• bratosch@lemm.ee
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    46
    arrow-down
    2
    ·
    7 months ago

    I’ll take two; one to put in my bed and one for my underwear

  • theodewere@kbin.social
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    32
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    7 months ago

    “Today’s livestock farms are high-tech facilities where ammonia is already removed from the air. As such, removing methane through existing air purification systems is an obvious solution,”

    sounds like it will be something they can just add to existing systems at big livestock operations, and the removal rate is pretty high

    • TheBatz@sh.itjust.works
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      1
      ·
      7 months ago

      I feel like this will cause a huge “rebound effect” (not sur if it’s the correct translation)

  • Jazsta@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    20
    ·
    7 months ago

    Really exciting development for the climate change mitigation toolkit. Let’s hope it’s not too challenging or costly to scale up and deploy.

  • MonkderZweite@feddit.ch
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    8
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    7 months ago

    Over a 25-year period, though, methane is 85 times worse for the climate than carbon dioxide.

    Doesn’t it get reduced in the athmosphere in about 5 years to mostly CO2?

    • Xtallll@lemmy.blahaj.zone
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      12
      ·
      7 months ago

      The atmospheric half life of methaine is just under 10 years. So if you release 1k lbs of methaine in 10 years there will be 500 lbs left 10 years after that ther will be 250 ect.

        • Excrubulent@slrpnk.net
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          16
          ·
          edit-2
          7 months ago

          1k lbs is a perfectly cromulent unit of enbiggenment, colloquially known as “Calebs”.

        • barsoap@lemm.ee
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          4
          ·
          7 months ago

          Indeed that’s 10 hundredweight. Which maybe ironically enough is rather intuitive for me, Germany still uses pounds and hundredweight (Zentner) in informal and sectorial use, meaning 500g and 50kg.

      • Rhaedas@kbin.social
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        5
        ·
        edit-2
        7 months ago

        It’s complicated. The breakdown of methane in the atmosphere depends on hydroxyl radicals that are created at a regular rate. If you have more and more methane released, and/or you have other chemicals that also react with those radicals, the overall average half life will increase. Both those things are happening, so the old half life really isn’t as accurate as it used to be. Guess which number the IPCC still uses for its models though.

        • Lophostemon@aussie.zone
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          2
          arrow-down
          1
          ·
          7 months ago

          Goddam Hydroxl Radicals keep sending drones to attack US ships! Iran needs an ass-kicking!

      • MonkderZweite@feddit.ch
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        edit-2
        7 months ago

        Guess i remembered wrong.

        edit: or the ‘more methane and other reactives increasing the half live’ thing. Is 10 years enough?

    • huginn@feddit.it
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      11
      ·
      7 months ago

      Yes but the heat it retains in that time is 85x the effect of base CO2, which makes sense: decomposition of the methane releases energy. It does a much better job of reflecting the IR until it breaks down, then in the act of breaking down releases energy.

  • HubertManne@kbin.social
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    6
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    7 months ago

    It converts it to co2 and its a structure like carbon capture stuff. Im not big on carbon capture but if you running this thing anyway it might make sense to run the output into some carbon capture scheme as it should reduce both the production and running energy since it can use some of what this is already doing as far as pulling in and exhausting the air. might be good for the exhaust to go down an old well or something to.