NASA Finds a Delaware-Sized Methane "Hot Spot" In the Southwest 213
merbs writes According to new satellite research from scientists at NASA and the University of Michigan this "hot spot" is "responsible for producing the largest concentration of the greenhouse gas methane seen over the United States—more than triple the standard ground-based estimate." It covers 2,500 square miles, about the size of Delaware. It is so big that scientists initially thought it was a mistake in their instruments. "We didn't focus on it because we weren't sure if it was a true signal or an instrument error," NASA's Christian Frankenberg said in a statement.
Proper link (Score:5, Informative)
Link to a proper article about it. http://news.agu.org/press-release/satellite-data-shows-u-s-methane-hot-spot-bigger-than-expected/ [agu.org]
Re: (Score:2)
Sorry man, it's my diet.
Thai food, burritos, sriracha sauce and cabbage.
It like-ta tore my asshole off when it came out.
Re: (Score:2, Troll)
Link to a proper article about it. http://news.agu.org/press-rele... [agu.org]
Are either of those articles "proper"? Everything they say about methane presents it in a way that shows the largest possible, most scare-mongering numbers.
They fail to mention that "3 times" the normal atmospheric concentration is still only 0.0000054.
Re:Proper link (Score:4, Insightful)
They fail to mention that "3 times" the normal atmospheric concentration is still only 0.0000054.
At what concentration would you start to worry ?
Re: (Score:3)
110% because my manager says that's what we have to give for the company.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
My answer to you is this: probably when it is somewhat higher than 54 ppm, in just a tiny area, in a single part of the world. It's probably a lot higher than that in your living room when someone lets out a good fart.
If that's an oil refinery, I'm a superhero (Score:2)
Re:Proper link (Score:5, Informative)
It's actually a generating station. The PNM San Juan Generating Station is a very large plant located in Waterflow, NM. In GE, you can see all the massive piles of coal all around the area, along with all the smoke stacks and some rather questionable looking ponds of water.
Re:Proper link (Score:4, Informative)
Someone needs to go tell that plant to go clean up their act. At the very least, it's wasting methane.
Re:Proper link (Score:5, Interesting)
I grew up in Farmington, near where the station is. Plain and simple the generating station and two other power plants are on Reservation land. For the longest time the tribes chose to ignore improvements to air quality standards. I presume much of the chronic asthma I and others suffered in the area is related to the pollution. On the flip side most of these stacks are being shut down right now and it's killing the local economy. The area has one of the largest available coal deposits that it has been relying on for a long time. It would be nice if there was some sort compromise possible between the industry and pollution... Of course if it was managed more properly it might not be so bad. The amount of corruption on the reservation is amazing...
yes, let's "zoom out" (Score:3, Insightful)
Fracking has been responsible for a big decline in US greenhouse gas emissions. Lumping the "entire established fossil fuel industry" together as if coal, oil, and gas were all the same is just idiotic.
Re:yes, let's "zoom out" (Score:5, Insightful)
Lacking that, I'm just going to assume that your are making stuff up. The "logic" of "Fracking has been responsible for a big decline in US greenhouse gas emissions" seems to be lacking. How could the conclusion follow from the premise? How about "An increase in the consumption of Nutella has been responsible for a big decline in US greenhouse gas emissions"? Makes about as much sense.
Re:yes, let's "zoom out" (Score:5, Insightful)
And by references I mean something that was not funded my the energy industry.
Which energy industry, the fossil fuel one or the green one?
Re: (Score:2)
I'd suggest you have a bit too much confidence in peer review.
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pm... [nih.gov]
Re: (Score:3)
How about "An increase in the consumption of Nutella has been responsible for a big decline in US greenhouse gas emissions"? Makes about as much sense.
If you consider the low fiber content of Nutella (0.5 g per serving), that statement might actually make more sense.
Re: (Score:2)
The logic is that plummeting natural gas prices have undercut the demand for coal, [testosteronepit.com] which was even worse. This resulted in an overall reduction in US CO2 emissions [eia.gov].
Re: (Score:2)
For the same amount of energy, natural gas results in about half the CO2 emissions compared to coal (the two major fossil fuel sources for electricity in the US).
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/L... [wikipedia.org]
Shale gas production has increased greatly in the US and led to an overall strong
Re: (Score:2)
I can't but shake my head at all the environmentally concerned people opposing fracking. More specifically, the ones vehemently insisting we be more considerate of the living conditions we are creating for people down the road. It strikes me as a very bad form of tunnel vision.
Fracking the oil from the American midwest makes America energy independent. Let me repeat that another way. Fracking the midwest oil means America doesn't need Middle Eastern oil.
IMHO, that ends the discussion and debate. I'm not dis
Re: (Score:2)
For the 1000th time. Repeat after me: Oil is a fungible asset. Oil if a fungible asset...
It doesn't really matter who's oil we are currently burning. Producing more ourselves will lower the price. World oil and gas exporters are all (or almost all) scumbags who should be defunded ASAP.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Methane is a greenhouse gas, a much more potent one than carbon dioxide. If reduced carbon dioxide from burning methane "instead of" coal is accompanied by more methane leaks, then it isn't clear whether fracking is a net positive with regard to climate change. And methane isn't replacing coal and oil. The primary effect of fracking is the lower price of fossil fuels. Higher availability and lower price always causes increased consumption.
Re:yes, let's (Score:2, Funny)
The primary effect of fracking is the lower price of fossil fuels.
I thought the primary effect of fracking was contaminated groundwater and aquifers...
Re:yes, let's "zoom out" (Score:5, Informative)
Re: (Score:2)
perfectly NATURAL - NOT MAN-MADE (Score:4, Funny)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
(oups. I replied within the quote... sorry. Here now correcly)
Says who? The Fracking industry lobbing bureau? Or, if you prefer, [citation needed].
Re: (Score:2)
Actually, that is marketing voodoo... but they are sort of onto something. Think of how much fuel was burnt moving all that gas around the world. Now we get it here...
Re: (Score:2)
No, it's simple chemistry: we're substituting gas for coal, and gas releases much less carbon for the same energy yield.
Re: (Score:2)
http://www.epa.gov/climatechan... [epa.gov]
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/S... [wikipedia.org]
http://online.wsj.com/news/art... [wsj.com]
Zoom out? As in consider a wider angle? (Score:4, Insightful)
Considering that the shitty *ngh* Vice *retch* article also states how "The hot spot predates fracking", maybe the equivocal suggestion to "zoom out from fracking" is meant as a call to stop looking at fracking as the main culprit (i.e. "zoom out" from it) for the release of methane?
Meaning that someone should "take stock of the operations of the entire established fossil fuel industry" INSTEAD.
But it's nice to see where one's preferences and loyalties lie.
VICE are bunch of incompetent asshats (Score:3)
Quote from the shitty VICE text:
The scientists say the finding is reason enough to zoom out from fracking, and take stock of the operations of the entire established fossil fuel industry.
And the actual statement from the American Geographical Union article they are quoting:
"The results are indicative that emissions from established fossil fuel harvesting techniques are greater than inventoried," Kort said. "There's been so much attention on high-volume hydraulic fracturing, but we need to consider the industry as a whole."
Re: (Score:2)
Exactly. Which implies that fracking is still considered a culprit, when in fact, it has been responsible for a large decrease in greenhouse gas emissions.
You're engaging in the same stupidity as the authors.
Re: (Score:2)
No... I'm afraid that you are the prejudiced idiot here, looking for validation of your persecution complex or whatever that shit you have is.
Cause, as seen in my followup post above... VICE typists ARE retarded and can't put a sentence together.
But YOU are the one who manages to find an attack on your personal causes and favorites in a badly written, and thus made ambiguous, summary of a clear cut statement.
I.e. To see something THAT ISN'T EVEN THERE!
How's that paranoia working out? Who's spyin an hatin on
Re: (Score:2)
Oh, you're not my enemy. But unfortunately, Slashdot only has a "foe" button, not a "so stupid I don't want to see their stuff anymore" button.
Anybody I considered an actual enemy, I would listen to.
Me? Who said anything about me? (Score:2)
I'm not a smurf.
It is, as usual, all about you, dude.
And your partiality towards seeing things that are not there.
Re: (Score:2)
Fracking has also been responsible for a very large number of methane leaks. So many that it's reasonable to believe that there has actually been an increase in total greenhouse gas emissions, just a decline in measured ones. Which isn't the same thing.
OTOH, because the leaks haven't been accurately measured (Could they be?), you can't really say that there hasn't been a decline in greenhouse emissions. And both the companies and the politicians want to claim credit for a reduction. So there's little in
Re: (Score:2)
Fracking operations are subject to environmental regulations and monitoring, and it is not reasonable to believe without strong evidence that there "has actually been an increase in total greenhouse gas emissions". In fact, it is completely unreasonable to be
Re: (Score:2)
The measurements have shown that there are very significant, but unquantified, methane leaks. And the people doing the measurements were being paid by those who benefit from minimizing the significance of the leaks. One can't know what this means, but not being suspicious strikes me as naive.
OTOH, it's also unreasonable to believe that they are extremely dangerous. There no real evidence of that either. (Perhaps those earthquakes would have happened anyway, and anyway they were minor.) But there is sig
Re: (Score:2)
The uncertainty is whether it's 1.8% or a few percent more. That has some short term warming effects, but it is insignificant relative to the large reduction in greenhouse gas emissions; arguing that shale gas has no net effect or might even have a negative effect on greenhouse gases simply doesn't make sense. Also note that we're talking about switching from coal production, which itself leaks methane.
Note that com
Re: (Score:2)
Which part of the original article (first post in the thread) did you not read? Was it the bit that says
Re: (Score:2, Informative)
Re: (Score:2)
Easy to say when republicans block those measures using crony democracy at every turn.
What the hell is "crony democracy"? Dirty looks? Because that's pretty much all Republicans can do to the administration these days.
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:3)
I would say that it is obstructionism, redistricting in ways that do nothing but try and ensure their own reelections, aka gerrymandering, and the such.
Both parties have that in their toolbox. Check this out: Bobby Scott's gerrymandered 3rd District [wordpress.com].
Re:yes, let's "zoom out" (Score:5, Informative)
Less CO2 (half compared to coal for electrical generation) but much, much more methane, which is a much worse (if shorter 20 year) greenhouse gas.
Re:yes, let's "zoom out" (Score:4, Informative)
In the past energy prices were low enough that it wasn't worth capturing the methane (which being a gas tends to take up a lot of space unless you compress it to about a thousand atmospheres of pressure). Now we're busy not just capturing it but finding new sources of it. Once the plant owners find out from this NASA report just how much methane they're losing from leaky pipes, I'm sure they'll eagerly patch up the leaks so they'll have more methane to sell.
Re:yes, let's "zoom out" (Score:5, Informative)
but requires huge amounts of water. As does tar sands.
Re: (Score:2)
http://www.sourcewatch.org/ind... [sourcewatch.org]
California almond farms use 1.1 TRILLION gallons of water per year.
http://www.slate.com/articles/... [slate.com]
Can't eat oil (Score:2)
Are you really comparing water spend on something so wasteful like farming to something which we need to sustain life, like fracking? wait....
Re: (Score:2)
Almonds, though? You can live without almonds. We definitely don't need use a trillion gallons of water each year to grow almonds in a desert during a drought.
Re:yes, let's "zoom out" (Score:4, Insightful)
"Huge amounts of water" doesn't mean huge amounts of potable water. Our planet has no shortage of water (you could more accurately say we have a shortage of land). We just can't directly consume most of it without energy-intensive processing first.
Fracking doesn't require clean water. It can use salt water, grey water, swamp water, runoff water, pretty much anything. Now, that said, in the places currently enjoying a fracking boom (no pun intended), the easiest water to get comes from nice clean freshwater aquifers. But it doesn't need to.
I find it simply mind-boggling that so many environmentally conscious people (and I say that as someone who considers himself one) hate the most environmentally friendly sources of energy we have: Nuclear, wind, solar, water, and to a lesser degree, natural gas. Yes, each has its own problems, some of which we can solve through regulation, some through further tech advancement, some through telling millionaire weenies on Cape Cod to go fuck themselves. But as long as the cheapest (by a good margin) alternative consists of the dirtiest fuel ever discovered by mankind (coal)... Maybe we should take just a teensy step back and pick our battles a bit better, hmm?
Re: (Score:2)
So what, just because there is a water shortage in California does not mean there is one everywhere, my local weather forecast calls for nearly 2 inches of rain in the next 4 days alone.
Re:yes, let's "zoom out" (Score:4, Insightful)
Actually, not really.
Methane (natural gas) does cut CO2 emissions by about half compared to coal. However methane is an incredibly potent greenhouse gas in it's own right, far, far more potent than CO2, even if it doesn't remain in the atmosphere for nearly as long. The only way a switch to methane reduces the greenhouse effect is if you can keep leakage at less than ~14%, otherwise it makes things even worse. And currently the leakage rates in the US are estimated at about 20%. And that's even before we get to the part where oil-pumping operations are allowed to simply vent or burn off the natural gas they're not interested in extracting. Have you seen nighttime pictures of the North-western US? Whole states that used to be dark are now glowing brightly from all the methane plume fires - laws aside that's just criminal.
Re: (Score:2)
Not a huge deal (Score:4, Informative)
Between 2003-2009, the region released 0.59 million metric tons of it into the atmosphere
While interesting to understand where it is coming from, that's still a tiny amount. For comparison, total human production of CO2 is 29000 million tons per year.
Re: (Score:2)
The 0.59 number is one region.
The 29000 number is for the entire planet.
The comparison isn't meaningful.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Wow, you can't even read the article to get your facts correct;
Methane is an extremely potent heat-trapping gas; while it has a much shorter life cycle than fellow global warming culprit carbon dioxide, some estimates put it on the order of being 80 times more powerful.
Do the math.
I will do the math. .59* 80 = 47.2 which is 0.16% of 29,000.
Re: (Score:2)
Over seven years. The CO2 figure just covers one year, so it's actually a lot closer to 0.024%...
Re:Not a huge deal (Score:4, Informative)
Relative sizes (Score:5, Funny)
Re:Relative sizes (Score:4, Funny)
Also for UK readers: TFA is talking about meeethane gas.
Re: (Score:2)
Also for UK readers: 2500 square miles is 4023.35 square kilometres*.
Re: (Score:2)
Nah, not at all. He was simultaneously writing a commentary on the effects of the new Common Core standards of teaching. ;)
Re: (Score:2)
That was part of the joke, along with the overly-significant digits. The * at the end is so I could refer back to it and prove that I'm not a complete* idiot :)
*I haven't got an appendix**, for one thing.
**I have really. That was another joke.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Umm, no.
4000 km^2 != 4 Mm^2.
4000 km^2 = 0.004 Mm^2.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Narnia.
Re: (Score:2)
For UK and European readers, "the size of Delaware" is just a tad more than a fourth of "the size of Wales".
For Australian readers, "the size of Delaware" is about 2.8 times the size of the ACT.
Re:Relative sizes (Score:5, Funny)
For geopolitically challenged environmentalist-globalist readers, Delaware is about the same size as the methane hotspot recently discovered in the American Southwest.
Re:Relative sizes (Score:5, Funny)
Re: (Score:3)
For speakers of Commonwealth English, 'a fourth' is American for 'a quarter'.
Did you buy that information for a fourth?
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
The comparison was to ordinal numbering
first, second, third, fourth, fifth, ...
versus
whole, half, third, fourth (or quarter), fifth.
Nobody suggested that there is a "threed" (except you), but one could validly ask why the #2 ordinal is called "second", and the #3 ordinal is "third". That is a different question however.
Re: (Score:2)
We use many terms. Back in the day, we used to say a third or a triad. It reminds me of the time I took a long trip. Like the time I caught the ferry to Shelbyville. I needed a new heel for m'shoe. So I decided to go to Morganville, which is what they called Shelbyville in those days. So I tied an onion to my belt, which was the style at the time. Now, to take the ferry cost a nickel, and in those days, nickels had pictures of bumblebees on 'em. "Gimme five bees for a quarter," you'd say. Now where were we.
Re: (Score:2)
'Quarter to his balls' where did you growup?
Re: (Score:2)
No, it cost two pence.
Re:Relative sizes (Score:5, Funny)
For everyone else, they're talking about 6,500 km2.
(Or, the combined area of about 1293017700000 ping pong balls)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
I'm lost. How many Olympic swimming pools is that?
Re: (Score:2)
America in decline. (Score:4, Funny)
For UK and European readers, "the size of Delaware" is just a tad more than a fourth of "the size of Wales".
That exchange rate keeps plummeting. When I was a kid, you could get two Wales for a Delaware.
Re: (Score:2)
For the N. Korean readers, it is about the size of your average Kim Jong-un fart. His current absence is because some bureaucrat, who shall be known as Name Less from now on, lit a match at an inopportune time and burned the Dear Leader's hiney. Repairs are being made and he is expected back in action shortly.
Re:Relative sizes (Score:4, Informative)
The current floor space is approximately 600,000 square feet or 55741.8 square meters or .021522039 square mile. The state of Delaware is approximately 2026 square miles [theus50.com].
Therefore, the size of the methane hot spot is around 94136.23 times the size of the Library of Congress.
Note that this leaves out the sizes of the Annex, built in 1930, and the Madison building, built in 1981 [aviewoncities.com]. The Madison building is over 2 million square feet.
Re: (Score:2)
this European Union thing is new - until very recently we were killing each other.
Clarification. Do you mean conflict between nation states or conflicts within nation states?
If it's the former then the Bosnian War (1995) would be the most recent from my recollection. If we mean the latter then we're talking Ukraine (2014).
Whadda coincidence, (Score:4, Funny)
...it's over Rush Limbaugh's house.
-5 Flamebait
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
I'm pretty sure you can see him from the ISS.
http://www.tokeofthetown.com/2... [tokeofthetown.com]
Re: (Score:2)
We've finally located the asshole of the U.S.
roasted pepper & garlic sandwiches (Score:3, Funny)
My Uncle Tony moved to Phoenix two years ago. I'm just saying.
Size vs resolution (Score:3)
Like a photo flare or photo of a smoke cloud, this is a single time event sample as far as I can tell. Was there an industrial or transportation accident? Many tests for hydrocarbons are cross sensitive, such as a sensor for Propane will detect gasoline, natural gas, butane, etc. What sensor is used, what is the sample time, what else is it sensitive to, and were there any significant accidents or releases in the area recently? If it was from the soil, soil based sampling should have seen this concentration long ago in gas exploration.
Re:Size vs resolution (Score:5, Informative)
only one hotspot among dozens? (Score:3)
PG&E (Score:2)
Maybe it's just another Pacific Gas and Electric pipeline [wikipedia.org].
AND THEN (Score:2)