'Mind-boggling' Methane Emissions From Turkmenistan Revealed - Slashdot
source link: https://news.slashdot.org/story/23/05/09/1818229/mind-boggling-methane-emissions-from-turkmenistan-revealed
Go to the source link to view the article. You can view the picture content, updated content and better typesetting reading experience. If the link is broken, please click the button below to view the snapshot at that time.
'Mind-boggling' Methane Emissions From Turkmenistan Revealed
Catch up on stories from the past week (and beyond) at the Slashdot story archive
binspamdupenotthebestofftopicslownewsdaystalestupid freshfunnyinsightfulinterestingmaybe offtopicflamebaittrollredundantoverrated insightfulinterestinginformativefunnyunderrated descriptive typodupeerror
Sign up for the Slashdot newsletter! or check out the new Slashdot job board to browse remote jobs or jobs in your area
-
-
Maybe the Guardian should be figuring out where the British Navy was on September 26th, when a methane event "occurred" that was worse than a century of Turkmenistan's emissions.
You mean the sabotage of the Nord Stream-2 natural gas pipeline?
Not even close. Estimates of gas leaked from the Nord Stream pipeline is 100,000 to 350,000 tonnes of methane. That may indeed be the largest single-event leak in history, but the Turkmenistan leaks being discussed cumulatively are leaking 2.6 million tonnes of methane per year.
alternate source: https://grist.org/energy/turkm... [grist.org]
-
the british navy wasn't nowhere near that leak on september 26, it was just a single norwegian plane that activated the charges that the muricans had planted months before. get your facts straight.
british contribution to this whole war has been just barking. very loud, and very nastily though, but just meddling and barking. isn't that right, boris?
-
I like how this post gets zero down mods when it's based on unproven reports from one journalist (as opposed to the gp that got -1 Troll despite being based on a theory with no more or less credibility).
Sure, maybe Hersh is right. Or maybe his single-source report is complete bunk to provide cover for the Russians having done the deed. Fact is that nobody can speak with absolute authority on the subject.
-
my glass orb is in maintenance, i couldn't tell. but if you ask me if i would trust an awarded journalist that once risked his career (and more) to expose dirty state laundry more than any supreme state representative (read us president in this case), scratch that, all of them combined... then that's a nobrainer for me. state representatives will always say what they need to say, that's an invariant.
ofc with all the caveats of "we will never really know". but i think we already can know enough. more import
-
-
-
-
›
by RitchCraft ( 6454710 ) on Tuesday May 09, 2023 @02:45PM (#63509173)
Placing an embargo on their natural resources until they clean up their act may help. If nations are truly interested in slowing global warming them these types of measures will need to be enacted by all nations concerned.-
-
You won. All they have are the paper straws. You want to make fun of them for that as well?
-
-
I'm not so sure it will. Embargos and sanctions really only work if the powers that be:
- * Are personally affected by the sanctions, or
- * They give a shit about the well-being of the people who are
And I don't know how much you know about Turkmenistan, but the "National Leader of the Turkmen People" is completely batshit insane. https://www.youtube.com/watch?... [youtube.com] Considering that and the fact that the little trade it does do is almost entirely with China, I don't think Berdimuhamedow will have an issue hunkering
-
-
Who runs those fields? Some tinpot dictator's incompetent nephew? I'm not a fan of de-sequestering mind boggling amounts of fossil carbon but harvesting this gas would not only be profitable, it would also literally be the lesser of two evils since CO2 is 25 times less potent than methane as a greenhouse gas.
-
Funny you should say that, they have another field that's been on fire for decades. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/... [wikipedia.org]
-
I don't know anything about oil fields but I am guessing that the issue is more complex than you imagine.
-
it is usually about money, oil is much more expensive than gas, so the oil field product is oil... gas is a sub-product that is annoying to work with and have higher cost to contain and later transport... so if there is no gas pipeline or demand around, many oil fields simply burn it (for security reasons mostly, only more recently people care about the environment)
Add to that the URSS time equipment, lack of proper maintenance, you get a money bag for the oil and a small issue with the gas, that no ones in -
The summary literally says:
Emissions of the potent greenhouse gas from the oil- and gas-rich country are "mind-boggling," and an "infuriating" problem that should be easy to fix, experts have told the Guardian.
The Guardian is not the kind of news outlet that would print that unless they had consulted oil- and gas industry specialists who knew what they were talking about. They are not a news outlet known for making stuff up on a slow news day. That's what toilet rags like the Daily Mail specialise in.
-
-
-
Considering the third world status of Turkmenistan, one would think they would want to NOT lose all that methane and instead capture it for sale.
-
depends on how much it costs to plug the leaks or capture it.
It may be more cost effective for them to simply ignore the leaks and instead just pump more gas.
-
Maybe the crypto bros should show up and offer to run generators and Bitcoin miners with the excess Methane that's currently being wasted. I keep hearing about how they want to save the planet (So governments stop threatening to regulate them), so it would be nice to see them take some action for a change.
-
to capture you need to have proper equipment and installations, that need to be build/added... oil is MUCH more expensive than gas, they get money with oil, for the gas, they may think it is not worth the investment... also there is the demand, they are far away for the main consumers and there is no real demand around them, so either a pipeline or good transport is needed, that both will require investment or higher final cost... the end result is that gas is a sub-product of oil and is many time just bur
-
-
If models are correct, then there is no way we will do what it takes to keep global heating below 1.5C. That's not something we are collectively willing to do. So glwt.
-
Until we get ALL nations to stop increasing and ideally get all nations that are above the current global average to start dropping, we are screwed.
-
we're not all screwed and that's the problem because that's why the powers that be won't do squat (except parroting and save face, and they have professionals for that).
what will happen is that over time many ecosystems will collapse, extreme weather will devastate some areas and make life unbearable in others, some real estate will loose all value while some other will bloom, and people that aren't equipped to react to these changes will suffer enormously and will even die. and global warning isn't even th
-
-
Yep. Ship has sailed on prevention. Double down on mitigation. No sarcasm, no joke. "...for Nature cannot be fooled."
-
The ship has sailed on 1.5 C. That is no longer possible.
But 2.0 C is still possible, and 2.5 C is a realistic goal.
-
-
-
2 out of the 4 times in the last millennia that the earth has been as warm as it is today (13.9C average temp), the earth wound up blowing past all of the milestones scientists currently mention to 32C or more -- and the temperature increases have never had a slope like we are seeing right now. Almost every global warming effect has built-in positive feedback. If we stopped adding any carbon to the atmosphere today the processes we have initiated would likely continue, just at a slower pace. There is no reason to expect that global warming would stop now just because we stop pushing on the process. We have started a process that feeds on itself. In a couple of centuries when the permafrost has all outgassed and the methane ice in the oceans has been liberated the earth will be in position to cool again.
There is no ice age on the immediate horizon to interrupt the current warming cycle.
The one thing we can do that the dinosaurs couldn't is geoengineer our planet.-
I keep wondering what will happen as ocean conveyors stop. It is possible the poles will refreeze.
-
This is bad logic. The mechanisms behind warming are different than anything we've seen before.
-
-
-
No, the bulk amounts are what is important, the per capita is just a way to show how bad a country is compared with other. if 2 countries both release the same amount of emissions, but one have 100 times more population, both should still reduce their emissions, but the one with lower population have to do a much lower effort to lower their emissions and if not do it, either it is lazy or idiot
By the way, this should be used to plug those emissions, not to postpone their own emissions reduction plans with t
-
You do realize the ac is mocking you, yes?
-
-
Bulk amounts are literally the single most important metric, also that's still some 20-30x more than the per capita methane emissions of the US (~65,000 vs. ~2,400 equiv. tonnes of CO2 per person, source: https://www.statista.com/stati... [statista.com]) Go back to/r/GenZedong.
-
Meant to say equiv. kg of CO2 per person*
-
-
-
Nations like Turkmenistan, China, Russia, n. Korea, Iran, etc all prohibit ANY AND outside monitoring of their emissions. So how has IPCC been declaring emissions for these nations? It is based on this nations claiming how much they consume, etc. THIS is why we need to skip trying to get ground monitoring frim these nation and focus on getting ALL GHG monitoring to be done by Satellite AS WELL as in-air monitoring. All major cases of emissions either by businesses not aware, or governments lying have been discovered by sat/air monitoring. Good examples was huge leak in CA of methane which I believe chevron was not aware of. Then We caught Chinese government in multiple lies such as allowing businesses to produce fluorocarbons to make cheap styrofoam( caught by air monitors in Hawaii, s. Korea, and Japan), along with claiming that they screwed up on over 50 years of how much coal they burned (forced by OCO2 going to out their numbers ). They admitted 17% increase, but OCO2 had them over 20%.
-
Yeah, this discovery alone makes the NASA satellite that discovered it worth its weight in gold. Getting a gods-eye view of the situation is priceless.
-
that was why it got launched, to track phantom leaks, that no one reported, but are detected weeks, months later. Can also help finding long pipeline problems and transfers problems
-
-
China lying? Such a shock. Meanwhile, what exactly do you plan on doing about it?
-
-
While we are fussing about Turkmenistan, it might be fun to look at all the shooting wars around the globe and be honest about the amount of greenhouse gases their explosions and fires are releasing. One suspects that the methane leaks from the many unmaintained or abandoned oil and gas wells pale next to what is being intentionally released by all the combatants. And poor Turkmenistan is far from the only country with leaky plumbing on the globe.
-
2.6 kilograms and 1.8 kilograms? Well that ain't much! (Capitalisation of SI prefixes matters.)
-
1 tonne = 1000 kg
so 2.6m tonnes = 2 600 000 000 kg
-
-
You'll never chase them all down, and doing things badly saves money. The whole industry just has to go.
The technologies to replace it are about here, though some need testing at scale. Once the combination of wind, solar, and Form Energy's $20/kWh grid-scale batteries can produce load-following electricity for a penny cheaper than a gas peaking plant, it's all over but the construction project.
Replacing half a billion furnaces with heat pumps is the longer-term challenge, but there's no question that those who do it will save money, it's just a question of up-front spending versus long-term savings.
So, let's get past "peak gas", if we haven't already, then start shutting down (or stop buying from) gas sources in order of most-offensive, downward. These guys will be about at the top of the list.
-
If only the real world were as simple as you are.
-
-
Switching to relatively clean domestic natural gas has been responsible for the largest greenhouse gas reductions to date, but instead we ban the PennEast pipeline, fracking in NY, etc. The net result? Europe and the US now are burning more greenhouse-heavy oil, coal, Turkmenistan gas, etc than we were doing before.
So why not encourage using domestic NG to replace the more worrisome fossil fuels in the short run (while investing in even greener sources that, realistically, are taking longer to ramp up)?
-
the increase usage of gas replaced the coal furnaces in energy generation... gas is MUCH cleaner than coal in term of emissions... still much worse than wind or solar, but that is still a huge improvement
Check the url below, switch in the left for electricity generation and carbon emissions to see a good example of reducing coal and increasing gas, but the emissions going down
https://app.electricitymaps.co... [electricitymaps.com]
https://app.electricitymaps.co... [electricitymaps.com]or if you prefer a USA center view:
https://app.electricitymaps.co. [electricitymaps.com]
-
-
The way to deal with methane emissions in Turkmenistan is to ban internal combustion engines and gas stoves. That would magically cool the planet and make it cold again. We must adhere to the cult of green no matter what.
I also have another question: are the weapons we are providing to Ukraine green or do the shells release CO2 when they explode? If we're helping Ukrainians with killing Russians, we must make sure that we do it in a climate friendly way.
-
I hope John Kerry is flying his private jet there right now to give them a stern talking to.
-
Let us forget that m is the suffix for milli- and not mega-.... 2.7 + 1.8 = 366? Or perhaps it is 366M since the beginning (of what?) and not per year?
-
The 2.6 and 1.8 are millions of tonnes of methane (CH4). The 366 is "equivalent" (in terms of extra solar energy absorbed/retained in millions of tonnes of carbon dioxide. Methane is a much more potent greenhouse gas than CO2.
-
-
The spicy food in Turkmenistan may be showing us that cows are not the only big source of flatulence in our atmosphere.
Recommend
About Joyk
Aggregate valuable and interesting links.
Joyk means Joy of geeK