29 ms·

From a climate perspective, I've seen articles saying that flaring is bad for the environment, and other articles saying that raw natural gas methane leaking in

From a climate perspective, I've seen articles saying that flaring is bad for the environment, and other articles saying that raw natural gas methane leaking into the atmosphere is also very bad. We know that methane is 84x more potent of a greenhouse gas than CO2 and is also worse than water vapor. If CO2 and water vapor are the products of flaring methane, isn't it better to flare if the source cannot be adequately capped or staffed for capture? Edit: On further research - it looks like the complicating non-climate factor is that leaking gas can sometimes contain hydrogen sulfide and other toxins, and while burning eliminates some toxins it can inadvertently create and disseminate others.

hannob 6y ago
> From a climate perspective, I've seen articles saying that flaring is bad for the environment, and other articles saying that raw natural gas methane leaking into the atmosphere is also very bad. This is no contradiction. The fact that flaring is bad does not mean you can't do worse.
mlindner 6y ago
Sure if that's your false choice then yes it's better to flare. But it's even better if they were forced to capture that gas and sell it as opposed to flaring it.
Geezus_42 6y ago
Look into the Bhopal disaster and see how well flaring can work out. https://pca.st/episode/1dc7867e-c715-4c68-8511-c92e97ddf1b9 https://pca.st/episode/1dc7867e-c715-4c68-8511-c92e97ddf1b9
afandian 6y ago
Or leave it in the ground and find alternatives. An awkward option, but it is an option.
- JimTheMan 6y ago
  At the moment, burning methane may be a favourable alternative to burning Coal until something better turns up. Coal is terrible for the environment.
  - rcMgD2BwE72F 6y ago
    >Until something better turns up Are you seriously ignoring all the renewable energy alternatives and only considering the worst possible fossil fuel to try to make natural gas a seemingly good option? FYI, in the first half of 2020, renewables generated 40% of the EU-27’s electricity, whereas fossil fuels generated 34%. Things are moving fast now, and neither gas nor coal are part of the future (source: https://ember-climate.org/project/renewables-beat-fossil-fuels/ https://ember-climate.org/project/renewables-beat-fossil-fue...)
    - throwaway0a5e 6y ago
      You don't need to jump down his throat because he chose to not to be specific about what would/will replace coal.
    - JimTheMan 6y ago
      I don't think gas is a good option but I consider it a lesser of a few evils until renewables come along with a good solution to generate a base load. I'm not trying to invalidate what the EU is doing, but they are still burning fossil fuels and if I have to choose between a few I choose gas. I'm in a country with a lot of coal you see. Coal is the default option and I would really like it not to be. Especially given we have a lot of aging powerplants that are going to need replacement shortly... I know that nuclear is an option, but I am generally unimpressed by the cost*construction_time/power ratio.

hannob 6y ago

> From a climate perspective, I've seen articles saying that flaring is bad for the environment, and other articles saying that raw natural gas methane leaking into the atmosphere is also very bad. This is no contradiction. The fact that flaring is bad does not mean you can't do worse.

mlindner 6y ago

Sure if that's your false choice then yes it's better to flare. But it's even better if they were forced to capture that gas and sell it as opposed to flaring it.

Geezus_42 6y ago

Look into the Bhopal disaster and see how well flaring can work out. https://pca.st/episode/1dc7867e-c715-4c68-8511-c92e97ddf1b9 https://pca.st/episode/1dc7867e-c715-4c68-8511-c92e97ddf1b9

afandian 6y ago

Or leave it in the ground and find alternatives. An awkward option, but it is an option.

JimTheMan 6y ago
At the moment, burning methane may be a favourable alternative to burning Coal until something better turns up. Coal is terrible for the environment.
- rcMgD2BwE72F 6y ago
  >Until something better turns up Are you seriously ignoring all the renewable energy alternatives and only considering the worst possible fossil fuel to try to make natural gas a seemingly good option? FYI, in the first half of 2020, renewables generated 40% of the EU-27’s electricity, whereas fossil fuels generated 34%. Things are moving fast now, and neither gas nor coal are part of the future (source: https://ember-climate.org/project/renewables-beat-fossil-fuels/ https://ember-climate.org/project/renewables-beat-fossil-fue...)
  - throwaway0a5e 6y ago
    You don't need to jump down his throat because he chose to not to be specific about what would/will replace coal.
  - JimTheMan 6y ago
    I don't think gas is a good option but I consider it a lesser of a few evils until renewables come along with a good solution to generate a base load. I'm not trying to invalidate what the EU is doing, but they are still burning fossil fuels and if I have to choose between a few I choose gas. I'm in a country with a lot of coal you see. Coal is the default option and I would really like it not to be. Especially given we have a lot of aging powerplants that are going to need replacement shortly... I know that nuclear is an option, but I am generally unimpressed by the cost*construction_time/power ratio.