Live data from Hacker News

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

bloomberg.com

131–140 of 196 posts

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

#131
We really need automated continuous monitoring and alerting of these things. It doesn't take much time for an event to release huge quantities of what was thought to be contained gas into the atmosphere.

I'm surprised to not see any reference to the Aliso Canyon leak in this thread yet:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aliso_Canyon_gas_leak

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

#132
post #124
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…

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?

Methane is a far more potent greenhouse gas, and it naturally degrades into CO2 in the atmosphere. Burning methane it on the ground, even not for energy, helps mitigate the warming effect, because it is that much more potent than CO2.

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

#133
post #124
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…

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?

The CO2 from compost came from surface organic matter, which got it from the air in the first place. It is a net zero proposition (discounting potential transit costs which may or may not apply).

The rising CO2 levels in the atmosphere come from burning hydrocarbons which originate from below the earth's surface, where they were not part of the carbon cycle for millions of years. Burning faster than natural sequestration below the surface is reaponsible for the overall rise.

All else being equal, methane has a stronger greenhouse effect, but breaks down, unlike CO2 which is only sequestered by plants.

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

#134

In Norway we place plastic over the (food) landfill, gather the methane and use it for electricity production. When there is no more methane the same landfill is used as soil for food production.

That sounds very efficient. In the US organic and non-organic "kitchen" waste is often combined. While it is becoming more common to separate compostable materials from others it is still more of an exception. Many landfills do harvest methane from the combined heap of trash. However, after methane production ends we are still left with compost with tons of plastic.

You can think of the plastic as sequestered carbon!

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

#135
post #53

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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

My friend and I were seriously thinking this was a good idea until we read an article [0] destroying it completely. Lol 0:"Here's Why We Can't Just Throw Our Garbage Into the Sun" https://www.popularmechanics.com/space/a19666/we-cant-just-t...

Another explanation[1] that shows how it's not just the cost of escaping Earth gravity (which is high enough already) but the delta-v required to de-orbit. It's easier to throw the garbage out of the solar system than it is to descend into the Sun.

[1] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LHvR1fRTW8g

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

#136
post #54

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?

I only recently learned the history of "anti-littering" marketing campaigns [0], conceived to push responsibility for waste onto consumers rather than producers, who were switching from metals and glass to much cheaper (but no longer reusable) plastics. Whatever individuals can do to reduce inefficiency and carbon footprint is surely a good thing; but it's no replacement for systems thinking, and applying incentives…

NPR’s Throughline Podcast [1][2] had a whole episode on how the anti littering campaign was created. It’s well worth listening to.

[1] https://www.npr.org/2019/09/04/757539617/the-litter-myth [2] Transcript: https://www.npr.org/templates/transcript/transcript.php?stor...

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

#137

In Norway we place plastic over the (food) landfill, gather the methane and use it for electricity production. When there is no more methane the same landfill is used as soil for food production.

I interned for a landfill gas capture company a long time ago. Apparently it’s quite tough to make payback on the investment. If value is applied to the degradation and GHG abatement, some groups might find it worthwhile.

Can they sell the captured methane in the greenhouse gas markets?

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

#138

In Norway we place plastic over the (food) landfill, gather the methane and use it for electricity production. When there is no more methane the same landfill is used as soil for food production.

The US does the same... sometimes. Some states(US) cap landfills with large sheets of plastic (the new ones have plastic on the bottom, making a "giant bag") and punch holes for venting methane and other exhaust gasses. They vent because the gas is flammable and having it build up under a sheet of plastic is risky. Landfills catch on fire frequently. [2] Some sites collect the gas and burn it, but it isn't common. Yo…

I think (hope) GP means landfills with biological waste only, generating methane in lieu of composting. I wouldn't want to grow food on our mixed use landfills.

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

#139
post #83
post #54

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I only recently learned the history of "anti-littering" marketing campaigns [0], conceived to push responsibility for waste onto consumers rather than producers, who were switching from metals and glass to much cheaper (but no longer reusable) plastics. Whatever individuals can do to reduce inefficiency and carbon footprint is surely a good thing; but it's no replacement for systems thinking, and applying incentives…

There is a narrative developing about the anti-littering marketing campaigns which I think tries to paint it as a cynical ploy by businesses. Just to frame things as someone alive at the time in one part of America… single serving glass bottles were not returned to the store, they had no deposit. They were thrown away. Beer cans had no deposit. They were thrown away. (Steel soda cans weren't a thing, they stayed in b…

It was actually an effort to retrain people to put the tab into the can so it eventually got thrown away...

Which was then a choking hazard. C.f., https://www.passenpowell.com/potential-child-safety-hazard-s... and also in pop-culture: https://www.imdb.com/title/tt0570625/

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

#140

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That sounds very efficient. In the US organic and non-organic "kitchen" waste is often combined. While it is becoming more common to separate compostable materials from others it is still more of an exception. Many landfills do harvest methane from the combined heap of trash. However, after methane production ends we are still left with compost with tons of plastic.

You can think of the plastic as sequestered carbon!

Until it starts burning, or should I say smoldering. Then you can think of it as a multi-ton slow-release toxic gas grenade.
Post reply on HN