I know we had the "percentage points" vs "ratio of percentages" flame war here recently, but saying "only a few percent" without pointing out that the emissions are 450% of what was expected is frustrating to read; I kept expecting someone to point that out in the article...
I think the point is that it's not really a "tiny" error.
Phrasing it as "91% vs 98% efficient" makes it seem like it's only 'off' by a factor of 1.08x, but what really matters for the climate is 9% vs 2% leak rate — a whopping 4.5x!
Perhaps surprisingly, this 'simple math' for us isn't obvious to a large fraction of the population. For better comprehension it would be nice if the article had pointed it out specifically.
Methane is a great low hanging fruit to tackle first. Its atmospheric half-life is 8-12 years, which means slashing emissions now can 'bend the curve' in decades, not centuries. Upcoming satellites will monitor all emissions globally, with day-by-day and well-by-well granularity.
Inexplicably name-calling clear math communication as "patronizing" doesn't make it any less essential.
The numbers are shocking. Based on the modest complexity of that task (I'd say between upper Level 2 and Level 3), perhaps 35-50% of Americans are able to complete the task.[0]
>And if someone doesn't understand 91 v 98%, do you really think they'll get 350% increase?
Sure, if you explain it. "4.5 times" is a good phrase. Doesn't take up many column inches.
It's a much harder leap to go straight from "91% vs 98%" to "that means 350% more," which is what the article is currently expecting.
Since we've apparently agreed not to have a working education system, maybe we should at least explain key global environmental threats in mass media in terms the majority of citizens can actually understand. Just a thought.
>Did you miss the part of the article that highlights...
Thanks. It's more troubling than I thought. It seems the authors themselves may not understand the math!
"The difference between the assumed efficiency of flaring and the efficiency found in Kort and his colleagues’ results is a matter of a few percentage points. However, the researcher said that this seemingly small difference could be a big deal when extrapolated over the whole fossil fuel industry. Further, methane has more than 80 times the impact when it comes to warming the planet—at least during the first 20 years it spends in the air."
It isn't a problem because it's a small difference "extrapolated over the whole fossil fuel industry." It isn't a problem because it's a small difference but methane is worse than CO2.
It's a problem because it's a huge difference: over a quadrupling in total emissions. Re-reading, the authors never actually realize/acknowledge this.
You misunderstood the GPs statement. What they meant was [the reason this is a problem is not because] it's a small fraction "extrapolated over the whole fossil fuel industry" Not [There is no problem because] it's a small fraction "extrapolated over the whole fossil fuel industry" The words the commenter used: "This isn't a problem because" can mean either in English.
In other words, they were saying the article was misleading because TFA claims that the problem is due to a small fraction multiplied by a large industry, while it's actually a very large multiplier multiplied by a large industry.
> The difference between the assumed efficiency of flaring and the efficiency found in Kort and his colleagues’ results is a matter of a few percentage points. However, the researcher said that this seemingly small difference could be a big deal when extrapolated over the whole fossil fuel industry. Further, methane has more than 80 times the impact of carbon dioxide when it comes to warming the planet—at least during the first 20 years it spends in the air.
Isn't this enough? Yes, the article could make the point more explicit at the expense of brevity, but most readers can infer the implications of marginal changes.
I'll do you one better. The article doesn't state the loss to taxpayers given the billions+ of permanently lost tax revenue!
/OT
I don't understand why this "point in time" article is meaningful years later, given it's been a known issue (far prior to the article) and the regulatory story has evolved.
Look at "light pollution" map of the USA. Look at western North Dakota and the light pollution there is more than the biggest cities in the USA. All of that is from flaring from fracking.
There is a massive amount of conservative estimates implemented in current EPA standards. Further, air emission standards are typically based off "potential to emit" to add.
A ~8% difference in efficiency is large, but even without the aforementioned "wiggle room" in standards, a 90% reduction still drastically reduced its footprint converting to CO2 vs methane.
It's not just an ~8% difference in efficiency, it's a 350% difference in purported emissions. The actual emissions are 4.5x larger than claimed: 9% vs 2%.
It seems like this might be an opportunity to reuse older, inefficient gas turbines from aviation to create turbogenerators that can produce electricity. If they were containerized, they could be easily relocated where needed, and could provide a good deal of energy either for the rig itself or for resale, or used in other value added processes like the creation of dry ice or other energy intensive processes.
A side benefit would be the selling off of less efficient engines off into other applications where the environmentally positive effects of re-engining existing aviation fleets could be more economically realized. As it is, timed out turbines of older models have a near-zero economic value, as reconditioning them to airworthy status is very expensive.
If the requirements were to replace some burner cans with noncertified natural gas optimized burners, remove any bypass fans, and link them up to a generator for steady-state use at reduced SHP rates, reconditioning them to this state could be done much less expensively than the cost of new prime movers, and the comparatively low efficiency would be irrelevant because the fuel is a waste product anyway. Also, the higher burn efficiency would mean that there would be negligible residual methane.
21 comments
[ 3.6 ms ] story [ 75.2 ms ] threadhttps://www.science.org/doi/10.1126/science.abq0385
Phrasing it as "91% vs 98% efficient" makes it seem like it's only 'off' by a factor of 1.08x, but what really matters for the climate is 9% vs 2% leak rate — a whopping 4.5x!
Perhaps surprisingly, this 'simple math' for us isn't obvious to a large fraction of the population. For better comprehension it would be nice if the article had pointed it out specifically.
Methane is a great low hanging fruit to tackle first. Its atmospheric half-life is 8-12 years, which means slashing emissions now can 'bend the curve' in decades, not centuries. Upcoming satellites will monitor all emissions globally, with day-by-day and well-by-well granularity.
Don't need to patronize the reader with express restatements.
And if someone doesn't understand 91 v 98%, do you really think they'll get 350% increase?
The numbers are shocking. Based on the modest complexity of that task (I'd say between upper Level 2 and Level 3), perhaps 35-50% of Americans are able to complete the task.[0]
>And if someone doesn't understand 91 v 98%, do you really think they'll get 350% increase?
Sure, if you explain it. "4.5 times" is a good phrase. Doesn't take up many column inches.
It's a much harder leap to go straight from "91% vs 98%" to "that means 350% more," which is what the article is currently expecting.
Since we've apparently agreed not to have a working education system, maybe we should at least explain key global environmental threats in mass media in terms the majority of citizens can actually understand. Just a thought.
[0] https://www.wyliecomm.com/2021/11/whats-the-latest-u-s-numer...
Not true.
Did you miss the part of the article that highlights why the seemingly small % difference is a big deal due to methane's global warming potential? [0]
[0] https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=39323155
Now to your article, an ArsTechnica audience likely isn't representative of a numbersense survey for average americans with fuzzy buckets.
And I see your article as making my point.
Thanks. It's more troubling than I thought. It seems the authors themselves may not understand the math!
It isn't a problem because it's a small difference "extrapolated over the whole fossil fuel industry." It isn't a problem because it's a small difference but methane is worse than CO2.It's a problem because it's a huge difference: over a quadrupling in total emissions. Re-reading, the authors never actually realize/acknowledge this.
Truly the blind leading the blind! :o
This isn't what the article/researcher says literally or figuratively.
You said they said:
> > This isn't a problem because it's a small fraction "extrapolated over the whole fossil fuel industry."
That is NOT "literally directly" from the quote:
> "However, the researcher said that this seemingly small difference could be a big deal when extrapolated over the whole fossil fuel industry."
What you said changed the meaning.
In other words, they were saying the article was misleading because TFA claims that the problem is due to a small fraction multiplied by a large industry, while it's actually a very large multiplier multiplied by a large industry.
Isn't this enough? Yes, the article could make the point more explicit at the expense of brevity, but most readers can infer the implications of marginal changes.
I'll do you one better. The article doesn't state the loss to taxpayers given the billions+ of permanently lost tax revenue!
/OT
I don't understand why this "point in time" article is meaningful years later, given it's been a known issue (far prior to the article) and the regulatory story has evolved.
A ~8% difference in efficiency is large, but even without the aforementioned "wiggle room" in standards, a 90% reduction still drastically reduced its footprint converting to CO2 vs methane.
A side benefit would be the selling off of less efficient engines off into other applications where the environmentally positive effects of re-engining existing aviation fleets could be more economically realized. As it is, timed out turbines of older models have a near-zero economic value, as reconditioning them to airworthy status is very expensive.
If the requirements were to replace some burner cans with noncertified natural gas optimized burners, remove any bypass fans, and link them up to a generator for steady-state use at reduced SHP rates, reconditioning them to this state could be done much less expensively than the cost of new prime movers, and the comparatively low efficiency would be irrelevant because the fuel is a waste product anyway. Also, the higher burn efficiency would mean that there would be negligible residual methane.
Looks good on the back of a napkin, anyway.