Hacker News Reader

Comment by strommen | Hacker News Reader

> we can calculate the CO2 equivalent by multiplying with 3.6

3.6x is how much CO2 is produced by burning methane (i.e. converting CH4 + 2 O2 => CO2 + 2 H2O).

Methane released into the atmosphere is 25x more potent as a greenhouse gas compared to CO2. See Global Warming Potential of methane in your [1] link.

So 50 metric tons of methane per hour is equivalent to to 1,250 tons of CO2e.

View on HN

There's probably a really obvious answer to this really stupid question, but why don't they light the leak on fire until they stop it?

That's how the Door to Hell[1] was made.

1: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Door_to_Hell

From what I understand, the gas is not flowing out of a pipe at ground level; the leak is deep underground and it is diffusing into rock and coming up over a wide area. It's not clear that combustion could be sustained in that configuration. I have as much oil/gas industry experience as rube goldberg, but I suppose if they put a huge upside-down funnel over the area maybe they could collect it and light the top, but I have no idea whether the radius of that funnel would have to be 10m or 10km.

I feel a good solution would be to implement a carbon tax, and an unburnt methane tax at the greenhouse equivalent, and start charging the company the estimated leak. I imagine their engineers would become more motivated.

This video shows the gas coming right out of the pipe:

http://arstechnica.com/science/2015/12/infrared-video-of-hug...

http://www.laweekly.com/news/what-went-wrong-at-porter-ranch... has a very clear diagram of what's happening. The inner casing of the well sprang a leak. The gas is blowing all the way back down the outer casing of the well, then exiting adjacent to the casing. So, while the leak is concentrated to an area directly adjacent to the well, it's not a matter of simply capping the pipe.

If you argue that the motivation of the engineers is at all an issue, I invite you to present yourself on the south field at dawn. Bring your second.

perhaps more acurately, it would motivate the budget holders... engineers work with the resources their company allocates. a large tax/fine would certainly help incentivise the right kind of response. although, the fine should be large enough to have prompted the correct behaviour in 1979!

I corrected the analysis, thanks for the clue, this paints a completely different picture. I corrected the analysis

But the atmospheric residence time of methane is short - a decade or something. Nothing to worry about in the grand scheme of things, once the leak is plugged.

The factor of 25 accounts for this - over a 100-year timespan, methane is 25x worse than the equivalent weight of CO2.

Over a shorter 20-year timespan, it is 86x worse.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Global-warming_potential#Value...

Reply on news.ycombinator.com