White Hydrogen?

[MrWhoopee]

I've been skeptical of hydrogen as a fuel for a long time, mostly due to the energy inputs required to produce it and/or byproducts from the production. I may have to change my opinion.

What is ‘white hydrogen’ and could it be a fuel of the future?

Could this natural fuel be a solution to Europe’s energy crisis?

www.euronews.com

 

[sdelivery]

Wow, That's fuel for thought.

 

[Just for fun]

That sounds like some cool stuff!

 

[verbotenwhisky]

I've been skeptical of hydrogen as a fuel for a long time, mostly due to the energy inputs required to produce it and/or byproducts from the production. I may have to change my opinion.

What is ‘white hydrogen’ and could it be a fuel of the future?

Could this natural fuel be a solution to Europe’s energy crisis?

www.euronews.com

There is a number of reasons Hydrogen it a poor choice for fuel to drive cars... Storage options are one of the reasons how it is come by in any volume is another.

 

[homebrewed]

Something of note in the link is that the hydrogen is hypothesized to be the result of water-mineral reactions. As a kind-of chemist I'm skeptical that those reactions involve most rocks, which consist of silicates -- silicon-oxygen based minerals. Getting hydrogen out of water means that the oxygen has to react with something else. Compounds that ALREADY are formed of oxygen in combination with something else aren't going to work.

Anyone remember water gas? It was used around the turn of the 20th century before natural gas became available. It was made by passing steam over very hot coal AKA carbon. So one possible route for "white hydrogen" is the reaction between hot water and hot coal at great depth.

Water gas also contained carbon monoxide, highly toxic. My admittedly brief online search didn't reveal a strong relationship between white hydrogen and carbon monoxide, but slower reactions between water and coal at high pressures underground might favor the production of hydrogen and carbon dioxide instead of carbon monoxide. One method of capturing CO2 involves pumping it down into the ground where it supposedly reacts with "minerals" so it can't re-escape to the environment. So perhaps the carbon dioxide byproduct is "scrubbed" by the surrounding minerals. Being one of those who want to know, I have to wonder just exactly what minerals CO2 DOES react with in this scenario, since most minerals are relatively stable compounds and not easily persuaded to combine with something else.

More questions than answers.

 

[xr650rRider]

White hydrogen success depends on gullible investors. Hydrogen doesn't really like to exist by itself but combines with other molecules. I've been on a lot of oil well drilling/completions and never once encountered a white hydrogen producing formation. Hydrogen likes to combine with sulfur compounds, then you end up with H2S and a 600 ppm concentration is instantly lethal.

 

[xr650rRider]

Something of note in the link is that the hydrogen is hypothesized to be the result of water-mineral reactions. As a kind-of chemist I'm skeptical that those reactions involve most rocks, which consist of silicates -- silicon-oxygen based minerals. Getting hydrogen out of water means that the oxygen has to react with something else. Compounds that ALREADY are formed of oxygen in combination with something else aren't going to work.

Anyone remember water gas? It was used around the turn of the 20th century before natural gas became available. It was made by passing steam over very hot coal AKA carbon. So one possible route for "white hydrogen" is the reaction between hot water and hot coal at great depth.

Water gas also contained carbon monoxide, highly toxic. My admittedly brief online search didn't reveal a strong relationship between white hydrogen and carbon monoxide, but slower reactions between water and coal at high pressures underground might favor the production of hydrogen and carbon dioxide instead of carbon monoxide. One method of capturing CO2 involves pumping it down into the ground where it supposedly reacts with "minerals" so it can't re-escape to the environment. So perhaps the carbon dioxide byproduct is "scrubbed" by the surrounding minerals. Being one of those who want to know, I have to wonder just exactly what minerals CO2 DOES react with in this scenario, since most minerals are relatively stable compounds and not easily persuaded to combine with something else.

More questions than answers.

There is miscible CO2 injection into depleted oil reservoirs. It actually combines with trapped hydrocarbons, reduces viscosity and allows production of the fluid. Other techniques allow the CO2 to actually remained trapped in the rock matrix and is the basis of carbon capture. There is a lot of gas production in the Permian basin that is a direct result of oil production. The gas is in solution and released upon reduction in pressure. So much gas that some producers are paying to have it taken away. Imagine using that extra gas to produce hydrogen and the enormous amount of CO2 along with it. More CO2 than just burning the gas directly. Then injecting the CO2 into reservoirs for secondary or enhanced oil production techniques. It''s a reality and there are subsidies on both sides that pay more than the gas was originally worth. Environmentalist are very good for oil companies.

 

[verbotenwhisky]

Something of note in the link is that the hydrogen is hypothesized to be the result of water-mineral reactions. As a kind-of chemist I'm skeptical that those reactions involve most rocks, which consist of silicates -- silicon-oxygen based minerals. Getting hydrogen out of water means that the oxygen has to react with something else. Compounds that ALREADY are formed of oxygen in combination with something else aren't going to work.

Anyone remember water gas? It was used around the turn of the 20th century before natural gas became available. It was made by passing steam over very hot coal AKA carbon. So one possible route for "white hydrogen" is the reaction between hot water and hot coal at great depth.

Water gas also contained carbon monoxide, highly toxic. My admittedly brief online search didn't reveal a strong relationship between white hydrogen and carbon monoxide, but slower reactions between water and coal at high pressures underground might favor the production of hydrogen and carbon dioxide instead of carbon monoxide. One method of capturing CO2 involves pumping it down into the ground where it supposedly reacts with "minerals" so it can't re-escape to the environment. So perhaps the carbon dioxide byproduct is "scrubbed" by the surrounding minerals. Being one of those who want to know, I have to wonder just exactly what minerals CO2 DOES react with in this scenario, since most minerals are relatively stable compounds and not easily persuaded to combine with something else.

More questions than answers.

The best carbon capture program is conducted by mother nature and is referred to as vegetation. When they pump CO2 into the ground they are locking up O2 because it cannot be converted from CO2 back to Oxygen by the planets natural process.

 

[homebrewed]

The best carbon capture program is conducted by mother nature and is referred to as vegetation. When they pump CO2 into the ground they are locking up O2 because it cannot be converted from CO2 back to Oxygen by the planets natural process.

Good point, One of the reasons that addressing greenhouse gases is a complicated problem.

 

[Inferno]

White hydrogen from "rocks" could just be a system of electrolysis. Something, underground, producing electricity and separating water molecules.
It's as good of an explanation as any.

But the other possibility is that oxygen is being pulled from the water molecules while other minerals are being oxidized.
My 8th grade science class memory is not as good as it was but I believe the teacher explained that oxidation did strip hydrogen and oxygen molecules apart.