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

181–190 of 387 posts

Re: NASA finds super-emitters of methane

#181

Post by themitigating »

chitowneats wrote: post #113
themitigating wrote: post #108

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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

We are switching over slowly. That's literally the status quo. The argument of "we could end coal for X dollars" is what introduces the idea of a discrete value into this discussion. How can you know what we will spend unless you specify a time interval? Clearly we won't be burning coal in 100 years. Maybe not even 50. Or 30.

I left out a variable that you hinted at so let me redefine what I meant.

We need to move to green energy and not count sources of energy from unstable situations. Meaning Germany shouldn't have shut its coal plants relying on gas from Russia as replacement.

The cold war ended in 1989 and first invaded Ukraine in 2014, with obvious hints at being authoritarian prior to that. Russia is not a friendly country and shouldn't have been considered one this quickly.

Re: NASA finds super-emitters of methane

#182

Post by hackerlight »

Alupis wrote: post #176
hackerlight wrote: post #143

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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…

> It's more expensive than coal but it's cheaper if you factor in the externalities Developing nations do not care about your supposed externalities. Caring about these things is a luxury they cannot afford in the literal sense. > and it's cheaper than nuclear. This is almost entirely the fault of deliberately crushing regulation... but that's a political choice not a technical one. > Therefore, it's ready Hardly. No…

Developing nations don't need to care about externalities if wealthy countries subsidized their transition. I also note that we've pivoted from "problem countries", which I assumed to mean large countries like China or India, which themselves are fairly poor on a per-capita basis, to exclusively extremely poor countries, which excludes China and India probably because it's inconvenient for the narrative that they're transitioning by themselves.

> Nobody as-of yet has developed a reasonably priced, long-lived and efficient means of storage

You don't need storage to get the grid to 80%+ renewables. Storage as a blocker is a political talking point that is not substantiated and not true. Denmark is the case study that shows why. Also, storage costs are linear decreasing on a log scale.

> You'd have burned them pretty badly if you compelled them to install solar even 10 years ago because of how inefficient it was compared to other cheaper means of energy production. Even in the past 10 years solar tech has come so very far... that is my point about it not being ready yet. We still have a long ways to go in renewables before they can realistically replace energy production in mandatory environments, ie. environments that don't have the luxury of trying out new expensive unproven tech and changing it as the technology develops.

You're repeating the same things that I've already addressed. You're not "burning" poor countries if you're paying for it. You can't "burn" a country by making them financially better off. It is not a logically coherent point. Also, the tech is proven -- in actual practice, in reality, today, already implemented -- after you factor in the costs of externalities. And that picture will only get better and better as more money flows into R&D and the cost curve continues to decline as a direct consequence of that funding.

Re: NASA finds super-emitters of methane

#183

Post by Schroedingersat »

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…

World Uranium production: 45,000T

Natural Uranium required to start a 1GW nuclear reactor: 7500t

New Net Renewable generation in US: 5GW (this is hilariously low. Compare 75GW in china)

Cost per GW of nuclear: $10bn -- maybe half that without NIMBYS if we assume how much the military industrial complex charges for stuff is the sameas tye juclear industry.

Us military budget: $750bn

Proportion of US military budget to match China's current renewable growth: 50-100%

Proportion of World Uranium production to match US renewable growth: 80%

Proportion of World Uranium production to match China's current renewable growth: 1200%

Proportion of world Uranium reserves to match China's current renewable growth for 1 year: 7%

I mean, building nuclear reactors you never turn on is a better use of money than what they normally do, but they can hardly be out bringing democracy to Niger, Namibia, and Kazakhstan to get free fuel if they're busy building something useful.

It would still massively reduce emissions though, simply by virtue of the fact that they wouldn't be burning millions of tonnes of oil for normal operations.

Still better to build wind if you want electricity. If you've figured out how to make electricity teleport, then renewables can do it with almost no storage.

Re: NASA finds super-emitters of methane

#184

Post by datavirtue »

ryanhuff wrote: post #27
mturmon wrote: post #24

Several questions ask to contextualize this measurement. Here's a highly-cited paper in Nature (including some of the researchers quoted in the OP) that describes how an earlier survey of California methane emissions went: https://www.nature.com/articles/s41586-019-1720-3 If I remember right, the state of CA asked for this survey. It was carried out by an instrument similar to that of the OP, but airborne, not on ISS…

My Orange County suburb recently mandated putting food waste into a separate can.

No post body was provided.

Re: NASA finds super-emitters of methane

#185

Post by roflyear »

Bhurn00985 wrote: post #4

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

A lot of methane comes from animals. See here: https://www.iea.org/reports/methane-tracker-2020

If you care about this, you should stop eating meat, or reduce your meat consumption.

Re: NASA finds super-emitters of methane

#186

Post by strainer »

chrisco255 wrote: post #150
ljf wrote: post #79

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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?

It is somewhat deceptive framing, because methane can not accumulate in the atmosphere the way CO2 does. Its levels in the atmosphere will break down relatively quickly if we reduce output, unlike CO2. But the present level of methane in the atmosphere basically captures about 30% as much heat as the present level of CO2. That still leaves CO2 as significantly larger immediate problem and the much larger future problem. We must do what we can, observing that every little counts - a little, and every lot counts a lot.

Re: NASA finds super-emitters of methane

#187

Post by amelius »

mmaunder wrote: post #23

Will be interesting to see how this capability unfolds. They’ve proven this can be done using an instrument not even designed for the task. A specialized instrument may be able to detect other greenhouse emissions. Imagine the kind of high resolution accountability that might be possible. But does the political will exist in the US to expose ourselves that way? Our political donors that way? Our country as one of the…

What would happen if this information was public?

Re: NASA finds super-emitters of methane

#188

Post by themitigating »

lazide wrote: post #126
themitigating wrote: post #96

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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?

I'm sorry. Let me throw out the hypotheticals in my head and these are not based on any real situation.

1. What if a small Eastern European country created a large nuclear reactor but didn't care about safety meaning that the probability of a meltdown that would effect Europe was X percentage. At what value of X is it acceptable to invade assuming all other methods of persuasion have been attempted.

2. If a country is polluting Y amounts of something that increases global warming by X and all methods of persuasion have stopped is invasion ever justified at some values of X and Y. You are considering the probability of and level of suffering of two events.

A. The invasion B. The suffering caused by environmental damage.

There has to be some conditions in which it is morally justified to invade a country

Re: NASA finds super-emitters of methane

#189

Post by datavirtue »

nomel wrote: post #49
rowanG077 wrote: post #8

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Methane is a very strong greenhouse gas. But the upside is that it doesn't stay in the atmosphere for long. The half life of it is something like 9 years.

Would it be ecologically responsible to set these leaks on fire?

Depends on who you ask. Today it's tomato soup and epoxy, tomorrow it's C4 and a cell phone. It won't be long before we have conversations about nationalizing fossil fuel companies.

Re: NASA finds super-emitters of methane

#190

Post by stetrain »

Alupis wrote: post #179
stetrain wrote: post #167

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Is the root cause of California's energy issue because they are shutting down non-green energy production?

One could make a pretty darn strong case the root of California's energy issue is because they've refused to build anything except "green" energy production facilities, despite current-day needs. No new hydro-electric dams in my lifetime. No new nuclear reactors (that I'm aware of at least) in my lifetime. Just either status-quo, or gobbles of unproven renewable tech that has yet to actually live up to expectations (…

I would consider both hydro-electric and nuclear to be beneficial power sources if both local air quality and global climate effects are the primary factors.

I hear you that some "green" initiatives are poorly targeted but I don't think that means we should hit the brakes on regulating the things that are known climate issues (ie excess methane releases) or investment in improving our grid emissions.

Post reply on HN