> Flared gas in texas, for instance, could provide more power than the network currently uses.
While the amount of gas that is flared off is immense (25-30% of the actual consumption of the US and Europe), the problem is that it is only flared off because there are no pipelines to transport the gas away and the amount that the small oil wells produce is too low to justify the cost.
If it were for me I'd force oil well operators to either build a small secondary pipeline for flare gas alongside oil pipelines or place a small power generator to contribute to the electric grid, but unfortunately "regulation" of any kind is seen as a bad thing in wide parts of the US.
>[...] and the amount that the small oil wells produce is too low to justify the cost.
>If it were for me I'd force oil well operators to [....]
Maybe it's too costly for a reason? Building power lines or pipelines to the middle of nowhere has economic and environmental costs as well, so top down legislation forcing every single well to do it might result in worse overall outcomes. For instance, the resources it takes to construct a pipeline/power line to the nearest town might be more than the electricity/methane that can be generated from the well.
> For instance, the resources it takes to construct a pipeline/power line to the nearest town might be more than the electricity/methane that can be generated from the well.
Well, there already is a pipeline for the oil product (so the additional overhead for a small gas pipe isn't that huge) and an electric grid hookup for the pump. That can be used even for a small-scale electrical generator.
>Well, there already is a pipeline for the oil product
not every oil well is hooked up to a pipeline. Some (many? most? not sure) are only serviced by trucks, presumably because they're too remote to profitably operate a pipeline for.
Yeah, but this exposes the issue with "bitcoin takes X percent of the energy production, therefore it's evil".
If you want you can build a generator near those wells. It's just cheaper to get the energy from somewhere else, because energy is fungible. A watt is not good or evil, it's the same as any other watt. Which means crypto energy consumption can be offset just like anything else, and is exactly as evil as any other convenience - driers, for instance, or flood lights, or inefficient heating, or anything else.
Focusing on crypto in particular says more about the author than anything else.
no it's not. A watt that's in the middle of south dakota, with no power lines in sight, is worth much less than a watt in southern california and is connected to the power grid.
While the amount of gas that is flared off is immense (25-30% of the actual consumption of the US and Europe), the problem is that it is only flared off because there are no pipelines to transport the gas away and the amount that the small oil wells produce is too low to justify the cost.
If it were for me I'd force oil well operators to either build a small secondary pipeline for flare gas alongside oil pipelines or place a small power generator to contribute to the electric grid, but unfortunately "regulation" of any kind is seen as a bad thing in wide parts of the US.