51–60 of 137 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
That has very little to do with the article, which is about actual hydrogen retrievable from underground deposits. It wouldn't be made from anything, just piped out of the ground.
While it would still be an upgrade over fossils, I think that would be a slap in the face for renewables. We need sustainable energy production, not more digging for stuff that is limited by design.
What is this? Chat-GPT writing "sciency" fairytales?
In what sense is fossil hydrogen renewable?
Carbon free is not renewable, isn't it? Wasn't the plan for renewables?
So it seems to be renewed - the next question that matters then is at what timescale and amount.
This is interesting, but it does strike me as a little surprising that if there’s a lot of extractable hydrogen available we haven’t had more indications of it already (yes, I read the article). It’s worth noting here that a disadvantage of hydrogen is that unlike coal, oil, and to a lesser extent natural gas it’s hard to put it in a ship and transport it. So in a world where there’s cheap hydrogen in Mali and few ot…
That said, obviously ... local generation is best. The same goes for oil extraction, and power production (dam or nuclear or solar or wind), local is best.
I was hoping to see in the article -- but didn't -- an analysis of the CO2e per KJ produced from natural hydrogen. Water vapor is a greenhouse gas and it'd be important to do the math to see how much better it is vs. other alternative fuels. (I expect it to be better, but how much is the question.)
> Water vapor is a greenhouse gas No. Or rather, yes, water vapor is a greenhouse gas, but it has a halflife measured in days, compared to CO2, which has a halflife measured in decades. So, for all practical purposes, water vapor can be deglected when talking about global warming.
Whyes, mossuredly!
Earlier quoted context omitted.
That has very little to do with the article, which is about actual hydrogen retrievable from underground deposits. It wouldn't be made from anything, just piped out of the ground.
While it would still be an upgrade over fossils, I think that would be a slap in the face for renewables. We need sustainable energy production, not more digging for stuff that is limited by design.
2 FeSiO3 + H2O >> H2 + Fe2O3 + SiO2
As I understand it, this is a "low-pressure" reaction. The FeSiO3 regeneration happens when iron (III) oxide sinks deep into the crust and reacts with silicates, releasing oxygen. I'm not clear on the specifics, but the ultimate energy source is (necessarily) plate tectonics, driven by the decay of uranium, potassium-40 and thorium in the deep Earth. The gross power driving tectonic forces (total underground radioactivity) is estimated with decent confidence at around 30 terawatts; this exceeds humanity's total energy consumption by a small factor (around 2–3), and probably only a fraction of this energy is converted to hydrogen.
So using Brian Cohen's definition [1], I'm not sure geohydrogen is truly "renewable" at world scale, but it's renewed at some scale.
1: http://large.stanford.edu/publications/coal/references/docs/...
Carbon free is not renewable, isn't it? Wasn't the plan for renewables?
Does it have to be? Climate change is getting pretty urgent. Maybe we should fix that first, and then worry about the ideal solution for the next ten thousand years. However, from the article: > natural hydrogen may be not only clean, but also renewable. It takes millions of years for buried and compressed organic deposits to turn into oil and gas. By contrast, natural hydrogen is always being made afresh, when under…
Also from the article:
"For Prinzhofer, the question of where natural hydrogen comes from is academic. “Maybe we are all completely wrong,” he says. “It doesn’t matter for the industry.” The oil industry sprang up long before it understood oil’s origins, he says. Similarly, what matters for the natural hydrogen industry is simply whether there is enough of the stuff to go after."
And lastly:
"No one anywhere in the world will produce hydrogen commercially anytime soon"
Not really convincing and alltogether it all sounds code, to continue drilling for gas, with the vaint hope, that some of it might be hydrogen, warranting a green label.
> A second mechanism, radiolysis, may generate the rest. As radioactive elements in the crust such as uranium and thorium decay, they emit beta particles, aka helium nuclei, What is this? Chat-GPT writing "sciency" fairytales?