Environment & Energy
Related: About this forumArctic Methane Releases
I need a scientific opinion. Since methane is much worse than carbon dioxide as a green house gas, would it make more sense, if feasible, to burn it off rather than letting it enter the atmosphere?
http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2013/11/131125172113.htm
dipsydoodle
(42,239 posts)So not necessarily a good idea.
Whilst on the subject - as a result of US sanctions the Iranians have been doing exactly that given no other choice. Further contributions by the US to global warming.
sulphurdunn
(6,891 posts)isn't methane about 30 times as potent as a greenhouse gas than carbon dioxide?
OnlinePoker
(5,702 posts)If you "only" produce 2.74 kg of CO2 for every kg of methane, you're ahead by a good percentage on heat retension. Of course, you are also producing heat by burning the methane so I don't know how that factors into the equation.
rgbecker
(4,806 posts)so I could burn it in my wood stove.
WTF? How hard is that?
sulphurdunn
(6,891 posts)That's why I asked. What's cleaner to burn wood or methane? I've lived in places that rely on wood for fuel. The forests are consumed much faster than they can regenerate. The consequences are not good.