[Johnny_Bonk]

I disagree with this, I work in the same field and I left a startup for the exact same reason of what you're proposing. There are a subset of founders probably like these folks and myself who would rather not build anything at all then continue to create BAU and raise money/build a product with the intention of 'one day maybe we'll make it sustainable'. How about RIGHT NOW, how about building things FROM THE GET GO based on deep principles that what you introduce from the start is already more beneficial for the planet. And I doubt they're greenwashing because there are several 3rd party verified certifications that can attest to whatever theyre producing is what they say it is, and then it becomes a matter of which certification.

[cyberax]

A technology that would reduce the amount of uselessly flared natural gas is going to help in itself. It's not a question of abandoning principles, but starting from something that is easier to do and reducing the risk of not getting _anything_ out.

[jonavanoord]

We are not not interested in flared natural gas sites. It is often just a logistical question of where we are going to get the CO2 from.

[jonavanoord]

Yes we could, we have briefly looked into that. Ultimately, it did not make sense for us to pursue that at the time, but it definitely means that if we ever feel the need to expand/pivot into natural gas, that that option is definitely feasible. Thanks for the helpful comment!

[gus_massa]

Can you split the pipe and burn a half to generate the electricity and get CO2 for free?

[Johnny_Bonk]

Yeah I agree its also a worthwhile use case rather than flaring methane into the atmosphere