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

321–330 of 387 posts

Re: NASA finds super-emitters of methane

#321

Post by gowings97 »

Robotbeat wrote: post #253

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.

"Or, to put it another way, it accounts for the same emissions as about 0.3% of the entire US electricity grid."

And what % of US energy needs does that site supply to the grid?

Re: NASA finds super-emitters of methane

#322

Post by detritus »

riffraff wrote: post #291
mint2 wrote: post #219

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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…

We have compostable bin pickup twice a week in my hometown in Italy, a ton of things are compostable with industrial composters these days which you could not easily compost at home, also thanks to regulations (e.g. shopping bags, tea bags, some food packaging etc), so the other bins stay pretty empty.

Important to note that, at least in my experience, most of the 'plastic bags' in Italy are the compostable kind. In the UK they're still in the minotrity (I've only seen our version of the Co-Op offer them, for instance).

You might wish to be wary about tea bags, mind - here in the UK our tea producers are still struggling to release bags free of thin heat-pressed polypropylene sealing strips... .

Re: NASA finds super-emitters of methane

#323

Post by MichaelZuo »

gausswho wrote: post #263
MichaelZuo wrote: post #2

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.

It's been known for a while. Some resources I found on it: https://www.edf.org/sites/default/files/new-mexico-methane-a... and https://earth.stanford.edu/news/methane-leaks-are-far-worse-...

Huh so I guess:

"Among the dozens of plumes of methane spotted by EMIT so far, one stretches for about two miles in the Permian Basin, a massive oil field southeast of Carlsbad, New Mexico. This source of methane emissions was previously undetected, writes Grist’s Avery Schuyler Nunn."

was incorrect.

Odd for the Smithsonian magazine to not fact check this...

Re: NASA finds super-emitters of methane

#324

Post by gowings97 »

neRok wrote: post #294
Robotbeat wrote: post #253

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.

Just to confirm the numbers myself; 18,300kg methane per hour * 24 hours * 365 days = 160,308,000kg (~0.160 million metric tonnes). At 25x CO2 equivalent, that is 4,007,700,000kg (4 million metric tonnes). This link about US electricity generation: https://www.eia.gov/tools/faqs/faq.php?id=74&t=11 shows 767 "million metric tons" from coal, or 1.55 "billion metric tons" from all sources. 4 / 767 ~= 0.5%, so in the bal…

HN'ers seething - you can't beat cheap fossil fuels for base load capacity (ask Germany)

Only thing that trumps fossil fuels is nuclear - instead of the EU chasing Apple over USB-C ports, why don't they come up with some subsidies for better reactor designs?

Re: NASA finds super-emitters of methane

#325

Post by momento »

comice wrote: post #317

I for one am glad the US is finally looking into who on earth is causing these awful climate problems. Turns out it is Turkmenistan and "likely Russia".

It's not just Turkmenistan.

>These facilities, equipment and other infrastructure that emit methane at high rates span central Asia, the Middle East and the southwestern United States.

What I am curious about is how do we actually hold these large scale emitters accountable and enact change? It's not enough to simply know about the problem.

Re: NASA finds super-emitters of methane

#326

Post by mort96 »

gowings97 wrote: post #324
neRok wrote: post #294

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Just to confirm the numbers myself; 18,300kg methane per hour * 24 hours * 365 days = 160,308,000kg (~0.160 million metric tonnes). At 25x CO2 equivalent, that is 4,007,700,000kg (4 million metric tonnes). This link about US electricity generation: https://www.eia.gov/tools/faqs/faq.php?id=74&t=11 shows 767 "million metric tons" from coal, or 1.55 "billion metric tons" from all sources. 4 / 767 ~= 0.5%, so in the bal…

HN'ers seething - you can't beat cheap fossil fuels for base load capacity (ask Germany) Only thing that trumps fossil fuels is nuclear - instead of the EU chasing Apple over USB-C ports, why don't they come up with some subsidies for better reactor designs?

What does this have to be with satisfying base load capacity without fossil fuels? Or USB-C?

Re: NASA finds super-emitters of methane

#327

Post by pasabagi »

chitowneats wrote: post #251
pasabagi wrote: post #164

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Not really? Germany is a mid-range, slow-moving sort of country, and they get about 40% of their energy from renewables. They still get 30% of their energy from coal, but it's being fairly steadily phased out. Energy sources are fungible. Solar power is cheaper than coal in a lot of places, as is wind, and the US has a ton of natural gas to make up for the intermittency problem. I think you're mistaking a political p…

I think you're mistaking political problems for being implementation details that are easily fixed. Versus the reality in which they are the hardest problems that exist for humanity at the current moment. Russian gas is literally not replaceable by liquid natural gas, or any other energy source, as imports for most of Europe this winter. It's theoretically fungible on an infinite time frame. We do not live in a theor…

Sure, politcal problems are hard problems. However, your original post asserted that the current energy demand of the US cannot be met without coal. You did not say they will not, because of political pathology.

It is, however, patently obvious that they can - many countries in Europe are doing that right now, and not all of them depend on Russian natural gas.

Further, the only reason why EU states in the east depend on Russian natural gas is because Russia is close. The US is a gas exporter. They would need no such overseas supply.

Re: NASA finds super-emitters of methane

#328

Post by gowings97 »

mort96 wrote: post #326
gowings97 wrote: post #324

Earlier quoted context omitted.

HN'ers seething - you can't beat cheap fossil fuels for base load capacity (ask Germany) Only thing that trumps fossil fuels is nuclear - instead of the EU chasing Apple over USB-C ports, why don't they come up with some subsidies for better reactor designs?

What does this have to be with satisfying base load capacity without fossil fuels? Or USB-C?

"What does this have to be with satisfying base load capacity without fossil fuels?"

If you think inflation is high now, try making this a reality.

The EU isn't a serious political body - instead of getting everyone at the table to solve hard problems, they chase nonsense.

Re: NASA finds super-emitters of methane

#329

Post by pasabagi »

oceanplexian wrote: post #199
pasabagi wrote: post #154

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

> Most of Europe is off coal. It's not really a necessary part of an energy mix. This is not exactly the best time to be talking about Europe's superior energy infrastructure.

I think there's a great deal of hysteria about Russian gas cutoffs. German bills are projected to be lower than UK energy bills over the winter[0][1], even though the UK has basically no dependence on Russian gas.

A war is an unusual and extreme event, and when it's started by your major gas supplier, it's unsurprising that prices go up. It is, however, obviously not enough to write off the whole european energy policy just because when you stress test it, there are higher bills.

It's no use if your 'sensible' energy policy results in 3 degrees of global warming: that will be far worse than a high energy bill, or a war for that matter.

[0] https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2022-08-22/uk-energy... [1] https://www.reuters.com/business/energy/german-energy-bills-...

Re: NASA finds super-emitters of methane

#330

Post by saagarjha »

_jvqe wrote: post #249
Invictus0 wrote: post #226

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It's part of a narrative to blame consumers for causing climate change, meanwhile industry pollutes far more. The pollution reduction per unit effort is much higher if you focus on heavy industry.

https://www.wsj.com/articles/tougher-rules-on-methane-leaks-... Its a paywalled article, but you are correct that carbon credits and net-zero have excluded methane because of its wonderful smell :) "Long-awaited" means exactly zero has been implemented. Perhaps "the new net-zero", similar to soda marketing is in order.

Methane is odorless. It's the added mercaptan that gives it the smell you know about.
Post reply on HN