After the explosion of the Nordstream pipeline, wouldn’t it had been better for the environment to lit up the leaking methane gas instead of letting it escape in the atmosphere?

Question

After the explosion of the Nordstream pipeline, wouldn’t it had been better for the environment to lit up the leaking methane gas instead of letting it escape in the atmosphere?

In: 1

Answer 1

Yes. Burning methane converts it into co2 which has a 95% less intense impact on global warming.

I’m fast, many places where they drill for oil, methane is also released. Often it’s often not economic to use that for profit, so (if they are environmentally responsible) they will burn it so that it’s at least c02 waste instead of just pure methane waste. That’s why you see those towers near drill sites with flames at the top burning non stop for years. That’s what they’re doing. It’s methane waste management. Other sites will capture that gas and pipe it other places and use it for stuff. But if you’re gonna waste it, if you’re responsible you should definitely be burning it instead.

I don’t know why they didn’t do it for nordstream. I’m not a expert on the situation. Maybe cause it’s a warzone.

Edit: have a look at this, check out crude oil production flares https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gas_flare

Answer 2

probably not so easy to just light it up, methane is only flammable in a ~5-15% mix with air