this post was submitted on 21 Dec 2023
313 points (98.2% liked)

Technology

58711 readers
4820 users here now

This is a most excellent place for technology news and articles.


Our Rules


  1. Follow the lemmy.world rules.
  2. Only tech related content.
  3. Be excellent to each another!
  4. Mod approved content bots can post up to 10 articles per day.
  5. Threads asking for personal tech support may be deleted.
  6. Politics threads may be removed.
  7. No memes allowed as posts, OK to post as comments.
  8. Only approved bots from the list below, to ask if your bot can be added please contact us.
  9. Check for duplicates before posting, duplicates may be removed

Approved Bots


founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
all 43 comments
sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[–] bratosch@lemm.ee 61 points 10 months ago (1 children)

I'll take two; one to put in my bed and one for my underwear

[–] FlaminGoku@reddthat.com 7 points 10 months ago (2 children)

Most people don't have methane in their farts.

[–] blandfordforever@lemm.ee 23 points 10 months ago (2 children)

You seem knowledgeable. How can I increase my methane output?

[–] FlaminGoku@reddthat.com 2 points 9 months ago

Biogas generator

[–] this_1_is_mine@lemmy.world 1 points 9 months ago

Eat a cow whole.... I'll give you my fork .....

its super effective.

[–] SimonHoogwerff@feddit.nl 5 points 9 months ago (1 children)

What makes farts flammable then?

[–] FlaminGoku@reddthat.com 4 points 9 months ago (1 children)

Methane. Not everyone can light their farts on fire.

[–] murmelade@lemmy.ml 5 points 9 months ago

Poor bastards

[–] theodewere@kbin.social 55 points 10 months ago (1 children)

"Today's livestock farms are high-tech facilities where ammonia is already removed from the air. As such, removing methane through existing air purification systems is an obvious solution,"

sounds like it will be something they can just add to existing systems at big livestock operations, and the removal rate is pretty high

[–] TheBatz@sh.itjust.works 1 points 9 months ago (1 children)

I feel like this will cause a huge "rebound effect" (not sur if it's the correct translation)

[–] platypus_plumba@lemmy.world 11 points 9 months ago (1 children)

You could elaborate your point instead of using a word you're unsure about.

[–] TheBatz@sh.itjust.works 4 points 9 months ago

Sure, reducing the methane emissions of a few farms might lead to an increased consumption of meat. Which would annihilate the positive effect brought by such innovation.

[–] Jazsta@lemmy.world 50 points 10 months ago (1 children)

Really exciting development for the climate change mitigation toolkit. Let's hope it's not too challenging or costly to scale up and deploy.

[–] BestBouclettes@jlai.lu 17 points 9 months ago (1 children)

I still feel that these will be used in place of structural changes and we'll just end up polluting more.

[–] porotoman99@lemmy.world 2 points 9 months ago (3 children)

Does that really matter if there are proper systems to deal with the pollution?

[–] Daxtron2@startrek.website 7 points 9 months ago (2 children)

Yeah because it's not fixing the problem, really it's just passing it off to a future generation

[–] sukhmel@programming.dev 5 points 9 months ago

Reminds me of this a bit recursive trolley problem

[–] miss_brainfart@lemmy.ml 2 points 9 months ago

Combatting symptoms is nice and all, but ideally you'd want to remove the reason these symptoms exist in the first place.

[–] commanderbalok@lemmynsfw.com 46 points 9 months ago (1 children)

So glad it can be monetized otherwise there's nothing we could possibly do to reverse climate change

[–] Luvs2Spuj@lemmy.world 17 points 9 months ago (1 children)

Can it be monetised more than destroying the environment though?

[–] galoisghost@aussie.zone 26 points 10 months ago (1 children)

Now a meme with real world applications. How would livestock wear pants?

[–] ICastFist@programming.dev 10 points 10 months ago (1 children)

Probably just a big pad over their asses

[–] zcd@lemmy.ca 5 points 10 months ago (1 children)

But only over the rear two legs? Or all four legs?

[–] PlantJam@lemmy.world 9 points 10 months ago

The rear two plus suspenders, obviously.

[–] MonkderZweite@feddit.ch 10 points 10 months ago (2 children)

Over a 25-year period, though, methane is 85 times worse for the climate than carbon dioxide.

Doesn't it get reduced in the athmosphere in about 5 years to mostly CO2?

[–] huginn@feddit.it 27 points 10 months ago

Yes but the heat it retains in that time is 85x the effect of base CO2, which makes sense: decomposition of the methane releases energy. It does a much better job of reflecting the IR until it breaks down, then in the act of breaking down releases energy.

[–] Xtallll@lemmy.blahaj.zone 14 points 10 months ago (3 children)

The atmospheric half life of methaine is just under 10 years. So if you release 1k lbs of methaine in 10 years there will be 500 lbs left 10 years after that ther will be 250 ect.

[–] Mr_Blott@lemmy.world 20 points 10 months ago (5 children)
[–] Excrubulent@slrpnk.net 16 points 10 months ago* (last edited 10 months ago) (1 children)

1k lbs is a perfectly cromulent unit of enbiggenment, colloquially known as "Calebs".

[–] Mr_Blott@lemmy.world 2 points 10 months ago

Give me washing machines or give me death

[–] barsoap@lemm.ee 6 points 10 months ago (1 children)

Indeed that's 10 hundredweight. Which maybe ironically enough is rather intuitive for me, Germany still uses pounds and hundredweight (Zentner) in informal and sectorial use, meaning 500g and 50kg.

[–] agent_flounder@lemmy.world 2 points 10 months ago

I believe that's 80 stone

[–] bronzle@lemm.ee 5 points 10 months ago (1 children)

Not a fan of kilopounds, klbs?

[–] platypus_plumba@lemmy.world 2 points 9 months ago

It's a good replacement for the heavy-fridge unit.

[–] SimonHoogwerff@feddit.nl 4 points 9 months ago

America is slowly switching to the metric system: metric pounds, metric feet, you know...

[–] KairuByte@lemmy.dbzer0.com 0 points 9 months ago (1 children)

I mean, it’s more clear than 0.5 tons, since “tons” doesn’t specify US or metric. Not that it would matter in this specific instance.

[–] sukhmel@programming.dev 1 points 9 months ago

But if it doesn't matter, what's the problem with tons?

[–] Rhaedas@kbin.social 10 points 10 months ago* (last edited 10 months ago) (1 children)

It's complicated. The breakdown of methane in the atmosphere depends on hydroxyl radicals that are created at a regular rate. If you have more and more methane released, and/or you have other chemicals that also react with those radicals, the overall average half life will increase. Both those things are happening, so the old half life really isn't as accurate as it used to be. Guess which number the IPCC still uses for its models though.

[–] Lophostemon@aussie.zone 4 points 10 months ago

Goddam Hydroxl Radicals keep sending drones to attack US ships! Iran needs an ass-kicking!

[–] MonkderZweite@feddit.ch 1 points 10 months ago* (last edited 9 months ago)

Guess i remembered wrong.