Live data from Hacker News

NASA finds super-emitters of methane

smithsonianmag.com

151–160 of 387 posts

Re: NASA finds super-emitters of methane

#151
post #138
post #117

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 significa…

>Of course, this only works if most/all of the significant consumer countries all impose similar tariffs.

The problem always seems to be one of international action. If we wait for global agreement, I think we're screwed. Every time I hear the argument "there's no point in us acting while China is building a coal-fired power station every nanosecond", I think of this. Half the problem is that we're effectively exporting a good proportion of our emissions - we can't wash our hands of that and use it as an excuse not to clean up our own act as well. This seems like the obvious answer to those objections to me.

I think this is something that could be designed to work incrementally. Obviously the more countries do it the better, but every time you increase the cost of burning fossil fuels, more marginal renewable energy sources become economically viable.

> And there are hopefully just better ways to achieve what you want.

It's been a couple of decades and we're still waiting...

Re: NASA finds super-emitters of methane

#153
post #124

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

No post body was provided.

Re: NASA finds super-emitters of methane

#154

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.

Wait, why? Isn't solar or wind, depending on location, typically the cheapest form of power generation?

Most of Europe is off coal. It's not really a necessary part of an energy mix.

Re: NASA finds super-emitters of methane

#155
post #124

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…

Too many NIMBYs (where "backyard" refers to the whole country)

Re: NASA finds super-emitters of methane

#156
post #124

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…

  > 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?
I'm not in the US, but I guess for the same reason why Sahara desert is not yet became world largest solar power plant. You can't just build power plants in the middle of nowhere since energy transportation infrastructure isn't free and there some laws of physics involved.

Also I pretty certain that US government and especially military are well aware that centralization of power production is not good for resilience of the grid and national security. One huge centralised nuclear facility would be much easier target than hundreds and thousands of smaller power plants.

Re: NASA finds super-emitters of methane

#157
post #124

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…

I'm not from the US, but the normal situation is that on places where nobody leaves there is also not enough water to cool down nuclear plants.

Re: NASA finds super-emitters of methane

#158

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.

Wait, why? Isn't solar or wind, depending on location, typically the cheapest form of power generation? Most of Europe is off coal. It's not really a necessary part of an energy mix.

They're off coal because they're on Russian natural gas. Until this winter, I suppose.

Natural gas is a biproduct of oil and coal production.

Re: NASA finds super-emitters of methane

#159

How could a 2 mile long methane plume in New Mexico have been undetected for any significant amount of time? From what I understand basic environmental monitoring is done in 2022 around all major industrial facilities in the U.S.

Sadly, the environmental monitoring is woefully inadequate, even next to the western hemisphere's largest industrial complex (Freeport, TX ... though its a bit better of an example to use or include Deer Park / Houston Ship Channel as well because it's part of America's 3rd/4th largest city). Below the dashed line is a copy/paste of a comment I made two months ago on a post of ProPublica's dispersion model and public…

> We don't actually have any data. The government is failing us.

It seems to be succeeding for the plant operators, though.

Re: NASA finds super-emitters of methane

#160

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

Let me get this straight. You're saying that markets cannot optimize for futures beyond the lifetime-horizon of their participants?
Post reply on HN