Live data from Hacker News

A glaring error in methane flaring (2022)

arstechnica.com

21–22 of 22 posts

Re: A glaring error in methane flaring (2022)

#21
It seems like this might be an opportunity to reuse older, inefficient gas turbines from aviation to create turbogenerators that can produce electricity. If they were containerized, they could be easily relocated where needed, and could provide a good deal of energy either for the rig itself or for resale, or used in other value added processes like the creation of dry ice or other energy intensive processes.

A side benefit would be the selling off of less efficient engines off into other applications where the environmentally positive effects of re-engining existing aviation fleets could be more economically realized. As it is, timed out turbines of older models have a near-zero economic value, as reconditioning them to airworthy status is very expensive.

If the requirements were to replace some burner cans with noncertified natural gas optimized burners, remove any bypass fans, and link them up to a generator for steady-state use at reduced SHP rates, reconditioning them to this state could be done much less expensively than the cost of new prime movers, and the comparatively low efficiency would be irrelevant because the fuel is a waste product anyway. Also, the higher burn efficiency would mean that there would be negligible residual methane.

Looks good on the back of a napkin, anyway.

Re: A glaring error in methane flaring (2022)

#22

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That's literally directly in your quote, taken from the article. "However, the researcher said that this seemingly small difference could be a big deal when extrapolated over the whole fossil fuel industry." I can see we're done. cheers mate

The article/researcher by no means said "It isn't a problem" as you claimed they did. You said they said: > > This isn't a problem because it's a small fraction "extrapolated over the whole fossil fuel industry." That is NOT "literally directly" from the quote: > "However, the researcher said that this seemingly small difference could be a big deal when extrapolated over the whole fossil fuel industry." What you said…

You misunderstood the GPs statement. What they meant was [the reason this is a problem is not because] it's a small fraction "extrapolated over the whole fossil fuel industry" Not [There is no problem because] it's a small fraction "extrapolated over the whole fossil fuel industry" The words the commenter used: "This isn't a problem because" can mean either in English.

In other words, they were saying the article was misleading because TFA claims that the problem is due to a small fraction multiplied by a large industry, while it's actually a very large multiplier multiplied by a large industry.

Post reply on HN