Viewing a single comment thread. View all comments

deck_hand t1_j28z668 wrote

Hydrogen is a decent carrier of energy. It can be used when combined/separated from other elements, like carbon and oxygen. In fact, hydrogen, when combined/separated from carbon and oxygen, is how we power the world today. The energy was captured thousands/millions of years ago, stored as hydrocarbons, and is released when the carbons are stripped from the hydrogen by oxidation.

We can do the same thing today, add energy to hydrogen and carbon, stripping away the oxygen from water and CO2, then using the combined hydrocarbon as a carrier for the energy we added in. This isn't a new science - it is well known how to do it. It may not be the most energy efficient way, but it doesn't rely on new, untested and/or expensive technology to make it work.

3

jelloslug t1_j2cgm5r wrote

Hydrogen hates being hydrogen and basically destroys everything it touches until it manages to combine itself with other elements.

5

Shot-Job-8841 t1_j2a4xdv wrote

The study implies that refitting the pipelines to carry hydrogen gas is going to be much tougher than some have previously suggested.

4

gregorydgraham t1_j2bjqo1 wrote

Hydrogen atoms are minuscule even on the atomic scale, so they pass through metal like its a thick sponge. They happily become part of the metal structure and just wander around until they exit.

7

deck_hand t1_j2a9t8v wrote

Turning the gas from hydrogen (H2) into methane (CH4) means you don’t need to change the lines to carry the gas.

1

gregorydgraham t1_j2bjbdn wrote

And you’re back to using methane reformation but with more steps.

Extracted petro-methane is going to be cheaper always.

1

deck_hand t1_j2bjnna wrote

Or, and here me out, not breaking the methane back into hydrogen gas at the other end. Methane can be freely burned for heat and/or power, because it wasn’t sourced from fossil fuels.

1

gregorydgraham t1_j2bku8u wrote

Yep, 100% agree with you.

The problem has always been the “petro” in petrochemicals, making fuel from the atmospheric CO2 and venting it back to the atmosphere is a valid (and in my opinion excellent) solution to the current crisis.

Still requires legislation to avoid the “petro” sneaking back in and quite a lot of storage to remove the current excess CO2.

1

deck_hand t1_j2bkzt1 wrote

It’s a step forward, and that’s progress

1

gregorydgraham t1_j2bmcwy wrote

Show me the legislation and I’ll agree with “forward” :-)

1

knewusr t1_j2ciu4r wrote

Where did the energy come from to power your system? Coal? Natural Gas?

1

Taxoro t1_j2cwgg5 wrote

Seeing as we are talking about GREEN hydrogen, then it has to come from renewable energy sources like wind and solar.

1

knewusr t1_j2dz7ia wrote

Have you done the math to see how much electricity it would take? How many windmills and solar panels? Also what happens when the sun sets or the wind calms down.

1

Taxoro t1_j2eabu6 wrote

Yea I work in the field.

​

Look we need hydrogen in the use of steel manufacturing and for fertilizers. These aer very very important industries.

There's 2 ways to get hydrogen. One you take fossile fuels, typically natural gas, and you get rid of the carbon to leave hydrogen. This uses a limited fossil fuel and is very polluting as the carbon turned into co2. Additionally anything that uses natural gas runs the risk of spills, and natural gas is a even worse greenhouse gas than co2.

​

The second way is to use electricity to split water. That takes energy of course, the energy that would otherwise come from fossil fuels.

We don't need hydrogen 24-7 and it can be stored. When we produce hydrogen it's transported in tubes under pressure, the tubes themselves act as a storage site and there's many other ways to store hydrogen. So you produce as much hydrogen as you can while the sun is shining and the wind is blowing and save it for when it's needed.

Another problem we have is that we need low carbon electricity to live our current lives without causing further global warming. A problem with low carbon electricity is that it typically isn't adjustable or reliable. Say you have a ton of solar panels to provide energy for most of the day. Well during midday our energy needs aren't that great, but the solar power is peaking. During that time we could use some of the energy from solar cells to produce green hydrogen.

​

If we gonna go low carbon we will have leftover energy to use for hydrogen production, and there's a big need for green hydrogen to further the low carbon efforts.

1