3 ms·

I don't get the strong opposition to it. Yes, CO2 is a byproduct. And yes, that CO2 might leak out of the wells. But it would still be much better than the stat

I don't get the strong opposition to it. Yes, CO2 is a byproduct. And yes, that CO2 might leak out of the wells. But it would still be much better than the status quo, which is hydrogen from fossil fuels, with the CO2 being emitted 100%. Hydrogen is very much needed for chemical synthesis (ammonia for fertiliser), and can also be used to make steel. Using this would be much better than blue hydrogen. A good pragmatic solution until we have green hydrogen.

lazide 4y ago
This hydrogen is from the fossil fuel underground, correct? The CO2 still is getting emitted in this plan, near as I can tell?
kolinko 4y ago
This produces the same amount of co2 as the regular hydrogen generated from fossil fuels.p, unless they lock it underground permamently.
Schroedingersat 4y ago
Capturing the CO2 from doing this is the same lie as capturing fugitive methane. The line is stop drilling, digging and cutting.
kamray23 4y ago
> But it would still be much better than the status quo, which is hydrogen from fossil fuels, with the CO2 being emitted 100%. This produces the same amount. Actually, steam reforming is more efficient energy-wise, consuming 206 kJ/mol instead of the 253 kJ/mol this ideally consumes. Since the microbes are not being fed electricity, that comes out of the same fossil fuels, giving us an even worse, actually much worse, carbon / hydrogen ratio. The emissions are higher and storing the gas is no easier or harder than with ordinary SMR from natural gas or oil. We absolutely can and do store the CO from SMR, consuming many times the energy stored in the hydrogen coming out. It's really no solution at all and just a worse, less efficient version of hydrogen from fossil fuels. No matter how you seal it, nowhere close to the produced amount of CO₂ can fit in the well and it will nearly in its entirety just find alternative routes out. It's a waste of time, mostly.

lazide 4y ago

This hydrogen is from the fossil fuel underground, correct? The CO2 still is getting emitted in this plan, near as I can tell?

kolinko 4y ago

This produces the same amount of co2 as the regular hydrogen generated from fossil fuels.p, unless they lock it underground permamently.

Schroedingersat 4y ago

Capturing the CO2 from doing this is the same lie as capturing fugitive methane. The line is stop drilling, digging and cutting.

kamray23 4y ago

> But it would still be much better than the status quo, which is hydrogen from fossil fuels, with the CO2 being emitted 100%. This produces the same amount. Actually, steam reforming is more efficient energy-wise, consuming 206 kJ/mol instead of the 253 kJ/mol this ideally consumes. Since the microbes are not being fed electricity, that comes out of the same fossil fuels, giving us an even worse, actually much worse, carbon / hydrogen ratio. The emissions are higher and storing the gas is no easier or harder than with ordinary SMR from natural gas or oil. We absolutely can and do store the CO from SMR, consuming many times the energy stored in the hydrogen coming out. It's really no solution at all and just a worse, less efficient version of hydrogen from fossil fuels. No matter how you seal it, nowhere close to the produced amount of CO₂ can fit in the well and it will nearly in its entirety just find alternative routes out. It's a waste of time, mostly.