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

141–150 of 387 posts

Re: NASA finds super-emitters of methane

#141

Post by Alupis »

stetrain wrote: post #135
Alupis wrote: post #115

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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.

I don't know what state you're in, but California is really struggling with this at the moment.

You can get green energy as-is (from your utility), but it's at a premium. Which means most don't opt-in for it.

This is going on while the state already struggles to keep itself energized year round. The current state of green energy will only exasperate California's problems, since storage tech still has a lot of catching up to do.

Re: NASA finds super-emitters of methane

#142

Post by nomel »

kelseyfrog wrote: post #70
nomel wrote: post #46

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I think this is an extremely privileged perspective.

For a brief moment before civilization-wide collapse, we'll be able to generate a lot of shareholder value.

I don't see how that's related. My point is that not everyone has the luxury of choosing to buy more expensive, eco friendly, goods. Some people have to pull from the bin of mass produced garbage food, rather than going down the street and paying 4x for something sustainably sourced.

The very first consequence of being poor is that you have to live further from work. Burning up 4 extra hours a day, on a bus, isn't possible for everyone.

The statement

> Everyone has always had the option to vote with their dollars.

is privileged nonsense.

Re: NASA finds super-emitters of methane

#143

Post by hackerlight »

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…

> 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.

It is ready today. Look at Denmark. It's more expensive than coal but it's cheaper if you factor in the externalities, and it's cheaper than nuclear. Therefore, it's ready. Also, your second sentence is a non-sequitur. If it really was true that it wasn't ready, that's all the more reason to throw even more money at it in order to figure out how to make it ready.

> That will just burn developing nations and make them less likely to trust us next time we come up with some amazing new solution to all their problems...

How are you burning developing nations by subsidizing their energy such that they are financially better off doing it than not doing it? This reasoning does not make sense.

Re: NASA finds super-emitters of methane

#144

Post by googlryas »

neves wrote: post #87
reillyse wrote: post #67

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

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

I never realized the southwestern United States was outside the develop world.

Re: NASA finds super-emitters of methane

#145

Post by titzer »

Alupis wrote: post #62
stetrain wrote: post #55

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Yes, but that shouldn't prevent us from implementing it where we can first.

Not if all your efforts are wasted because other nations won't follow in-step or do not care. This isn't grade school were trying your hardest gets you an 'A' for the day... in reality trying your hardest and failing is still failure. The US could do all the magical things and net zero emissions next year and it won't matter one bit. That's just reality... without a globally concerted effort, it's all just waste. But…

So sick of hearing this. It's a leaky ship. You gotta plug all the holes. Arguing about the order is losing time.

Re: NASA finds super-emitters of methane

#146

Post by bertil »

BbzzbB wrote: post #134
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.

Turkmenistan is a country that keeps John Oliver excited. That's saying a lot.

Re: NASA finds super-emitters of methane

#147

Post by hwillis »

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.

> Everyone has always had the option to vote with their dollars.

Imagine for a second that this was an actual election. To vote for fossil fuels, people just have to call a phone number or drive to a polling place (gas station).

To vote for carbon neutrality -that is, to be actually carbon neutral- a voter has to buy a new, more expensive car. They have to stop flying. They have to change everything they eat. They have to plant a bunch of trees. They have to spend hundreds of dollars on renewable electricity to ensure at least someone is getting renewable power, even if it isn't them personally. Or they can just stop using electricity, I guess.

Imagine an election where you had to fulfill all those requirements for a year in order to vote annually. Would you say that voters "had the option" to vote? I wouldn't.

Money has unequal power depending where its spent. You personally, trying to buy renewable electricity, have to spend hundreds of times more than a large scale coordinated action. Think of it as like the economy of scale.

Re: NASA finds super-emitters of methane

#148

Post by [deleted] »

googlryas wrote: post #144
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

I never realized the southwestern United States was outside the develop world.

[deleted]

Re: NASA finds super-emitters of methane

#149

Post by Bluecobra »

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 can’t even agree on a place to store our waste in the middle of nowhere. Billions of dollars have been spent since the 1980’s on Yucca Mountain and that still hasn’t happened.

Re: NASA finds super-emitters of methane

#150

Post by chrisco255 »

ljf wrote: post #79
proee wrote: post #74

Earlier quoted context omitted.

From some Google Searches... 111,000 pounds of methane, multipled by factor of 80x, equal around 388M tons of CO2. A car produces around 4.6 tons of C02 per year. So this makes the emissions equal to about 84M cars driving around for a year. Google says there are around 1.46 Billion cars in the world. So this amount of greenhouse gas is around a 5.7% increase in our overall car emissions. (edited based on feedback be…

Quoting here but; Methane has more than 80 times the warming power of carbon dioxide over the first 20 years after it reaches the atmosphere. Even though CO2 has a longer-lasting effect, methane sets the pace for warming in the near term. At least 25% of today's global warming is driven by methane from human actions.

What is meant by 25% of today's global warming? 25% from what baseline? From what median? From what time period?
Post reply on HN