The challenge with natural gas is capture and transport.
Gas is, well, a gas. It doesn't stay put, and it takes considerable infrastructure to convert it to a more manageable form (compressed or liquified). Both of which are states it doesn't particularly seem inclined to remain in.
There've been enough issues transporting oil from new drilling zones. Transporting gas (by truck, rail, or pipeline) is even more complex.
That's among the reasons oil (and coal) are so useful as fuels sources: they're very convenient. Oil most especially, though even coal can be moved in pipelines (as slurry).
Mind: for both environmental (AGW) and resource limitations (peak oil/gas) reasons we'll have to shift off of them. But the practicality of both coal and oil means that that transition will carry with it immense costs.
I don't think anybody disputes that it is expensive to capture and transport natural gas, but it's a solved problem. The state has taken a completely hands-off approach, letting oil companies operate in a manner that maximizes their immediate profits. Since it's cheaper to just burn off the gas, they do that, environmental consequences be damned. You don't see the rate of flaring in other states because other states have much stricter regulations about how long each well can do this.
North Dakota's leadership (which is generally from the eastern part of the state) is too busy counting money and patting themselves on the back for all the economic activity they 'created' to be concerned about the welfare of anybody who actually lives in or around the patch.
Burn it on site for electricity. Imagine it like distributed solar, just with natgas as the power source. Power lines, even low voltage (120-480V), are everywhere.
Worried about cost? Sell carbon credits for the destruction of the greenhouse gas, and use the funds to pay for the generation equipment.
Want someone to manage this huge distributed system of generators? Call SolarCity. They already manage an enormous fleet for distributed solar generation installations.
You will need a deep pocket. I suspect the cash flow hole between turning a flare into feedstock for electricity generation or any other potentially productive use and getting paid for that product is wide and deep.
Comments
The challenge with natural gas is capture and transport.
Gas is, well, a gas. It doesn't stay put, and it takes considerable infrastructure to convert it to a more manageable form (compressed or liquified). Both of which are states it doesn't particularly seem inclined to remain in.
There've been enough issues transporting oil from new drilling zones. Transporting gas (by truck, rail, or pipeline) is even more complex.
That's among the reasons oil (and coal) are so useful as fuels sources: they're very convenient. Oil most especially, though even coal can be moved in pipelines (as slurry).
Mind: for both environmental (AGW) and resource limitations (peak oil/gas) reasons we'll have to shift off of them. But the practicality of both coal and oil means that that transition will carry with it immense costs.
I don't think anybody disputes that it is expensive to capture and transport natural gas, but it's a solved problem. The state has taken a completely hands-off approach, letting oil companies operate in a manner that maximizes their immediate profits. Since it's cheaper to just burn off the gas, they do that, environmental consequences be damned. You don't see the rate of flaring in other states because other states have much stricter regulations about how long each well can do this.
North Dakota's leadership (which is generally from the eastern part of the state) is too busy counting money and patting themselves on the back for all the economic activity they 'created' to be concerned about the welfare of anybody who actually lives in or around the patch.
Burn it on site for electricity. Imagine it like distributed solar, just with natgas as the power source. Power lines, even low voltage (120-480V), are everywhere.
Worried about cost? Sell carbon credits for the destruction of the greenhouse gas, and use the funds to pay for the generation equipment.
Want someone to manage this huge distributed system of generators? Call SolarCity. They already manage an enormous fleet for distributed solar generation installations.
Low-voltage power lines have high transmission losses (though I'd have to look up just what that is).
The reason for high-voltage lines is that it reduces the total current transmitted, which reduces transmission losses.
Building out T&D infrastructure is expensive and a concern for distributed generation methods (solar, wind).
If I were to have free access to the flaring output, I'd implement this myself out of my own pocket.
You will need a deep pocket. I suspect the cash flow hole between turning a flare into feedstock for electricity generation or any other potentially productive use and getting paid for that product is wide and deep.
Wouldn't have suggested it unless I had deep pockets.
J. Random HN commenter hereby gives you permission to begin disruption.