281–290 of 387 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I'm not quite sure, does burning it make it less harmful?
Yes, burning methane converts it to CO2, which is much less harmful of a greenhouse gas
It looks like cancer and leukaemia for surrounding populations too, so capping or capture protocols may not kick the can as far.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
"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.
To put this in perspective, the 18300kg per hour from the Permian site is equivalent (over a 100 time horizon global warming potential) to a 500 Megawatt coal power plant's CO2 emissions (~1kg of CO2 per kWh of electricity) burning 24/7. Or, to put it another way, it accounts for the same emissions as about 0.3% of the entire US electricity grid.
Stupid question: How much is this actually contributing to climate change? Any climate scientists who make active predictions about how much we don't know?
Who would be best to explain that in laymen terms?
Organics may offset some co2, so rainforest regrowth in brazil and other largescale projects may manage the aftereffects better.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Who are they selling them to, and how will they get out from the responsibility?
One of the companies they sell them to is DEC, which I invest in. These old wells are still profitable but only for organizations with lower cost structures that specialize in handling these sorts of end-of-life regulations and maintenances. State governments subsidize them to maintain the wells long into the future. https://www.div.energy/
[0]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Digital_Equipment_Corporation
Earlier quoted context omitted.
If the information was public, after remedying all of the methane leaks, we would still maintain above normal temperatures for a decade or two, then we would normalize temperatures around 2050, if all of the leaks were capped by tomorrow. Due to the toxic nature, I still wouldn't recommend sunscreen without knowing exactly what is in it.
> Due to the toxic nature, I still wouldn't recommend sunscreen without knowing exactly what is in it. What? Are you a bot?
We can expect the above normal temperatures for a decade or two after the methane is contained. Don't toxify the body with sunscreen and make it worse.
https://www.ewg.org/sunscreen/report/the-trouble-with-sunscr...
Perhaps biddy biddy biddy :p
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…
> In LA, for example, the LADWP is test-driving a program where food scraps - vegetables, but also meats and fats - are diverted into green bins Moved to SF from LA area. Sf does the green bins and it’s actually surprisingly nice to separate the compostable scraps out of the other trash. It keeps the trash bin much cleaner and much less stinky. If I moved back to an area that didn’t require it, I’d still keep them se…
To put this in perspective, the 18300kg per hour from the Permian site is equivalent (over a 100 time horizon global warming potential) to a 500 Megawatt coal power plant's CO2 emissions (~1kg of CO2 per kWh of electricity) burning 24/7. Or, to put it another way, it accounts for the same emissions as about 0.3% of the entire US electricity grid.
To put this in perspective, the 18300kg per hour from the Permian site is equivalent (over a 100 time horizon global warming potential) to a 500 Megawatt coal power plant's CO2 emissions (~1kg of CO2 per kWh of electricity) burning 24/7. Or, to put it another way, it accounts for the same emissions as about 0.3% of the entire US electricity grid.
It's hard to take this comment seriously when you haven't provided any of the relevant facts or sources to back this claim.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
"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.