7 ms·

Landfills Leak More Planet-Baking Methane Than We Thought

71 points by frasermarlow 3y ago

happytiger 3y ago
Don’t a lot of places capture methane from their landfills for energy? How can the quantities be unknown when you’re capturing and messing the output gases? This can’t be some magical surprise.
- cyanydeez 3y ago
  No. Only obscenely large ones do so. It's not really required unless you are taking in huge amounts.
  - xedrac 3y ago
    My small local landfill harvests methane, and this is in a state where regulations very minimal. I'm not sure what you consider obscenely large.
    - cyanydeez 3y ago
      Looks like it's defined in the clean air act https://19january2021snapshot.epa.gov/lmop/frequent-questions-about-landfill-gas_.html#doeseparegulate https://19january2021snapshot.epa.gov/lmop/frequent-question...
- actionfromafar 3y ago
  Probably better to just burn the trash? You get some energy, no (lingering, at least) methane leaks and you can capture and bury the really nasty stuff which is not combusted. https://www.politico.eu/article/denmark-garbage-gamble-amager-bakke-plant-waste/ https://www.politico.eu/article/denmark-garbage-gamble-amage...
  - mschuster91 3y ago
    And you'll permanently lose whatever compounds are in that garbage by burning it - everything disintegrates into co2, water, nitrous oxide and a few other basic elements. On top of that, burning anything will always result in particulate matter emissions and solid residue, which is highly toxic as it concentrates everything that doesn't burn. Now imagine in 20 years we find some way of cheaply separating plastic polymers into raw precursors, say by designing some bacteria or fungus that selectively targets a specific polymer. Had we just burned all of the old trash, we'd be out of luck - but assuming we find such a process, old landfills just became gold mines.
    - petre 3y ago
      > cheaply separating plastic polymers into raw precursors You do realize that vinyl is far more worse than PVC?
  - bradly 3y ago
    When I started woodworking I was surprised to learn that burning wood releases far less carbon than putting it in a landfill.
  - Spooky23 3y ago
    The problem is that carbon focus is one dimensional. There are lots of emissions harmful to the environment and human life.
- MobiusHorizons 3y ago
  I believe they do gather the methane, but the article mentions leaks, suggesting that the cap over the waste which is used to collect the methane allowed some of it to leak out (thus not being accounted for).
- pfdietz 3y ago
  They do, but the gas (which is half CO2, half methane) is contaminated with silicon-containing gases (derived from silicones, including from parchment paper and cosmetics!) If you try to burn the gas in a turbine the silicon coats the combustors and turbine blades with glass.
- jerlam 3y ago
  The amount of methane generated from landfills can vary and decreases over time. Here's a 40+ year old landfill that didn't generate enough methane to operate its original flaring station, but still generated a significant amount of methane so the station had to be replaced: https://www.berkeleyside.org/2024/04/04/cesar-chavez-park-methane-gas-bay-area-air-quality-management-district https://www.berkeleyside.org/2024/04/04/cesar-chavez-park-me...
RecycledEle 3y ago
[flagged]
- DangitBobby 3y ago
  Exactly, I mean, if climate change was actually impacting anyone, people with skin in the game would be adjusting to it. Especially insurance companies, who can only make a profit if their models accurately assess risks. Obviously it's all bullshit since no insurance companies are pulling out of states, reducing coverage, or increasing premiums in states disproportionately affected by catastrophic weather events. Well, except for the ones that are doing exactly that. https://www.newsweek.com/florida-insurance-crisis-explained-1812418 https://www.newsweek.com/florida-insurance-crisis-explained-...
  - deleted 3y ago
    [deleted]
- mschuster91 3y ago
  > I wonder why the insurance and real estate markets are not responding at all to all ocean-front property soon becoming worthless? Insurances are already reacting. Just a few days ago there was an article showing how home insurances are cancelling contracts based on drone and other aerial surveillance, yeeting people for the horror of having a trampoline in their garden. And beyond that, insurance companies are pulling out of risky markets... and of course, people are crying foul and want the government to bail them out [1]. Edit: Seems like you've been downvoted to grey - I don't get why, because (other than not being aware about recent developments in insurance markets) you are raising a legitimate question. [1] https://eu.palmbeachpost.com/story/opinion/columns/2024/03/13/florida-hurricanes-homeowner-insurance-crisis-costs/72935425007/ https://eu.palmbeachpost.com/story/opinion/columns/2024/03/1...
  - DangitBobby 3y ago
    They asked a rhetorical question to frame an apparently misinformed opinion as if it were fact. It's interesting for discussion, but also likely to attract some ire, particularly since it's unpopular, flies in the face of what we think we know, and unsubstantiated.
kyleperik 3y ago
I have seen little consideration made to the carbon cycle which produced this result of methane output in landfills. It doesn't come from nothing. Methane is a compound generally produced by the breaking down of organic compounds in the absence of oxygen (anaerobic decomposition) Organic compounds generally gain carbon from the atmosphere. So where is the extra carbon entering the system? Should the focus not be on disposal methods but on ensuring sustainable regeneration of farmland in this case?
- gruez 3y ago
  >Should the focus not be on disposal methods but on ensuring sustainable regeneration of farmland in this case? Isn't "sustainable regeneration of farmland" (whatever that means) orthogonal to methane being generated from landfills? After all, food waste in landfills generate the same amount of carbon regardless of how they're farmed. It's not like a rotting tomato that's grown using "sustainable regeneration of farmland" magically emits less methane than one that's grown conventionally.
  - Kim_Bruning 3y ago
    Sometimes I don't know if people are kidding or something. Obviously things ending up in landfills is not sustainable. It's rather wiser to use the remains of the tomato to directly or indirectly make fertilizer to fertilize new tomato plants, eg by composting them [1]. Now you've sort of got a cycle going on there, which you could in theory sustain indefinitely. (Hence the word.) Composting has been done since at least roman times. Properly done, you can reduce methane emissions from composting considerably. (Releasing mostly CO2 back into the air, and the remainder is sufficiently low for 'the environment' to be able to deal with [2]) If you at least believe in the conservation of mass [3], you'll realize that [C released from composting] = [C the Tomato originally captured from the air in photosynthesis]. I'm summarizing entire fields of science, so there's devils in the details here. But closed cycles of chemical reactions where matter cycles endlessly (driven by incoming energy from sunlight, and ultimately emitting waste heat back to space), is a real thing in Biological systems. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Compost https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Compost [2] assuming composting were the only methane source, there'd be more than sufficient methane sinks to handle the flow. Unfortunately, it's not the only methane source. But we still need to deal with the organic waste. [3] I mean, for one: the total mass of our planet isn't noticeably changing much, that I'm aware of. (edits for clarity and readability)
MisterBastahrd 3y ago
We should really have three bins: organic waste, recyclable waste, everything else. We should be composting organic waste, not simply throwing it in a giant pile with everything else where it can sit be useless. Think of all that topsoil that has gone into creating the remains of the leftover food in these landfills, and instead of using it to create more fertile soil, it just sits there and rots with old televisions and refrigerators and pizza boxes.
- dugite-code 3y ago
  In Australia organic waste bins are becoming more common as councils adopt some sustainability guidelines. One of the biggest issue they have is people placing "cardboard", like coffee cups, that are lined with plasitc or have toxic inks. The amount of contamination isn't insignificant unfortunately making the whole program a bit less promising in the long term. The amount of confusion with the multiple bins is surprising at first glance
  - hug 3y ago
    As an Australian, and as someone who is relatively switched on and pays attention to things in general, I do not know what I can and cannot recycle -- it has changed a few times in the past few years, and of course whenever I move to a new council area I have to contend with new rules. What can you recycle? Who knows. Bottles, usually, but only if they're clear, green, or brown glass. And not if they're broken. Definitely no glass from mirrors. Also, probably not the bottle lids, or the the triggers from spray bottles. Aerosol cans? Sure. But not their caps. Aluminium foil, yes, but only if it's not got food contamination on it, so no. Same with aluminium baking tins and tin cans (actually steel!) from canned food. Can I recycle my pizza boxes in this council? Currently, yes, but only if they're not too greasy. What's too greasy? Still who knows. Coffee cups are recyclable in some councils, but not all, by the way. The lids are recyclable in basically all of them. As an aside, there are issues with recycling soft plastics, even if the plastic is actually recyclable, so be careful to make sure that even if it has the right symbol on it, it's not too bendy. All of that, and ... well, it doesn't matter what I do, because my neighbour just yeets literally everything that smells like plastic or paper into their recycling bin, so my careful work is just commingled with garbage anyway. This feels like an over-wrought analogy for a lot of things in my life, really.
throwaway5959 3y ago
And yet people are still allowed to have more than two kids. Humans are truly insane. Edit: Downvote me all you want, it won’t change the fact that we’re consuming resources at a significantly faster pace than the planet can provide them and people having three or more kids are a huge part of the problem, especially in developed countries. Deal with it.
- petre 3y ago
  The one child policy in China hasn't played out too well. https://www.britannica.com/topic/one-child-policy/Consequences-of-Chinas-one-child-policy https://www.britannica.com/topic/one-child-policy/Consequenc...
- frasermarlow 3y ago
  To be fair, in many wealthier economies, people are having less and less kids. South Korea has been unable to revert this trend despite aggressive incentives.
PcChip 3y ago
isn't there a new satellite coming online soon that will be taking pictures of methane emitters? I vaguely remember reading about a planned project that would be able to call companies and countries out on their actual methane production, not just what they report
- DeRock 3y ago
  Yes, see https://www.methanesat.org/ https://www.methanesat.org/ Or a good podcast about it https://www.volts.wtf/p/whats-the-deal-with-these-methane https://www.volts.wtf/p/whats-the-deal-with-these-methane
- oooyay 3y ago
  Yeap, the data should be available later this year: https://www.methanesat.org/data/ https://www.methanesat.org/data/
- throwawayabcdef 3y ago
  Yes, MethaneSAT: https://www.methanesat.org/ https://www.methanesat.org/
ramijames 3y ago
At this point, I assume that things are way, way worse than we have been led to believe.
Razengan 3y ago
Maybe humans are the Cyanobacteria of this epoch: Eventually we will transform the atmosphere for the next forms of life to come after us.
- aitchnyu 3y ago
  They will mine and use plastics and landfills will make their kingdoms.

71 points by frasermarlow 3y ago

Don’t a lot of places capture methane from their landfills for energy? How can the quantities be unknown when you’re capturing and messing the output gases? This can’t be some magical surprise.

cyanydeez 3y ago
No. Only obscenely large ones do so. It's not really required unless you are taking in huge amounts.
- xedrac 3y ago
  My small local landfill harvests methane, and this is in a state where regulations very minimal. I'm not sure what you consider obscenely large.
  - cyanydeez 3y ago
    Looks like it's defined in the clean air act https://19january2021snapshot.epa.gov/lmop/frequent-questions-about-landfill-gas_.html#doeseparegulate https://19january2021snapshot.epa.gov/lmop/frequent-question...
actionfromafar 3y ago
Probably better to just burn the trash? You get some energy, no (lingering, at least) methane leaks and you can capture and bury the really nasty stuff which is not combusted. https://www.politico.eu/article/denmark-garbage-gamble-amager-bakke-plant-waste/ https://www.politico.eu/article/denmark-garbage-gamble-amage...
- mschuster91 3y ago
  And you'll permanently lose whatever compounds are in that garbage by burning it - everything disintegrates into co2, water, nitrous oxide and a few other basic elements. On top of that, burning anything will always result in particulate matter emissions and solid residue, which is highly toxic as it concentrates everything that doesn't burn. Now imagine in 20 years we find some way of cheaply separating plastic polymers into raw precursors, say by designing some bacteria or fungus that selectively targets a specific polymer. Had we just burned all of the old trash, we'd be out of luck - but assuming we find such a process, old landfills just became gold mines.
  - petre 3y ago
    > cheaply separating plastic polymers into raw precursors You do realize that vinyl is far more worse than PVC?
- bradly 3y ago
  When I started woodworking I was surprised to learn that burning wood releases far less carbon than putting it in a landfill.
- Spooky23 3y ago
  The problem is that carbon focus is one dimensional. There are lots of emissions harmful to the environment and human life.
MobiusHorizons 3y ago
I believe they do gather the methane, but the article mentions leaks, suggesting that the cap over the waste which is used to collect the methane allowed some of it to leak out (thus not being accounted for).
pfdietz 3y ago
They do, but the gas (which is half CO2, half methane) is contaminated with silicon-containing gases (derived from silicones, including from parchment paper and cosmetics!) If you try to burn the gas in a turbine the silicon coats the combustors and turbine blades with glass.
jerlam 3y ago
The amount of methane generated from landfills can vary and decreases over time. Here's a 40+ year old landfill that didn't generate enough methane to operate its original flaring station, but still generated a significant amount of methane so the station had to be replaced: https://www.berkeleyside.org/2024/04/04/cesar-chavez-park-methane-gas-bay-area-air-quality-management-district https://www.berkeleyside.org/2024/04/04/cesar-chavez-park-me...

RecycledEle 3y ago

[flagged]

DangitBobby 3y ago
Exactly, I mean, if climate change was actually impacting anyone, people with skin in the game would be adjusting to it. Especially insurance companies, who can only make a profit if their models accurately assess risks. Obviously it's all bullshit since no insurance companies are pulling out of states, reducing coverage, or increasing premiums in states disproportionately affected by catastrophic weather events. Well, except for the ones that are doing exactly that. https://www.newsweek.com/florida-insurance-crisis-explained-1812418 https://www.newsweek.com/florida-insurance-crisis-explained-...
- deleted 3y ago
  [deleted]
mschuster91 3y ago
> I wonder why the insurance and real estate markets are not responding at all to all ocean-front property soon becoming worthless? Insurances are already reacting. Just a few days ago there was an article showing how home insurances are cancelling contracts based on drone and other aerial surveillance, yeeting people for the horror of having a trampoline in their garden. And beyond that, insurance companies are pulling out of risky markets... and of course, people are crying foul and want the government to bail them out [1]. Edit: Seems like you've been downvoted to grey - I don't get why, because (other than not being aware about recent developments in insurance markets) you are raising a legitimate question. [1] https://eu.palmbeachpost.com/story/opinion/columns/2024/03/13/florida-hurricanes-homeowner-insurance-crisis-costs/72935425007/ https://eu.palmbeachpost.com/story/opinion/columns/2024/03/1...
- DangitBobby 3y ago
  They asked a rhetorical question to frame an apparently misinformed opinion as if it were fact. It's interesting for discussion, but also likely to attract some ire, particularly since it's unpopular, flies in the face of what we think we know, and unsubstantiated.

kyleperik 3y ago

I have seen little consideration made to the carbon cycle which produced this result of methane output in landfills. It doesn't come from nothing. Methane is a compound generally produced by the breaking down of organic compounds in the absence of oxygen (anaerobic decomposition) Organic compounds generally gain carbon from the atmosphere. So where is the extra carbon entering the system? Should the focus not be on disposal methods but on ensuring sustainable regeneration of farmland in this case?

gruez 3y ago
>Should the focus not be on disposal methods but on ensuring sustainable regeneration of farmland in this case? Isn't "sustainable regeneration of farmland" (whatever that means) orthogonal to methane being generated from landfills? After all, food waste in landfills generate the same amount of carbon regardless of how they're farmed. It's not like a rotting tomato that's grown using "sustainable regeneration of farmland" magically emits less methane than one that's grown conventionally.
- Kim_Bruning 3y ago
  Sometimes I don't know if people are kidding or something. Obviously things ending up in landfills is not sustainable. It's rather wiser to use the remains of the tomato to directly or indirectly make fertilizer to fertilize new tomato plants, eg by composting them [1]. Now you've sort of got a cycle going on there, which you could in theory sustain indefinitely. (Hence the word.) Composting has been done since at least roman times. Properly done, you can reduce methane emissions from composting considerably. (Releasing mostly CO2 back into the air, and the remainder is sufficiently low for 'the environment' to be able to deal with [2]) If you at least believe in the conservation of mass [3], you'll realize that [C released from composting] = [C the Tomato originally captured from the air in photosynthesis]. I'm summarizing entire fields of science, so there's devils in the details here. But closed cycles of chemical reactions where matter cycles endlessly (driven by incoming energy from sunlight, and ultimately emitting waste heat back to space), is a real thing in Biological systems. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Compost https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Compost [2] assuming composting were the only methane source, there'd be more than sufficient methane sinks to handle the flow. Unfortunately, it's not the only methane source. But we still need to deal with the organic waste. [3] I mean, for one: the total mass of our planet isn't noticeably changing much, that I'm aware of. (edits for clarity and readability)

MisterBastahrd 3y ago

We should really have three bins: organic waste, recyclable waste, everything else. We should be composting organic waste, not simply throwing it in a giant pile with everything else where it can sit be useless. Think of all that topsoil that has gone into creating the remains of the leftover food in these landfills, and instead of using it to create more fertile soil, it just sits there and rots with old televisions and refrigerators and pizza boxes.

dugite-code 3y ago
In Australia organic waste bins are becoming more common as councils adopt some sustainability guidelines. One of the biggest issue they have is people placing "cardboard", like coffee cups, that are lined with plasitc or have toxic inks. The amount of contamination isn't insignificant unfortunately making the whole program a bit less promising in the long term. The amount of confusion with the multiple bins is surprising at first glance
- hug 3y ago
  As an Australian, and as someone who is relatively switched on and pays attention to things in general, I do not know what I can and cannot recycle -- it has changed a few times in the past few years, and of course whenever I move to a new council area I have to contend with new rules. What can you recycle? Who knows. Bottles, usually, but only if they're clear, green, or brown glass. And not if they're broken. Definitely no glass from mirrors. Also, probably not the bottle lids, or the the triggers from spray bottles. Aerosol cans? Sure. But not their caps. Aluminium foil, yes, but only if it's not got food contamination on it, so no. Same with aluminium baking tins and tin cans (actually steel!) from canned food. Can I recycle my pizza boxes in this council? Currently, yes, but only if they're not too greasy. What's too greasy? Still who knows. Coffee cups are recyclable in some councils, but not all, by the way. The lids are recyclable in basically all of them. As an aside, there are issues with recycling soft plastics, even if the plastic is actually recyclable, so be careful to make sure that even if it has the right symbol on it, it's not too bendy. All of that, and ... well, it doesn't matter what I do, because my neighbour just yeets literally everything that smells like plastic or paper into their recycling bin, so my careful work is just commingled with garbage anyway. This feels like an over-wrought analogy for a lot of things in my life, really.

throwaway5959 3y ago

And yet people are still allowed to have more than two kids. Humans are truly insane. Edit: Downvote me all you want, it won’t change the fact that we’re consuming resources at a significantly faster pace than the planet can provide them and people having three or more kids are a huge part of the problem, especially in developed countries. Deal with it.

petre 3y ago
The one child policy in China hasn't played out too well. https://www.britannica.com/topic/one-child-policy/Consequences-of-Chinas-one-child-policy https://www.britannica.com/topic/one-child-policy/Consequenc...
frasermarlow 3y ago
To be fair, in many wealthier economies, people are having less and less kids. South Korea has been unable to revert this trend despite aggressive incentives.

PcChip 3y ago

isn't there a new satellite coming online soon that will be taking pictures of methane emitters? I vaguely remember reading about a planned project that would be able to call companies and countries out on their actual methane production, not just what they report

DeRock 3y ago
Yes, see https://www.methanesat.org/ https://www.methanesat.org/ Or a good podcast about it https://www.volts.wtf/p/whats-the-deal-with-these-methane https://www.volts.wtf/p/whats-the-deal-with-these-methane
oooyay 3y ago
Yeap, the data should be available later this year: https://www.methanesat.org/data/ https://www.methanesat.org/data/
throwawayabcdef 3y ago
Yes, MethaneSAT: https://www.methanesat.org/ https://www.methanesat.org/

ramijames 3y ago

At this point, I assume that things are way, way worse than we have been led to believe.

Razengan 3y ago

Maybe humans are the Cyanobacteria of this epoch: Eventually we will transform the atmosphere for the next forms of life to come after us.

aitchnyu 3y ago
They will mine and use plastics and landfills will make their kingdoms.