NASA Finds a Delaware-Sized Methane "Hot Spot" In the Southwest

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.

Comments

Proper link

[bruce_the_loon]

Link to a proper article about it. http://news.agu.org/press-release/satellite-data-shows-u-s-methane-hot-spot-bigger-than-expected/

Re:Proper link

[Xyrus]

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

[Allasard]

Yeah, I agree. That's your problem there: google map location

Someone needs to go tell that plant to go clean up their act. At the very least, it's wasting methane.

Not a huge deal

[itzly]

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:Not a huge deal

[itzly]

Actually, the factor 25 is reasonable if you keep into account the shorter life cycle of the methane, and you want to calculate the effects over the next century. After that, the factor gets close to 1, because the methane will be converted to CO2.

Re:yes, let's "zoom out"

[Anonymous Coward]

Yes, but a lot (!) less than coal and oil. It has done more for US greenhouse gas emission reductions than any of the crony capitalist schemes Obama or environmentalists have cooked up.

Re:Relative sizes

[Anonymous Coward]

Also for US readers, we actually use miles in the UK unlike the rest of Europe. If you come visit you will notice all the speed limits are listed in miles per hour. We also use inches and feet sometimes, but not for things shorter than one inch (because who wants to say things like thousandthsth of an inch).

How about a deal. We'll start pronouncing it meh thaine if you will please please please stop getting the plural of Lego wrong. Firstly the company says you are wrong, but more importantly my grandma used to add the letter "s" to the end of words where it didn't belong, so whenever I read it the person morphs into an elderly relative. "Would you like a glass of Dr peppers or Coca Colas while you play with your Legos dear, ooh my back"

This is a trade I could live with. I'm not particularly attached to pronouncing it a specific way. I'll even throw in removing the "u" from colour to sweeten the deal.

Re:Relative sizes

[Required Snark]

The first building constructed for the Library of Congress was the Thomas Jefferson building in Washington DC. It opened in 1897.

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. 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. The Madison building is over 2 million square feet.

Re:yes, let's "zoom out"

[thaylin]

Easy to say when republicans block those measures using crony democracy at every turn. If they dont get to take effect any reduction is better than it.

Re:yes, let's "zoom out"

[knightghost]

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"

[Attila Dimedici]

Of course, the "hot spot" mentioned in the article is NOT the result of fracking, since according to the article it pre-dates fracking. The article tells us that the methane in this "hot spot" is the result of old, leaky fossil fuel infrastructure (I am going to guess that this is primarily old pipelines and storage tanks, that have developed leaks over time, or were not particularly well-sealed when first built at a time when it was not worth the extra effort and cost to prevent such leakage).

Re:yes, let's "zoom out"

[plopez]

but requires huge amounts of water. As does tar sands.

Re:Size vs resolution

[timeOday]

Confirmed by independent sensors over a period of 10 years:

SCIAMACHY measured greenhouse gases from 2002 to 2012. The atmospheric hot spot persisted throughout the study period. A ground station in the Total Carbon Column Observing Network, operated by the Department of Energyâ(TM)s Los Alamos National Laboratory, provided independent validation of the measurement.

Re:yes, let's "zoom out"

[Solandri]

Well of course it produces much more methane gas. Natural gas is methane. The trick is to capture it so you can burn it for energy (converting it to CO2 and water), and not let it leak out.

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.