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

201–210 of 387 posts

Re: NASA finds super-emitters of methane

#201

Post by hinkley »

jakub_g wrote: post #130
xen2xen1 wrote: post #109

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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...

Any other use of methane besides combustion most likely ends up releasing the exact same amount of energy as burning it.

For instance, nitrogen fertilizer eventually breaks the hydrogen bonds and ends up back in the atmosphere.

Re: NASA finds super-emitters of methane

#202

Post by Schroedingersat »

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 do not care about your supposed externalities. Caring about these things is a luxury they cannot afford in the literal sense.

Then WE (the west) pay for the cost to eliminate the externalities. We will pay for them either way and the only reason they can't afford it is we stole all their shit.

> 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.

Utter nonsense. Slap in a combined CSP + PV station and call it done. Where >50% of the people live it's more reliable than coal or nuclear, the marginal costs stay in the local economy rather than going to rio tinto and paying half (unconditionally, no loan) costs significantly less than the externalities that reach us from a coal plant.

There are areas where this doesn't work, but 1 coal, 1 wind, and 2 solar is cheaper than 2 coal, and having ~2 units of constant power and 1 unit of intermittent has more uses than 2 units of constant.

Re: NASA finds super-emitters of methane

#203

Post by oceanplexian »

xmonkee wrote: post #91
Alupis wrote: post #62

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

"The United States accounts for only about five percent of global population, but is responsible for 30 percent of global energy use and 28 percent of carbon emissions." https://www.eesi.org/articles/view/u.s.-leads-in-greenhouse-...

And the USA is responsible for something like 25% of the world's GDP. So, the USA is much more efficient at per-capita economic output than the much of the world. You can manipulate statistics to rationalize all kinds of viewpoints.

Re: NASA finds super-emitters of methane

#204

Post by danuker »

whatshisface wrote: post #173
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…

Who are they selling them to, and how will they get out from the responsibility?

Companies that exist only to enter such risky markets.

The upside is turned into dividends. But if a law gets passed to make the owners clean up, poof, bankruptcy.

The very definiion of "Limited Liability".

Re: NASA finds super-emitters of methane

#205

Post by [deleted] »

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.

[deleted]

Re: NASA finds super-emitters of methane

#206

Post by [deleted] »

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…

[deleted]

Re: NASA finds super-emitters of methane

#209

Post by hackerlight »

themitigating wrote: post #44
rootusrootus wrote: post #43

Earlier quoted context omitted.

We need it at the worldwide level, which is especially difficult.

Not if you use force

Worldwide treaty to impose import duty carbon tax based on average country-level per-capita emissions. So exports coming out of Australia or Canada would cost the most. These two countries lose their international competitive advantage. Companies in these countries get angry at their local government. Local government acts to reduce emissions.

A nice thing about this is it doesn't even punish poorer countries that much, despite the fact that they haven't transitioned as quickly as richer countries. Because they're poor, their economic activity is lower and they don't generate as much emissions, so the import duty would be lower.

Re: NASA finds super-emitters of methane

#210

Post by lob_it »

motokamaks wrote: post #198
micromacrofoot wrote: post #191

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The government would only publicize the emissions that benefit us politically, which are likely the primary polluters we already know about (China, India, etc).

The Primary polluters are still China and USA. India is a far 3rd and emits 50% less CO2 than the USA. https://www.statista.com/statistics/271748/the-largest-emitt...

https://www.euronews.com/green/2021/06/22/ranked-the-top-10-...

India can be #1 in most plastic dumped into the oceans. We're all #1 in our own special ways :p

Post reply on HN