5 ms·

EU plans first satellite fleet to monitor CO2 in every country

194 points by erentz 7y ago

Causality1 7y ago
This is a good idea, but I'm a little surprised we can't already do this with in-situ assets.
- SECProto 7y ago
  The article shows a graphic of what existing monitoring satellites can do compared to what these satellites will do. For comparison, NASA launched the Orbiting Carbon Observatory 2 [1] in 2014, and it can monitor a swath 10km wide. This announcement is about Sentinel-7 [2], and it will monitor a swath 240km wide. This huge increase in monitoring will significantly improve what it can monitor (eg, montly/annual trends in CO2 production) edit: It will allow monitoring of all CO2 production sites every two or three days [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Orbiting_Carbon_Observatory_2 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Orbiting_Carbon_Observatory_2 [2] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Copernicus_Programme#Sentinel_missions https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Copernicus_Programme#Sentinel_...
  - mturmon 7y ago
    Thanks. One very important feature that simple in situ monitors don’t provide is total column CO2. That’s the average concentration from the ground up to the top of atmosphere. The satellites, and advanced ground measurements, get total column CO2 by observing the behavior of slices of the solar spectrum that are affected by CO2. Basically, the gas absorbs some wavelengths and re-emits in others.
- Animats 7y ago
  Good CO2 detectors are not that common on the ground. You'd think they'd be built into all "smart" thermostats, smoke alarms, etc. But no. The part costs about $50.[1] Power consumption of the latest models is about 75mW, so you need a power source for long term use. Not going to get a year on an AA battery yet. I have a CO2 meter, and it's interesting to take it places. California coast at the ocean, about 380ppm. That's as low as it gets. My own house indoors, which is not very airtight, around 550ppm. Half-full restaurant, around 800ppm. Classrooms and meeting rooms reportedly can hit 1000-3000ppm. Historical CO2 prior to 1950, around 300 PPM. Today, around 400PPM.[2] One study showed that human decision degraded measurably, around 1000ppm. Human decision making degraded severely, around 2000 PPM.[3] But another study for the US Navy did not confirm this.[4] [1] https://www.digikey.com/product-detail/en/sensirion-ag/SCD30/1649-1098-ND/8445334 https://www.digikey.com/product-detail/en/sensirion-ag/SCD30... [2] https://www.washingtonpost.com/weather/2019/05/14/it-was-degrees-near-arctic-ocean-this-weekend-carbon-dioxide-hit-its-highest-level-human-history/?utm_term=.4abe60f5b889 https://www.washingtonpost.com/weather/2019/05/14/it-was-deg... [3] https://newscenter.lbl.gov/2012/10/17/elevated-indoor-carbon-dioxide-impairs-decision-making-performance/ https://newscenter.lbl.gov/2012/10/17/elevated-indoor-carbon... [4] https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/29789085 https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/29789085
SECProto 7y ago
> The fleet of three satellites is slated for launch in 2025, in time to inform the UN’s global stocktake of greenhouse gas emissions three years later This is a very good project. Having independent monitoring of CO2 and CH4 worldwide using the same method will be useful. It's unfortunate it can't get launched sooner, as data trends are very important (or at least, they're very interesting to me as a layperson observer).
- spookware 7y ago
  Don't really want the EU to become a carbon police.
  - jniedrauer 7y ago
    Why not?
    - _Microft 7y ago
      You won't go on with business as usual if you are being monitored. I remember something about a town that frequently reported a list of their most polluting local businesses. And the businesses started to become more environmentally friendly just to not appear on this list! There were no fines or other disadvantages, they just appeared on the list. I'll add a link later if I can find something about it (wish me luck, it seems ogooglebar as Swedes might call it).
      - 00117 7y ago
        Businesses becoming environmentally friendly sounds like a positive.
        _Microft 7y ago
        I absolutely agree. It was an explanation why some might not even like data being collected.
Zenst 7y ago
Coal power generation is still used in Europe, with some countries even increasing usage after Fukushima nuclear event, pulling some nuclear plans. Germany being a classic example of that. https://www.banktrack.org/news/civil_society_joins_forces_to_push_europe_beyond_coal https://www.banktrack.org/news/civil_society_joins_forces_to... Problem is, countries tend to place such power generating plants near their borders. This in many instances will, with prevailing winds - show lots of CO2 present in a country that did not produce it. Now the EU has laws and fines for exceeding limits, yet if the wind blows the wrong way - a city/town that by itself sits inside those limits, can tip over those limits. So that city/town ends up with a fine from the EU, not the other source that tipped the balance - which probably has some nice carbon credit deal in-place enabling them to carry on. Monitoring is good, but satellite monitoring will have its limitations https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Space-based_measurements_of_carbon_dioxide https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Space-based_measurements_of_ca... when compared to ground based monitoring stations and weather ballons (which can read the layers better). However - I've not seen a comparison of satellite monitoring in an area which also has extensive ground based monitoring stations. That would be most interesting and insightful. Though I suspect that you could very well see higher levels on the ground that the satellite measures due to water vapour/cleaner air in upper layers defusing the results. Equally you could have clean air at the ground layer and higher pollution in the upper layer and the satellite will show high co2/pollution levels. Either way, capture at source is needed more and more as many legacy industrial infrastructure pumping it out on the back of carbon credits. ]
- village-idiot 7y ago
  It seems to me that this should be treated as one data source rather than an authoritative one.
  - Zenst 7y ago
    Very much so, as with many single data sources. One area of data sources would be nature itself - plants, insect, birds, mammals - all of those can act as sensors, the ability to measure those more accurately would be more useful IMHO. Though even when the signs are clear with all those natural sensors - people still demand more data. It's as if we live in a World that won't accept the warning sign, unless it is an approved font,colour,size and been approved by a committee that expands at a rate faster than it can vote.
JoeDaDude 7y ago
There is already a terrestrial CO2 measuring network of sensors being built, see the BeaCO2n net [1]. While coverage is sparse so far, it could be greatly enhanced, at cost likely to be cheaper than a constellation of satellites. I'll be watching these projects as I was contemplating setting up my own amateur atmospheric CO2 measuring station, a not-so-simple task once you consider sensor accuracy and periodic calibration. [1] http://beacon.berkeley.edu/about/ http://beacon.berkeley.edu/about/
- TeMPOraL 7y ago
  There's plenty of monitoring networks around the world of varying quality and coverage; they're usually focused on air quality though. That said, I can't see how making adequate ground station coverage could ever be cheaper than a satellite constellation. Ground stations are essentially points on the ground; you'd need a really dense network. The best way to do that would probably be to build CO₂ sensors into cars or smartphones - and still, you'll quite likely exclude a lot of the more interesting (read: polluting) places. That's before considering continuous maintenance and ensuring availability of the data. Satellite measurements may be less precise, but they are consistent and cover the ground more-less uniformly, regardless of what infrastructure is on the ground. It also sidesteps coordinating with individuals and countries. Finally, a satellite sees all; ground stations only see what's at the ground level.
- mturmon 7y ago
  One CO2 monitoring network that already exists and is mature is Aeronet, which has around 30 sites. The network is used to validate the CO2 satellite data we have now, including NASAs OCO-2. https://www.atmos-meas-tech.net/12/169/2019/amt-12-169-2019.pdf https://www.atmos-meas-tech.net/12/169/2019/amt-12-169-2019....
  - mturmon 7y ago
    Argh! Correct network for CO2 validation is actually TCCON. Aeronet is a related set of in situ measurements, in some cases collocated with TCCON sites.
DoctorOetker 7y ago
>Michael Buckwitz, a physicist at Bremen University and an advisor to the project, said every source of CO2 on earth would be passed over every two to three days. Given the predictable orbits, what will prevent nations / companies from emitting less on "surveillance hour", and emitting more when out of sight?
- erentz 7y ago
  Given a certain density of satellites there must be a crossover point where avoiding detection is either more cost prohibitive than just retooling to avoiding emissions, and/or where emitters will be offline so much to avoid detection that they’ll essentially be cutting their emissions by shutting down anyway.
- askvictor 7y ago
  You can't turn coal plants on and off quickly
- cududa 7y ago
  That’s ridiculously infeasible. There isn’t like a single dial in each country to turn CO2 emissions up or down
- mturmon 7y ago
  All the prior emissions will still be downwind and be readily detected. (Source: I supervise people doing this analysis).
TeMPOraL 7y ago
This is a brilliant idea and I'm surprised it didn't happen sooner. I thought (but never checked) that weather satellites would have this in their observation spectrum; apparently, they don't. I strongly hope the project will happen, and will happen on schedule.
aussieguy1234 7y ago
When a country has proven higher emissions, there should be consequences. Put a carbon tax on their exports. That will motivate even the most climate change denying governments to take action.
Proven 7y ago
Every year the bureaucrats' reach deeper and deeper into citizens' pockets. Since when is it EU's business to spy on everyone's CO2 emission details? The EU ought to be destroyed as soon as possible.

194 points by erentz 7y ago

Causality1 7y ago

This is a good idea, but I'm a little surprised we can't already do this with in-situ assets.

SECProto 7y ago
The article shows a graphic of what existing monitoring satellites can do compared to what these satellites will do. For comparison, NASA launched the Orbiting Carbon Observatory 2 [1] in 2014, and it can monitor a swath 10km wide. This announcement is about Sentinel-7 [2], and it will monitor a swath 240km wide. This huge increase in monitoring will significantly improve what it can monitor (eg, montly/annual trends in CO2 production) edit: It will allow monitoring of all CO2 production sites every two or three days [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Orbiting_Carbon_Observatory_2 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Orbiting_Carbon_Observatory_2 [2] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Copernicus_Programme#Sentinel_missions https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Copernicus_Programme#Sentinel_...
- mturmon 7y ago
  Thanks. One very important feature that simple in situ monitors don’t provide is total column CO2. That’s the average concentration from the ground up to the top of atmosphere. The satellites, and advanced ground measurements, get total column CO2 by observing the behavior of slices of the solar spectrum that are affected by CO2. Basically, the gas absorbs some wavelengths and re-emits in others.
Animats 7y ago
Good CO2 detectors are not that common on the ground. You'd think they'd be built into all "smart" thermostats, smoke alarms, etc. But no. The part costs about $50.[1] Power consumption of the latest models is about 75mW, so you need a power source for long term use. Not going to get a year on an AA battery yet. I have a CO2 meter, and it's interesting to take it places. California coast at the ocean, about 380ppm. That's as low as it gets. My own house indoors, which is not very airtight, around 550ppm. Half-full restaurant, around 800ppm. Classrooms and meeting rooms reportedly can hit 1000-3000ppm. Historical CO2 prior to 1950, around 300 PPM. Today, around 400PPM.[2] One study showed that human decision degraded measurably, around 1000ppm. Human decision making degraded severely, around 2000 PPM.[3] But another study for the US Navy did not confirm this.[4] [1] https://www.digikey.com/product-detail/en/sensirion-ag/SCD30/1649-1098-ND/8445334 https://www.digikey.com/product-detail/en/sensirion-ag/SCD30... [2] https://www.washingtonpost.com/weather/2019/05/14/it-was-degrees-near-arctic-ocean-this-weekend-carbon-dioxide-hit-its-highest-level-human-history/?utm_term=.4abe60f5b889 https://www.washingtonpost.com/weather/2019/05/14/it-was-deg... [3] https://newscenter.lbl.gov/2012/10/17/elevated-indoor-carbon-dioxide-impairs-decision-making-performance/ https://newscenter.lbl.gov/2012/10/17/elevated-indoor-carbon... [4] https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/29789085 https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/29789085

SECProto 7y ago

> The fleet of three satellites is slated for launch in 2025, in time to inform the UN’s global stocktake of greenhouse gas emissions three years later This is a very good project. Having independent monitoring of CO2 and CH4 worldwide using the same method will be useful. It's unfortunate it can't get launched sooner, as data trends are very important (or at least, they're very interesting to me as a layperson observer).

spookware 7y ago
Don't really want the EU to become a carbon police.
- jniedrauer 7y ago
  Why not?
  - _Microft 7y ago
    You won't go on with business as usual if you are being monitored. I remember something about a town that frequently reported a list of their most polluting local businesses. And the businesses started to become more environmentally friendly just to not appear on this list! There were no fines or other disadvantages, they just appeared on the list. I'll add a link later if I can find something about it (wish me luck, it seems ogooglebar as Swedes might call it).
    - 00117 7y ago
      Businesses becoming environmentally friendly sounds like a positive.
      - _Microft 7y ago
        I absolutely agree. It was an explanation why some might not even like data being collected.

Zenst 7y ago

Coal power generation is still used in Europe, with some countries even increasing usage after Fukushima nuclear event, pulling some nuclear plans. Germany being a classic example of that. https://www.banktrack.org/news/civil_society_joins_forces_to_push_europe_beyond_coal https://www.banktrack.org/news/civil_society_joins_forces_to... Problem is, countries tend to place such power generating plants near their borders. This in many instances will, with prevailing winds - show lots of CO2 present in a country that did not produce it. Now the EU has laws and fines for exceeding limits, yet if the wind blows the wrong way - a city/town that by itself sits inside those limits, can tip over those limits. So that city/town ends up with a fine from the EU, not the other source that tipped the balance - which probably has some nice carbon credit deal in-place enabling them to carry on. Monitoring is good, but satellite monitoring will have its limitations https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Space-based_measurements_of_carbon_dioxide https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Space-based_measurements_of_ca... when compared to ground based monitoring stations and weather ballons (which can read the layers better). However - I've not seen a comparison of satellite monitoring in an area which also has extensive ground based monitoring stations. That would be most interesting and insightful. Though I suspect that you could very well see higher levels on the ground that the satellite measures due to water vapour/cleaner air in upper layers defusing the results. Equally you could have clean air at the ground layer and higher pollution in the upper layer and the satellite will show high co2/pollution levels. Either way, capture at source is needed more and more as many legacy industrial infrastructure pumping it out on the back of carbon credits. ]

village-idiot 7y ago
It seems to me that this should be treated as one data source rather than an authoritative one.
- Zenst 7y ago
  Very much so, as with many single data sources. One area of data sources would be nature itself - plants, insect, birds, mammals - all of those can act as sensors, the ability to measure those more accurately would be more useful IMHO. Though even when the signs are clear with all those natural sensors - people still demand more data. It's as if we live in a World that won't accept the warning sign, unless it is an approved font,colour,size and been approved by a committee that expands at a rate faster than it can vote.

JoeDaDude 7y ago

There is already a terrestrial CO2 measuring network of sensors being built, see the BeaCO2n net [1]. While coverage is sparse so far, it could be greatly enhanced, at cost likely to be cheaper than a constellation of satellites. I'll be watching these projects as I was contemplating setting up my own amateur atmospheric CO2 measuring station, a not-so-simple task once you consider sensor accuracy and periodic calibration. [1] http://beacon.berkeley.edu/about/ http://beacon.berkeley.edu/about/

TeMPOraL 7y ago
There's plenty of monitoring networks around the world of varying quality and coverage; they're usually focused on air quality though. That said, I can't see how making adequate ground station coverage could ever be cheaper than a satellite constellation. Ground stations are essentially points on the ground; you'd need a really dense network. The best way to do that would probably be to build CO₂ sensors into cars or smartphones - and still, you'll quite likely exclude a lot of the more interesting (read: polluting) places. That's before considering continuous maintenance and ensuring availability of the data. Satellite measurements may be less precise, but they are consistent and cover the ground more-less uniformly, regardless of what infrastructure is on the ground. It also sidesteps coordinating with individuals and countries. Finally, a satellite sees all; ground stations only see what's at the ground level.
mturmon 7y ago
One CO2 monitoring network that already exists and is mature is Aeronet, which has around 30 sites. The network is used to validate the CO2 satellite data we have now, including NASAs OCO-2. https://www.atmos-meas-tech.net/12/169/2019/amt-12-169-2019.pdf https://www.atmos-meas-tech.net/12/169/2019/amt-12-169-2019....
- mturmon 7y ago
  Argh! Correct network for CO2 validation is actually TCCON. Aeronet is a related set of in situ measurements, in some cases collocated with TCCON sites.

DoctorOetker 7y ago

>Michael Buckwitz, a physicist at Bremen University and an advisor to the project, said every source of CO2 on earth would be passed over every two to three days. Given the predictable orbits, what will prevent nations / companies from emitting less on "surveillance hour", and emitting more when out of sight?

erentz 7y ago
Given a certain density of satellites there must be a crossover point where avoiding detection is either more cost prohibitive than just retooling to avoiding emissions, and/or where emitters will be offline so much to avoid detection that they’ll essentially be cutting their emissions by shutting down anyway.
askvictor 7y ago
You can't turn coal plants on and off quickly
cududa 7y ago
That’s ridiculously infeasible. There isn’t like a single dial in each country to turn CO2 emissions up or down
mturmon 7y ago
All the prior emissions will still be downwind and be readily detected. (Source: I supervise people doing this analysis).

TeMPOraL 7y ago

This is a brilliant idea and I'm surprised it didn't happen sooner. I thought (but never checked) that weather satellites would have this in their observation spectrum; apparently, they don't. I strongly hope the project will happen, and will happen on schedule.

aussieguy1234 7y ago

When a country has proven higher emissions, there should be consequences. Put a carbon tax on their exports. That will motivate even the most climate change denying governments to take action.

Proven 7y ago

Every year the bureaucrats' reach deeper and deeper into citizens' pockets. Since when is it EU's business to spy on everyone's CO2 emission details? The EU ought to be destroyed as soon as possible.