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

NASA finds super-emitters of methane

smithsonianmag.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

121–130 of 387 posts

Re: NASA finds super-emitters of methane

#121

Post by derefr »

chitowneats wrote: post #92
neves wrote: post #87

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Cynical me is always impressed in how much funding goes to find emitters outside the develop world: > "...emit methane at high rates span central Asia, the Middle East and the southwestern United States. By finding these sites from space, the satellite is bringing an important perspective to climate accountability," USA could close all of its coal mines with the same money spent in emergency Covid vaccines

> USA could close all of its coal mines with the same money spent in emergency Covid vaccines Have we not recently been reminded that the true cost of reducing domestic energy production is much higher than the mere bottom line estimate of shuttering the production facilities? Germany and France might like a word. With Ukraine slowly shaking their heads in the background.

The way that the USA would "close all of its coal mines" would involve replacing that production with different domestic energy production; not by becoming reliant on foreign energy markets.

Re: NASA finds super-emitters of methane

#122

Post by themitigating »

adontz wrote: post #58
possiblelion wrote: post #45

So - looking at this it seems Turkmenistan [a repressive, North Korea style dictatorship] is destroying our climate system at an order of magnitude faster than anyone else. I'm well aware of the legacy that Iraq/Afghanistan have left in terms of international interventions into other countries; but if it is our common future on the balance, shouldn't we do something? Something more than just politely asking to stop?

Bring them democracy!

Why don't we forget that since it's expensive. How about "fix the leaks or we'll bomb presidental palaces"

Re: NASA finds super-emitters of methane

#123

Post by themitigating »

kelseyfrog wrote: post #40
Bhurn00985 wrote: post #4

And now what ? Anyone knows what actions will be taken based on this data ?

Everyone has always had the option to vote with their dollars. If we allow ourself to be eco-capital-realists for a moment, we have to conclude that living on a habitable planet is simply not that important for most people.

That's not what people think. They don't care because it won't effect them.

Re: NASA finds super-emitters of methane

#124

Post by derefr »

chitowneats wrote: post #112
reillyse wrote: post #103

Earlier quoted context omitted.

All the more so for switching to wind and solar (and reducing usage). Nobody is saying cancel energy. Just that switching away from coal is probably a good idea.

Can the current energy demand of the United States be met cost-effectively with wind, solar, and batteries? I'm a huge proponent of these technologies but the answer to that question in 2022 is still no. "Ending" domestic coal production would cause a drop in GDP that would make 2020 look like child's play.

Speaking as a non-American who doesn't fully understand the factors at play: why can't you guys just get your military-industrial complex to build you some nationalized nuclear plants on federal land in the middle of nowhere, where there aren't any NIMBYs to get in the way? (You could even just reuse the 'federal land in the middle of nowhere' that all your since-decommissioned nuclear-weapons testing facilities are sitting on!)

Re: NASA finds super-emitters of methane

#125

Post by labster »

xen2xen1 wrote: post #109
jakub_g wrote: post #83

Since Turkmenistan was mentioned, mandatory link: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Darvaza_gas_crater > One of the more popular theories is that Soviet geologists intentionally set it on fire in 1971 to prevent the spread of methane gas, and it is thought to have been burning continuously ever since.

I'm not quite sure, does burning it make it less harmful?

In general CO2 is a far less potent greenhouse gas than CH4, largely because there is already a permanent low level of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere. In a few decades the methane will oxidize to CO2, but in the meantime it’s like 40 times more potent. Better to burn it.

(Not sure if CH4 is inherently stronger than CO2 because of more possible quantum states, but I suspect atmospheric abundance is the main factor (without looking it up))

Re: NASA finds super-emitters of methane

#126

Post by lazide »

themitigating wrote: post #96
lazide wrote: post #94

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That ‘we’ sure is carrying a lot of weight. From the context of this thread, it seems likely most of the sacrifice would be from folks in Turkmenistan, who would be told to change at the point of a gun no? Likely leading to a non trivial death count from violence or starvation. I’m pretty sure you didn’t ask them if they were Ok with that sacrifice. To quote C.S. Lewis - “ Of all tyrannies, a tyranny exercised for th…

In a democracy the population is responsible for voting in the government. In a dictatorship the population is responsible for not overthrowing the government.

You’re still being incredibly vague on who you expect to sacrifice and how for the course of action you propose.

Mind giving more than platitudes?

Re: NASA finds super-emitters of methane

#127

Post by alexfromapex »

fortysixdegrees wrote: post #10

Have they published a global map we can look at?

They are still in the process of mapping: https://earth.jpl.nasa.gov/emit/mission/destination/

I posted the original NASA article a few days ago, which has better info than this Smithsonian article: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=33349999

Re: NASA finds super-emitters of methane

#128

Post by lob_it »

themitigating wrote: post #119
lob_it wrote: post #26

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Quoted post unavailable.

Donald trump?

Nah. It was more of a reflex response to why they (oc) wasn't informed decades ago.

I was quite polite too and I did find new angles to enjoy with my golf swing the past decade. Still enjoying them to this day.

Did you expend all of your energy on inaccurate data and inferior goals?

Innocence is bliss. Ignorance is still ignorance.

Re: NASA finds super-emitters of methane

#129

Post by chitowneats »

derefr wrote: post #124
chitowneats wrote: post #112

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Can the current energy demand of the United States be met cost-effectively with wind, solar, and batteries? I'm a huge proponent of these technologies but the answer to that question in 2022 is still no. "Ending" domestic coal production would cause a drop in GDP that would make 2020 look like child's play.

Speaking as a non-American who doesn't fully understand the factors at play: why can't you guys just get your military-industrial complex to build you some nationalized nuclear plants on federal land in the middle of nowhere, where there aren't any NIMBYs to get in the way? (You could even just reuse the 'federal land in the middle of nowhere' that all your since-decommissioned nuclear-weapons testing facilities are…

We should. I would be a single issue voter for almost any candidate who proposed this. We should fill the state of Nevada with nuclear plants and export the energy as far as possible.

Re: NASA finds super-emitters of methane

#130

Post by jakub_g »

xen2xen1 wrote: post #109
jakub_g wrote: post #83

Since Turkmenistan was mentioned, mandatory link: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Darvaza_gas_crater > One of the more popular theories is that Soviet geologists intentionally set it on fire in 1971 to prevent the spread of methane gas, and it is thought to have been burning continuously ever since.

I'm not quite sure, does burning it make it less harmful?

Not an expert but quickly googling: Methane is 84x more contributing to the warming than CO2 over the first 20 years, per kg emitted.

It persists in atmosphere shorter than CO2 though, so a 100 year coefficient is 28x.

Source: https://climatechangeconnection.org/emissions/co2-equivalent...

Post reply on HN