I articulated more specifically since you seem incapable of basic principles. Good Day.

You're so close to getting the point.

Fortunately for your it doesn't weigh as much as a car

only the stupidest motherfucker on the planet would believe a single word out of the russians

We do not. Pedantics aside. Do feel free to name 3 mass production vehicles road legal that use lead acid for primary battery.

Weight is a primary issue in mobile scenarios. It's why you don't see EVs based on Lead Acid. They'd be literal tanks on wheels.

The 12v is lead acid for the reasons you state. It's tough as nails needed for the operating environment. It's also only a few dozen pounds so in the 1% of vehicle weight territory. So it's 'features' vastly outweigh it's weight issues.

But you won't see any EVs with primary batteries of lead acid, expressly because of the weight.

The issue is less that something 'can' burn, it's that 'will it ignite' just sitting there...like LI batteries do. If they don't short circuit like LI then the risk of fires is very very low. Gas and oil burn too, but again, not while just sitting there generally.

there are easier ways to do that

pumped storage can expand capacity with a backhoe

It isn't magic, there's significant expense involved in building the infrastructure to handle, transport, store, etc.

Market forces don't dictate things are used, only that they are used when it's viable for profit.

Hell *gasoline* was considered waste from oil production for a long time before ICEs made use of it.

Yeah setting up a system of checks that can be so easily subverted isn't ideal.

Fortunately new tech is now flying that detects the *actual* methane and CO2 released, flared or vented, making the enclosures moot.

Legacy systems vs recently launched satellites I think. MethaneSAT is very recent. The current standard in use is via the heat mapping.

The point is the unenclosed burn pipes can be monitored and determine by heat relatively how much is being burned via the satellites.

By enclosing the burn, we lose that heat source of truth. So now, they could *not* burn it and just flare it while claiming they are burning it.

That means we don't know how much is or isn't being released other than the honor system...which many of them aren't.

Those oil and gas companies that knew 50 years ago that using their product, we'd face severe climate change issues...and hid it from the public?

Those oil and gas companies? yeah we should *definitely* not hurt their feefees

You can't stop one and not the other from the same well. the methane is part of the oil extracted and not all rigs are designed to capture it.

Burning it is safer (so you don't have a combustible gas around) and better (or less bad really) than releasing it since methane is something like 80x more of a greenhouse gas than the CO2 from burning it.

Likewise, storing a flammable gas...when you're already working with a combustible product, elevates the risks. Yes we'd be better to capture and get some use out of it instead of just burning it off, but just not feasible on many rigs.

stock buybacks directly benefits shareholders in their pocketbook