NASA Flew Gas Detectors Above California, Found ‘Super Emitters’ • Hacker News Board

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

#191

Post by dragonwriter » Sat, Nov 09, 2019, 11:16 AM UTC

khawkins wrote: post #190

austhrow743 wrote: post #185

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

> The Democrat Party Platform of 2016

There is no such Party, and no such Party Platform; the document is, as its own title says, the Democratic Platform 2016.

> does not mention nuclear energy once.

It promotes it without naming it, by proposing pricing in the climate externalities of fossil fuels, which makes all energy sources that don't contribute to warming, including nuclear, more competitive in the market and attractive to private investment.

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

#192

Post by Twixes » Sat, Nov 09, 2019, 2:12 PM UTC

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…

This is a reason to be furious about lack of public oversight over budget, not recycling. Proper recycling still is our (yours too) duty to the planet and it doesn't cost you any money.

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

#193

Post by labawi » Sat, Nov 09, 2019, 3:08 PM UTC

greglindahl wrote: post #165

labawi wrote: post #138

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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/

Composting is aerated, generates soil and CO₂, not methane. Anaerobic digestion generates methane and soil, though AFAIK of a lesser quality. Per article, California does have AD facilities, though doesn't mention composting/AD ratio.

We can speculate what punnerud meant, but I would point out that Norway has some kind of a landfill ban. IIUC, they have (almost) no classical mixed-use landfills, and nearly all landfilled organic waste is actually in an anaerobic digestion or composting "facility".

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

#194

Post by datavirtue » Sat, Nov 09, 2019, 3:30 PM UTC

Iv wrote: post #187

austhrow743 wrote: post #185

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 f…

Your pipe dreams Are the actual issue. There is a gaberal uninformed handwavibh going on among the leity that thinks we can power everything with wind and solar.

All the while we have had safe nuclear power systems for decades that cannot get built because of your hand waving and FUD.

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

#195

Post by fuzzfactor » Sun, Nov 10, 2019, 12:10 AM UTC

bravo22 wrote: post #158

sergiosgc wrote: post #84

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> You cannot address climate change without drastic long term reduction in human activity/population. Of course you can. You must change activities to be carbon neutral, but you can maintain the same level of comfort you have today. More than "can maintain", you "must". If you rely on sacrifice from the whole planetary population in order to tackle climate change, we are doomed. It will never happen, as it goes again…

Carbon neutrality is a necessity, as is population reduction. I am not advocating for one over the other. Either alone will not work, not short term certainly not long term.

With atmospheric carbon & population, increasing each of these numbers beyond a certain point (where sustainable thriving is naturally possible) can be seen to be detrimental to all.

As excesses become realized, increasingly, a fundamental relationship between these figures can become measurable.

That exact relationship, the proven algorithm, may not realistically be very well agreed upon in detail, but as these factors rise rapidly above baseline levels that function should more accurately be discerned above the background as time goes on.

Maybe before this happens, sustainability would be better achieved by actions resulting in trends which reduce these two figures low enough in combination where no relationship could then be considered realistic.

So carbon neutrality might not be enough without taking too much from population.

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

#196

Post by zdragnar » Wed, Nov 13, 2019, 4:14 AM UTC

soperj wrote: post #161

zdragnar wrote: post #133

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

It is, technically, but with caveats. It has to be buried deeply enough that any gasses created by decomposition won't be released or escape on their own.

More worrisome is that, done at a scale that would matter to the atmosphere, it would have to be buried in containers that are impermeable to water forever, lest all of our underground aquifers become contaminated by bacteria and heavy metals that are naturally occurring in plants.