7 ms·
Well... they could have converted it in electricity, either directly on the grid or by using a battery system (like the liquid batteries used to store solar in
by henearkr 7y ago
Well... they could have converted it in electricity, either directly on the grid or by using a battery system (like the liquid batteries used to store solar in Australia).
Converting it into Bitcoin is hardly the best choice for ourselves and our planet.
- def_true_false 7y agoThis works without being connected to the grid.
- k_sze 7y agoI guess one reason it’s not already been done is because of physics. You can capture the flared gas and convert it to electricity on site, but you still need to be able to deliver it to the consumers for it to be valuable. But electrical power is lost when you transport it over long distances due to wire resistance, unless you convert it to really high voltage. Maybe all the infrastructure required is just not worth the money. Bitcoin doesn’t have this problem, all you need in order to make it liquidable is an internet connection, which any gas/oil field probably already has.
- J-dawg 7y agoGot to admire the creative thinking involved in this. Are there any more "practical" potential uses? Some industrial process that requires lots of power but not too much other infrastructure?
- arethuza 7y agoCO2 sequestration?
- TeMPOraL 7y agoCould a coin backed by stored CO₂ work?
- arethuza 7y agoI promise to pay the bearer the sum of 1 ton of C02 on demand?
- TeMPOraL 7y agoWell, Bitcoin doesn't work that way either. I was thinking more of a "you get a coin for X tons of CO₂" + hype to make these work as currency, but I suppose it's just a weird version of existing carbon trading solutions.
- cwkoss 7y agoKind of silly to make this a coin. Because you'll fundamentally need an external system to audit CO2 sequestration and manage issuance, the auditor might as well be a centralized issuer.
- abraae 7y agoIncredible. Bitcoin used to be a solution looking for a problem. Now it's at least a solution to it's own problem.
- magnamerc 7y agoNakamoto consensus doesn't solve the byzantine generals problem?
- henearkr 7y agoAs I said above, the energy is very usable locally too.
- pwagland 7y agoThe places where this is targeted for aren't close to a grid to be able to pump the power back into it. The benefit of this sort of system is that it gives you a way to consume electricity close to the source, so that you don't end up with the distribution costs. I do agree that doesn't seem like the best choice, but the alternatives proposed are not alternatives in the situations that this is targeting. I suspect/hope that there _are_ other alternatives, that may serve a better "global good".
- henearkr 7y agoWell, the argument seems invalid, as they obviously use energy to run their oil field (look at these huge hammer-like machines). They could use this energy. Even their very local grid is a grid.
- SilasX 7y agoRight, but I think their local energy needs are far less than what these burnoffs contain.
- DSingularity 7y agoWhy? Assuming their “25x more impact on global warming” claims are accurate won’t this reduce global warming in a more substantial way? Also, won’t this push energy prices up thus creating more economic motivation for clean/sustainable energy and reducing demand for unclean energy?
- kortilla 7y agoNo, this won’t push energy prices up. If anything it will decrease them because it increases the margin by which natural gas operations are sustainable.
- DonHopkins 7y agoYou mean "Freedom Gas". https://www.sciencealert.com/us-department-of-energy-is-now-referring-to-natural-gas-as-freedom-gas https://www.sciencealert.com/us-department-of-energy-is-now-... https://www.energy.gov/articles/department-energy-authorizes-additional-lng-exports-freeport-lng https://www.energy.gov/articles/department-energy-authorizes... “Increasing export capacity from the Freeport LNG project is critical to spreading freedom gas throughout the world by giving America’s allies a diverse and affordable source of clean energy. Further, more exports of U.S. LNG to the world means more U.S. jobs and more domestic economic growth and cleaner air here at home and around the globe,” said U.S. Under Secretary of Energy Mark W. Menezes, who highlighted the approval at the Clean Energy Ministerial in Vancouver, Canada. “There’s no doubt today’s announcement furthers this Administration’s commitment to promoting energy security and diversity worldwide.”
- corodra 7y agoBitcoin mining required more energy. Thus, ramped up power plants to burn MORE fuel. Burning more fuel means more emissions. More green house gases. More global warming. IF bitcoin was going to push energy companies to go more green. It would have already. https://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2017/12/bitcoins-insane-energy-consumption-explained/ https://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2017/12/bitcoins-insane-... Bitcoin has been the best thing to happen to fossil fuel power plants across the planet.
- fred_is_fred 7y agoThe places that gas is flared are in the middle of nowhere. There is no grid, there's hardly roads and maybe no cell service. They're not flaring gas in downtown SF here, this is like northeastern Colorado or West Texas.
- caymanjim 7y agoNo one is venting natural gas for the hell of it. There is no economical way to use it, full stop. If the infrastructure were there, they'd sell it. It's vented because there's no profitable way to capture and transport the gas, and there's no profitable way to produce and transport electricity. These things require massive capital investment. Much of the world's fossil fuels are extracted in the middle of nowhere. And even if the extraction location were going to produce for long enough to justify running infrastructure to it, it'd still take years or even decades to get approval and build the infrastructure. One of these modules can be installed almost instantly and anywhere. You don't need any other infrastructure. You could even put these on oil platforms.
- technofiend 7y agoGas pipelines use the product itself to fuel compression. There doesn't seem to be anything small enough to justify aggregating at the well head and compressing in situ using the fuel to compress itself. For example I see this but it's still quite large. https://www.wartsila.com/marine/build/gas-solutions/lng-solutions/lng-plants-small-scale-liquefaction-technology https://www.wartsila.com/marine/build/gas-solutions/lng-solu...
- coryrc 7y agoThen fuck 'em, venting and flaring should be banned. Too expensive? Then leave it all in the ground where it belongs.