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

351–360 of 387 posts

Re: NASA finds super-emitters of methane

#351

Post by trashtester »

mort96 wrote: post #345
trashtester wrote: post #342

Earlier quoted context omitted.

By what parameters do you think we don't have 100 years? When I read the IPCC reports, it seems that during the next 50 years, we may see moderate increases in temperatures (1-3C, depending on scenario). While this may be bad in some areas, it's nothing compared to the worst case scenarios for 2200-2300 (up to 12C). A temperature increase of ~2C may at worst be comparable with a large pandemic or even WW2, just with…

Sorry, I shouldn't have written it like that. I suppose what I really mean is that it makes sense to look at the CO2 equivalent over a 100 year period when thinking about long-term climate change, but we're going to see large effects in the coming decades. The full sentence I should've written is something like, we don't have 100 years before we start seeing major changes , so the short-term impact should be a part o…

> we don't have 100 years before we start seeing major changes

I think perhaps (please correct me if you think I'm wrong) you're overestimating short term changes. Environmentalists tend to blame every disaster, flood or hurricane on climate change. This is like a mirror image to how the climate change deniers use every cold winter (or summer) as proof that climate change is a hoax.

If you look at the data, the current effects of climate change is somewhere in the middle. At present, one could argue that the net effects of climate change are actually slightly positive. Deaths due to heat is going up slightly, but deaths due to cold is going down faster than the deaths due to heat is going up.

By 2050, the adverse effects of the warming is probably greater than the positive ones, depending on scenario. Still, provided there is some technological and economic growth over the next 100 years, people living in 2122 will most likely be wealther (and more food secure), healthier and safer than people that live today, even if the improvement will be less than over 1922-2022.

> so the short-term impact should be a part of the conversation.

But by then, the impact of methane released today is already much LESS than the 25x quoted. More like 10x, and falling rapidly from there.

Also, there is the fact that changing policies takes time. One might even argue that there is an advantage to having a component to the warming where we will actually get a somewhat "quick" effect from cutting. Methane will contribute quite a bit to warming in the very short term, but as soon as we are able to stop releases, the effects will be gone within a generation, give or take (while CO2 hangs around for centuries).

Re: NASA finds super-emitters of methane

#352

Post by coffeeshopgoth »

westurner wrote: post #344
coffeeshopgoth wrote: post #335

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

So there only needs to be a bit of concrete in a smaller structure that exceeds bunker-busting bomb specs and 'funnels' (?) the natural gas to a tank or a bladder? Are there existing methods for capturing methane from insufficiently-capped old wells? Are the new incentives/fees/fines enough to motivate action thus far in this space? OpenAPI is one way to specify integrable APIs. An RDFS vocabulary for this data is pr…

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 abandoned maybe leak only 1-5 thousand cubic feet per day - nothing worth doing anything about (to the company financially). Fines typically mean nothing to E&P with where they are now - though some have gotten clever about it - example being North Dakota keeps flaring down by whatever you are flaring you have to cut your oil production in some proportionate manner (oil is the more desired product) - though that was rescinded during the last big price down turn and am not sure if that is back in effect. To your statement about APIs - that is one thing the oil industry is terrrrrrible with. Our data collection and cleaning is abysmal. I agree with your statement, and I would be all for it, but E&P companies can't even get their own production numbers right - a good example is if you check out the fracfocus database where companies volunteer up their fracturing job compositions. Generally it is useful, but the people who input the data, similar to who would probably be handling this can barely spell and data cleaning would be a nightmare. waste to energy facilities are great, and there are some interesting things out in the oilfield but, like everything else, there needs to be more financial incentive for companies to build them/use them.

Re: NASA finds super-emitters of methane

#353

Post by throw10920 »

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

> you haven't provided any of the relevant facts or sources to back this claim

It should be pretty clear that no sources are needed beyond using your eyes and looking at Robotbeat's comment - unless it's been edited, then it's rather obvious that no sources were provided, which was the claim being made.

Saying "what are your sources" without further elaboration is typically a little rude and combative, but this kind of "no you" comment is flat-out ridiculous.

Re: NASA finds super-emitters of methane

#356

Post by yencabulator »

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)?

> - If it's relatively cheap and easy, why hasn't it been done in the past already?

It provided no benefit that the shareholders cared about.

There's a long history of resource-exploitation companies doing horrible things to the environment, and conveniently going bankrupt when they are near the end of operations. The system does not prevent that behavior well enough, nor does it punish the people who do it.

Re: NASA finds super-emitters of methane

#357

Post by yencabulator »

TexanFeller wrote: post #319
29athrowaway wrote: post #166

YouTube is full of trash burning tutorials. Some of them are exceptionally stupid and talk about "clean burners", which is essentially a burn barrel connected to a leaf blower, such that the smoke is dispersed, creating the illusion of "clean" air. Such dumb tutorials have hundreds of hundreds of thousands of views. Each video has dumb comments on them like "Oh yeah this burner is awesome, I made the same thing at ho…

My family lived outside the city limits of a rural town and trash service wasn’t even available to us. Us and every single family in that situation used a burn barrel. There are a huge number of people in America that have never done it any other way!

There was a waste dump / transfer station you could haul your trash to...

Re: NASA finds super-emitters of methane

#358

Post by bigbillheck »

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.

It turns out they can do more than one thing at once.

Re: NASA finds super-emitters of methane

#359

Post by woodpanel »

As if it needed more nails in the coffin, but the comments here are one more such nail for the myth that techies are staunch defenders against the surveillance state. Our beloved nerd-org NASA breaking new grounds in monitoring citizens, all for the right cause - what could possbily go wrong?

Re: NASA finds super-emitters of methane

#360

Post by westurner »

coffeeshopgoth wrote: post #352
westurner wrote: post #344

Earlier quoted context omitted.

So there only needs to be a bit of concrete in a smaller structure that exceeds bunker-busting bomb specs and 'funnels' (?) the natural gas to a tank or a bladder? Are there existing methods for capturing methane from insufficiently-capped old wells? Are the new incentives/fees/fines enough to motivate action thus far in this space? OpenAPI is one way to specify integrable APIs. An RDFS vocabulary for this data is pr…

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 closed wells?

Post reply on HN