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

371–380 of 387 posts

Re: NASA finds super-emitters of methane

#371

Post by Retric »

tkk23 wrote: post #367
Retric wrote: post #316

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Even just killing all a billion would be quite expensive by comparison. You can’t exactly do it for 0.01$/ cow and fixing this would likely cost significantly less than 10 million.

You have forgotten that all of those cows will already be killed, with a profit.

Not everywhere and especially not anytime soon. India has more than 3,000 institutions called Gaushalas maintained by charitable trusts that care for old and infirm cows. It’s a whole religious thing.

Also, enforcing rules isn’t free. Trying to enforce a cow ban would get really expensive.

Re: NASA finds super-emitters of methane

#372

Post by coffeeshopgoth »

westurner wrote: post #360
coffeeshopgoth wrote: post #352

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Natural gas isn't stored on site, it needs to be piped to the nearest plant to be processed and put into a sales line. Capturing methane from insufficiently capped old wells would not be economic in most cases. If a company was called out on it, they would just go dump more cement in it to make sure the gas is contained. 90% of the time, wells that are plugged are plugged well, the ones that aren't and are just aband…

So, in 2022, it's cheaper to dump concrete than to capture it, but the new fines this year aren't enough incentive to solve for: capture to a tank and haul, build unprocessed natural gas pipelines, or process onsite and/or fill tankers onsite? Data quality: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Data_quality ... Space -based imaging. How long should they wait to up the methane fee if it's not enough to incentivize capping clo…

It is totally cheaper to dump some cement (it is mostly gel with a topping of cement). To P&A older wells maybe runs $12-25K (assuming, like, a 5-8k ft. depth conventional well)...and I may be running a little high on that number. That gets a small truck out there with a small crew to pull tubing and dump alternating layers of cement and gel (cement goes on the top and across formations that would be ground water bearing). Fun fact, if you have to go back into an abandoned well and you come across red cement at the top, that is indicative of someone losing a nuclear based well tool in there and to call someone before going further. A typical 7.5-10k foot lateral unconventional well (horizontal wells) down that way will run about $7-8 million depending (and 6 wells on average on a well pad), but aren't really the issue, but just giving you some numbers to sort of show that fining someone $100K for something serious isn't that big an expense and not really a deterrent. Natural gas lines are always a big deal to oil and gas companies - if you build it they will come. Most space in pipelines for operators is spoken for before they even dig the first trench.

Re: NASA finds super-emitters of methane

#373

Post by tanto »

tildef wrote: post #50
tanto wrote: post #41

> Together, the Turkmenistan sources release an estimated 111,000 pounds of methane gas per hour If this is happening all the time, then the number of global methane emissions due to human activity on this ( https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Methane_emissions ) Wikipedia page can't be valid. Crazy how human negligence and greed might end humanity.

Maybe I'm misreading something, but I don't understand the discrepancy. According to the wiki article, human output is 363 megatons/year. 111,000 lb/hr = 55.5 tons/hr = 0.5 megatons/year. Still a lot though!

I think you are right! Apparently I was misreading. Still a lot unnecessary waste one might say.

Re: NASA finds super-emitters of methane

#374

Post by westurner »

coffeeshopgoth wrote: post #372
westurner wrote: post #360

Earlier quoted context omitted.

So, in 2022, it's cheaper to dump concrete than to capture it, but the new fines this year aren't enough incentive to solve for: capture to a tank and haul, build unprocessed natural gas pipelines, or process onsite and/or fill tankers onsite? Data quality: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Data_quality ... Space -based imaging. How long should they wait to up the methane fee if it's not enough to incentivize capping clo…

It is totally cheaper to dump some cement (it is mostly gel with a topping of cement). To P&A older wells maybe runs $12-25K (assuming, like, a 5-8k ft. depth conventional well)...and I may be running a little high on that number. That gets a small truck out there with a small crew to pull tubing and dump alternating layers of cement and gel (cement goes on the top and across formations that would be ground water bea…

Options:

A. Privately and/or Publicly grant to P&A wells

    ($25k+  * n_wells)
  + ($7-8m+ * m_wells)
B. Build natural gas pipelines that run past those well sites (approval,)

C. increase the incentives/fines/fees

**

Shouldn't it be pretty easy to find such tools with IDK neutron detection and/or imaging at what distance?

Re: NASA finds super-emitters of methane

#375

Post by pstuart »

themitigating wrote: post #114
pstuart wrote: post #99

Earlier quoted context omitted.

There's always leading by example, as well as incentivizing via aid. This is not to dismiss the challenge, just that we shouldn't avoid hard problems just because they're hard.

"Leading by example " having heard that in a long time I believe it's called "virtue signaling " now. That should tell you how well that would work

My understanding of the phrase "virtue signaling" is that it's a slur: somebody pretending to be better than others.

The intention of "leading by example" was that it's ridiculous to ask poorer countries to make sacrifices that we ourselves are not willing to make.

Re: NASA finds super-emitters of methane

#376

Post by chrisco255 »

ljf wrote: post #350
strainer wrote: post #186

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 probl…

Don't forget what methane breaks down into... Water vapour and co2. So it's not like it breaks down and is no longer an issue n

Yeah but that CO2 is already part of the ppm that is measured. And water vapor of course, has the ability to cool or heat depending on the position in the atmosphere and amount of particulates for it to condensate on (to form clouds).

Re: NASA finds super-emitters of methane

#377

Post by squokko »

titzer wrote: post #271
spoonjim wrote: post #248

All of the emissions reductions in the US aren’t going to do anything if China keeps emitting at pace. We should not be doing anything unilaterally.

It's a leaky ship. Arguing over who has to fix their holes first is pointless dithering and finger-pointing.

Yes, arguing about who fixes their holes "first" is pointless, but who fixes their holes "ever" is very important. It doesn't any sense for me to fix my holes if you have your finger in your ears saying "la la la I can't hear you" when I ask when you're going to fix yours.

Re: NASA finds super-emitters of methane

#378

Post by chrisco255 »

hotpotamus wrote: post #252
chrisco255 wrote: post #150

Earlier quoted context omitted.

What is meant by 25% of today's global warming? 25% from what baseline? From what median? From what time period?

I'd assume the previous 10,000 or so years wherein humans created civilization up to about 1980.

No, we don't have anything close to a precise global temperature over the entire Holocene (the period you describe, that we are presently in, coinciding with the end of the most recent glacial period). We at best have spotty tree rings, ice core samples (which are inherently limited to arctic regions), and other various rough proxies which have a higher margin of error than we have observed in even the past 100 years.

Good, broadly available, consistently measured temperature data from daily mercury record keeping was mainly only really done in UK and colonial U.S. until the late 1800s. Even then most of the world did not maintain standards for temperature stations until the early to mid 20th century. Global temperature estimates that actually span the whole globe were not really possible until the weather satellite era, around the late 1970s. So there is a big problem when comparing the precision and breadth of modern temperature data with historical estimations for a number of reasons. Not least of which is that we do not really see the sample rates of historical data necessary to estimate the periodic, even as small as decadal, swings to any high degree of accuracy.

Post reply on HN