Well... if it gets a few people to learn more about this topic then that's serious enough for me. Many have very strong opinions about energy and fossil fuels, but few really understand what they're talking about. For example they don't understand that natural gas is actually a very potent greenhouse gas and he's doing the world a favor by burning it. On a larger scale, we could certainly do more to stop methane from reaching the atmosphere, where it's economical.
I googled quickly and the summary says "A single cow on average produces between 70 and 120 kg of methane per year", so that would actually probably be feasible. Getting it would the challenge though.
That said, if I were to over-engineer this, they could make barns with a closed air system that filters out any methane produced.
This might not be as far fetched as you assume. Large farms in the Netherlands are already required to have some filtering systems for reducing the output of Nitrogen-based compounds.
Actually, H2O is the most potent common greenhouse gas, then methane, and then CO2. If you burn methane (CH4) you end up with 2 molecules of H20 and one of CO2. Which to me would seem to be worse than one molecule of CH4 - but I might be wrong. Perhaps someone more knowledgeable could comment?
Water is the only gas of the three that condenses in atmospheric conditions. The total amount of water vapor that air (or the atmosphere) can hold depends on temperature more than anything else, excess water remains in the atmosphere for days only. This seems like good overview.
But ultimately on Earth, even in the dry polar latitudes, there’s certainly enough water to absorb everything in the H2O spectrum lines. The atmosphere is lousy with water, generally 1-3%, meaning it is usually the third most abundant gas.
Sure, but the question here is “does the water vapor from burning Methane add to the vapor in the atmosphere?”, which is different from “is water vapor the most important contributor to the greenhouse effect?”
Water is the biggest contributor to the greenhouse effect (~60% of the total), but that's because it's the most abundant by far (wikipedia indicates about 0.25% globally [0], by mass, which translates to something like half a percent by volume; meanwhile CO2 is 0.04% and CH4 is 0.0002% by volume). And as others mentioned, it's mostly not human-generated, and it stays in the air for a much shorter period of time (on the order of days instead of years or centuries because of a localized phenomenon called, um, rain).
Methane, on the other hand, is much more than 2x as potent as CO2 (estimates range from 21x to 40x the warming effect over the span of 100 years, but most are centered around 25x, when taking into consideration that that methane's atmospheric lifetime is only ~12 years).
You could argue that there's a 3x multiplier in the comparable difference in weight, but you've still got an 8x multiplier. Even if we assume that CO2 and H2O are comparable in terms of warming potential by volume (it's hard to measure H2O for various reasons), there's still a 3x multiplier over that 100-year period, compared to 1x CO2 and 2x H2O.
Why would some molecules be more potent than others? It's a matter of the infrared wavelengths they absorb, but in particular how they cover the spectrum relative to other atmospheric gases. CO2 absorbs strongly in parts of the spectrum that H2O absorbs more weakly, and CH4 absorbs strongly in parts that aren't covered by either CO2 or H2O [2].
Outside the microscale, you’re essentially right. But water emissions have outsized effects as contrails from jets, by causing ice cloud condensation where it wouldn’t naturally occur. The heating is quite significant, as we discovered in studies of the September 11 air travel shutdown.
Water is the most powerful greenhouse gas because it’s so abundant. Because it is so abundant though, the absorption lines are pretty much maxed. Besides the available quantum states (1 and 2 atom molecules cannot be GHGs) which make CFCs more powerful, the main impact on GHG strength is relative abundance. Methane is rare, so every atom is important, CO2 is uncommon, and H2O is common. I guess that makes CFCs a foil, lol.
Agreed, the term "inventor" in the headline makes it seem unnecessarily naive.
But even if it's art, I suspect that some objective benchmark comparison fits very well: assuming that you had serfs to do the dirty work for you, at eight man-hours for 20 km this would be clearly more efficient than having them carry you around in a sedan. And only slightly less efficient than a rickshaw. Great way to put our fossil every consumption into perspective!
