Hacker News Reader

Comment by hodwik | Hacker News Reader

His argument for cleaner energy is that we use Methane?

Isn't methane 30x more potent as a green-house gas?

TFA describes a process that takes methane and converts it to hydrogen (used in ammonia production) and carbon (inert waste material that may simply be dumped anywhere). Consuming methane is the opposite of releasing methane.

No, his argument for cleaner energy is that we stop using methane in the ways that we are already using it, and that if we must keep using it we do it a way that eliminates the CO2 emissions- cracking off the hydrogen and leaving behind solid carbon. Methane is quite a potent greenhouse gas, but nothing in that article suggests releasing methane into the atmosphere.

There are currently huge methane leaks in multiple places in the US as we speak, that we've spent months trying to plug.

Why wouldn't increased methane use lead to increased methane mining and therefore more leaks? Are we honestly planning to trust the regulatory bodies to handle this when they've never shown any serious oversight ability in the past?

Nothing in the article suggests using more methane. In fact, there is quite a list of potential alternatives to methane. It merely also mentions that, if we must continue to use methane in ammonia production, which is convenient because the infrastructure is already there, then we should do it in a manner that does not release greenhouse gasses- specifically, via methane cracking.

Raw methane, dumped straight into the atmosphere (whether through leaks like the one in Southern California last fall, clathrates melting, cow farts, or otherwise), yes. Give or take.

Burning methane yields ... CO₂ and water.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com