Why don't we light the methane escaping from the NordStream pipeline?

Asked Sep 29 '22 at 12:29

Active Sep 29 '22 at 17:20

Viewed 76 times

The methane escaping from the NordStream pipeline for a few days now has a much more potent greenhouse effect than carbon dioxide. Burning methane gives us CO2. The pipe won't be repaired before all the gas escapes, and when it does, salt water will render it permanently unusable.

So why don't we put fire to the leaks, to mitigate the environmental impact from the leak, just like in a refinery's flare?

edited Sep 29 '22 at 17:20

Transistor

9,424
2
19
30

asked Sep 29 '22 at 12:29

Akita

I would say that a leak and a flare system are different and can't be treated the same without some serious risks to people and the surrounding environment. My immediate concern is an uncontrolled burn that actually leads to a deflagration or explosion. – J. Ari Sep 29 '22 at 13:59
Fire propagates up leak and pipeline goes boom! – StainlessSteelRat Sep 29 '22 at 14:34
@J.Ari do you mean on the surface or elsewhere? Because the area is obviously clear of any ship. – Akita Sep 29 '22 at 19:49
@StainlessSteelRat It did go boom already, :p. What would be the added risk/loss? – Akita Sep 29 '22 at 19:51
I wondered this myself but it is natural gas, not methane. – Rhodie Sep 30 '22 at 11:30
@Rhodie Natural gas IS methane. – Akita Sep 30 '22 at 11:50
@StainlessSteelRat Also, there is no oxygen underwater or in the pipe, right? – Akita Sep 30 '22 at 15:20
@Akita I thought it was LPG? – Rhodie Oct 04 '22 at 13:14

Why don't we light the methane escaping from the NordStream pipeline?

0 Answers0