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

[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...

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

[TheRaven64]

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

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.

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.

Whadda coincidence,

[Tablizer]

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

-5 Flamebait

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: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.