undefined | Better HN

0 pointsrevelation12y ago0 comments

I don't get it. If you don't have the capacity to transport what you are producing, you can't be producing. Or put very simply: you can not be allowed to burn off unwanted gas. The cost is certainly not zero, it is an enormous sum that dwarfs whatever profit they could hope to get from selling it, and it is failed states only that would allow this massive negative externality.

There seems to be no learning in the American midwest. Every other time some novel way of destroying the environment comes along, disenfranchised states quickly clear out all regulatory law to make place for the new boom, and when it's over they are left with unemployed single men with a bunch of new trucks and a wrecked environment while the companies made off with the profit.

0 comments

5 comments · 2 top-level

Crito12y ago· 3 in thread

Burning the gas as waste contributes CO2 to the atmosphere, but burning the gas for productive reasons still produces that same CO2.

If it were burned for productive reasons, some of the thermal energy released would be stored in chemical bonds formed by the manufacturing of any number of things, but most of it would ultimately still be released into the atmosphere as waste heat during some stage of its use.

There is the angle that if more natural gas were used to generate electricity, then less coal burning would be required. That certainly is an argument for getting and burning more natural gas in power plants, but barring that possibility in the present due to poor logistics, we will still be burning that coal whether the natural gas is burned off as waste, or whether it is never pumped up in the first place.

We could also spend money taking the gas and shoving it back where it came from, but that really is not practical.

The bigoted attitude towards the mid-west is uncalled for, even if you don't like what is going on in North Dakota.

joeyo12y ago

  > Burning the gas as waste contributes CO2 to the
  > atmosphere, but burning the gas for productive
  > reasons still produces that same CO2.

True, but if has to be burned, it may as well be productive. Moreover, if it's burned unproductively now, then presumably there is other productive CO2 being released now as well (unless we start accepting black-outs). There could be as much as two units of CO2 being released now, versus a single unit of CO2 otherwise. So that's more CO2 over a short time-scale.

There are time-scales over which releasing CO2 is more or less harmful; I don't pretend to know the critical ones. However, it seems self evident that if that rate of release can be slowed, then its consequences will be less harmful, even if the total amount of CO2 released by T_{infinity} is exactly the same.

Crito12y ago

> "Moreover, if it's burned unproductively now, then presumably there is other productive CO2 being released now as well (unless we start accepting black-outs). There could be as much as two units of CO2 being released now, versus a single unit of CO2 otherwise. So that's more CO2 over a short time-scale."

I assume that either way, we are going to eventually burn it until depletion. We can't keep it up forever, we will need to switch to renewable energy at some point and that renewable energy will be carbon neutral.

It's a shame that it is being wasted instead of used for something productive, but I am just not convinced that it is some sort of environmental disaster.

1 more reply

revelationOP12y ago

Thats a reduction to absurdity. Gas will be burned, entropy will increase.

specialist12y ago

If methane is being released, it should be burned. Methane is a more potent green house gas than CO2.

As a pinko commie treehugger (aka realist), I'm unenthusiastic about adding any more CO2 to our atmosphere.

j / k navigate · click thread line to collapse