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

131–140 of 387 posts

Re: NASA finds super-emitters of methane

#131

Post by anonymous_sorry »

Alupis wrote: post #117
anonymous_sorry wrote: post #111

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> The only way to convince these nations to "go green" is to make green energy cheaper than the alternatives. Or make greenhouse gas emissions more expensive. So you set the tariffs proportionnal to the assessed level of greenhouse gas emissions. Set them at a level where governments are incentivised to act to reduce the tariffs.

The tariffs only hurt your own citizens. The nations that matter for emissions are not going to care about US tariffs...

Well, in the same way higher energy costs hurt your own citizens, in the short term. But we need the price of greenhouse gas emissions to include the externalised costs involved, otherwise the market just makes the wrong choices.

The measures can be revenue neutral - just reduce other taxes by an equivalent amount. Folks will have more money, and face higher costs, but will be incented to direct their spending to less polluting imports where possible.

Re: NASA finds super-emitters of methane

#132

Post by 8bitsrule »

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.

Stanford's Mark Z. Jacobson started writing papers a decade ago [0] that answers that question yes. The GDP will be immaterial if we continue to ignore the obvious.

[0] https://energy.stanford.edu/sites/g/files/sbiybj9971/f/mark_...

https://seec-tonko.house.gov/sites/sustainableenergyandenvir...

Re: NASA finds super-emitters of methane

#133

Post by hwillis »

tildef wrote: post #50
tanto wrote: post #41

> Together, the Turkmenistan sources release an estimated 111,000 pounds of methane gas per hour If this is happening all the time, then the number of global methane emissions due to human activity on this ( https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Methane_emissions ) Wikipedia page can't be valid. Crazy how human negligence and greed might end humanity.

Maybe I'm misreading something, but I don't understand the discrepancy. According to the wiki article, human output is 363 megatons/year. 111,000 lb/hr = 55.5 tons/hr = 0.5 megatons/year. Still a lot though!

Turkmenistan produces ~2.2% of global natural gas. Scaled across all producers, the result would be 20.2 MT/yr. Also, this is from a tiny part of Turkmenistan.

> In Turkmenistan, EMIT identified 12 plumes from oil and gas infrastructure east of the Caspian Sea port city of Hazar.[1]

That's around 50 miles away from the eastern edge of a 750 mile wide country which is covered in oil fields and refineries[2].

[1]: https://www.nasa.gov/feature/jpl/methane-super-emitters-mapp...

[2]: https://www.researchgate.net/profile/Ippa-Uca/publication/31...

Re: NASA finds super-emitters of methane

#134

Post by BbzzbB »

tanto wrote: post #41

> Together, the Turkmenistan sources release an estimated 111,000 pounds of methane gas per hour If this is happening all the time, then the number of global methane emissions due to human activity on this ( https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Methane_emissions ) Wikipedia page can't be valid. Crazy how human negligence and greed might end humanity.

>In 2019, [the President of Turkmenistan] appeared on state television doing doughnut stunts around the crater to disprove and correct rumours of his death.[14]

Interesting proof of life.

Re: NASA finds super-emitters of methane

#135

Post by stetrain »

Alupis wrote: post #115
hackerlight wrote: post #106

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Firstly, many poor countries are doing some of that. Look at China. They don't like being covered in smog all the time and the respiratory problems that creates. Secondly, the cost curves are decreasing for a reason. It's because of investment in these technologies by richer countries. The richer countries pave the way by making the technology so cheap that it's irresistible and a better deal to poor countries. The w…

> Firstly, many poor countries are doing some of that. Look at China. China is far from a poor country... by some measurements they outpace even the US. > Secondly, the cost curves are decreasing for a reason This is true - however we also need to recognize the technology is not ready today. It might be tomorrow, but throwing everything out and going full-in on green tech today is foolhardy. Some prominent states in…

Who is throwing out non-green power? My electricity in the US comes from majority gas and coal as it ever has.

To make a significant change over 20-50 years requires big investments now. Making those investments does not mean we are throwing away everything else immediately.

Re: NASA finds super-emitters of methane

#136

Post by m4jor »

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.

Dont forget about nuclear. Still a great energy source.

Re: NASA finds super-emitters of methane

#137

Post by chiefalchemist »

themitigating wrote: post #108
chitowneats wrote: post #92

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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.

Switching over slowly and let the market adjust. Why must everyone make this argument as some sudden disruptive change?

They said "could" not "should." It was, for me, context, a reference point. Such statements help push back against what is often misguided conventional wisdom. They shine light on our priorities, or the lack thereof.

Re: NASA finds super-emitters of methane

#138

Post by kelnos »

Alupis wrote: post #117
anonymous_sorry wrote: post #111

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> The only way to convince these nations to "go green" is to make green energy cheaper than the alternatives. Or make greenhouse gas emissions more expensive. So you set the tariffs proportionnal to the assessed level of greenhouse gas emissions. Set them at a level where governments are incentivised to act to reduce the tariffs.

The tariffs only hurt your own citizens. The nations that matter for emissions are not going to care about US tariffs...

> The tariffs only hurt your own citizens.

The tariffs hurt the producer country if the cost of their imported goods becomes significantly more expensive than other sources, because then your own citizens will buy other goods. Yes, this does still hurt your own citizens, but it also hurts the producer country as well, if they can't find a market for their goods.

Of course, this only works if most/all of the significant consumer countries all impose similar tariffs. And there are hopefully just better ways to achieve what you want.

Re: NASA finds super-emitters of methane

#139

Post by ordu »

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?

Tax their oil profits with a methane tax? Stop buying their oil, while they didn't fix leaks? How about this?

Re: NASA finds super-emitters of methane

#140

Post by [deleted] »

reillyse wrote: post #67
madrox wrote: post #52

Worth noting that EMIT wasn't funded for this purpose. It was greenlit to measure and track dust (arguably still for climate-related purposes, but still!). This is a relatively minor example of why funding space-based science is so important. We're still seeing "accidental benefits" of deploying technology there.

Cynical me thinks that if NASA tried to get funding for a project that could detect large scale methane plumes which might be used against the oil and gas industry they might just not be able to get that funding.

[deleted]
Post reply on HN