Wed Nov 27, 2013, 02:22 PM

Arctic 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

5 replies, 1320 views

Thread info Bookmark this thread Trash this thread

Reply to this thread

Always highlight: 10 newest replies | Replies posted after I mark a forum

Replies to this discussion thread

5 replies	Author	Time	Post
Arctic Methane Releases (Original post)	sulphurdunn	Nov 2013	OP
For every kilogram of methane that is burnt, 2.74 kg of carbon dioxide is produced.	dipsydoodle	Nov 2013	#1
See your point, but	sulphurdunn	Nov 2013	#2
Methane traps 34 times the heat that CO2 does	OnlinePoker	Nov 2013	#3
Time to gather it up, compress it and ship it to me.....	rgbecker	Nov 2013	#4
I don't know.	sulphurdunn	Nov 2013	#5

Response to sulphurdunn (Original post)

Wed Nov 27, 2013, 02:27 PM

dipsydoodle (42,239 posts)

1. For every kilogram of methane that is burnt, 2.74 kg of carbon dioxide is produced.

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.

Reply to this post

Response to dipsydoodle (Reply #1)

Wed Nov 27, 2013, 02:37 PM

sulphurdunn (6,891 posts)

2. See your point, but

isn't methane about 30 times as potent as a greenhouse gas than carbon dioxide?

Reply to this post

Response to dipsydoodle (Reply #1)

Wed Nov 27, 2013, 02:39 PM

OnlinePoker (5,599 posts)

3. Methane traps 34 times the heat that CO2 does

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.

Reply to this post

Response to sulphurdunn (Original post)

Wed Nov 27, 2013, 02:40 PM

rgbecker (4,775 posts)

4. Time to gather it up, compress it and ship it to me.....

so I could burn it in my wood stove.

WTF? How hard is that?

Reply to this post

Response to rgbecker (Reply #4)

Wed Nov 27, 2013, 02:52 PM

sulphurdunn (6,891 posts)

5. I don't know.

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.

Reply to this post

Environment & Energy (Group)