Gas Flaring – Kuwait
Russia will stop the practice of gas flaring, in which unwanted gas is burned as it is released from oilfields, acting deputy prime minister Sergei Ivanov said on Wednesday.
“We are not yet rich enough to allow ourselves such a luxury, and that is even before we mention the environment,” Ivanov, who is widely tipped to replace President Vladimir Putin in March 2008, told a military-industrial energy committee.
The World Bank says flaring worldwide releases about 390 million tonnes of carbon dioxide, the principal greenhouse gas, into the atmosphere per year. The Siberian region of Khanty-Mansiisk, the biggest oil producing region in Russia, alone flares between 7.3 to 7.6 billion cubic metres of gas a year.
It’s been almost 40 years since I first worked in the oil industry. Wasting money and energy has always been acceptable.
Here’s an opportunity – overdue – that not only makes environmental sense; but, offers a chance to preserve a finite resource.
Slowest newsday ever!
Just so everyone is clear, water vapor is the principle greenhouse gas, not carbon dioxide.
Just so everyone is clear, water vapor is also given off when you burn hydrocarbon fuels.
#1, #2, & #3
So… flaring is not Warming the Globe…neither carbon dioxide, but instead the water vapor being released in the process…wriiiight…feel much better now.
4, I wasn’t responding to the global warming debate. I was just pointing out this is an incredbily boring story. So incredibly boring that it must be the slowest newsday ever to have posted it.
#2, wickeand000;
If you global warming skeptics can’t even understand the chemical process of combustion, I really can’t take any of your “scientific” analyses seriously.
Having been impetuous enough to click the link and read the article – I actually “discovered” that one of the most wasteful and polluting industrial processes on the planet is starting to be discontinued – and by the worst offender.
Yeah. You’re right. Not newsworthy of discussion. Let’s go back to Britany and NASCAR results.
7. “Yeah. You’re right. Not newsworthy of discussion. Let’s go back to Britany and NASCAR results.”
Actually, as Comic Book Guy I’m more concerning about the romance between the Green Lantern and Hawkgirl.
#7, god,
I was about to make a very similar comment. Thank you for doing it in such kind words.
*
#8, CBG
DON’T DO IT GREEN LANTERN !!!
THAT’S HOW YOU GET BIRD FLU !!!
#2, 000
Every body sing:
You, light up my life,
You give me gas,
And CO2.
You light up my days,
and nights too
…
I think it’s exciting news, as I own CPST stock. Capstone microturbines can be used to produce electricity from flare gas. Still, Russia is a big country, and it should take them about forever to implement this.
These flarings could lead to a nuclear winter effect! At least that’s what the original theory was a few decades back. When burning cities and such, touched off by nuclear bombs, was explained as putting enough carbon into the upper atmosphere to block the sun. Even st. Carl Sagan
predicted this.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuclear_winter
But then right after the Gulf War, I saw this Tv documentary about GW, and they had some “confused citizens” who raised this point of memory. And all that was said about why the theory was reversed to carbon causing global warming…. was that the public was confused by seemingly contradictor theories!! Yeah, I’ll F*ing say we are!!! So why not explain it so we’re not so damn confused? Assuming that it can be, because these theories seems to change with the weather.
#12 – I will explain it as simply as possible:
Big nuclear booms and their aftermath put much dirt and soot in air, which shades the ground and makes it get colder. Shade = cooler.
Greenhouse gases are transparent to sunlight, but reflect heat, making heat stay and not go back into space. A lot like a greenhouse (duh!). Light comes in easy, heats ground, heat does not go back out easy.
So you have two completely different issues: one involves shady particles, the other involves transparent gases. Two very different effects.
Is that simple enough????
Nuclear winter is still a very likely outcome of full nuclear war… nothing has changed, except that now we have a totally unrelated problem involving heating for other reasons.
#12, Glenn,
I’ll write this slowly because I know you can’t read fast. It is OK if you move your lips.
*
The Nuclear Winter was theorized that all the dust particles resulting from a nuclear war would block the sun’s rays from reaching the earth. This would cause a loss of heat and thus cooling of the earth. Previous large volcanic explosions that put a lot of material into the atmosphere demonstrated this effect. Kracatoa in 1883 and Pinatubo in 1991 are examples of the effect of global cooling because of suspended solids blocking sunlight. Another unobserved but reported case was the meteor that caused the extinction of the dinosaurs.
There was also some concern that constant burning of dirty fuels (coal and wood) could also contribute to a nuclear winter.
*
Global Warming is caused by certain gases allowing the sun’s radiation to enter the atmosphere but not allowing the escape of heat radiation. This works the same way as a green house does where it allows sunlight in but still retains heat when it is cooler outside.
CO2 is a very common green house gas although there are several others. CO2 is produced by all animals and by plants at certain times during the day. It is captured and converted into other uses by plants.
CO2 was produced and absorbed in an equilibrium for most of the planet’s existence. As have the other green house gases. For the past two hundred years man has been adding more CO2 to the atmosphere and removing the absorbing flora (that is plant life). This is throwing the equilibrium out of balance and creating the green house effect.
Today, most coal emissions are cleaned before being released. There is little particulate matter but significant CO2. Cleaner burning sources such as refined oil and natural gas produce very little particulate matter but much CO2.
*
If you could research Nuclear Winter, then why not research Global Warming from the same site?
#12, Glenn,
BTW, Carl Sagan later corrected much of his theory after being shown some new facts and errors in his methods. Nuclear Winter has been demonstrated that it is possible. It is, however, less likely today since the Cold War ended and tensions have decreased. A massive volcano or meteor could still cause some cooling though.
#13, Awake,
Good comment.
#2 – wickeand000
“Just so everyone is clear, water vapor is the principle greenhouse gas, not carbon dioxide.”
This being a slow news day and all – since clarifications are being passed out, let me just offer the suggestion that your credibility would be enhanced by demonstrating that you grasp the distinction between ‘principle’ and ‘principal.’