6 ms·
> It's still better to flare it than to vent it without flaring [0]. Yes, though that's just because methane is itself 2 orders of magnitude worse for the envi
by chimeracoder 3y ago
> It's still better to flare it than to vent it without flaring [0].
Yes, though that's just because methane is itself 2 orders of magnitude worse for the environment than carbon dioxide, not because combustion itself is actually good.
- deleted 3y ago[deleted]
- kragen 3y agoif combustion removes 99% of the methane's global warming potential, what would count as 'actually good' in your eyes? (or if you mean combustion in the abstract, not in this particular situation, keep in mind that aerobic respiration is combustion; without combustion the only life forms that would continue to exist would be anaerobic bacteria)
- TaylorAlexander 3y agoThis still becomes another CO2 emission that is unnecessary. Depending on the quantity of CO2 being emitted by this combustion compared to simply requiring the methane to be captured, it’s still bad. It’s still CO2 emissions.
- kragen 3y agobe careful about trying to decide what's necessary for other people; they may decide that the carbon dioxide emission of your breathing is unnecessary, and that it would be better to permanently sequester your carbon maybe you think that you, or people like you, are the ones who would be making the decisions about what is necessary and what is unnecessary. that is a dangerously naïve viewpoint; power and coercion have their own logic
- defrost 3y agoMaybe they are clearly differentiating deep sequested carbon from gas wells from surface carbon cycles and not making veiled threats and muddy sophistry.
- kragen 3y agoit is true that the threat tayloralexander was making was not at all veiled
- TaylorAlexander 3y agoThe “threat” that a government might regulate the operations of a corporation is not a threat at all, that’s a very normal policy discussion. Your suggestion that I am inviting threats against people is an fantasy and unrelated to this discussion.
- kragen 3y agocertainly discussing whether liberalism or authoritarianism is better is a very normal policy discussion, but that doesn't mean that advocating authoritarianism isn't threatening. it's far more threatening than simply pointing a gun at someone. and when governments start prohibiting things because they're not necessary you have descended pretty far into authoritarianism; you're in north korea 'illegal microwave oven' and 'unapproved haircut' territory how many of the things you did today were necessary? even if the answer is more than zero, that's probably only because you interpreted 'necessary' as 'necessary to taylor alexander'. but you can rest assured that an authoritarian government will not interpret it that way unless you are the head of state
- TaylorAlexander 3y agoI’m sorry but this is nonsense. If corporations burning methane is an alternative to capturing it then from an engineering perspective those emissions are not strictly necessary - that is, a solution exists which would not require those emissions. Regulators could decide to require this capture equipment. The potential down side would be costs to operators which must be considered. This has absolutely nothing to do with deciding who is allowed to breathe and to suggest otherwise is absurd.
- cowsandmilk 3y agoThe wells could be capturing the natural gas for productive combustion. Or just leaving it underground. The wells didn’t build themselves.
- njarboe 3y agoThe gas that is flared comes with oil production. Good idea to capture it for productive use, but if you want the oil you have to deal with the gas. Unlike oil where you can move small amounts of it via truck, you need a pipeline to the wellhead to move natural gas to market. Expensive to do locally and very hard to build new, long distance pipelines to bring it to market in states not called Texas.