3 ms·

Honestly, good-old heat pumps work well for most climates. You heat up the ground underneath your house in the summer, and harvest that heat during the winter.

Honestly, good-old heat pumps work well for most climates. You heat up the ground underneath your house in the summer, and harvest that heat during the winter. That seems a lot more economical than synthesizing methane and hoping it doesn't leak back out into the atmosphere. If we can get synthetic methane from atmospheric CO2 to work in an economic fashion, I imagine we could also use it to directly reduce atmospheric carbon (maybe by permanently fixing it into a solid). Problem solved!

NickM 6y ago
Heat pumps are certainly a good option in some cases, but other times they are not practical. For dense urban areas, there may not be enough open ground available to bury the heat pump coils. Also, in colder climates, many houses and buildings use hot water or steam radiators, and heat pumps can't efficiently heat water hot enough for this type of system. Retrofitting ducts to replace radiators and switching to forced air heating can be prohibitively complex and expensive. Methane leaks are certainly a valid concern, but if we mandate better monitoring systems and do a better job of repairing leaks when they occur, it seems plausible we could get leaks down to acceptable levels. Methane is indeed a potent greenhouse gas, but it doesn't last nearly as long as CO2 before it breaks down, so if leaks are kept to a minimum I don't know whether they would ultimately be a huge deal in the long term.
- VBprogrammer 6y ago
  > Methane is indeed a potent greenhouse gas, but it doesn't last nearly as long as CO2 before it breaks down Obviously, methane breaks down to CO2 but there is no need to state this when referencing methane emissions. The Global Warming Potential can be used to relate the magnitude of damage over a given time horizon, for methane over 100 years it has 34 times more global warming potential. Obviously you can take exception to some of the methodologies used to calculate these but in general it's better than leaving the impression that CH4 emissions aren't important.

NickM 6y ago

Heat pumps are certainly a good option in some cases, but other times they are not practical. For dense urban areas, there may not be enough open ground available to bury the heat pump coils. Also, in colder climates, many houses and buildings use hot water or steam radiators, and heat pumps can't efficiently heat water hot enough for this type of system. Retrofitting ducts to replace radiators and switching to forced air heating can be prohibitively complex and expensive. Methane leaks are certainly a valid concern, but if we mandate better monitoring systems and do a better job of repairing leaks when they occur, it seems plausible we could get leaks down to acceptable levels. Methane is indeed a potent greenhouse gas, but it doesn't last nearly as long as CO2 before it breaks down, so if leaks are kept to a minimum I don't know whether they would ultimately be a huge deal in the long term.

VBprogrammer 6y ago
> Methane is indeed a potent greenhouse gas, but it doesn't last nearly as long as CO2 before it breaks down Obviously, methane breaks down to CO2 but there is no need to state this when referencing methane emissions. The Global Warming Potential can be used to relate the magnitude of damage over a given time horizon, for methane over 100 years it has 34 times more global warming potential. Obviously you can take exception to some of the methodologies used to calculate these but in general it's better than leaving the impression that CH4 emissions aren't important.