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

121–130 of 196 posts

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

#121

Post by blacksmith_tb »

samcheng wrote: post #97
hanniabu wrote: post #90

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That's a great idea, but also requires an organized garbage collection system where items are separated at the source (consumer). Unfortunately the US doesn't have such a system in place, which is partially a social issue.

It's very common in the bay area to put biodegradable compost (paper towels, food waste, pumpkins, etc.) into the third green bin, along with the yard waste. The other two bins are for recycling and other garbage. It's not very difficult to segregate compostables, and I'm confident the rest of the US will catch up soon.

Yes, same in Portland, OR. In our case we're incentivized by having compost and recycling pick ups weekly, but garbage only every other week. So people who choose not to sort suffer...

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

#122

Post by ip26 »

bravo22 wrote: post #61
ip26 wrote: post #51

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It's not all landfills, it's a small collection of landfills. And if they aren't fixed, even if everybody went zero waste today, those landfills would still be emitting large amounts of methane. Proper landfill design & operation ensures the landfill is aerated, which keeps decomposition primarily aerobic which produces little methane. A poorly designed or operated landfill with little aeration will switch to aerobic…

I agree that it can be reduced, my point was that it is directly tied to consumer demand and human activity. It will still be a none-zero number after reduction. No business is out there emitting methane for shits and giggles. As I said elsewhere in this post, you can cut emission but population growth offsets all the benefits. You cannot address climate change without drastic long term reduction in human activity/po…

In some cases consumer demand is the biggest lever we have, it's true. But in this case of a few bad actor landfills, we can fix 95% of the problem in a matter of a few months or years with established solutions.

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

#123

Post by StillBored »

donarb wrote: post #76
AWildC182 wrote: post #47

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

In the PyCon video (link posted elsewhere), a questioner asked if they had thought of making the pod able to be controlled during banking to keep the data from being tainted with outlier values. The speaker described that FAA rules determine what can be attached to the airplane so it was better to make the pod dumb and fix the data in post processing. Presumably they built the pod as light as possible to fit under FA…

I'm not sure there is a weight regulation beyond the general guidelines provided by the manufacture which probably don't cover major alterations like this. Its probably more like what they could get the local A&P to sign off on. Part 43 (https://www.law.cornell.edu/cfr/text/14/part-43) is mostly about how the alterations are to be made than dealing with the specifics of the alternation.

Beyond that, its likely is a permanent mark against the air-frame which makes it basically impossible to resell. Including the fact it might have added an additional inspection interval at the strut attachment points. Might even have ended up as an experimental cert due to not conforming to the type any longer.

Also, i'm not so sure there is a lot of formal engineering going into a mod like this on a GA plane. More likely someone has a rough set of parameters for air-frame shear/etc stress and a quick calculation said that the additional stress at 120MPH and landing shock was a small percentage of the total.

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

#124

Post by soperj »

ip26 wrote: post #51
bravo22 wrote: post #45

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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

It's not all landfills, it's a small collection of landfills. And if they aren't fixed, even if everybody went zero waste today, those landfills would still be emitting large amounts of methane. Proper landfill design & operation ensures the landfill is aerated, which keeps decomposition primarily aerobic which produces little methane. A poorly designed or operated landfill with little aeration will switch to aerobic…

This is something I've always wondered (being someone who is heavily into compost), since the byproduct of aerobic decomposition is CO2, which is actually worse? Aerobic, or Anaerobic? Both produce GHGs, Methane is the worse one, but obviously if it was produced in smaller quantities then it would be more beneficial. Also what lasts longer in the atmosphere? CO2 or Methane?

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

#125

Post by mslev »

dilyevsky wrote: post #46
lotyrin wrote: post #39

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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)

Sunnyvale does this! The "Sunnyvale Materials Recovery and Transfer Station" (SMaRT Station) is out by the bay, and there is a waste water treatment plant right next door. Methane is captured from "capped" landfills and is used to power the treatment plant. I believe the plant is nearly 100% powered by these captured gases.

Doesn't smell great over there, but it sure is interesting and pretty smart!

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

#126

Post by jeffdavis »

vpribish wrote: post #119
jeffdavis wrote: post #102

The following says that methane is not an important greenhouse gas: http://wattsupwiththat.com/2014/04/11/methane-the-irrelevant... Can someone who knows better tell me if that's good science or not?

dude. use some critical thinking, please. a quick glance at the contents of that page shows that it is a lunatic fringe right-wing propaganda site. "@AlGore to launch climate brainwashing campaign for students" "Asians Better Hope It’s A Trump Win In 2020" "Fauxcahontas must be dumber than schist"

I didn't see that garbage; reading on mobile. Was just looking at the charts and it seemed like a reasonable argument.

Basically it's saying that the spectrums absorbed by CH4 are already being absorbed by H2O. What part of that is not correct?

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

#127

Post by ihaveajob »

blacksmith_tb wrote: post #121
samcheng wrote: post #97

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It's very common in the bay area to put biodegradable compost (paper towels, food waste, pumpkins, etc.) into the third green bin, along with the yard waste. The other two bins are for recycling and other garbage. It's not very difficult to segregate compostables, and I'm confident the rest of the US will catch up soon.

Yes, same in Portland, OR. In our case we're incentivized by having compost and recycling pick ups weekly, but garbage only every other week. So people who choose not to sort suffer...

That's a genius approach, and one that I think would be pretty reasonable to most folks. Fairly often I don't put out the gray trash bin because it's not even half full, and I'm pretty sure I'm not alone.

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

#128

Post by ihaveajob »

samcheng wrote: post #97
hanniabu wrote: post #90

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That's a great idea, but also requires an organized garbage collection system where items are separated at the source (consumer). Unfortunately the US doesn't have such a system in place, which is partially a social issue.

It's very common in the bay area to put biodegradable compost (paper towels, food waste, pumpkins, etc.) into the third green bin, along with the yard waste. The other two bins are for recycling and other garbage. It's not very difficult to segregate compostables, and I'm confident the rest of the US will catch up soon.

It also serves as an incentive, if you have a small yard or even some potted plants, that the city will deliver compost every month for resident to collect.

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

#129

Post by jeffdavis »

donarb wrote: post #108
jeffdavis wrote: post #102

The following says that methane is not an important greenhouse gas: http://wattsupwiththat.com/2014/04/11/methane-the-irrelevant... Can someone who knows better tell me if that's good science or not?

A website that quotes Breitbart is a signal that they are not serious about providing accurate scientific information.

OK, let me change my question to:

Some random person told me that the parts of the spectrum that are absorbed by CH4 are already absorbed by H2O, which is way more prevalent, so the CH4 doesn't matter much.

Is that true/valid/scientific?

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

#130

Post by cameldrv »

blacksmith_tb wrote: post #121
samcheng wrote: post #97

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It's very common in the bay area to put biodegradable compost (paper towels, food waste, pumpkins, etc.) into the third green bin, along with the yard waste. The other two bins are for recycling and other garbage. It's not very difficult to segregate compostables, and I'm confident the rest of the US will catch up soon.

Yes, same in Portland, OR. In our case we're incentivized by having compost and recycling pick ups weekly, but garbage only every other week. So people who choose not to sort suffer...

We have something similar here -- everyone gets a giant recycling and compost bin, but you pay for the trash bin, and bigger costs more. The problem is that it just leads people to put non recyclable things in the recycling bin. You wind up with a bunch contaminated mixed waste that just gets sent to the landfill anyhow because China won't take this low quality mixed stream anymore.
Post reply on HN