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.

Re:Proper link

[itzly]

They fail to mention that "3 times" the normal atmospheric concentration is still only 0.0000054.

At what concentration would you start to worry ?

Re:Proper link

[DesertJazz]

I grew up in Farmington, near where the station is. Plain and simple the generating station and two other power plants are on Reservation land. For the longest time the tribes chose to ignore improvements to air quality standards. I presume much of the chronic asthma I and others suffered in the area is related to the pollution. On the flip side most of these stacks are being shut down right now and it's killing the local economy. The area has one of the largest available coal deposits that it has been relying on for a long time. It would be nice if there was some sort compromise possible between the industry and pollution... Of course if it was managed more properly it might not be so bad. The amount of corruption on the reservation is amazing...

yes, let's "zoom out"

[silfen]

The scientists say the finding is reason enough to zoom out from fracking, and take stock of the operations of the entire established fossil fuel industry.

Fracking has been responsible for a big decline in US greenhouse gas emissions. Lumping the "entire established fossil fuel industry" together as if coal, oil, and gas were all the same is just idiotic.

Re:yes, let's "zoom out"

[Required Snark]

Any references? And by references I mean something that was not funded my the energy industry. Preferably in a peer reviewed journal that is not funded by the energy industry. You know, some organization that is actually credible, rather then being a bunch of paid shills.

Lacking that, I'm just going to assume that your are making stuff up. The "logic" of "Fracking has been responsible for a big decline in US greenhouse gas emissions" seems to be lacking. How could the conclusion follow from the premise? How about "An increase in the consumption of Nutella has been responsible for a big decline in US greenhouse gas emissions"? Makes about as much sense.

Re:yes, let's "zoom out"

[Anonymous Coward]

Methane is a greenhouse gas, a much more potent one than carbon dioxide. If reduced carbon dioxide from burning methane "instead of" coal is accompanied by more methane leaks, then it isn't clear whether fracking is a net positive with regard to climate change. And methane isn't replacing coal and oil. The primary effect of fracking is the lower price of fossil fuels. Higher availability and lower price always causes increased consumption.

Re:yes, let's "zoom out"

[khallow]

And by references I mean something that was not funded my the energy industry.

Which energy industry, the fossil fuel one or the green one?

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:yes, let's "zoom out"

[pla]

but requires huge amounts of water.

"Huge amounts of water" doesn't mean huge amounts of potable water. Our planet has no shortage of water (you could more accurately say we have a shortage of land). We just can't directly consume most of it without energy-intensive processing first.

Fracking doesn't require clean water. It can use salt water, grey water, swamp water, runoff water, pretty much anything. Now, that said, in the places currently enjoying a fracking boom (no pun intended), the easiest water to get comes from nice clean freshwater aquifers. But it doesn't need to.

I find it simply mind-boggling that so many environmentally conscious people (and I say that as someone who considers himself one) hate the most environmentally friendly sources of energy we have: Nuclear, wind, solar, water, and to a lesser degree, natural gas. Yes, each has its own problems, some of which we can solve through regulation, some through further tech advancement, some through telling millionaire weenies on Cape Cod to go fuck themselves. But as long as the cheapest (by a good margin) alternative consists of the dirtiest fuel ever discovered by mankind (coal)... Maybe we should take just a teensy step back and pick our battles a bit better, hmm?

Re:yes, let's "zoom out"

[Immerman]

Actually, not really.

Methane (natural gas) does cut CO2 emissions by about half compared to coal. However methane is an incredibly potent greenhouse gas in it's own right, far, far more potent than CO2, even if it doesn't remain in the atmosphere for nearly as long. The only way a switch to methane reduces the greenhouse effect is if you can keep leakage at less than ~14%, otherwise it makes things even worse. And currently the leakage rates in the US are estimated at about 20%. And that's even before we get to the part where oil-pumping operations are allowed to simply vent or burn off the natural gas they're not interested in extracting. Have you seen nighttime pictures of the North-western US? Whole states that used to be dark are now glowing brightly from all the methane plume fires - laws aside that's just criminal.

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.

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.

Relative sizes

[badger.foo]

For UK and European readers, "the size of Delaware" is just a tad more than a fourth of "the size of Wales".

Re:Relative sizes

[Spy Handler]

Also for UK readers: TFA is talking about meeethane gas.

Re:Relative sizes

[TheRaven64]

For speakers of Commonwealth English, 'a fourth' is American for 'a quarter'.

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:Relative sizes

[Thanshin]

For everyone else, they're talking about 6,500 km2.

(Or, the combined area of about 1293017700000 ping pong balls)

Re:Relative sizes

[Anonymous Coward]

For geopolitically challenged environmentalist-globalist readers, Delaware is about the same size as the methane hotspot recently discovered in the American Southwest.

Whadda coincidence,

[Tablizer]

...it's over Rush Limbaugh's house.

-5 Flamebait

Zoom out? As in consider a wider angle?

[denzacar]

Considering that the shitty *ngh* Vice *retch* article also states how "The hot spot predates fracking", maybe the equivocal suggestion to "zoom out from fracking" is meant as a call to stop looking at fracking as the main culprit (i.e. "zoom out" from it) for the release of methane?
Meaning that someone should "take stock of the operations of the entire established fossil fuel industry" INSTEAD.

But it's nice to see where one's preferences and loyalties lie.

America in decline.

[Snufu]

For UK and European readers, "the size of Delaware" is just a tad more than a fourth of "the size of Wales".

That exchange rate keeps plummeting. When I was a kid, you could get two Wales for a Delaware.

perfectly NATURAL - NOT MAN-MADE

[Thud457]

This is just Gaia naturally trying to clear up a nasty infestation of Homo Sapiens and return to a normal equilibrium. Nothing to be alarmed about here.

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.