Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

I finally understand methane lifetimes

climateer.substack.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

31–40 of 86 posts

Re: I finally understand methane lifetimes

#31

Post by the8472 »

boringg wrote: post #16

It's this level of understanding that can't be pushed out to the general population. It is far too complicated for people to grasp. Add on to these complexities is that if we are trying to price carbon - the impacts change with the concentrations in the atmosphere. The market needs to be dumbed down to simplistic values (which thankfully they have) so that we have a sense on where to target and incentivize change for…

You can't push it out in a single news blurb. But if it were covered as some math/physics/chemistry sections building on each other in secondary education it should be manageable. Especially if you already covered exponential decays. Add the secondary effect of the exponential decay parameter varying based on concentration.

Re: I finally understand methane lifetimes

#32

Post by boringg »

Enginerrrd wrote: post #27
nverno wrote: post #20

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I think it is the dumbing down that makes it easier for mud-rakers. People know it's complicated anyway, and the average person can grasp complicated things as well as you.

As an environmental engineer that deals with the interface between the public and policy makers, I think I'm inclined to agree with you. The public IS dumb, but every time they try to dumb down the principles they regulate on, it always comes at the detriment of the environment and the 'little guy'. It's almost always better to delegate policy to smart qualified people with correctly aligned interests. Getting that l…

It's a difficult place to be - damned if you do and damned if you don't.

Re: I finally understand methane lifetimes

#33

Post by metacritic12 »

dr_dshiv wrote: post #8

So, hydroxide radicals (OH) break down methane (CH4) into carbon dioxide (CO2). This is a good thing for the climate, as a molecule of methane has a much bigger warming effect than CO2. (Although it is odd that the CO2 produced by methane is not counted toward methane’s overall climate impact). There is limited OH in the atmosphere. As a result, more methane “uses up” the OH. That means that increased methane in the…

> There is limited OH in the atmosphere. As a result, more methane “uses up” the OH.

> So, why not produce a bunch of OH? Because OH has a half life of less than a second. Hmm.

These two statements seem to contradict? If the chemokinetics of OH generation is less than a second, then how can it be used up in the atmosphere?

Assuming the <1 second kinetic is correct, there must be a dynamic equilibrium producing it in the atmosphere to begin with. In such a case OH is not truly being used up in any real sense. It's whatever that generates OH is being used up, and that can be artificially boosted.

Re: I finally understand methane lifetimes

#34

Post by beders »

alexose wrote: post #21
dr_dshiv wrote: post #8

So, hydroxide radicals (OH) break down methane (CH4) into carbon dioxide (CO2). This is a good thing for the climate, as a molecule of methane has a much bigger warming effect than CO2. (Although it is odd that the CO2 produced by methane is not counted toward methane’s overall climate impact). There is limited OH in the atmosphere. As a result, more methane “uses up” the OH. That means that increased methane in the…

There's a group that is advocating for spraying an Iron Salt Aerosol into the atmosphere, which apparently catalyzes the natural decomposition process. I haven't done a deep dive into the subject, but on the surface it seems pretty compelling. https://ironsaltaerosol.com/home/isa_summary

what could possibly go wrong? Let's put iron chloride where it doesn't belong, outside of our control.

Haven't we done enough harm yet?

Re: I finally understand methane lifetimes

#35

Post by rootusrootus »

beders wrote: post #34
alexose wrote: post #21

Earlier quoted context omitted.

There's a group that is advocating for spraying an Iron Salt Aerosol into the atmosphere, which apparently catalyzes the natural decomposition process. I haven't done a deep dive into the subject, but on the surface it seems pretty compelling. https://ironsaltaerosol.com/home/isa_summary

what could possibly go wrong? Let's put iron chloride where it doesn't belong, outside of our control. Haven't we done enough harm yet?

Seems like we've come far enough to understand that doing nothing and conserving our way out of this problem isn't viable. The time for engineering is upon us.

Re: I finally understand methane lifetimes

#36

Post by cwkoss »

If I have a compost pile that's producing methane, is igniting that methane to convert it all into CO2 (regardless of getting any utility from that energy) effectively "net carbon negative" because CO2 has much less climate effect than methane?

Kind of weird to think about how burning methane without capturing the energy could be better for the planet that letting it leak into the atmosphere naturally.

Re: I finally understand methane lifetimes

#37

Post by conradev »

metacritic12 wrote: post #33
dr_dshiv wrote: post #8

So, hydroxide radicals (OH) break down methane (CH4) into carbon dioxide (CO2). This is a good thing for the climate, as a molecule of methane has a much bigger warming effect than CO2. (Although it is odd that the CO2 produced by methane is not counted toward methane’s overall climate impact). There is limited OH in the atmosphere. As a result, more methane “uses up” the OH. That means that increased methane in the…

> There is limited OH in the atmosphere. As a result, more methane “uses up” the OH. > So, why not produce a bunch of OH? Because OH has a half life of less than a second. Hmm. These two statements seem to contradict? If the chemokinetics of OH generation is less than a second, then how can it be used up in the atmosphere? Assuming the <1 second kinetic is correct, there must be a dynamic equilibrium producing it in…

One limiting factor in generating OH is specific wavelengths of light, which is harder to artificially boost

Re: I finally understand methane lifetimes

#38

Post by mikepurvis »

cwkoss wrote: post #36

If I have a compost pile that's producing methane, is igniting that methane to convert it all into CO2 (regardless of getting any utility from that energy) effectively "net carbon negative" because CO2 has much less climate effect than methane? Kind of weird to think about how burning methane without capturing the energy could be better for the planet that letting it leak into the atmosphere naturally.

I believe the answer is yes, but I imagine it would be far too diffuse to actually achieve ignition. Same issue applies to various schemes for putting a pilot light at cow's butts to eliminate the "cow fart emissions" issues.

(Quite apart from the fact that it's belches not farts that are the issue anyway, so the pilot light would be at the wrong end...)

Re: I finally understand methane lifetimes

#39

Post by gruez »

cwkoss wrote: post #36

If I have a compost pile that's producing methane, is igniting that methane to convert it all into CO2 (regardless of getting any utility from that energy) effectively "net carbon negative" because CO2 has much less climate effect than methane? Kind of weird to think about how burning methane without capturing the energy could be better for the planet that letting it leak into the atmosphere naturally.

Yep. It's also the same idea why we have gas flares on oil wells. It might look like it's oil companies setting stuff on fire for no reason, but it's better than just letting it leak.

Re: I finally understand methane lifetimes

#40

Post by wardedVibe »

mikepurvis wrote: post #38
cwkoss wrote: post #36

If I have a compost pile that's producing methane, is igniting that methane to convert it all into CO2 (regardless of getting any utility from that energy) effectively "net carbon negative" because CO2 has much less climate effect than methane? Kind of weird to think about how burning methane without capturing the energy could be better for the planet that letting it leak into the atmosphere naturally.

I believe the answer is yes, but I imagine it would be far too diffuse to actually achieve ignition. Same issue applies to various schemes for putting a pilot light at cow's butts to eliminate the "cow fart emissions" issues. (Quite apart from the fact that it's belches not farts that are the issue anyway, so the pilot light would be at the wrong end...)

Wait, are you telling me that we need fire breathing cows for the good of the environment?
Post reply on HN