Washington State has just allowed carbon dioxide monitoring as as an avenue for business/restaurants to open. Is it possible to do real time carbon dioxide imaging?
What "we" need to do is find a way of monetizing methane.
Instead of methan being a cost, make it a revenue stream. Then watch those money grubbers clean up their methane leaks.
Thanks for this view into one of the hidden environmental costs of petroleum.
1
It appears that in the main article you do not distinguish between methane plumes (absorptive) and burning methane (emissive). That is, the bright plumes are, unless you inverted the contrast, burning methane.
Can you comment?
Thanks for bringing the fugitive methane "environmental disaster" to the attention of the populace.
Earthworks is also doing FLIR filming where I live in Colorado and the FLIR camera hides nothing. Thank goodness we are uncovering the true nature of this ugly beast - fracking! And also the horrific leaky infrastructure surrounding us everywhere, which is exacerbating global warming. No more "clean natural" gas lies. We are reaching the tipping points of runaway climate change - and when that happens (permafrost melting, methane bubbles from beneath the Arctic Ocean), there is nothing possible that humans can do to turn it around. Only divine intervention will save us. Keep this in mind for your children and future generations, if there are any future generations. We may become extinct!
Please, please share this article, everyone, to overcome the denial out there. Send to your friends and family so they can face the truth about gas stoves, gas heaters and water heaters fueled by unconventional fracked UN-natural gas! Oh, and plastics made from UN-natural gas too!
4
@TLUF
You may be right-the disastrous effects of methane are pretty clear just looking at this century's temperature and weather records. What I am most depressed about is the refrain that solar and wind power are our only way out. In fact, we have nuclear which is cleaner than all energy generating sytems and produces electricity for industrial purposs-something solar has not proved it can do-and solar cells have a short lifetime of about 20 years-afer which they must be disposd of. People talk a good game about fusion-but fusion has been "just 5 years away" since the end of WWII.
Nuclear power already is saving the planet as "nukes"produce about a third of US power-and over 80% of French electricity.
We can shut nuclear down anytime. It does not cause air or water pollution.
Sadly-most people think a nuclear plant is also a bomb-probably from watching Homer Simpson push the big red button , too much.
When it comes to stories about the climate crisis in major publications like the Times and the Washington Post, I sometimes wish I had the equivalent of your custom-built camera to make them stand out. They aren't invisible, but they're often buried.
They're not hard to find if I go looking for them. But how many people care enough to do that? The climate crisis should be featured so as to catch the eye of the casual reader.
I like this story, not only because it describes the clever use of technology, but because it makes clear the importance of news sources like the Times that have the resources to make this kind of journalism possible.
I read this article, which is dated December 13, today, December 18. I found it because I was scrolling down the front page of the Times website, looking for stories related to the climate crisis. I found three links, all to stories from previous days, that were related to climate change. This story had 17 comments when I found it. The other two stories did not allow for comment.
I did a similar survey of the Washington Post and got down to the photo essays before I found a climate crisis story.
I don't know how much exposure these stories got when they were originally published. I hope it was a lot. I appreciate the importance of the impeachment proceedings. But the climate crisis is the most important issue of our times and I wish that was reflected in the editorial judgment of major publications.
5
@writeon1 Completely agree with this! The climate pieces should be elevated.
1
Thanks for doing this, NYT!
1
Jonah,
I'm curious how you concluded that the emissions are necessarily methane and not some other gas? Can your infrared camera distinguish between methane (CH4) and other emissions from natural gas production?
Natural gas processing plants (e.g., possibly the top video in this article) emit steam (from heat production), carbon dioxide (from heat production and from a process called acid gas removal), hydrogen sulfide (also acid gas removal).
How can you be certain that your videos didn't capture one of these other gases?
Thanks
2
@JP Hi JP — thanks for the comment — and you ask a good question. There's a few factors to consider here:
1) The images by themselves are functioning in conjunction with the data we collected from the air. The data from the plane helped us narrow in on sites and then we looked for emission sources on those sites and found apparent emissions at all of them without fail. So for example, on the site you are seeing at the top of this page, we saw multiple emission sources and captured a variety of them.
2) We then had the images analyzed by experts who had decades of experience using infrared. So we didn't make this analysis in a vacuum.
3) The emissions would not be entirely methane — they would include other hydrocarbons/VOCs as well. However, given what we know from our data from the air, we know a significant amount is methane.
4) The cold filter on the camera's sensor is calibrated to methane. So this helped us narrow in on what to look for.
5) With things like water vapor, we could generally see them with the visible light images (through heat waves and/or steam).
Thanks again for reading.
5
@Jonah Thanks for the response.
Surely they were 18-wheelers not 16.
Jonah, Nice job, nice explanation. An thanks to NYTimes editors for spending the money.
2
The journalist forgot to mention that methane lasts less than 10 years in the atmosphere. Do we get environmental facts or agendas from our prominent news sources? And "late capitalism period"? Are we getting economic agendas now too?
1
@mainliner And you forgot to mention that after 10 years, it turns into carbon dioxide, another greenhouse gas.
A small detail. Tractor-trailers usually have 18 wheels (8 on the trailer, 8 driven on the tractor and 2 steering) not 16.
1
Fascinating story.
Thank you
5
Duh, methane is not "invisible" if you know how to look; it does have a distinctive signature in the infrared...it's not magic, just chemistry. Remember, everything is a chemical, even your thoughts.
Further, the amount of braggadocio embedded in the article such as "often on the side of the road with 16-wheelers passing by at 100 miles per hour" really dilutes the message.
Also, there was no mention that methane's lifetime in the atmosphere is considerably less than that of carbon dioxide. Alas, though, it is converted into carbon dioxide.
Notwithstanding, the leakage of methane should be reduced as much as possible. The task is not as difficult as it sounds as the leakage is in the 80-20 range, <80% of the leakage comes from >20% of the leaks. So, fixing these leaks would also result in an economic plus.
@njn_Eagle_Scout it didn't strike me as bragging, just setting up the scene, so those of us in the places that get our energy from that methane could understand just how inhumane the fields are.
4
@njn_Eagle_Scout
I don't read bragging at all. I read context. Articles like this are akin to how the FBI does its work. The listening and reading public needs to know how hard journalists really work, and not just the kind who get the perk assignments of lingering in the lower hallways of capital buildings.
2
More technical detail would be helpful with this piece. How was the camera filtered/tuned for a methane signature (as opposed to heat or other gasses)?
I located another brief article and a paper.
https://www.discovermagazine.com/planet-earth/a-camera-that-sees-methane
https://www.nature.com/articles/nclimate2877
6
How did you figure out how to do all this? Did you consult with chemists about the IR spectrum of methane? How did you know what equipment you needed? A FLIR is not the kind of thing that's just lying around.
1
@Dalgliesh I do have some experience with other science cameras (specifically the PhantomFlex) and a passion for color and camera sciences. And I've long wanted to shoot in the infrared spectrum (although, more in the near-infrared space).
But it wasn't a simple process. At the beginning, I reached out to a few consumer-based companies in IR photography. I consulted with a few companies who convert cameras. I remember https://www.lifepixel.com being helpful. But this was a failed venture once I realized where on the spectrum those cameras were shooting in relativity to methane and the capabilities of prosumer and professional cameras sensors in IR.
But it served as a basis to figure out how the science was working in the camera and that led me to talk to some optical engineers and chemists specific to understanding methane.
Eventually, I found my way to FLIR, but it wasn't a direct path to them. I had to do some basic training with FLIR in both the software necessary to run the camera, how to process the files (out of their native RAW format) as well as the camera operations side. This was all happening while we were tackling the flight logistics, locations to focus on and the basis for reporting.
These things happen over long periods of time. From my notes, I think the process on my side started in July.
12
CONGRATULATIONS for making this work. Go Jonah go!
9
Excellent example of what freedom of the press can do!
10
Why don't they simply burn the gas instead of allowing it to emit to our atmosphere.
Anyway, thank you Times reporters for covering this finding.
@W. - Burning the methane gas results in carbon dioxide. Better to prevent the leaks.
By the way, “flaring” of methane emitted at oil wells (just not as copiously as in the cases the Times reported) is a very common practice. In the aggregate, it probably is a major source of carbon dioxide emissions.
It should be obvious by now that extraction companies are even more dangerous than terrorists. We all drink the "kool aid" they proffer aka fossil fuel and believe there is no other way to a happy life. It makes our thinking fuzzy and we can see no solution but to take another swig.
I know because I drink it too.
Mass extinction may not be a divine intervention but I believe it is coming. We are inviting it.
It might be a good idea to send troops to the oil fields here and around the world to make certain that best, safe practices are enforced as this species killing industry is wound down.
It would be a plainly dangerous mission as we know the rich never willingly give up their power.
Presently we use our forces to protect the production of oil and the profits that industry amasses.
Our forces would better protect us if they were used to shut down fossil fuel extraction with prompt, decisive efficiency.
Waiting for Greta to be old enough to vote is wasting precious time
10
Thank you very much for this interesting story and for all the work you and your team went through to get it! I was surprised at all that was involved in capturing the images with specialized equipment. I think you should win an award for your excellent efforts in helping us visualize this important issue.
21