California To Hunt Greenhouse Gas Leaks and Superemitters With Monitoring Satellites (sciencemag.org) 101
California and its partners are set to launch by 2023 two satellites to spot and monitor plumes of planet-warming carbon dioxide (CO2) and methane. "If all goes right, dozens more could follow," reports Science Magazine. From the report: The $100 million Carbon Mapper project, announced today and financed by private philanthropists including Michael Bloomberg, will advance efforts to track concentrated emissions of greenhouse gases, which rise from fossil fuel power plants, leaky pipelines, and abandoned wells. Previous satellites have lacked the resolution and focus to monitor point sources rigorously. [...] The satellites will be built and managed by Planet, a California company that already operates a constellation of Earth-imaging satellites. The spacecraft will rely on "hyperspectral" imaging spectrometers developed by NASA's Jet Propulsion Laboratory (JPL). Rather than gathering light in just a few discrete wavelength channels, like the human eye, these spectrometers capture reflected sunlight and subdivide it into more than 400 wavelength channels across the visible and into the infrared. The intensity of light across these channels can be tied to specific chemistries and reflect the abundances of certain gases in the air molecules below.
The satellites won't just measure gases in the air; they will also detect chemical signatures on the ground. By measuring the intensity of green chlorophyll or detecting the signatures for excess salts or fungus, for example, researchers will be able to evaluate the health of crops and forests. They can prospect for minerals in remote regions. They can map and identify different coral and algae species, and they can track dust and soot. Even snow and ice pops out in these sensors, says Robert Green, a remote-sensing scientist at JPL. "Snow is one of the most colorful materials on Earth if you look beyond visible light."
The first two Carbon Mapper satellites will each be roughly the size of a washing machine, weighing up to 200 kilograms. They will provide imagery with a resolution of 30 meters but won't offer global coverage at first. Instead, they will target regions known to host superemitters, like power plants, oil and gas drilling, or livestock operations. The regions will be revisited every few weeks to start. All emission data, calculated from the plume intensity and length, will be made publicly available -- in the hopes that governments and businesses will do more to staunch leaks and tamp down discharges. [...] Should Carbon Mapper's first two satellites prove successful, Planet envisions building a commercial constellation of similar satellites that would revisit every spot on the planet once a day, and selling those data to regulators and companies.
The satellites won't just measure gases in the air; they will also detect chemical signatures on the ground. By measuring the intensity of green chlorophyll or detecting the signatures for excess salts or fungus, for example, researchers will be able to evaluate the health of crops and forests. They can prospect for minerals in remote regions. They can map and identify different coral and algae species, and they can track dust and soot. Even snow and ice pops out in these sensors, says Robert Green, a remote-sensing scientist at JPL. "Snow is one of the most colorful materials on Earth if you look beyond visible light."
The first two Carbon Mapper satellites will each be roughly the size of a washing machine, weighing up to 200 kilograms. They will provide imagery with a resolution of 30 meters but won't offer global coverage at first. Instead, they will target regions known to host superemitters, like power plants, oil and gas drilling, or livestock operations. The regions will be revisited every few weeks to start. All emission data, calculated from the plume intensity and length, will be made publicly available -- in the hopes that governments and businesses will do more to staunch leaks and tamp down discharges. [...] Should Carbon Mapper's first two satellites prove successful, Planet envisions building a commercial constellation of similar satellites that would revisit every spot on the planet once a day, and selling those data to regulators and companies.
Uh oh (Score:3)
Re: (Score:1)
It isn't about the environment, it is about control and surveillance. People like Bloomberg could reverse climate change in six months by throwing money into nuclear reactor technology and reversible fuels, like hydrogen. But, they rather find some factory in some rural Chinese province than look at their own stuff that spews far more CO2 into the environment.
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:1)
They can finally do something about the La Brea tar pits.
That place wreaks of hydrocarbon emissions.
Re: (Score:1, Troll)
There's no irony here. Leo DiCaprio does his speeches and fundraising so he can have permission to fly on private jets and drive his gas guzzling sports cars. He does his penance, buys his indulgences, and then goes on to to what he would have done anyway.
The government launching satellites is also lacking irony. If this was about lowering CO2 emissions then there are far more effective ways to do this. One is to allow the building of nuclear power plants.
I see people claiming that building a nuclear po
Re:How much greenhouse gas to launch a constellati (Score:5, Insightful)
Options that cost less money
Stopping methane emissions by detecting leaking wells and bad pipeline seals is the lowest of low-hanging fruit.
The fixes are cheap and have a big impact. The people doing the leaking are often unaware of the problem and happy to be informed because it means more profitable gas stays in the pipeline.
This is a no-brainer and should have been done years ago. As a Californian, I am happy to see my state finally doing something sensible.
Re: (Score:2)
A more sensible approach would be to implement policies that made it affordable to use heat and energy sources with lower CO2 emissions than natural gas. That means ending policies that discourage onshore windmills, hydroelectric dams, geothermal power plants, and nuclear fission power plants.
Offshore windmills and solar PV panels cost far more than natural gas so utilities turn to natural gas. If they were allowed to build more nuclear power plants then they would not have to build more natural gas power
Re: (Score:2)
Callifornia is a coastal and sunny state.
If it really wanted it could power whole North America with wind alone.
With off shore wind farms so far out that no one on land would even see them.
No idea why you nuclear nuts are so silly.
Re: (Score:2)
No idea why solar advocates can't look in a mirror.
If someone advocates for nuclear power then they must be a shill. Why aren't solar power advocates also shills? Can't someone advocate for nuclear power because they looked at the facts and concluded nuclear power is better?
You keep living in your hallucination. Those able to look at real world facts will see that wind and solar power is the path to spiking energy costs.
What a shill you must be.
Re: (Score:2)
Can't someone advocate for nuclear power because they looked at the facts and concluded nuclear power is better?
No they can't. Because the facts make clear: nuclear is utter shit. Or why do you think Germany is exiting nuclear power?
Re: (Score:2)
No they can't. Because the facts make clear: nuclear is utter shit.
You keep telling everyone you meet how nuclear power is shit. Can you do that for me? The more people hear nuclear power mentioned the more they will ask questions about it. The tactic of the solar power shills for decades has been to not mention nuclear power. So long as nuclear power wasn't mentioned solar power looked great. But here's the problem, they can't not mention nuclear power any more because a nuclear power plant closing is big news. That's a lot of jobs lost, usually about a gigawatt of
Re: (Score:2)
Where do you store the nuclear waste?
Make sure you talk about how Germany can get the power it needs from windmills and solar collectors. You can do that, no? I know you can. ... are you living under a rock? Scotland is already at hundred percent, with some water help ... are you really? living under a rock?
We already get 50% of our power from just that
You have no clue about all the topics you scratch in your rant post
If Germany does succeed in closing all of their nuclear power plants then they will still
Re: (Score:1)
Re:How much greenhouse gas to launch a constellati (Score:5, Insightful)
Isn't it ironic when these so-called environmentalists drive around in SUV's or fly around in jets and have huge houses that cause tons of environmental damage so that they can preach about how YOU are destroying the environment?
Now they want to launch a constellation of satellites to continuously monitor your farts and every breath exhaled?
It's much more ironic that you use that image of other people as an excuse to do nothing.
Propaganda (Score:3, Insightful)
Re: (Score:1)
If his enemies are creating problems for the rest of us, what's the problem?
Re:Propaganda (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
When California see's the CO2 map and realizes their entire central valley, LA and San Fran are THE hottest spots in the nation...
will they actually DO anything about it? laughable....
Re: (Score:3)
Durwut? Have you ever been to San Francisco? Get on the BART in the east bay when it's 90 degrees, get off in 'Frisco and the temp can be 30-40 degrees colder. Shows like Monk and Warrior that are set there are obviously filmed somewhere else, as the always bright and sunny days you see on TV are unicorns in the actual city.
Re: (Score:2)
Sometimes I check the CO2 map on earth.nullschool.net (great map btw). The worst emmiters are NYC, Germany and around Beijing.
Re: (Score:1)
Our modern civilization was built on CO2 emitting energy, and it will take time to get off of it.
But we want to be hysterical about something. The solution can't be as simple as letting progress take it's course, we must force people to do our bidding!
Re: (Score:2)
So let's just cut all the direct and indirect subsidies for the fossil fuel sector, and let the cost of gasoline and other fossil fuels reflect real market costs. Right now those subsidies are (conservatively) around $5.2 trillion annually. I'll give you the link on that. It's Forbes Magazine, not Greenpeace or Al Gore.
So are you on-side with that, or are you in favour of continuing with a distorted market that gives CO2 emitters an unfair advantage?
https://www.forbes.com/sites/jamesellsmoor/2019/06/15/ [forbes.com]
Will they (Score:1, Insightful)
Point them at the 50 new Chinese Coal power plants ?
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
But hey, it sounded good on Republican TV.
Re:Will they (Score:4, Insightful)
How about solving problems within your power to solve? You know even if other problems do exist in the world.
Or hey, as long as other people are being shitty we might as well be just as shitty if not shittier, right?
Yes. (Score:4, Informative)
Will they [p]oint them at the 50 new Chinese Coal power plants ?
Yes, they planning to have an entire satellite constellation in Low Earth Orbit so that it will survey the entire planet in rapid intervals. If you look at their timeline, currently they are utilizing airborne surveys, the first demo satellite is slated to launch mid-2023 and the satellite constellation is slated for 2024.
I'm not sure why you would think any nation would (or even could) be exempted.
Re: (Score:3)
The "50 new plants" claim is misleading. Most are replacing older plants, often multiple older plants, with new ones that are cleaner and integrate better into a renewable-heavy grid.
China plans to be carbon neutral by 2060. That is an ambitious goal but not impossible. It means most of these plants won't be around for all that long, really just stop-gap measures to help the transition to renewable energy happen. Of course we need to keep an eye on what China actually does but so far they have been exceedin
Re: (Score:2)
Shhh, don't mention the fact that China has four times America's population, which means they get to pollute four times as much - but don't. Moran.
Re: (Score:1)
Shhh, don't mention the fact that China has four times America's population, which means they get to pollute four times as much - but don't. Moran.
Oh, so the climate decides to change based on how many people you have in your country? That is very interesting, how does that work?
So if 1.4B Chinese continue to do emit as they currently do, everything will be fine as long as they keep a lower per capita emission rate than than US? The climate will know that they have more people so it won't change as much. This is your genius logic?
Re: (Score:2)
No. Your shit-for-brains logic says the Vatican, population 1,000, gets to pollute just as much as the United States because all nations are equal.
Re: (Score:2)
No. Your shit-for-brains logic says the Vatican, population 1,000, gets to pollute just as much as the United States because all nations are equal.
But I never said that at all. Whatever you think logic is, I suggest you go back and review...
To reiterate since you missed it the first time, if emissions are a problem, then you need to ensure the world's biggest emitter (which is China) is included in any remediation plans.
I'm not sure how you could've read that any other way.
Re: (Score:2)
I read it without American Exceptionalist derp glasses that make me reflexively derp about China and India when the US pollutes far more than either country per capita. Because that's what the deciding factor is: per capita. Everything else is BS.
Re: (Score:1)
I read it without American Exceptionalist derp glasses that make me reflexively derp about...
You read it without thinking it though logically, likely because you have some self-hate thing going on that seems to plague Western liberals these days.
Quantity is a thing. No amount of denying that changes that fact. 2x is twice as much as x.
Because that's what the deciding factor is: per capita.
So based on this crazy logic, it's all Palau's fault [wikipedia.org]
Even though it only has a population of 18000 people, it's the highest per capita CO2 emitter, and since you think 'per capita is the deciding factor' therefore, according to you, they are the biggest problem lol.
Re: (Score:2)
Nah, that's you using the Vatican fallacy with a different variable, and thus choosing to keep your head up your own American Exceptionalist ass. When you find a Bumfuckistan who's military has really been the world's single largest polluter instead of the Pentagon, and contributed a plurality of
Re: (Score:1)
Nah, that's you using the Vatican fallacy with a different variable,
It's your logic your goose.
who's military has really been the world's single largest polluter instead of the Pentagon
But you said per capita is the deciding factor, so now it's raw size when you want it be? Pick a lane son...
Will you (Score:2)
look at the difference between the population of US and China - and then pull your head out?
But what about China? (Score:2)
And if they look at China - what about $AnybodyButMe?
welcome to the climate dystopia (Score:1, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:1)
My house is emitting carbon? Did someone set it on fire?
Re: (Score:2)
If your home is emitting enough carbon to be noticed from orbit then maybe you should be investigated.
Re: (Score:2)
I was just smoking some meat, I swear!
Blue Origin rockets are shaking in their boots (Score:2)
Blue Origin rockets are shaking in their boots.
Virtue signalling by unserious people (Score:2, Troll)
This is a bunch of politicians spending other people's money on a project that does nothing to lower CO2 emissions, but it will certainly give them something to put in a press release.
If Californian politicians were serious about global warming then they'd look at what technologies exist today and look towards implementing the most effective solutions.
When it comes to the biggest sources of CO2 the top two are electricity generation and transportation. Those two make up more than half of the CO2 emissions
You say "serious" and "nuclear" in same breath (Score:2, Insightful)
Nuclear power is completely batshit, a thousand holes in your head insanity. Insane costs, construction times, risk, and creating a toxic waste problem that will easily last millions of years. Utterly unjustifiable. You can roll out wind and solar in a fraction of the time for a fraction of the cost, without needing 20 mile evacuation zones or building concrete bunkers that will need to be maintained for thousands o
Re:You say "serious" and "nuclear" in same breath (Score:4, Insightful)
Nuclear power is completely batshit, a thousand holes in your head insanity. Insane costs, construction times, risk, and creating a toxic waste problem that will easily last millions of years. Utterly unjustifiable. You can roll out wind and solar in a fraction of the time for a fraction of the cost, without needing 20 mile evacuation zones or building concrete bunkers that will need to be maintained for thousands of generations.
With such a well researched and lucid argument how can we disagree. None of the things you said are true. Nuclear has the lowest risk and most of the problems with it are caused by the lawsuits and interference from politicians and activists. Its the only scalable source of carbon neutral energy we have (and likely will have in any of our lifetimes).
More brain worms. Natural gas just adds to the amount of CO2 in the atmosphere, and fracking is just adding another environmental disaster on top.
Well don't you worry at all then. Now that CA is shutting down its 2nd and last nuclear plant, we'll be using even more natural gas than we were already. Its most of our electricity already and will be more than 2/3 of the watts generated in the state in 2025 when Diablo shuts down. Oh, and I'm sure all the fracking we've been doing in CA isn't releasing too much methane and they have accounted for it in their carbon accounting that claims (questionably) that natural gas is cleaner than other fossil fuels.
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
Nuclear power isn't insanely expensive?
Where on Earth is nuclear power proving to be cheaper than renewables?
Re: (Score:2)
FTFY
Its (he means nuclear here) the only scalable source of carbon neutral energy we have (and likely will have in any of our lifetimes).
And his sarcastic comment was at the wrong place:
With such a well researched and lucid argument how can we disagree.
Now your post makes more sense.
Re: (Score:2)
Your sarcasm is noted, but facts don't care about your nuke fanboy feelings.
Fixed.
Repeating that lie doesn't make it true. Neither wind nor solar farms have 20 mile evacuation zones. But this claim is just comical after two major disasters (Chernobyl and Fukushima) and TEPCO has announced they are going to just dump radioactive water into the Pacific Ocean. And that
Re: You say "serious" and "nuclear" in same breath (Score:3)
Either it's very dangerous, or it lasts millions of years. These are mutually exclusive. Also, there are technical solutions to those technical problems. Give this one a try to get some information that may be interesting to you: https://www.youtube.com/watch?... [youtube.com] in Dutch with subtitles in various languages, from the makers of "America first, Netherlands second". The pie chart of global energy production is especially damning to wind and solar.
Re: (Score:2)
How do you figure? The risks of meltdowns are very dangerous, as proven by Chernobyl and Fukushima. And the concentrated toxic waste will be a hazard long after the materials are no longer radioactive - just ask all the Iraqi kids born today with severe birth defects as a result from all the depleted uranium munitions used by Bush.
Already watched a
Re: You say "serious" and "nuclear" in same breat (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Nuclear isn't "batshit" when it's deployed in a proper and limited role. In fact it will be a necessity to retain some of it for base load, unless you want to retain fossil fuel plants for that purpose. Nuclear can be spun up or down on demand as renewable output fluctuates. Spun down it's not generating much waste, but having it there ready to go makes sure the grid won't shut down when it gets cloudy.
Most all of the problems with nuclear can be eliminated or mitigated by: Don't build shitty 1970s reactors
Re: (Score:2)
Except: all the baseload FUD thrown at wind and solar applies more to nuclear power. Far more. Because while the wind doesn't stop blowing and the sun doesn't stop shining for months or even a year [upi.com] at a time, nuclear power plants do. [trib.com] Which means you need to either build a spare $20 billion water heater to back up one of the others on your grid when it goes down, and/or build a gia [wikipedia.org]
Re: (Score:2)
Nuclear power is completely batshit
Make sure you tell that to all your friends. I want people to talk about nuclear power. I got you to comment. The more people claim it is a bad idea the more people will look to find out why. Then the magic happens. That's when people do their own research and find out this has all been a lie. 50 years of lies on how nuclear power is not safe, too expensive, etc., etc. Those lies persisted because at the beginning of this we didn't have a history of nuclear power safety, and now we do. Concerns of F
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
50 years ago the USA was not building a dozen nuclear power reactors every decade, we were building that many every year. That's going to happen again because solar power has been failing to live up to is promises, those 50 year old nuclear power reactors will have to close soon, and the anti-nuclear politicians that have been in federal government all this time will have to make a choice.
The federal government has three choices. First, build more natural gas plants. This is affordable right now but if t
Re:Virtue signalling by unserious people (Score:5, Interesting)
If California was serious about reducing CO2 emissions then they'd build nuclear power plants, and not allow the federal government to stop them.
I'm pro nuclear but I have to ask about the wisdom of building a nuclear power plant in a earthquake prone area. I think California would do better with well thought out solar solution, than nuclear.
Re: (Score:2)
California has been trying to replace nuclear power with solar power for decades. What's stopping them?
The answer is that the technology does not exist to do so. It's quite likely it never will because solar power is intermittent, dilute, and therefore expensive.
I have to wonder about the wisdom of repeating the same behavior over and over expecting a different result. California knows they can build nuclear power plants that can hold up to earthquakes. What they don't know how to build is solar power c
Re: (Score:3)
That is old school thinking. In the past two years there has been some major breakthroughs in solar cell research.
https://oilprice.com/Alternati... [oilprice.com]
In that article they are quoting efficiency of up to 66% are coming. If that pans out, and with a efficient storage system, solar isn't just practical, it's probable.
Re: (Score:2)
Old school thinking is comparing yesterday's nuclear to tomorrow's solar, a typical tactic of the solar power shills.
Grid scale electrical storage will not make solar power any more viable than it already is. What it will do is allow advanced third generation nuclear power, an existing and already viable technology, to load follow. That will mean that nuclear power can replace the inefficient and expensive natural gas turbines that are common backup for solar power. Once there's efficient storage on the
Re: (Score:1)
Nuclear power is too costly and has too many regulations. You'll never see another planet built in your lifetime. Want to see a great example?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/... [wikipedia.org]
The plant was just starting to generate test power and it was shut down. Residents are still paying a surcharge on their bills for its cost. Meanwhile the sun is delivering free energy daily and the costs are dropping constantly. Only a fool would look at the sun and say no thank you.
Re: (Score:2)
That's one of nearly 450 civil nuclear power reactors in the world. Is that representative of the rest of the reactors in the world? No. Far from it.
Along with these hundreds of civil nuclear power plants there's been hundreds of military nuclear power plants.
You say that there are too many regulations? Is that a problem we cannot solve? I'd say it's a problem that is easily solved. All it takes is some politicians willing to tackle that problem. It looks like that is happening now. Why now? Why is
Re: (Score:2)
If the goal was to spend money on PR, there's a bunch of easier ways to do that. Carbon credits seem to be the go-to solution, or they could take a bunch of unskilled workers off the unemployment rolls and have them plant trees.
Secondly, this will have a huge impact. Industrial emissions are only 2 to 6% [epa.gov] lower than what comes from transportation or electrical generation, so they are no less of an issue. Identifying industrial-scale polluters who either don't know or don't care they're breaking the rules wil
Re: (Score:2)
I thought wind and solar power was cheaper than coal and natural gas. If that is so then what is there to gain in cheating on CO2 emissions? Are you saying that wind and solar power are not in fact cheaper than coal and natural gas? Are you claiming that industrial CO2 emissions would come from people that would willingly spend money on CO2 emissions instead of keeping that money for a profit?
This is still a stupid idea. If California wanted to make sure the industrial sector wasn't producing CO2 then t
Re: (Score:2)
You still seem to be confusing electricity generation with industrial emissions. These are different things. If your plant is emitting carbon because it's the reaction product of a synthesis step, you can never get rid of that with a solar cell. It requires changing your industrial process, or capturing and canning the carbon before it vents to the atmosphere. This costs money.
I'm not completely sure what "willingly spend money on CO2 emissions instead of keeping that money for a profit" means, but if you w
Re: (Score:2)
You still seem to be confusing electricity generation with industrial emissions.
Perhaps. You seem to be confusing monitoring industrial CO2 emissions with a solution to those emissions.
Monitoring the CO2 isn't going to prevent it. California may try to tax it but all that will do is drive that industry to another location. If California was serious about industrial CO2 emissions then they'd help in finding alternative processes to these CO2 emitting processes.
These CO2 monitoring satellites will do nothing to lower CO2 emissions. What would lower CO2 emissions is switching electric
Re: (Score:2)
I never confused monitoring with enforcing, I recognized that you need monitoring to enforce. I'm sure California isn't doing all they could, so I won't argue in their defense as it regards nuclear power or any other areas they're neglecting.
Government funding for converting industrial processes is great, there should be more of that. That still doesn't address for example, leakages, which are real, look at the long list of "competent" companies that have blown up wells and crashed tankers, not to mention a
Re: (Score:2)
I never confused monitoring with enforcing, I recognized that you need monitoring to enforce.
Does this monitoring need to be done by satellite? As I pointed out earlier California can locate the CO2 emitters without satellites. The major contributors are large immobile power plants and factories. They know where to find them without a satellite.
That still doesn't address for example, leakages, which are real, look at the long list of "competent" companies that have blown up wells and crashed tankers, not to mention a thousand less explodey leaks you never hear about in the news.
How does a satellite help in this monitoring? They know where these things are and the government of California doesn't need to know where the leaks are to transition away from these greenhouse gas emitting power plants and factories. This is again a pr
But what will they do about it? (Score:2)
So, when my state identifies these gross CO2 polluters, what will they do?
If they actually target them to get them to clean up their output and actually make that happen, then great, I'm all for it.
If they're just going to levy fines against them and not make them actually do anything abou it, then I question the whole thing as potentially just another way to make money for the State.
Re: (Score:2)
If they're just going to levy fines against them and not make them actually do anything abou it, then I question the whole thing as potentially just another way to make money for the State.
Except that that the very first line of the article header says "financed by private philanthropists"
Re: (Score:1)
This is a waste of critically needed money. (Score:2)
So we throw money away on a problem we cannot solve or even come close to solving. Why are we not throwing that money at the homeless crisis in California? Is the homeless crisis also a problem California is powerless to solve? Or is it an ego thing for some idiot California politicians?
Not that the questions when answered would change anything. I'd just like to know, being a curious soul.
{o.o}
This feels counterintuitive (Score:2)
Even better is that soon the last nuclear plant in California (Diablo Canyon) will be shuttered, which will remove another 1 GW of low-carbon power, to be compensated for by more gas.
What's California's plan for kicking the fossil fuel habit? So far there seems to be none, as the stat
Why go to space? (Score:1)
The cost of throwing something up into space is way more expensive than say using existing prop plane to fly around with gas detection sensors
https://kairosaerospace.com/ [kairosaerospace.com]
Kairos Aerospace is already performing this task.
Like can we spend money on places that need it, like healthcare, cure for cancer? Not just reinventing the wheel just because we can? I mean shoot, Something like Kairos' approach could be used to attach sensors to solar powered drones as an example.
Re: Why go to space? (Score:3)
The aircraft approach is great, but doesn't provide what this study is aiming for. Super-emitters contribute a huge amount to methane emissions but are hard to catch because they're spread out and sometimes sporadic. Figuring out ways to easily identify them is a major effort right now (I work in this field). Even a plane doesn't have the spatial coverage to catch a superemitter unless it's just luckily within a few miles of it. If it does find a large methane concentration in the atmosphere, then it needs
Mod parent up (Score:2)
Mod parent up
it costs WHAT?! (Score:2)
Okay, let's replace that with the $100 million green energy solar salt tower, hydro, wave, wind turbine, and solar panel rollout project. Now which do you think would be more effective at reducing greenhouse gases? Here, let me give you the discount version. Go to Google maps and type in "power plants" and you'll get a very similar map as to what the satellite will give out.
Which is stupid (Score:4, Insightful)
Because if you really wanted to cut back on CO2, you ban crypto mining which is using about half as much power as the entire state of california. And all but a small fraction of that computation is wasted.
Estimate of crypto mining: 120TWh
https://techcrunch.com/2021/03... [techcrunch.com]
California power consumption: 260TWh
https://www.energy.gov/sites/p... [energy.gov]
Re: (Score:2)
On the other hand, I think there’s probably a more efficient way than satellites to do what California wants. High altitude balloons?
Now if we could also find a more efficient way to mine crypto... maybe put some of the machine learning algorithms into it.
Re: (Score:3)
Thats the whole point of crypto, is to make the computations expensive, if you make them efficient then it becomes easy to solve them from an energy perspective and everyone would do it, and then the price would not increase.
Re: (Score:2)
but . . . but . . . then we wouldn't get a rocket launch with its *own* emissions, in the name, of course, fo catching other people's emissions . . .
And am I *really* the only one concerned by the People's Republic of California having its own spy satellites??? They do enough damage to surrounding states without them. (and, yes, as a lawyer, I *have* dealt with them demanding that a Nevadan surrender his Nevada license to them . . .)
If they care about emissions, they could *start* by not pumping all that
Re: (Score:2)
Not to mention sticking prop 65 lables on everything, and I really mean everything. Those people have a lot of hubris in CA, people buy the products whether they have lables it not. Go away CA, I hope you do into the ocean. And they do spread a lot of pollution across the west and are one of the main reasons the grand canyon is so smoggy
Re: (Score:2)
After much research, the investigators concluded that the catastrophic failure of the rocket, killing all passengers, was due to an incorrectly placed prop 65 label providing incorrect friction between parts, triggering . . .
Re: (Score:2)
*drop into the ocean
Gotta stop using this from mobile
I don't need a satellite to tell you where (Score:2)
Sacramento and Hollywood. These are the two groups of people capable of blowing smoke up their own asses.
Re: (Score:2)
California only has to look at it's own government (Score:2)
You don't need a satellite. You need a government that doesn't hide a known methane leak for over a year at the Los Angeles Department of Water and Power owned Valley Generating Station [wikipedia.org].