125
top 50 comments
sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[-] Grimy@lemmy.world 37 points 3 months ago

Fuck hydrogen. Its a fake green product so oil companies can transition as slow as they want while still keeping their strangle hold on our society.

[-] assassin_aragorn@lemmy.world 13 points 3 months ago* (last edited 3 months ago)

It depends a lot on where the hydrogen is sourced from. Hydrogen that is generated from electrolyzers using renewable power is completely green (and funny enough, called Green Hydrogen), and is a good way to store excess energy from solar and wind.

Oil companies however want to market hydrogen from drilling and refining, which is dirty as hell.

It's an important differentiation to make though. Hydrogen is not inherently bad and will have plenty of green applications. We just have to make sure it's coming from the right places.

[-] GissaMittJobb@lemmy.ml 5 points 3 months ago

and is a good way to store excess energy from solar and wind.

Is it really that good of a storage method, though? The round-trip efficiency is quite bad when compared to other methods of storage.

[-] assassin_aragorn@lemmy.world 4 points 3 months ago

We'll need it anyway to produce existing chemical materials sustainably. It may not be the best energy carrier nor most efficient, but it shines in specific applications. Vehicles are a promising example.

load more comments (1 replies)
[-] RarePossum@programming.dev 2 points 3 months ago

Acording to this paper/article, its better than technologies such as batteries, but the study isn't the most comprehensive and doesn't consider things like pump hydro.

load more comments (1 replies)
load more comments (3 replies)
[-] Grimy@lemmy.world 5 points 3 months ago

Sadly almost all hydrogen currently making its way to market is dirty. I have high hopes for it in the future but it seems like thinly veiled poison at the moment.

And this article is definitely about the dirty kind or at least feels like it is.

[-] assassin_aragorn@lemmy.world 4 points 3 months ago

There's companies working on it! ~~We're just broke~~

And yes, this is definitely the dirty kind. It may still be an improvement on using natural gas directly, but there would need to be a fairly comprehensive analysis to tell for sure. One possible advantage though is we could start building up a hydrogen infrastructure that we can then feed green hydrogen into and completely replace the dirty hydrogen.

Anyway though, you're right to be skeptical. It's important though to look into the details to determine if it's legitimately green energy or if it's just oil companies greenwashing. We need to shun the latter while we promote the former.

(There is a grey area, and it's the same as electric cars -- if we're using electricity from the grid to power cars, and electrolyzers which make hydrogen, is it truly green? I would say this is acceptable for the same reason EVs are acceptable. It'll become completely emission free once the grid is run on renewables.)

[-] CrimeDad@lemmy.crimedad.work 1 points 3 months ago

I disagree. We need hydrogen for GHG-free fertilizer and steel production and it's the superior choice for powering vehicles. Regardless, this research is interesting because it could help solve the natural gas problem.

[-] grue@lemmy.world 19 points 3 months ago

Hydrogen from gas fields is anything but GHG-free!

load more comments (6 replies)
[-] Zrybew@lemmy.world 34 points 3 months ago

We're about to make Fracking look like a great idea 😂

[-] fubarx@lemmy.ml 32 points 3 months ago

Wait. Am I getting this right? They want to inject high-pressure steam and chemicals into a massive underground natural gas reservoir. Then set off a big fire + explosion.

Surely, nothing can go wrong.

[-] CrimeDad@lemmy.crimedad.work 7 points 3 months ago

It's called in situ combustion and apparently it's a well established practice in the petroleum industry: https://glossary.slb.com/en/terms/i/in-situ_combustion

[-] corsicanguppy@lemmy.ca 20 points 3 months ago

So is coal extraction. How long has that coal fire burned under that town? 60 years?

load more comments (9 replies)
[-] RememberTheEnding@lemmy.blahaj.zone 16 points 3 months ago
[-] xodoh74984@lemmy.world 6 points 3 months ago* (last edited 3 months ago)

First of all, they spelled Heelys wrong. Second, Heelys are a great idea, even better as an adult in an office with polished concrete floors.

[-] corsicanguppy@lemmy.ca 3 points 3 months ago

So heely wheels deliberately pluralize wrong?

load more comments (1 replies)
[-] Crashumbc@lemmy.world 8 points 3 months ago

Yes because igniting fires underground is a GREAT idea!

Centralia,PA would like a word...

load more comments (1 replies)
[-] weirdingmodule@lemmynsfw.com 5 points 3 months ago

What could possibly go wrong?

[-] CrimeDad@lemmy.crimedad.work 7 points 3 months ago

This worst case scenario is probably the same as with any reservoir of natural gas (a massive leak and explosion), which is all the more reason to convert it to hydrogen and sequester the weaker, non-flammable GHG byproduct in situ.

[-] Wispy2891@lemmy.world 3 points 3 months ago

I imagine that suddenly all the co2 stored as gas underground could suddenly come out and being odorless, kills the whole neighboring town

[-] NOT_RICK@lemmy.world 5 points 3 months ago

Natural gas is also odorless and able to displace oxygen so I don’t see how it being CO2 underground instead of natural gas changes anything from a risk perspective. Maybe because the molecules are smaller and thus more prone to leaks? I’m admittedly way out of my depth here.

[-] Wispy2891@lemmy.world 5 points 3 months ago

Methane is lighter than air and goes up while co2 is heavier than oxygen and stays down. I don’t know maybe in case of some disaster where water leaks in the well and then pushes out the co2

I wouldn’t want to live nearby in both cases anyway

[-] tal@lemmy.today 4 points 3 months ago* (last edited 3 months ago)

I mean, all that methane coming out would probably be at least as bad, and the cavity had previously been filled with methane.

It'll be a cavern deep under a lot of rock. If it can contain methane for zillions of years, I imagine that it can contain carbon dioxide.

[-] Sewer_King@lemmy.world 2 points 3 months ago

I'd be worried about the now excess co2 levels disrupting the normal saturation levels in the groundwater.

[-] towerful@programming.dev 4 points 3 months ago
[-] Sewer_King@lemmy.world 2 points 3 months ago

It's what plants crave I guess.

[-] lath@lemmy.world 5 points 3 months ago

This how you realize that there are people around that just want to blow shit up.

[-] Devdogg@lemmy.ml 4 points 3 months ago

Yeah, something about this screams at me it's not right.

Why wouldn't this work? What would go wrong?

[-] Mongostein@lemmy.ca 9 points 3 months ago

Producing hydrogen from natural gas still releases carbon in to the air.

[-] CrimeDad@lemmy.crimedad.work 4 points 3 months ago

...which is the whole reason for doing the SMR within the natural reservoir and leaving the CO~2~ in there.

[-] Mongostein@lemmy.ca 5 points 3 months ago* (last edited 3 months ago)

We could just give up on the idea that natural gas is “clean.”

[-] CrimeDad@lemmy.crimedad.work 1 points 3 months ago

That used to be my thinking, but there's a lot of natural gas ready to be exploited and we need hydrogen. Therefore, methods like the one described in the article as well as ex situ methane pyrolysis are worth investigating.

[-] corsicanguppy@lemmy.ca 4 points 3 months ago

but there's a lot of natural gas ready to be exploited

Sooooo money. That's the exception to doing the right thing?

load more comments (1 replies)
[-] bamfic@lemmy.world 2 points 3 months ago

carbon monoxide? is that healthy for you?

load more comments (1 replies)
load more comments
view more: next ›
this post was submitted on 11 Jun 2024
125 points (91.9% liked)

Technology

58135 readers
4540 users here now

This is a most excellent place for technology news and articles.


Our Rules


  1. Follow the lemmy.world rules.
  2. Only tech related content.
  3. Be excellent to each another!
  4. Mod approved content bots can post up to 10 articles per day.
  5. Threads asking for personal tech support may be deleted.
  6. Politics threads may be removed.
  7. No memes allowed as posts, OK to post as comments.
  8. Only approved bots from the list below, to ask if your bot can be added please contact us.
  9. Check for duplicates before posting, duplicates may be removed

Approved Bots


founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS