4 ms·
I 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
by k_sze 7y ago
I 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.