TE
科技回声
首页24小时热榜最新最佳问答展示工作
GitHubTwitter
首页

科技回声

基于 Next.js 构建的科技新闻平台,提供全球科技新闻和讨论内容。

GitHubTwitter

首页

首页最新最佳问答展示工作

资源链接

HackerNews API原版 HackerNewsNext.js

© 2025 科技回声. 版权所有。

A glaring error in methane flaring (2022)

39 点作者 boulos超过 1 年前

5 条评论

destitude超过 1 年前
Look at "light pollution" map of the USA. Look at western North Dakota and the light pollution there is more than the biggest cities in the USA. All of that is from flaring from fracking.
评论 #39323161 未加载
aidenn0超过 1 年前
I know we had the "percentage points" vs "ratio of percentages" flame war here recently, but saying "only a few percent" without pointing out that the emissions are 450% of what was expected is frustrating to read; I kept expecting someone to point that out in the article...
评论 #39322932 未加载
评论 #39323155 未加载
schiffern超过 1 年前
Direct link to the paper:<p><a href="https:&#x2F;&#x2F;www.science.org&#x2F;doi&#x2F;10.1126&#x2F;science.abq0385" rel="nofollow">https:&#x2F;&#x2F;www.science.org&#x2F;doi&#x2F;10.1126&#x2F;science.abq0385</a>
K0balt超过 1 年前
It seems like this might be an opportunity to reuse older, inefficient gas turbines from aviation to create turbogenerators that can produce electricity. If they were containerized, they could be easily relocated where needed, and could provide a good deal of energy either for the rig itself or for resale, or used in other value added processes like the creation of dry ice or other energy intensive processes.<p>A side benefit would be the selling off of less efficient engines off into other applications where the environmentally positive effects of re-engining existing aviation fleets could be more economically realized. As it is, timed out turbines of older models have a near-zero economic value, as reconditioning them to airworthy status is very expensive.<p>If the requirements were to replace some burner cans with noncertified natural gas optimized burners, remove any bypass fans, and link them up to a generator for steady-state use at reduced SHP rates, reconditioning them to this state could be done much less expensively than the cost of new prime movers, and the comparatively low efficiency would be irrelevant because the fuel is a waste product anyway. Also, the higher burn efficiency would mean that there would be negligible residual methane.<p>Looks good on the back of a napkin, anyway.
alalbertson超过 1 年前
There is a massive amount of conservative estimates implemented in current EPA standards. Further, air emission standards are typically based off &quot;potential to emit&quot; to add.<p>A ~8% difference in efficiency is large, but even without the aforementioned &quot;wiggle room&quot; in standards, a 90% reduction still drastically reduced its footprint converting to CO2 vs methane.
评论 #39323396 未加载