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

181–190 of 196 posts

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

#181

Post by octorian »

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.

When you read the rules for what you're allowed to put in that recycling bin, its a tiny fraction of your actual waste. That, combined with the fact that not everyone putting waste from your house into those bins is going to read the rules, is why it all gets contaminated. I keep feeling, more and more, that the whole notion that we can actually reduce "trash" by adding more and more narrowly-defined recycling/composting categories is nothing but a load of BS.

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

#182

Post by octorian »

fludlight wrote: post #146
cameldrv wrote: post #130

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

Getting rid of single-use plastic would help. However, the "War on Plastic Straws" pisses me off to no end. (Especially since its often done along-side a plethora of needlessly single-use plastic to the point that its just a PR gesture.)

Getting rid of non-organic packaging would help even more. Dealing with packaging materials is one of my biggest frustrations when trying to get rid of boxes. However, this is very much a "long tail" sort of problem.

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

#183

Post by mordechai9000 »

Havoc wrote: post #175
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…

>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?

Landfills burn it when they aren't equipped to power a generator with it. This also reduces the greenhouse gas impact, as the combustion byproduct is mostly plain CO2 and water. CO2 is also a greenhouse gas, but not as bad as methane.

Either way, it has to be collected and burned off.

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

#184

Post by ViViDboarder »

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…

Could you explain why this is relevant? This article is talking about methane emission.

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

#185

Post by austhrow743 »

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...

Every discussion of energy I've ever seen has had a large portion of people making pro nuclear comments.

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

#186

Post by [deleted] »

soperj wrote: post #124
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…

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?

[deleted]

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

#187

Post by Iv »

austhrow743 wrote: post #185
khawkins wrote: post #114

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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...

Every discussion of energy I've ever seen has had a large portion of people making pro nuclear comments.

Because that's the transition power that has the math and history to back it. Its window is closing though. It would have made a ton of sense in the 80s or 90s but the antinuclear have won: we stayed 40 more years in the fuel economy until renewables matured enough to be a credible alternative.

We are not there yet though: intermittence (and to some extent construction speed) still favor nuclear power but maybe not for that long.

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

#188

Post by Iv »

avar wrote: post #65
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…

> even if everybody went zero waste today, those landfills would still be emitting large amounts of methane. If everyone went zero waste then nothing would be added to the landfill, and its methane production would taper out to nothing as a result.

If every reseller proposed a discounted "no packaging" option, people would produce less waste. If providing such an option was mandatory or even just incentivized, more resellers would propose it.

Consumers do have some power, but they are not the only ones and we should demand an effort from all parts of society there.

On the other hand, I doubt it is plastic waste that produce methane, an organic byproduct. Maybe food wastes are at fault. In which case your enemy is not overpackaging and may actually be your (temporary) ally

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

#190

Post by khawkins »

austhrow743 wrote: post #185
khawkins wrote: post #114

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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...

Every discussion of energy I've ever seen has had a large portion of people making pro nuclear comments.

The Democrat Party Platform of 2016 does not mention nuclear energy once. It does tout solar and wind several times in a whole section on reducing carbon emissions.

https://democrats.org/where-we-stand/party-platform/

If you asked the typical person who's extremely concerned about climate change where we should invest money, they'll answer wind and solar far more likely than nuclear. There are people who advocate for nuclear as the solution, sure, but they're in the minority. Often they're people who don't seem especially concerned about climate change.

Post reply on HN