The team is now gearing up to test its methane munching technology beyond the laboratory and will use a 40-foot container-sized prototype at livestock barns in Denmark.
  • bratosch@lemm.eeEnglish
    686·
    11 months ago

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

  • theodewere@kbin.social
    521·
    11 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.worksEnglish
      32·
      11 months ago

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

        • TheBatz@sh.itjust.worksEnglish
          4·
          11 months ago

          Sure, reducing the methane emissions of a few farms might lead to an increased consumption of meat. Which would annihilate the positive effect brought by such innovation.

  • Jazsta@lemmy.worldEnglish
    49·
    11 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.

  • HubertManne@kbin.social
    111·
    11 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.

    • Railcar8095@lemm.eeEnglish
      4·
      11 months ago

      Not sure if there is much chance for effective carbon capture. The article states that this works for getting rid of very low concentrations of methane (so burning is not possible). That means that even with the methane 100% turned into carbon, we are talking about very small concentrations.

      • HubertManne@kbin.social
        11·
        11 months ago

        well there would be the native co2 in the air its taking in too. My point is if it was worth it enough to do on its own its already done most of the heavy lifting so I bet if a carbon capture technique was worth it, it would be riding the output of this.

  • MonkderZweite@feddit.chEnglish
    91·
    11 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?

    • huginn@feddit.itEnglish
      27·
      11 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.

    • Xtallll@lemmy.blahaj.zoneEnglish
      14·
      11 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.

      • Rhaedas@kbin.social
        8·
        11 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.zoneEnglish
          51·
          11 months ago

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