Our judgement is that aircraft surveys and AI-screened satellites are closest to reliable, large-scale use. Continuous on-site monitors have the weakest field record. The evidence behind this:
- Aircraft: in blind controlled-release tests, they caught 100% of releases above 50 kg h.1
- Satellites: teams reported no false alarms, though this was at a desert test site where the release location was known.2,3
- AI: it cuts the images analysts must review 22 times, but humans still verify every plume.4,5
- Continuous monitors: the only operating-site test we could read is an abstract. In it, sensor networks reported zero during 38-86% of blind releases.6
Repair looks like a bigger constraint than detection: only 12% of satellite alerts got replies.7 Measured inventories run about 1.5 times official figures.8
Recommendation: start with measurement-based inventory services and alert-to-repair services built on aircraft and satellites.
Caveats: cost evidence is modelled, not market prices. US and EU regulatory drivers are uncertain.9,10