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

161–170 of 196 posts

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

#161

Post by soperj »

zdragnar wrote: post #133
soperj wrote: post #124

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 sequestra…

I get that it's net zero, but it's still releasing it back into the atmosphere. Burying the compostable material might actually be a way of sequestering carbon.

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

#162

Post by bravo22 »

ClumsyPilot wrote: post #87
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.

This is demonstrably false, please stop perpetuating it. CO2 emissions are 90% down to tragedy of the commons. I can have the exactly same lifestyle in Saudi, in USA and in France, yet per capita emissions in France are 3 times lower than those in USA, and 5 times lower than in Saudi. People in Saudi do not have 5 times better lives. In fact a huge chunk of the population is an underclass, some work as slaves on cons…

Nothing you've said contradicts my assertion that consumer demand drives production, which causes emissions.

Nothing that I've said contradicts your point that management and regulation matter.

You're subscribing to an either/or dichotomy which is false. Consumers demand drives emission. The fix is to enforce heavy regulation on the producers which will ultimately result in lower demand through increased cost.

CO2 emissions are only ONE of the environmental challenges we're dealing with. We're resource bound in other ways, and regular ol' pollution of the environment is a huge concern which sometimes run contrary to CO2 emission. Meaning you can have a technology that reduces CO2 emission in production, so you consume more and throw away more. That is good for climate change but still bad for the planet.

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

#163

Post by 205guy »

briandear wrote: post #152
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.

We have sort at the source in Mountain View, CA and across the Bay Area. I don’t personally care about going into great detail separating minutiae. I have better things to do. Recology (the company that handles waste for much of the Bay Area,) has a billion dollars in revenue and a no-bid contract with San Francisco, let them figure it out. They make a profit that’s twice the industry average and as an ESOP, they avo…

> "I don’t personally care about going into great detail separating minutiae. I have better things to do."

As other comments in this thread have pointed out, people are resistant to "fixing" their waste stream. I think this is a serious lack of personal responsibility. There is nothing about consumption that absolves the consumer of proper disposal. Sure, we want local government to make it as easy and efficient as possible, but best practices are leaning toward sorting, and I think every person has to step up to the practice.

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

#164

Post by 205guy »

khawkins wrote: post #114
ClumsyPilot wrote: post #87

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This is demonstrably false, please stop perpetuating it. CO2 emissions are 90% down to tragedy of the commons. I can have the exactly same lifestyle in Saudi, in USA and in France, yet per capita emissions in France are 3 times lower than those in USA, and 5 times lower than in Saudi. People in Saudi do not have 5 times better lives. In fact a huge chunk of the population is an underclass, some work as slaves on cons…

41% of US emissions come from the power industry while in France, where nuclear power is widespread, it's only 13% from power. But very rarely do I hear calls from people who care about this stuff call for switching the nation's energy to nuclear. https://www.worldometers.info/co2-emissions/us-co2-emissions... https://www.worldometers.info/co2-emissions/france-co2-emiss...

Here we go with the nuclear debate again. Frankly, I'm against how the US/UK handle nuclear as a decentralized, privatized business. If we could have the French model for nuclear (and I know it's not perfect either), I'd be much more in favor. Also French high speed rail, let them take over and give us TGVs.

Of course this doesn't work for the US, because French nuclear (and HSR) depend on their dirigiste government--which has totally different assumptions about distribution of political power.

Edited to add: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dirigisme

with the following quote: "...marked by volontarisme, the belief that difficulties (e.g. postwar devastation, lack of natural resources) could be overcome through willpower and ingenuity. For instance, following the 1973 energy crisis, the saying "In France we don't have oil, but we have ideas" was coined. Volontarisme emphasized modernization, resulting in a variety of ambitious state plans. Examples of this trend include the extensive use of nuclear energy (close to 80% of French electrical consumption), the Minitel, an early online system for the masses, and the TGV, a high-speed rail network."

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

#165

Post by greglindahl »

labawi wrote: post #138
acomjean wrote: post #110

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

California has quite a few composting landfills. So GP is calling for the same technology that's already used in parts of California, perhaps covering more people than the entire population of Norway (5.4 million people)

Map of composting facilities in California: https://www.biocycle.net/2018/03/12/california-composting/

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

#166

Post by punnerud »

NeedMoreTea wrote: post #154
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.

The UK came up with an even more ridiculous system. Many regions were nicely moving to a system with separated organic waste - kitchen scraps, garden waste and so on, which were composted. Tory party austerity meant many regions have subsequently scrapped, or charge homeowners for the organic waste collection. Overall result is many homeowners now have a plastic wheelie bin they never use any more, and organic waste…

And a lot of the UK landfill is shipped to Norway (OSLO/Klemetsrud) because we don’t have enough waste to burn. The heat is used to generate electricity and heat most buildings in Oslo, both industry and homes.

(This was new to me until I talked with one of the managers at the plant one year ago)

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

#167

Post by stolsvik »

punnerud wrote: post #78

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 believe it is mandatory to capture it, and either find a use for it (electricity or heat, or both), or you must flare it.

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

#168

Post by mturmon »

jeffdavis wrote: post #129
donarb wrote: post #108

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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?

Nearer the top of the atmosphere, the concentration of H2O is much less, and the argument breaks down, because it’s the top layers that radiate to space. Lower in the troposphere, photons are being absorbed and re-radiated, but not escaping.

In general, this stuff is complicated, and it’s easy for people using “motivated reasoning” to come up with the answer they want. Lots of comments reflecting such misinformation appear on HN — it’s frustrating.

So, listening to random people isn’t such a good idea. Much better to read a report from people who study this stuff, like: https://nca2018.globalchange.gov/, which I recommend to technically interested nonspecialists.

(I eat lunch with one of the co-authors of the technical paper in Nature linked to the OP, the press release is: https://www.jpl.nasa.gov/news/news.php?feature=7535, paper is: https://www.nature.com/articles/s41586-019-1720-3)

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

#169

Post by loeg »

NeedMoreTea wrote: post #151
briandear wrote: post #150

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

> If you eliminated all gasoline cars tomorrow... A carbon tax would not eliminate all petrol cars tomorrow, would it? It would increase the price of fuel, which would encourage some to make their next vehicle an EV in place of ICE. It would inevitably encourage cities and petrol stations to add EV infrastructure too. Not entirely sure how the US taxes vehicles, but personally I would put some combination of fuel (ca…

Clearly increasing gas taxes doesn't eliminate petrol vehicles, because I've been to Europe (where gas prices are radically higher than the US — +50-100%) and they still have cars there. Yes, the incentives structure means those cars are smaller, lighter, and more efficient — and in many countries, increasingly electric — and that's a good outcome / example of how taxes apply positive pressure.

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

#170

Post by loeg »

punnerud wrote: post #78

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.

> In Norway we place plastic over the (food) landfill, gather the methane

That is also common for US landfills.

Post reply on HN