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

61–70 of 78 posts

Re: Why are there so many methane satellites?

#61

Post by gopher_space »

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.

In your thought experiment the number of extant cows is a variable determined by human behavior as opposed to inherent regulation. There might be historical population numbers from specific regions where carbon was in equilibrium but that's certainly not where we're at today nor is it a goal of ours.

I think we're only able see some carbon sources as "outside the cycle" due to our infinitesimal lifespans.

Re: Why are there so many methane satellites?

#62

Post by iraqmtpizza »

wongarsu wrote: post #45
iraqmtpizza wrote: post #26

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Secret payloads which are impossible to track via radar or optically either from the ground or via other satellites? Really? Tell me more.

There was Zuma, the classified satellite that officially failed to separate from the payload adapter and burned up in the atmosphere but was widely speculated to be a successful test of stealth satellite technology, with the satellite successfully reaching orbit and going dark. A lot of talk about us knowing very little, but everyone loved to show off this graphic from a stealth satellite patent [1]. Of course if the…

Widely speculated by advanced radar owners and high-power telecope owners? Can you give me a few names?

Re: Why are there so many methane satellites?

#63

Post by Timshel »

jjcm wrote: post #59
jimnotgym wrote: post #58

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 on…

> The biggest event was a leak of 427 tonnes an hour in August, near Turkmenistan’s Caspian coast and a major pipeline.

From this Guardian article: https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2023/mar/06/revealed...

Re: Why are there so many methane satellites?

#64

Post by jasonlaramburu »

jessriedel wrote: post #16

Putting aside the climate aspects and just concentrating on companies that are trying to identify methane leaks: If I have a device that can accurately see methane leaks, I am very surprised it's really more economical to put them on satellites than to operate them locally. Yes, I get that you can have one device in orbit that can do the job for multiple companies, but satellites are just fantastically expensive. Unl…

Ground-based sensors historically undercount methane emissions in 3rd party trials. They have a limited FOV which makes it hard to accurately measure a plume of gas, particularly when the wind blows. I suppose you could create a Dyson sphere of fixed sensors around an O&G asset, but that quickly becomes more expensive than a space based sensor.

Because these leaks can occur spontaneously, you really want real-time, continuous monitoring of a wide area with high resolution. Aerial sensors are impractical for this purpose. Only a large constellation of satellites can offer this.

Re: Why are there so many methane satellites?

#65

Post by nonameiguess »

jjcm wrote: post #59
jimnotgym wrote: post #58

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 on…

Your link says around 57 tons for a "typical" payload launched by the ESA using an Ariane 6 rocket and <15 tons for a payload that launches from a reusable platform. The parent article says these are launching using SpaceX rockets, which are reusable, so presumably their footprint is lower than an ESA satellite. They're also extremely small satellites and not exactly typical payloads. Possibly they can even fit multiple satellites on a single launch.

Re: Why are there so many methane satellites?

#66

Post by c_o_n_v_e_x »

jessriedel wrote: post #16

Putting aside the climate aspects and just concentrating on companies that are trying to identify methane leaks: If I have a device that can accurately see methane leaks, I am very surprised it's really more economical to put them on satellites than to operate them locally. Yes, I get that you can have one device in orbit that can do the job for multiple companies, but satellites are just fantastically expensive. Unl…

I had to dig into this very topic for a previous product that I was managing.

Satellite photography/sensing vs Airplane based vs UAV based vs local vs point detection.

The higher the altitude of your sensor, the larger the swath of land you can sense, but with height comes tradeoffs... cost, weather, satellite availability, latency/how often the satellite is going to be over where you want to sense just to name a few.

Closer to or on the ground means you can get pinpoint accuracy but that comes with increasing cost of labor. Think cost of an airplane or UAV pilot vs an individual walking around with a methane sensor sniffing around flanges, valve stems, etc.

The different approaches are somewhat complimentary. Satellite can you tell you've got a problem area. You can then deploy people on the ground to "zoom in", but if you're operating a ton of sites, you wouldn't start on the ground.

Re: Why are there so many methane satellites?

#68

Post by SECProto »

jjcm wrote: post #59
jimnotgym wrote: post #58

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 on…

> 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.

Per the article you cited, the 6.6m tonnes (not tons) of CO2e does not have a lot of empirical measurements behind it, and it may be much higher. That's one of the things these satellites can help to improve.

I think a better way to look at it is comparing the 57t of emissions with other sources of CO2 emissions. For example, a single cross-country flight puts out in the range of 300-350t of CO2 (~1t per passenger). So launching 6 of these satellites in separate launches would be equivalent to a single airliner flight, i.e. negligible in the grand scheme of things.

Re: Why are there so many methane satellites?

#69

Post by AnarchismIsCool »

Oh hey, I wrote some of the flight software for one of those programs.

Something to note for those not familiar with satellite GIS stuff, the more satellites you have up there taking measurements, the more frequently you get data on emitters. Also, you can combine the datasets and sometimes increase the effective resolution. Additionally some are point trackers and some are mappers, they serve different purposes for localizing vs quantifying emissions.

Finally, there are some politics involved with various groups, some want access to data to name and shame, some want to do climate research, etc. It's a bit complicated on that front.

Re: Why are there so many methane satellites?

#70

Post by gerdesj »

tomtomistaken wrote: post #67

12 years after eliminating the biggest part of human made methane emissions, we could see significant cooling effects, possibly helping to prevent tipping points.

"we could see significant cooling effects"

Cooling? Cutting down on (CO2/CH4) emissions will likely merely slow the heating effects somewhat, that are already locked in.

Think of a slightly slower boiled frog instead of one going skiing for a laugh.

Post reply on HN