Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Why are there so many methane satellites?

heatmap.news

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

51–60 of 78 posts

Re: Why are there so many methane satellites?

#51

Post by 0cf8612b2e1e »

downWidOutaFite wrote: post #48
perrygeo wrote: post #33

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> satellites are just fantasically expensive Are they? A CubeSat can be launched for less than $100k, and their payload can contain off-the-shelf consumer hardware. That's what some upper-middle class families pay for an extra car. I think you're overestimating the cost of satellites. At the same time, you're underestimating the challenges of operating a ground sensor network. How would identify which sites to survey…

I mostly agree but the $100k is only launch cost, it doesn't include the engineering and manufacturing of the satellite or the ongoing operational costs.

Well funded universities are putting up cubesats. I cannot imagine the operational costs are outside the scope of a serious organization.

Re: Why are there so many methane satellites?

#52

Post by wolverine876 »

codeflo wrote: post #17
trompetenaccoun wrote: post #7

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That's a misunderstanding. The methane stays in the atmosphere a few years until it reacts with oxygen to CO2. So first you have the multiple times worse effect of CH4 and then you're left with CO2, which is still a greenhouse gas. You're left with CO2 either way, even when you burn the methane. That's why it's so bad. And that's why actually when companies or politicians tell you about "clean" gas, it's very mislead…

Sure, but the question is still whether that carbon came from a fossil source or was part of the cycle to begin with. Let's say a cow eats grass, produces methane, the methane gets converted into CO2, the grass grows back. No net increase in CO2. If, on the other hand, the methane came from natural gas, you have permanently added carbon to the cycle.

> the question is still whether that carbon came from a fossil source or was part of the cycle to begin with.

I don't think that matters anymore. At some point, we wanted to reduce atmospheric CO2 to a tolerable level and an obvious approach was to not add to natural emissions.

Now we just need to reduce CO2 in the atmosphere. It doesn't do different things based on its source. If we can reduce it by cutting gas production or by cutting some natural source, we should do it.

Re: Why are there so many methane satellites?

#54

Post by seadan83 »

codeflo wrote: post #3

I get that methane has a strong greenhouse effect, and that climate models need to account for its concentration to make accurate predictions. But in terms of climate activism, isn't worrying about methane mostly a red herring? My understanding is that it only stays in the atmosphere for 12 years or so. It doesn't accumulate over centuries the way CO2 does. This means even if we manage to permanently reduce the amoun…

I think this is like saying "my car payments are $1000 per month for the next 10 years, and my rent is $30 per month for the next 80 years. For my financial health, why am I worried about the car payment when I will be paying rent for the rest of my life and the car payments will be over relatively soon?" The answer to that is the situation might not work out well.. If you have a total lifetime budget of $150k, then those car payments are devastating and you would be bankrupt before those 80 years are over.

A kicker, who is to say that methane emissions are one time - and are not themselves increasing and also ongoing?

The analogy is not quite exact, since the "rent payment" is more akin to be on the order of 200 years or so (and not just the one human lifetime), but hopefully it makes the point.

Last, my understanding of the climate science is that we are very worried about getting through even the next 100 years. To explain, there is a window of time that is almost closed where drastic action can arrest further drastic rates of change in climate (by drastic rates, I'm speaking to 1 to 2 degrees C of warming within that time). It is important therefore we get a handle of this problem sooner rather than later (compare us (humans) "fixing" the methane problem 5 years from now compared to 30 years from now). Also keep in mind there are feedback loops that would be irreversible once triggered.

Re: Why are there so many methane satellites?

#55

Post by jandrese »

jauntywundrkind wrote: post #14

With permafrost thawing and arctic warming releasing methane clathrates, methane has been on my mind for a while. I wonder if these satellites will also be useful in detecting dispersed wide-area releases like these? The current publicly available tools like https://methane.jpl.nasa.gov/ seem to focus on showing methane plumes. Which is good & something we are better positioned to do something about. But I wonder if…

There's also the aspect of "Ok, you have detected methane release from melting permafrost, what are you going to do about it?" Capping a leaking oilhead is fairly straightforward. What are you going to do about arctic warming other than the generalized fight against global warming that these projects are already doing?

Re: Why are there so many methane satellites?

#56

Post by jandrese »

cabirum wrote: post #9

Because these are either spy sats or even weapons in space disguised as "methane detectors".

The post goes into details about coverage vs. resolution and shows you the data from the satellites and your first thought is that it's all a big lie/coverup?

Re: Why are there so many methane satellites?

#57

Post by gopher_space »

downWidOutaFite wrote: post #48
perrygeo wrote: post #33

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> satellites are just fantasically expensive Are they? A CubeSat can be launched for less than $100k, and their payload can contain off-the-shelf consumer hardware. That's what some upper-middle class families pay for an extra car. I think you're overestimating the cost of satellites. At the same time, you're underestimating the challenges of operating a ground sensor network. How would identify which sites to survey…

I mostly agree but the $100k is only launch cost, it doesn't include the engineering and manufacturing of the satellite or the ongoing operational costs.

$100k would only hire a single employee, it wouldn't even cover getting them into the field let alone setting up and maintaining infrastructure over the course of a year.

It's possible to reduce this number by taking advantages of labor conditions and goodwill, but that turns out to be a ton of legwork if you want a reliable team in the area year after year.

For example, in an anthro field school you might source local labor by identifying people who want to learn about their ancestors, and you'll expect a lot of community outreach and Q&A sessions around what you're studying.

You could attempt a similar approach for studying methane but I'd personally expect the Q&A sessions to include a heavy undertone of "convince me we shouldn't just kill the people involved", and all of my arguments against would be from the perspective of a system they don't really give a shit about. I'd certainly never put myself in that position.

Re: Why are there so many methane satellites?

#58

Post by jimnotgym »

omgJustTest wrote: post #42

Methane detection from space![1] will aid in the detection of greenhouse gas emissions from abandoned well-heads, oil-fields, landfills and other large environmental polluters contributing to climate change. The IEA[3] has attributed nearly 30% of global temperature rise to methane, so the detection of the sources is becoming a critical factor in mitigating direct and indrect impacts of climate change. The sensors ab…

Imagine the carbon released by putting all the satellites up there!

Re: Why are there so many methane satellites?

#59

Post by jjcm »

jimnotgym wrote: post #58
omgJustTest wrote: post #42

Methane detection from space![1] will aid in the detection of greenhouse gas emissions from abandoned well-heads, oil-fields, landfills and other large environmental polluters contributing to climate change. The IEA[3] has attributed nearly 30% of global temperature rise to methane, so the detection of the sources is becoming a critical factor in mitigating direct and indrect impacts of climate change. The sensors ab…

Imagine the carbon released by putting all the satellites up there!

I was curious on this so did some quick searching around.

Average satellite launch releases 57 tons of Co2 [1]

2.75 million unplugged wells in the US that output "6.6m tons of Co2 worth of methane" [2], or put in another way each well puts out 2.4T of Co2e each per year.

With these numbers each sat would have to prevent 23.75 years worth of a well being uncapped to recoup the cost of launch (so would have to close one well for 23.75 years, or 24 wells for a little less than a year).

[1] https://www.linkedin.com/pulse/carbon-footprint-satellite-to...

[2] https://carboncontainmentlab.org/projects/plugging-abandoned....

(someone more informed feel free to correct any of these numbers, I am not an expert)

Re: Why are there so many methane satellites?

#60

Post by [deleted] »

jimnotgym wrote: post #58
omgJustTest wrote: post #42

Methane detection from space![1] will aid in the detection of greenhouse gas emissions from abandoned well-heads, oil-fields, landfills and other large environmental polluters contributing to climate change. The IEA[3] has attributed nearly 30% of global temperature rise to methane, so the detection of the sources is becoming a critical factor in mitigating direct and indrect impacts of climate change. The sensors ab…

Imagine the carbon released by putting all the satellites up there!

[deleted]
Post reply on HN