3 ms·
In this case it sounds like something that could be subsidized by the government if it provides a net benefit to the general populace (by reducing greenhouse ga
by doc_gunthrop 7y ago
In this case it sounds like something that could be subsidized by the government if it provides a net benefit to the general populace (by reducing greenhouse gases in the atmosphere).
- brandmeyer 7y agoFlaring it early would produce most of the GHG reduction benefit. The resulting CO2 has a tiny fraction of the total warming potential of the unburned CH3. For cases where it isn't economical to recover the methane, the public still benefits.
- hcknwscommenter 7y agoMost of the GHG reduction benefit in terms of the GHG contribution of the methane itself. However, there is also the benefit of the fossil fuel combustion that is displaced if you collect and burn for power. This is exactly the sort of thing that a carbon tax would incentivize if it were at all economically sensible.
- gbrown 7y agoSo long as there's a positive carbon return on adding the extra infrastructure. There very well may be, but adding pipes to burn off excess methane is way easier than generating and transporting electricity.