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

171–180 of 196 posts

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

#171

Post by hcknwscommenter »

brandmeyer wrote: post #144
doc_gunthrop wrote: post #107

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

Most of the GHG reduction benefit in terms of the GHG contribution of the methane itself. However, there is also the benefit of the fossil fuel combustion that is displaced if you collect and burn for power. This is exactly the sort of thing that a carbon tax would incentivize if it were at all economically sensible.

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

#172

Post by arcticbull »

briandear wrote: post #150
cameronh90 wrote: post #111

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

Taxes are a way for the market to price in externalities that aren’t effectively captured otherwise like the climatic impact of GHG emissions. To not capture this amounts to a subsidy paid by non-polluting industries to polluting ones. It corrects an imbalance.

The way carbon tax is implemented in Canada is to return the tax to folks at the end of the year, keeping none of it, but correcting that imbalance.

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

#173

Post by jeffdavis »

mturmon wrote: post #168
jeffdavis wrote: post #129

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

Thank you for a simple, intellectual answer.

Obviously I am not taking in information without skepticism, otherwise I would not have asked the question.

But if I can't read something like that and refute it, then obviously I don't understand the issue very well. The best way to remedy that is to ask (not ignorant silence), so I'm a bit disappointed with the other replies who ridiculed me for asking.

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

#174

Post by mturmon »

jeffdavis wrote: post #173
mturmon wrote: post #168

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

Thank you for a simple, intellectual answer. Obviously I am not taking in information without skepticism, otherwise I would not have asked the question. But if I can't read something like that and refute it, then obviously I don't understand the issue very well. The best way to remedy that is to ask (not ignorant silence), so I'm a bit disappointed with the other replies who ridiculed me for asking.

Without a lot of background (some mix of grad school, regular interaction with experts at conferences, reading journal publications) you will be easily misled by motivated reasoning, which is everywhere in this domain. People spend their careers on this stuff. Undergrad physics, chemistry, and earth science is not enough.

Resources like the overview report I linked are critical.

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

#175

Post by Havoc »

acomjean wrote: post #110
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.

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…

>punch holes for venting methane

Why is parent comment saying Norway captures the methane for electricity generation while you're going we need to vent the methane because it's dangerous.

Same gas. Same landfill setup (by the sounds of it).

...why is the conclusion so different?

Does methane work differently in Norway?

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

#176

Post by semerda »

Where is EPA in all this?

Mountain View Shoreline (right behind Google HQ) used to be a landfill site for 3 decades before being turned into a park. Plenty of families visit it for the nature walks, kiddie play areas and water activities. Then few weeks back I heard a bang and hissing; a methane release valve opened https://youtu.be/kq3CnXU5OtU

I don’t know if this is normal for it to be so low but since then I’ve learnt the whole area has these to stop it from combusting. Methane is also a dirty gas that affects cognition.

Add to this the SuperFund sites water & land pollution and one has to question what the heck is going on here.

It gives a whole new perspective on how we are killing our earth hoping the problem will be solved by someone else in the future :(

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

#177

Post by nihonde »

tastyfreeze wrote: post #91
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.

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.

Typical Japanese household trash separation and disposal rules (pdf link): http://www.city.nagoya.jp/en/cmsfiles/contents/0000022/22536...

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

#178

Post by tjbiddle »

Are there any composting services in the US? I'm living in Bali right now and I found a local service that gives me a bucket, I put all my organic waste into it, and once a week they come to replace it with a clean bucket.

If I wanted, I could request the compost back - but I don't have any use for it and would rather other consumers get a bit extra.

I pay ~$2/mo for the service (Again, Bali prices).

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

#179

Post by jdavis703 »

tjbiddle wrote: post #178

Are there any composting services in the US? I'm living in Bali right now and I found a local service that gives me a bucket, I put all my organic waste into it, and once a week they come to replace it with a clean bucket. If I wanted, I could request the compost back - but I don't have any use for it and would rather other consumers get a bit extra. I pay ~$2/mo for the service (Again, Bali prices).

Yes, large and medium sized cities in California mostly have them.

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

#180

Post by gbrown »

hcknwscommenter wrote: post #171
brandmeyer wrote: post #144

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

Most of the GHG reduction benefit in terms of the GHG contribution of the methane itself. However, there is also the benefit of the fossil fuel combustion that is displaced if you collect and burn for power. This is exactly the sort of thing that a carbon tax would incentivize if it were at all economically sensible.

So long as there's a positive carbon return on adding the extra infrastructure.

There very well may be, but adding pipes to burn off excess methane is way easier than generating and transporting electricity.

Post reply on HN