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

331–340 of 387 posts

Re: NASA finds super-emitters of methane

#331

Post by roflyear »

Bhurn00985 wrote: post #301
roflyear wrote: post #185

Earlier quoted context omitted.

A lot of methane comes from animals. See here: https://www.iea.org/reports/methane-tracker-2020 If you care about this, you should stop eating meat, or reduce your meat consumption.

Done already, been vegetarian for the past 5 years, what's your next suggestion ? Also https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Whataboutism

I don't think it is whataboutism to say please go vegan!

Next suggestion, get other people to go vegan :)

Re: NASA finds super-emitters of methane

#332

Post by Cthulhu_ »

l3uwin wrote: post #293
bloudermilk wrote: post #288

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It's hard to take this comment seriously when you haven't provided any of the relevant facts or sources to back this claim.

Same for your baseless snark, maybe provide some facts yourself

They're not refuting the point or providing counterarguments, they're just questioning the lack of sources, which is valid.

It's down to the person making a claim to provide evidence. If someone points out that there is no evidence provided, that someone doesn't need to provide evidence themselves.

I mean yeah it's snarky, but it's a comment section on the internet.

Re: NASA finds super-emitters of methane

#333

Post by jeffrallen »

tuatoru wrote: post #302
jeffrallen wrote: post #295

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I live in the country and I throw whatever the hell I want in my compost and my garden loves it. Next time you get a hyper specific instructions page about what to compost and not, do what I do: chuck it in the compost with everything else organic! :)

Be wary of rodents if you try to compost things with a high fat content. I hope you have good rat control.

I outsource rat control to the neighborhood foxes and cats.

Re: NASA finds super-emitters of methane

#334

Post by ClumsyPilot »

gowings97 wrote: post #328
mort96 wrote: post #326

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

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

As opposed to gridlock in US congress or UK changing 3 prime ministers in 1 year?

There has been a marked decline in the quality of western political leadership, its not just EU

Re: NASA finds super-emitters of methane

#335

Post by coffeeshopgoth »

westurner wrote: post #275
coffeeshopgoth wrote: post #227

Earlier quoted context omitted.

True story. I have worked oil and gas for a while and am familiar with this area. It can easily be a well not properly P&A'd (plugged and abandoned) - quite common down there. It is most likely a Marathon well (HARROUN COM #002), or it could be Eastland Oil (HARROUN A #007). If you want to get a better idea for yourself, you can check the EMNRD - https://ocd-hub-nm-emnrd.hub.arcgis.com/

Is there a way to IDK 3d earthen print a geodesic dome over the site and capture the waste methane (natural gas) into local tanks? TIL about CBG: Cleaner Burning Gasoline From https://twitter.com/westurner/status/1564443689623195650 : > In September 2021 we covered a new "green gasoline" concept from @NaceroCo [in Penwell, TX] that involves constructing gasoline hydrocarbons by assembling smaller #methane molecules f…

I hear what you are saying, and there is a ton of room in the E&P space for improvements of all kinds. You would be shocked at how incredibly we are behind technologically (I remember just last year over hearing someone say, "We just figured out our cloud strategy."). In terms of a dome over fields or units to collect stray methane, that may be an issue. We are loathe to construct "enclosed spaces" for gases as that can be a safety issue. It doesn't take much stray anything to kill you out there. We have all sorts of stories of people going into an enclosed space, passing out and dying, only to have more people die trying to get them out. Sounds bad, I know, but this is coming from someone who has come across a few dead bodies out in the field for various reasons - mostly just being stupid. Fees are funny in oil and gas - we complain about how much money we don't have and then spend it frivolously elsewhere. That inflation act, at the state level there are all sorts of those out there and some companies care and some don't. If you want to see something crazy, check out the NDIC (North Dakota Industrial Commission). In terms of oil and gas data, theirs is the most centralized, easily accessed, and complete in the country (NM isn't bad, CA used to be better, TX is garbage-which is odd, LA is god awful, and PA is meh). The NDIC keeps really good track of flaring, so to see how much natural gas is just burned up at the cost of getting the oil out (not such a great infrastructure for moving gas and historically the price hasn't been a good inducement to build any). To get the well level data, it is $150/year, but well worth it if you are working that basin and also in comparison to all of the data services out there. https://www.dmr.nd.gov/oilgas/stats/statisticsvw.asp

Re: NASA finds super-emitters of methane

#336

Post by coffeeshopgoth »

Tepix wrote: post #312

This whole topic raises a bunch of questions: - How hard is it to stop these leaks? How expensive? - If it's relatively cheap and easy, why hasn't it been done in the past already? - How can we excert pressure on emitters like Turkmenistan to stop the leaks? - How long does it take to do this? - How much of a difference will it make for the climate (and perhaps local cancer rates)?

Companies do have health and safety groups out there working on these things. Of course, the bigger the company the slower, more inefficient, and incompetent they tend to be. Prices can range - some things can be patched, but many times the reason for the leak is age and it requires a new piece of equipment. So, there you would have permitting to handle, expensing the equipment at either the field level or, most likely, well level, which would kill the "economic-ness" of said well/well pad which never sits well with a company and may make them rethink it and just plug the wells - equipment could be low to high hundreds of thousands - really depends on the piece and size. In terms of frequency, People are fixing these things daily, small projects to fieldwide initiatives. In terms of someplace like Turkmenistan, anything can be fixed with money. In that part of the world, your best bet is financial incentive. I mean, it is unethical, but just pay the "expediting fee" for the local warlord/mayor/president - usually a "donation" to an orphanage or fund that doesn't really exist. The cancer rates thing is interesting - the well in question is possibly a Marathon well. Their record isn't the greatest (Look into Paw Creek, NC and Marathon's "small leak" at their terminals there). No scientific data on this at hand, but as a person who works in oil and gas and chemicals with an oddly high number of friends who have had some type of severe cancers, I would say this would be hugely helpful to the general public.

Re: NASA finds super-emitters of methane

#337

Post by prottog »

LatteLazy wrote: post #308
stuaxo wrote: post #243

COP27 is about to start, that would be a good time for countries to agree to do something about these starting this year.

China and the US have already committed to take no serious action. Here in the UK we have the same policy. The EU prevaricates (who can blame them). India also isn't planning to do anything. COP27 is a giant waste of time with champagne.

> is a giant waste of time

It accomplishes politicians making themselves look good to the electorate. Of course, the champagne doesn't hurt ;-)

Re: NASA finds super-emitters of methane

#338

Post by lob_it »

saagarjha wrote: post #330
_jvqe wrote: post #249

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

Wonderful was just ambiguous enough to be oderless :p

Re: NASA finds super-emitters of methane

#339

Post by lob_it »

willsmith72 wrote: post #304
lob_it wrote: post #286

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It was a simple gesture implying that due to the hotter temperatures, sunblock may actually compound the problem. 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

Yeah I'd rather get some "potentially unsafe" chemicals in my body than definitely get severe skin cancers all over my body https://www.cancer.org.au/iheard/are-chemical-sunscreens-saf...

You grow old with your own body. Thats obviously your problem

Re: NASA finds super-emitters of methane

#340

Post by lob_it »

robocat wrote: post #298
lob_it wrote: post #210

Earlier quoted context omitted.

https://www.euronews.com/green/2021/06/22/ranked-the-top-10-... India can be #1 in most plastic dumped into the oceans. We're all #1 in our own special ways :p

I’m not sure what those figures are for. They list India with 126.5 million kg of plastic “dumped”, yet the Phillipines is #1 with nearly 3x that amount of plastic waste going down its rivers into to oceans: 360 million kg (3.6 × 10^5 Metric tonnes) of plastic waste according to https://www.science.org/doi/10.1126/sciadv.aaz5803

In other news, its obvious which region has trash problems
Post reply on HN