Re: More light pollution for the UK

[Dave Liquorice]

On Fri, 10 May 2013 10:08:09 +0100, Hils wrote:

> "The British countryside could be dotted with hundreds of naked flames
> several metres high after the head of Britain's biggest fracking
> company warned that any production of shale gas would involve flaring
> off leakages."

Eh? I thought the whole Idea of fracking was to cause "leaks" but collect
it all sell the gas to make a profit for the shareholders.

I agree that burning the gas is better than releasing it as methane is a
far more potent greenhouse gas than CO2 but I'm not sure it lasts
anything like as long in the atmosphere as CO2. So the overall effect of
methane might not be as bad as one might first think.

I see the greens haven't got to grips with this or if they have aren't
spelling it out very well.

"However, green campaigners argue that flaring is nonetheless
environmentally hazardous, producing carbon dioxide, as well as noise and
light pollution."

It also strikes me as a bit odd to flare off the gas rather than burn it
in a gas turbine and generate electricity or if we don't need the
electricity store it for when we do. Is this "bad gas" or a by product of
the extraction process. There must be more to this than is being
reported.

--
Cheers
Dave.

[Martin Brown]

On 10/05/2013 10:37, Dave Liquorice wrote:
> On Fri, 10 May 2013 10:08:09 +0100, Hils wrote:
>
>> "The British countryside could be dotted with hundreds of naked flames
>> several metres high after the head of Britain's biggest fracking
>> company warned that any production of shale gas would involve flaring
>> off leakages."
>
> Eh? I thought the whole Idea of fracking was to cause "leaks" but collect
> it all sell the gas to make a profit for the shareholders.

They flare off the bits that would otherwise get away. A long time ago
when only oil was important they used to flare off all the gas as waste.

Same happens in the chemical industry if something goes awry they dump
it onto the flare stack as better than releasing it.

>
> I agree that burning the gas is better than releasing it as methane is a
> far more potent greenhouse gas than CO2 but I'm not sure it lasts
> anything like as long in the atmosphere as CO2. So the overall effect of
> methane might not be as bad as one might first think.

It has a half life in the atmosphere of about 7-10 years. The input from
thawing permafrost is more likely to be a concern than tiny leaks.

> I see the greens haven't got to grips with this or if they have aren't
> spelling it out very well.
>
> "However, green campaigners argue that flaring is nonetheless
> environmentally hazardous, producing carbon dioxide, as well as noise and
> light pollution."
>
> It also strikes me as a bit odd to flare off the gas rather than burn it
> in a gas turbine and generate electricity or if we don't need the
> electricity store it for when we do. Is this "bad gas" or a by product of
> the extraction process. There must be more to this than is being
> reported.

The flare stack normally only has a trace of gas flame on it but is
there in case they do need to dump some in a pressure surge or whatever.
A flare stack in full flow lights up the entire sky over Middlesbrough
when it goes. Normally it is an inconspicuous dot on the horizon. Also
the inspiration for the opening sequence of Bladerunner.

--
Regards,
Martin Brown