4 ms·

Coal power generation is still used in Europe, with some countries even increasing usage after Fukushima nuclear event, pulling some nuclear plans. Germany bei

by 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.
TeMPOraL 7y ago
Nobody in their right mind would even suggest automatically fining countries or cities based on the colour of pixels on a satellite CO₂ map. If a place shows unexpectedly high CO₂ levels, I expect an investigation will happen in order to determine who's emitting it. Weather satellites and ground stations should resolve doubts about wind direction. WRT. ground stations, satellite monitoring has the nice benefit that you don't have to coordinate with the monitoring territories, or even ask them for permission. The data may be less precise, but it'll be much easier to gather, and much more consistent.
- Zenst 7y ago
  >Nobody in their right mind would even suggest automatically fining countries or cities based on the colour of pixels on a satellite CO₂ map. Didn't say they would, and the point I was making was how a location can go over those limits due to external factors outside their control. Which may well be just above normal in themselves, yet combined with another producing area which in itself would be normal, combined - tip the balance. Sure if you have a clear cut case, I'd expect due process, but when the lines are literally blurred, you get a different picture. Sure sats do give a nice simple big picture, but currently just 2D snapshots of many layers of 3D space. That may well change over time.
mturmon 7y ago
The satellite gives gas concentration in the atmosphere. It’s a second step, called “flux inversion,” to backtrack from the concentration to emission, or “flux” in the jargon. You need to have wind information (“advection”) to do this, of course. There is a scientific literature going back decades on these approaches.

by Zenst 7y ago

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.

TeMPOraL 7y ago

Nobody in their right mind would even suggest automatically fining countries or cities based on the colour of pixels on a satellite CO₂ map. If a place shows unexpectedly high CO₂ levels, I expect an investigation will happen in order to determine who's emitting it. Weather satellites and ground stations should resolve doubts about wind direction. WRT. ground stations, satellite monitoring has the nice benefit that you don't have to coordinate with the monitoring territories, or even ask them for permission. The data may be less precise, but it'll be much easier to gather, and much more consistent.

Zenst 7y ago
>Nobody in their right mind would even suggest automatically fining countries or cities based on the colour of pixels on a satellite CO₂ map. Didn't say they would, and the point I was making was how a location can go over those limits due to external factors outside their control. Which may well be just above normal in themselves, yet combined with another producing area which in itself would be normal, combined - tip the balance. Sure if you have a clear cut case, I'd expect due process, but when the lines are literally blurred, you get a different picture. Sure sats do give a nice simple big picture, but currently just 2D snapshots of many layers of 3D space. That may well change over time.

mturmon 7y ago

The satellite gives gas concentration in the atmosphere. It’s a second step, called “flux inversion,” to backtrack from the concentration to emission, or “flux” in the jargon. You need to have wind information (“advection”) to do this, of course. There is a scientific literature going back decades on these approaches.