample evidence to show that either a) those people believe in their ability to avoid consequences (see the difference between responses to rising sea levels between poor and wealthy florida neighbourhoods) or b) are heavily incentivised to believe there are no consequences (the old saw of a man being able to believe or disbelieve anything if his paycheck depends on it).

I work with Oil and gas execs. They are almost uniformly very conservative and do not believe in any aspect or climate change, or taking activity to mitigate the effects.

They are not the receivers of propaganda, they are the creators of propaganda.

Re: Methane leaks from US gas fields dwarf government estimates

#84

Post by batbomb »

roenxi wrote: post #81
24gttghh wrote: post #4

In case you're wondering, burning natural gas does produce ~half the CO2 you would release from burning various types of coal, [0] the dirtiest (yes, much worse than all of the nuclear power accidents combined[1]) of all methods of electricity production. But it still produces CO2! And at the rate at which natural gas is taking over a greater share of the energy production of the world economy, we are still looking a…

> yes, much worse than all of the nuclear power accidents combined[1] I'll get it out of the way up front; I'm absurdly pro-nuclear. Sunlight and radiation are both essentially high-energy, carcinogenic radiation. Technically, I'm sure they are very different, practically they are very similar. I'd be really interested to know how the amount of sunlight reflected of a solar panel stacks up against something like the…

I’m sorry but this is completely apples and oranges. UV is not, in fact, “high energy” in any physics sense of the word. I’m not sure what the transmission of UV to a solar panel is but I’m sure it’s not 0%, and with all of this, workers can protect themselves with clothing and Titanium Dioxide. The bad part is the spectrum.

Re: Methane leaks from US gas fields dwarf government estimates

#85

Post by mjw1007 »

hcknwscommenter wrote: post #78
wcoenen wrote: post #44

Earlier quoted context omitted.

For most of the ways methane breaks down, it gets converted to CO2 anyway[1]. So it's better to break it down to CO2 immediately to avoid the stronger greenhouse effect of methane. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Atmospheric_methane#Natural_si...

Your link suggests your assertion "For most of the ways methane breaks down, it gets converted to CO2 anyway" is just plain incorrect. In the atmosphere, methane becomes -CH3 (- used for dot because I don't know how to do that), the free radical eventually forms formaldehyde. Methanotropic soil bacteria can break down methane to CO2, but there is nothing to support your assertion that most of the ways methane breaks…

The page at that link says:

« The most effective sink of atmospheric methane is the hydroxyl radical in the troposphere, or the lowest portion of Earth’s atmosphere. As methane rises into the air, it reacts with the hydroxyl radical to create water vapor and carbon dioxide. »

So if the page is right, possibly not "most of the ways", but at least "most of the methane".

Re: Methane leaks from US gas fields dwarf government estimates

#86

Post by roenxi »

batbomb wrote: post #84
roenxi wrote: post #81

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> yes, much worse than all of the nuclear power accidents combined[1] I'll get it out of the way up front; I'm absurdly pro-nuclear. Sunlight and radiation are both essentially high-energy, carcinogenic radiation. Technically, I'm sure they are very different, practically they are very similar. I'd be really interested to know how the amount of sunlight reflected of a solar panel stacks up against something like the…

I’m sorry but this is completely apples and oranges. UV is not, in fact, “high energy” in any physics sense of the word. I’m not sure what the transmission of UV to a solar panel is but I’m sure it’s not 0%, and with all of this, workers can protect themselves with clothing and Titanium Dioxide. The bad part is the spectrum.

> UV is not, in fact, “high energy” in any physics sense is the word.

But since a solar power plant is generating industrial levels of electricity by harvesting solar energy, it is clearly high energy in some practical sense.

> workers can protect themselves with clothing and Titanium Dioxide.

Each year many Australians (I'm from Australia, the number is >5,000) get diagnosed with skin cancer caused by sunlight. A double digit percentage of them die. Just because something is theoretically controllable doesn't mean that it is safe.

0 people died of radiation poisoning so far from the most recent nuclear disaster (Fukashima). Now, I am comparing apples and oranges, but it is entirely plausible that the cancer risks of a solar plant and a nuclear plant are comparable.

Re: Methane leaks from US gas fields dwarf government estimates

#87

Post by mjw1007 »

masteranza wrote: post #35
guelo wrote: post #26

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That blog is much more propagandist than anything James Hansen ever did.

So which facts did he get wrong exactly? Sure, it may looks so, but so far everything I've read on this blog is correct.

If you're thinking about the scenario A/B/C stuff, he's ignoring the effects of the drop in atmospheric CFCs.

Re: Methane leaks from US gas fields dwarf government estimates

#88

Post by batbomb »

roenxi wrote: post #86
batbomb wrote: post #84

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I’m sorry but this is completely apples and oranges. UV is not, in fact, “high energy” in any physics sense of the word. I’m not sure what the transmission of UV to a solar panel is but I’m sure it’s not 0%, and with all of this, workers can protect themselves with clothing and Titanium Dioxide. The bad part is the spectrum.

> UV is not, in fact, “high energy” in any physics sense is the word. But since a solar power plant is generating industrial levels of electricity by harvesting solar energy, it is clearly high energy in some practical sense. > workers can protect themselves with clothing and Titanium Dioxide. Each year many Australians (I'm from Australia, the number is >5,000) get diagnosed with skin cancer caused by sunlight. A do…

I'm not sure I follow. "High Energy" has a very specific meaning in physics, which typically refers particle physics, which may include nuclear physics but would definitely not include the UV spectrum. Energy, in the photonic radiation sense sense, refers quite literally to the wavelength of a photon. UV is not high energy. It's the energy of a photon which is the bad stuff for cancer. UV is energetic enough to damage molecular bonds, but that's easily mitigated through clothing (which workers _already_ wear) and titanium dioxide, which completely absorbs those photons.

You are right that both hazards for cancer risks in both plans are well understood, but one is mitigated by spending hundreds of millions of dollars of equipment, construction, water, a regulatory commission, constant improvement of procedure and policy, education, and clever engineering.

The other requires long sleeve shirts and a hat.

Re: Methane leaks from US gas fields dwarf government estimates

#89

Post by masteranza »

mjw1007 wrote: post #87
masteranza wrote: post #35

Earlier quoted context omitted.

So which facts did he get wrong exactly? Sure, it may looks so, but so far everything I've read on this blog is correct.

If you're thinking about the scenario A/B/C stuff, he's ignoring the effects of the drop in atmospheric CFCs.

Thank you, I'll check that - on the other hand are the current models taking into account cosmic rays that are just reaching it's maximum? https://spaceweatherarchive.com/2018/03/05/the-worsening-cos...

Re: Methane leaks from US gas fields dwarf government estimates

#90

Post by mac01021 »

jjoonathan wrote: post #27
hanniabu wrote: post #6

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Removing lobbyists, removing buyable politicians, electing politicians that believe in science

Remove the mandatory bribe quota first and the politicians will follow.

Mandatory bribe quota?
Post reply on HN