61–70 of 137 posts
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.)
If this is your concern your priority should be shutting down every thermal plant immediately.
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…
h2 is shipped all the time, by boat, rail, road, pipeline and more. It is not hard to ship, it's easy to store and transport, this is a solved problem. 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.
Ammonia is routinely shipped but as I understand it the conversion process has considerable inefficiencies which would push up the cost of using it as an energy carrier to unviable levels.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
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…
The title says "renewable", so yes, it has to be renewable, otherwise it is dishonest clickbait. 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 i…
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…
h2 is shipped all the time, by boat, rail, road, pipeline and more. It is not hard to ship, it's easy to store and transport, this is a solved problem. 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 think this is important to note about hydrogen as a 'clean' fuel source: > Today’s hydrogen is “gray,” made by reacting methane with steam at high pressures or using fossil fuels in other ways. Those processes emit some 900 million tons of carbon dioxide every year, almost as much as global aviation. In principle, that carbon could be captured and sequestered underground, yielding “blue” hydrogen. But most hopes re…
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.
It came from the article.
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.
That's how today's society developed, except with the side effect that we've also released a large amount of CO2 into the atmosphere.
I thought it was a really captivating and well written article. News on hydrogen often seems to swing between too expensive to produce and its the future. Out of the blue, news in the UK this week says hydrogen will be added to the natural gas supply from 2025.
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.
I think this is important to note about hydrogen as a 'clean' fuel source: > Today’s hydrogen is “gray,” made by reacting methane with steam at high pressures or using fossil fuels in other ways. Those processes emit some 900 million tons of carbon dioxide every year, almost as much as global aviation. In principle, that carbon could be captured and sequestered underground, yielding “blue” hydrogen. But most hopes re…
your statement completely ignores the rapidly developing green hydrogen industry.
Those are TODAY sources. just because there are large number of non-clean doesn't mean the clean ones dont exist.
I think this is important to note about hydrogen as a 'clean' fuel source: > Today’s hydrogen is “gray,” made by reacting methane with steam at high pressures or using fossil fuels in other ways. Those processes emit some 900 million tons of carbon dioxide every year, almost as much as global aviation. In principle, that carbon could be captured and sequestered underground, yielding “blue” hydrogen. But most hopes re…
this is like saying that the knife industry is setup for murders. your statement completely ignores the rapidly developing green hydrogen industry. Those are TODAY sources. just because there are large number of non-clean doesn't mean the clean ones dont exist.