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

141–150 of 196 posts

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

#141

Post by hinkley »

scottlocklin wrote: post #18
azernik wrote: post #10

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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

Your own references point out that aerobic and anaerobic composting are different processes; the latter, which is most of backyard composting (if your heap ain't hot, it ain't aerobic), produces about as much methane as a landfill does, without the ability to collect and burn off the methane. It boggles me that people emotionally or tribally react to a fact about how chemistry works, google things which support their…

That sounds like the sort of thing that could be fixed by educational material.

A little methane from the back yard is still better than landfill. But the math for commercial composting vs amateur might need some scrutiny. Transport to the composting facility should also be part of the arithmetic there.

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

#143

Post by jessaustin »

whoopdedo wrote: post #135
nan0 wrote: post #53

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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

It would be much less costly to just throw it all at Venus. b^)

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

#144

Post by brandmeyer »

doc_gunthrop wrote: post #107
mogadsheu wrote: post #95

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

In this case it sounds like something that could be subsidized by the government if it provides a net benefit to the general populace (by reducing greenhouse gases in the atmosphere).

Flaring it early would produce most of the GHG reduction benefit. The resulting CO2 has a tiny fraction of the total warming potential of the unburned CH3. For cases where it isn't economical to recover the methane, the public still benefits.

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

#145

Post by bregma »

labawi wrote: post #140
BurningFrog wrote: post #134

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

Volatile Organic Compounds. Hey, it says "organic" right in the name. It must be good for the environment.

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

#146

Post by fludlight »

cameldrv wrote: post #130
blacksmith_tb wrote: post #121

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

This is what my neighbors in the Bay Area do. They just don’t care. A better solution would be to reduce waste by banning single use plastic, taxing non-organic packaging (more-so than now), and taxing consumer goods on some combination of weight, volume, non-organic content, and toxic content. None of this is particularly popular, especially in certain communities.

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

#147

Post by bregma »

jws wrote: post #83
lukifer wrote: 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…

> There is a narrative developing about the anti-littering marketing campaigns which I think tries to paint it as a cynical ploy by businesses.

Really? That's just what Big Garbage wants you to think. You're obviously a shill in the pay of the National Trash Association.

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

#148

Post by Frondo »

ihaveajob wrote: post #127
blacksmith_tb wrote: post #121

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

Oh, and I was there when they made that switch, and you wouldn't believe the complaints people had. Endless litanies about how awful it was that trash was only going out once every two weeks. In time, of course, everyone adapted. But it was pretty amazing at the time, for such a relatively painless change in behavior. You'd think they were being asked to cut off a limb and put it out every week.

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

#149

Post by therealdrag0 »

kaycebasques wrote: post #68

80/20 rule [1] strikes again? [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pareto_principle

I feel like this is brought up every time a minority number is responsible for a majority number, regardless of how far off 80/20 it is. That seems silly.

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

#150

Post by briandear »

cameronh90 wrote: post #111
mogadsheu wrote: post #95

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

Another argument for a comprehensive GHG emissions tax...

Taxes aren’t the solution to everything. Just causing prices to rise has a lot on unintended consequences. If you raise taxes on a bakery and it has to shut down, you just lost jobs as well as a source of bread, this making bread more expensive which hits hard for those people that now no longer have jobs.

If you eliminated all gasoline cars tomorrow, there isn’t enough infrastructure to support electrics. When cars first came out, you didn’t have to convince people to use them by taxing horses: cars were more efficient than horses.

You don’t have to artificially make something worse to encourage something better. The something better should just naturally be better, making a switch obvious.

If you use energy efficient appliances, you save money on your utilities. Given the same quality, more efficient (and lower cost) is always preferred and a rational actor will choose the lower cost option that solves his need at the level he wants it solved.

That “green” stuff is more expensive is an engineering problem. If someone develops an electric car that costs the same or less than an ICE car and has the same or better performance and quality, people will naturally buy them — and the company that can do that stands to win big. But making everything else worse/more expensive to prop up tech that isn’t as good or affordable is trading what’s best for the individual for what’s best for the owners/employees of the less efficient producer.

I am in favor of government funded basic science, research, innovation (it brought us NASA after all,) however I oppose funding that by the selective targeting of industries in order to artificially boost the viability of a new tech. We didn’t have to kill horses to get people into cars. We won’t have to kill ICE cars to get people into better alternatives. We are already producing less CO2 emissions and the relevant tech is already getting cheaper and better. The market is slowly working and it didn’t take a tax to do it. And when it comes to markets, slow is good; it minimizes the negative effects of economic reallocation.

Post reply on HN