4 ms·

> Geological formations suitable for storage of hydrogen are quite widespread. They're basically identical to the formations that are already used to store natu

> Geological formations suitable for storage of hydrogen are quite widespread. They're basically identical to the formations that are already used to store natural gas. https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=24621709 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=24621709 > Not really. It has lower energy/mole. There is the possibility that if CO2 is present that microorganisms could react the two to make methane. But aside from that, where is this much greater complexity coming from? The equipment required for storing either is similar. https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=24626876 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=24626876 > And did you read my post? There is already a great deal of equipment for manipulating hydrogen on an industrial scale. What, did you think they rip that stuff out every month? The issue you are raising is already well solved. https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=24633530 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=24633530

pfdietz 6y ago
None of that says that the existing natural gas infrastructure can be used to distribute hydrogen. It's remarkable that you make a post like that without realizing how it shreds what little credibility you have left.
- Manfredo_1 6y ago
  Then what did you mean by, "The equipment required for storing either is similar" and "there is already a great deal of equipment for manipulating hydrogen"? Interpreting this as saying that natural gas infrastructure can be repurposed to work with hydrogen makes sense even if it is based on a false assumption that this is feasible. This claim that we have a great deal of equipment for manipulating hydrogen would be true if natural gas and hydrogen infrastructure were interchangeable. But if you do understand that hydrogen and natural gas infrastructure are different, then this statement is just totally unsubstantiated. You knew that our hydrogen infrastructure is several orders of magnitude smaller, but you just say the complete opposite?
  - pfdietz 6y ago
    I see english is not your first language. If it were, you would know that "similar" and "identical" are not synonyms. > Interpreting this as saying that natural gas infrastructure can be repurposed to work with hydrogen makes sense It absolutely does not make sense. It's a bit of illogic you apparently are not capable of recognizing as a non sequitur. BTW, the equipment we have for handling hydrogen is not necessarily in pipelines (although the US does have many miles of hydrogen pipeline even today). It's in ammonia synthesis plants. It's in oil refineries. It's in chlor-alkali cells. The world economy makes many millions of tons of hydrogen each year, and that hydrogen is manipulated with equipment that exists. Compressors, pipes, pumps, valves, sensors... all those exist in forms that work with hydrogen.
    - Manfredo_1 6y ago
      Resorting to ad hominems only demonstrates that you're not interested in engaging productively. So this claim about having infrastructure to manipulate hydrogen is referring to the chemical industry, where hydrogen frequently used as an input. You're right that the chemical industry does use hydrogen and we have infrastructure to use it in the Haber process, and refining hydrocarbons and more. But this infrastructure doesn't translate to using hydrogen as a form of energy storage. The US has less than 1,000 miles of hydrogen pipeline [1]. Most hydrogen production facilities are located close to the point of demand. Our experience manipulating hydrogen has taught us that it's important to minimize to minimize the amount of transport required. Also, almost all of these many millions of tons of hydrogen produced each year are produced through steam reformation [2]. This is not carbon neutral, and renewable hydrogen production must be done through electrolysis or thermochemical hydrogen production instead. By comparison, there's a larger need to transport hydrogen if we're using hydrogen as a form of energy storage. Hydrogen storage is underground, and electrolysis needs to be done by a source of water. The source and destination have different required geographic features - transport is unavoidable. Alternatively you could pipe the water to the electrolysis plant, but then you're moving 9 times as much mass through the pipeline - water is 1 part hydrogen to 8 parts oxygen by mass. So the claim that we have extensive infrastructure in manipulating hydrogen wasn't a misunderstanding in that natural gas infrastructure can be used to transport hydrogen. It was a misunderstanding in that the infrastructure used to manipulate hydrogen in the context of the chemical industry translates into infrastructure for renewable hydrogen production, and hydrogen transport and storage. It doesn't: most of our hydrogen is produced through steam reformation, and our hydrogen infrastructure is built around minimizing need to transport and store hydrogen. 1. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hydrogen_infrastructure#:~:text=Hydrogen%20pipeline%20transport,-Hydrogen%20pipeline%20transport&text=As%20of%202004%2C%20there%20are,(1%2C497%20km)%20in%20Europe https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hydrogen_infrastructure#:~:tex.... 2. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hydrogen_production https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hydrogen_production

pfdietz 6y ago

None of that says that the existing natural gas infrastructure can be used to distribute hydrogen. It's remarkable that you make a post like that without realizing how it shreds what little credibility you have left.

Manfredo_1 6y ago
Then what did you mean by, "The equipment required for storing either is similar" and "there is already a great deal of equipment for manipulating hydrogen"? Interpreting this as saying that natural gas infrastructure can be repurposed to work with hydrogen makes sense even if it is based on a false assumption that this is feasible. This claim that we have a great deal of equipment for manipulating hydrogen would be true if natural gas and hydrogen infrastructure were interchangeable. But if you do understand that hydrogen and natural gas infrastructure are different, then this statement is just totally unsubstantiated. You knew that our hydrogen infrastructure is several orders of magnitude smaller, but you just say the complete opposite?
- pfdietz 6y ago
  I see english is not your first language. If it were, you would know that "similar" and "identical" are not synonyms. > Interpreting this as saying that natural gas infrastructure can be repurposed to work with hydrogen makes sense It absolutely does not make sense. It's a bit of illogic you apparently are not capable of recognizing as a non sequitur. BTW, the equipment we have for handling hydrogen is not necessarily in pipelines (although the US does have many miles of hydrogen pipeline even today). It's in ammonia synthesis plants. It's in oil refineries. It's in chlor-alkali cells. The world economy makes many millions of tons of hydrogen each year, and that hydrogen is manipulated with equipment that exists. Compressors, pipes, pumps, valves, sensors... all those exist in forms that work with hydrogen.
  - Manfredo_1 6y ago
    Resorting to ad hominems only demonstrates that you're not interested in engaging productively. So this claim about having infrastructure to manipulate hydrogen is referring to the chemical industry, where hydrogen frequently used as an input. You're right that the chemical industry does use hydrogen and we have infrastructure to use it in the Haber process, and refining hydrocarbons and more. But this infrastructure doesn't translate to using hydrogen as a form of energy storage. The US has less than 1,000 miles of hydrogen pipeline [1]. Most hydrogen production facilities are located close to the point of demand. Our experience manipulating hydrogen has taught us that it's important to minimize to minimize the amount of transport required. Also, almost all of these many millions of tons of hydrogen produced each year are produced through steam reformation [2]. This is not carbon neutral, and renewable hydrogen production must be done through electrolysis or thermochemical hydrogen production instead. By comparison, there's a larger need to transport hydrogen if we're using hydrogen as a form of energy storage. Hydrogen storage is underground, and electrolysis needs to be done by a source of water. The source and destination have different required geographic features - transport is unavoidable. Alternatively you could pipe the water to the electrolysis plant, but then you're moving 9 times as much mass through the pipeline - water is 1 part hydrogen to 8 parts oxygen by mass. So the claim that we have extensive infrastructure in manipulating hydrogen wasn't a misunderstanding in that natural gas infrastructure can be used to transport hydrogen. It was a misunderstanding in that the infrastructure used to manipulate hydrogen in the context of the chemical industry translates into infrastructure for renewable hydrogen production, and hydrogen transport and storage. It doesn't: most of our hydrogen is produced through steam reformation, and our hydrogen infrastructure is built around minimizing need to transport and store hydrogen. 1. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hydrogen_infrastructure#:~:text=Hydrogen%20pipeline%20transport,-Hydrogen%20pipeline%20transport&text=As%20of%202004%2C%20there%20are,(1%2C497%20km)%20in%20Europe https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hydrogen_infrastructure#:~:tex.... 2. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hydrogen_production https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hydrogen_production