3 ms·

I disagree that it's a good thing. It's still being burned, so the environment damage is still there. Except now it's being whitewashed. Instead of the obvious,

I disagree that it's a good thing. It's still being burned, so the environment damage is still there. Except now it's being whitewashed. Instead of the obvious, visible waste and damage of a flare, the companies get to sweep it under the rug and pretend things have improved. Once again a fossil energy company is externalizing their pollution damage. If they were able to pump electricity into the grid it would be slightly better, but not much. Using it for crypto is turning one bad thing into another bad thing, and sweeping the true cost under the rug.

asciimike 5y ago
> I disagree that it's a good thing. It's still being burned, so the environment damage is still there. I won't try and argue against "if we never had fossil fuels, the environment would be better" (I agree, but we also probably wouldn't be communicating right now, were that not the case), but by mitigating flares, you can significantly reduce methane emissions (98+%), CO2 (~70%)/CO (95%), VOCs, etc. It's not "good" for the environment, but it's a hell of a lot better than what's currently being done. Lots of folks ITT have discussed a carbon tax on emissions; think of flare mitigation via crypto as an economic incentive for companies to voluntarily reduce their emissions much faster than a state/federal government can move to enact legislation. It achieves the same end result, just one is aligned with the current dominant economic system in the country, and one would likely end up in political gridlock.
landemva 5y ago
We can likely agree that venting is not good. Flaring is better, though the combustion can be incomplete (windy days). Combustion in a generator is much more complete, so this is a significant pollution reduction. It is moving in the right direction.