NASA Flew Gas Detectors Above California, Found ‘Super Emitters’
1–10 of 196 posts
Re: NASA Flew Gas Detectors Above California, Found ‘Super Emitters’
#2The most interesting sentence isn't the headline, but rather:
> Landfills accounted for 41% of the source emissions it identified, manure management 26% and oil and gas operations 26%.
i.e. perhaps the best reason to recycle or compost is to avoid the methane emissions from natural decomposition.
Re: NASA Flew Gas Detectors Above California, Found ‘Super Emitters’
#3The most interesting sentence isn't the headline, but rather: > Landfills accounted for 41% of the source emissions it identified, manure management 26% and oil and gas operations 26%. i.e. perhaps the best reason to recycle or compost is to avoid the methane emissions from natural decomposition.
Wouldn’t composting have the same issue as tossing it in the dump though?
Re: NASA Flew Gas Detectors Above California, Found ‘Super Emitters’
#4The most interesting sentence isn't the headline, but rather: > Landfills accounted for 41% of the source emissions it identified, manure management 26% and oil and gas operations 26%. i.e. perhaps the best reason to recycle or compost is to avoid the methane emissions from natural decomposition.
Wouldn’t composting have the same issue as tossing it in the dump though?
Landfills are actually better, in that in many cases commercial operators can recover the gas and turn it into renewable fuel.
Re: NASA Flew Gas Detectors Above California, Found ‘Super Emitters’
#5The most interesting sentence isn't the headline, but rather: > Landfills accounted for 41% of the source emissions it identified, manure management 26% and oil and gas operations 26%. i.e. perhaps the best reason to recycle or compost is to avoid the methane emissions from natural decomposition.
That sort of undermines some of the carbon arguments used against recycling.
Re: NASA Flew Gas Detectors Above California, Found ‘Super Emitters’
#6The most interesting sentence isn't the headline, but rather: > Landfills accounted for 41% of the source emissions it identified, manure management 26% and oil and gas operations 26%. i.e. perhaps the best reason to recycle or compost is to avoid the methane emissions from natural decomposition.
> i.e. perhaps the best reason to recycle or compost is to avoid the methane emissions from natural decomposition.
Uhhh, I think you may want to rethink that. Rotting things, whether in a landfill or in your ecologically principled compost heap in your back yard releases methane.
Re: NASA Flew Gas Detectors Above California, Found ‘Super Emitters’
#7Some very smart friends of mine do this with airplanes to find leaks in natural gas plants and pipelines: http://kairosaerospace.com/
Re: NASA Flew Gas Detectors Above California, Found ‘Super Emitters’
#8Earlier quoted context omitted.
Wouldn’t composting have the same issue as tossing it in the dump though?
Landfills are actually better, in that in many cases commercial operators can recover the gas and turn it into renewable fuel.
There are now a few startups trying to make home/DIY anaerobic digesters that you can collect the gas from. Would be interesting for e.g. keeping a greenhouse warm year-round without the electricity spend.
For example (I have no idea how competent the product is): https://www.homebiogas.com/Products/HomeBiogas2
Re: NASA Flew Gas Detectors Above California, Found ‘Super Emitters’
#9The most interesting sentence isn't the headline, but rather: > Landfills accounted for 41% of the source emissions it identified, manure management 26% and oil and gas operations 26%. i.e. perhaps the best reason to recycle or compost is to avoid the methane emissions from natural decomposition.
> i.e. perhaps the best reason to recycle or compost is to avoid the methane emissions from natural decomposition. Uhhh, I think you may want to rethink that. Rotting things, whether in a landfill or in your ecologically principled compost heap in your back yard releases methane.
Yeah methane is released inside a compost pile but some of it is consumed by the compost pile by other reactions. That is literally the point of a compost pile versus just a pile of garbage.
Re: NASA Flew Gas Detectors Above California, Found ‘Super Emitters’
#10The most interesting sentence isn't the headline, but rather: > Landfills accounted for 41% of the source emissions it identified, manure management 26% and oil and gas operations 26%. i.e. perhaps the best reason to recycle or compost is to avoid the methane emissions from natural decomposition.
> i.e. perhaps the best reason to recycle or compost is to avoid the methane emissions from natural decomposition. Uhhh, I think you may want to rethink that. Rotting things, whether in a landfill or in your ecologically principled compost heap in your back yard releases methane.
Methane is produced by anaerobic decomposition; composting is defined by the regular aeration (and sometimes watering) of the compost pile, which allows aerobic bacteria to break down the pile more cleanly. You do still get some GHGs, but much less.
See:
https://www.agric.wa.gov.au/climate-change/composting-avoid-...