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

NASA Flew Gas Detectors Above California, Found ‘Super Emitters’

bloomberg.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

41–50 of 196 posts

Re: NASA Flew Gas Detectors Above California, Found ‘Super Emitters’

#41

Post by thinkcontext »

joshvm wrote: post #8
new_realist wrote: post #4

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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

This is of no use in the developed world for a normal house. Try getting your home owners insurance to pay off a claim against an accident involving this. Also, according to its specs you can get 2hrs of cooking per day if you supply 5 gallons of animal manure. That's a tiny amount of energy compared to modern energy needs.

For most people this would be a novelty, maybe you could run an outdoor grill off of it.

Re: NASA Flew Gas Detectors Above California, Found ‘Super Emitters’

#42

Post by danielfoster »

As an individual I'm happy to make sacrifices for the greater good, and this is an example of why we should not accept the narrative that consumers bear the brunt of reducing emissions.

Maybe California should do a few more of these flights before finding something else to ban?

Re: NASA Flew Gas Detectors Above California, Found ‘Super Emitters’

#43

Post by WhompingWindows »

gniv wrote: post #13

So what can be done about landfills? Burying stuff seems expensive/energy intensive.

I believe some landfills and dairies capture methane. If there were a GHG pollution tax, they could save a lot of $ capturing excess waste methane. As is, I wonder if it's a neutral or cost saving to capture methane?

Re: NASA Flew Gas Detectors Above California, Found ‘Super Emitters’

#44

Post by MisterOctober »

azernik wrote: post #10
scottlocklin wrote: post #6

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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-... https://ww3.arb.ca.gov/cc/compost/compost.htm

Worth noting / just pointing out : one common approach to orchard composting [which influences some backyard operations] is to avoid turning it in an effort to 1) promote fungal development and 2) save labor/money

Re: NASA Flew Gas Detectors Above California, Found ‘Super Emitters’

#45

Post by bravo22 »

danielfoster wrote: post #42

As an individual I'm happy to make sacrifices for the greater good, and this is an example of why we should not accept the narrative that consumers bear the brunt of reducing emissions. Maybe California should do a few more of these flights before finding something else to ban?

Per the article, most of the sites were landfills, dairy farms, and natural gas facilities. All of those are directly controlled by consumer demand.

Re: NASA Flew Gas Detectors Above California, Found ‘Super Emitters’

#46

Post by dilyevsky »

lotyrin wrote: post #39
jobseeker990 wrote: post #34

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Compost IS natural decomposition, my dude.

A composting operation could potentially capture its gasses though, compared to landfills.

There are landfills that capture methane too. Some even turn it into onsite power source (in which case it’s re-emitted as co2 but oh well)

Re: NASA Flew Gas Detectors Above California, Found ‘Super Emitters’

#47

Post by AWildC182 »

TrevorAustin wrote: post #7

Some very smart friends of mine do this with airplanes to find leaks in natural gas plants and pipelines: http://kairosaerospace.com/

Their wing strut mounting of that sensor pod causes me a lot of concern... I don't think Cessna ever expected crazy torque loads on strut meant for tension.

Re: NASA Flew Gas Detectors Above California, Found ‘Super Emitters’

#48

Post by aphextim »

azernik wrote: post #2

The 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.

Still waiting on Elon Musk to make "WasteX" which will take vast amounts of garbage from landfills and fly it directly into the Sun.

Re: NASA Flew Gas Detectors Above California, Found ‘Super Emitters’

#49

Post by wongarsu »

gniv wrote: post #13

So what can be done about landfills? Burying stuff seems expensive/energy intensive.

Many European countries (Germany, Sweden, Norway, etc) don't allow landfills for common household trash. The solution obviously has many facets. Mostly it breaks down to waste separation (e.g. different bins for plastics, compost and paper that are emptied for free, with high fees for the rest to encourage people to separate), recycling what you can and burning the rest. Burning trash produces energy and you can deal with produced gases at one central location, what's left after burning is easy to landfill because it's much less volume and basically doesn't decompose.

Re: NASA Flew Gas Detectors Above California, Found ‘Super Emitters’

#50

Post by schnable »

bravo22 wrote: post #45
danielfoster wrote: post #42

As an individual I'm happy to make sacrifices for the greater good, and this is an example of why we should not accept the narrative that consumers bear the brunt of reducing emissions. Maybe California should do a few more of these flights before finding something else to ban?

Per the article, most of the sites were landfills, dairy farms, and natural gas facilities. All of those are directly controlled by consumer demand.

That's true, but perhaps the emissions can be mitigated in a targeted way beyond just reducing demand.
Post reply on HN