A glaring error in methane flaring (2022)
arstechnica.com
A glaring error in methane flaring (2022)
1–10 of 22 posts
Re: A glaring error in methane flaring (2022)
#2Direct link to the paper:
Re: A glaring error in methane flaring (2022)
#3I know we had the "percentage points" vs "ratio of percentages" flame war here recently, but saying "only a few percent" without pointing out that the emissions are 450% of what was expected is frustrating to read; I kept expecting someone to point that out in the article...
Re: A glaring error in methane flaring (2022)
#4I know we had the "percentage points" vs "ratio of percentages" flame war here recently, but saying "only a few percent" without pointing out that the emissions are 450% of what was expected is frustrating to read; I kept expecting someone to point that out in the article...
tiny errors like this gotta add up into deviations between what we're currently observing in the climate vs what models are predicting, right?
Re: A glaring error in methane flaring (2022)
#5[dead]
Re: A glaring error in methane flaring (2022)
#6Look at "light pollution" map of the USA. Look at western North Dakota and the light pollution there is more than the biggest cities in the USA. All of that is from flaring from fracking.
Re: A glaring error in methane flaring (2022)
#7I know we had the "percentage points" vs "ratio of percentages" flame war here recently, but saying "only a few percent" without pointing out that the emissions are 450% of what was expected is frustrating to read; I kept expecting someone to point that out in the article...
tiny errors like this gotta add up into deviations between what we're currently observing in the climate vs what models are predicting, right?
By tiny you mean massive.
Re: A glaring error in methane flaring (2022)
#8I know we had the "percentage points" vs "ratio of percentages" flame war here recently, but saying "only a few percent" without pointing out that the emissions are 450% of what was expected is frustrating to read; I kept expecting someone to point that out in the article...
tiny errors like this gotta add up into deviations between what we're currently observing in the climate vs what models are predicting, right?
I think the point is that it's not really a "tiny" error.
Phrasing it as "91% vs 98% efficient" makes it seem like it's only 'off' by a factor of 1.08x, but what really matters for the climate is 9% vs 2% leak rate — a whopping 4.5x!
Perhaps surprisingly, this 'simple math' for us isn't obvious to a large fraction of the population. For better comprehension it would be nice if the article had pointed it out specifically.
Methane is a great low hanging fruit to tackle first. Its atmospheric half-life is 8-12 years, which means slashing emissions now can 'bend the curve' in decades, not centuries. Upcoming satellites will monitor all emissions globally, with day-by-day and well-by-well granularity.
Re: A glaring error in methane flaring (2022)
#9I know we had the "percentage points" vs "ratio of percentages" flame war here recently, but saying "only a few percent" without pointing out that the emissions are 450% of what was expected is frustrating to read; I kept expecting someone to point that out in the article...
> The difference between the assumed efficiency of flaring and the efficiency found in Kort and his colleagues’ results is a matter of a few percentage points. However, the researcher said that this seemingly small difference could be a big deal when extrapolated over the whole fossil fuel industry. Further, methane has more than 80 times the impact of carbon dioxide when it comes to warming the planet—at least during the first 20 years it spends in the air.
Isn't this enough? Yes, the article could make the point more explicit at the expense of brevity, but most readers can infer the implications of marginal changes.
I'll do you one better. The article doesn't state the loss to taxpayers given the billions+ of permanently lost tax revenue!
/OT
I don't understand why this "point in time" article is meaningful years later, given it's been a known issue (far prior to the article) and the regulatory story has evolved.
Re: A glaring error in methane flaring (2022)
#10Look at "light pollution" map of the USA. Look at western North Dakota and the light pollution there is more than the biggest cities in the USA. All of that is from flaring from fracking.