"limitless" hydrogen under our feet

[ursaminortaur]

Ambrose Evans-Pritchard has written an article in the Telegraph suggesting that we are on the cusp of an energy revolution cheaply extracting vast deposits of hydrogen which lay beneath our feet. Is this for real or a fantasy designed to deflect attention from current green energy strategies by the Telegraph ( which I thought was somewhat climate change sceptical and anti net-zero) ? I can't seem to find much about this elsewhere apart from other articles quoting this Telegraph article.

https://12ft.io/proxy?q=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.telegraph.co.uk%2Fbusiness%2F2023%2F07%2F13%2Fwhite-hydrogen-disrupt-global-energy-net-zero%2F

We are suddenly waking up to the very real possibility that vast reserves of natural hydrogen lie under our feet and can plausibly be extracted at costs that blow away the competition, ultimately undercutting methane on pure price.

Scientists have long argued that pockets of exploitable geological hydrogen are more abundant than hitherto supposed.

The perpetual burning gas at Chimaera in Turkey – believed to be the source of the Olympic flame – has a hydrogen content reaching 11.3pc. There is another such marvel at Los Fuegos Eternos in the Philippines.

It has been known since 2012 that hydrogen beneath the village of Bourakébougou in Mali has 98pc purity. The site was discovered in the 1980s when it blew up in the face of a local man smoking a cigarette while drilling for water.

Professor Alain Prinzhofer from the Institute of Physics in Paris found that the gas flow remained constant over time – the pressure even rose – confirming a hypothesis that hydrogen can keep renewing itself by a chemical reaction underground.

What is new is that the world now needs that hydrogen and is acting on the insights.

The US Geological Survey concluded in April that there is probably enough accessible hydrogen in the earth’s subsurface to meet total global demand for “hundreds of years”.

The US Energy Department is drawing up plans to help kick start the industry, deeming the potential “astronomical”.

Viacheslav Zgonnik, a Ukrainian geologist, thinks white geologic hydrogen could be so cheap and abundant that it conquers the energy market.

“We think that we can reach $1 a kilo in the long-run and provide baseload power 24/7. It can be compressed for storage in steel tanks. It is not that expensive,” he said.

[BullDog]

Indeed, I've never heard of this before that article. Of course, we get our helium from in the ground. But I've never heard the same for hydrogen. It's a bit difficult to believe the article at face value since surely, given the huge amount of hydrogen we use, someone would have suggested this before now? I'll keep an open mind for now.

[XFool]

Natural hydrogen

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Natural_hydrogen

"Natural hydrogen (known as white hydrogen), is naturally occurring molecular hydrogen on or in Earth (as opposed to hydrogen produced in the laboratory or in industry). The name white hydrogen distinguishes it from green hydrogen, which is produced from renewable energy sources from the electrolysis of water, and from grey, brown or black hydrogen, which is obtained from fossil sources. Natural hydrogen may be renewable, non-polluting and allows for lower cost operation compared to industrial hydrogen. Natural hydrogen has been identified in many source rocks in areas beyond the sedimentary basins where oil companies typically operate."


HIDDEN HYDROGEN

https://www.science.org/content/article/hidden-hydrogen-earth-may-hold-vast-stores-renewable-carbon-free-fuel

Does Earth hold vast stores of a renewable, carbon-free fuel?

[bluedonkey]

Probably best to get your science from other sources.

[odysseus2000]

Suspect this is predominantly nonsense.

I can not think of a mechanism that would trap hydrogen in vast quantities, nor one that would keep it confined as hydrogen is notoriously difficult to store.

There are no known nuclear decay process that produce hydrogen, unlike helium 4 which is a product of radioactive decay.

Regards,

[BullDog]

Well I never. 50 years working in petrochemical and energy industries and I have never heard of this before -

https://www.energy-observer.org/resourc ... l-hydrogen

[BullDog]

Suspect this is predominantly nonsense.

I can not think of a mechanism that would trap hydrogen in vast quantities, nor one that would keep it confined as hydrogen is notoriously difficult to store.

There are no known nuclear decay process that produce hydrogen, unlike helium 4 which is a product of radioactive decay.

Regards,

Worth reading the article I just posted a link to. Hydrogen is not found in gas reserves trapped in rock formations like methane or helium is found.

[XFool]

Suspect this is predominantly nonsense.

I can not think of a mechanism that would trap hydrogen in vast quantities, nor one that would keep it confined as hydrogen is notoriously difficult to store.

There are no known nuclear decay process that produce hydrogen, unlike helium 4 which is a product of radioactive decay.

One suggestion is the hydrogen is being continually produced via the chemical action of hot minerals on water.

Generation
1 Radiolysis
Trace radioactive elements in rocks emit radiation that can split water. The process is slow, so ancient rocks are most likely to generate hydrogen.

2 Serpentinization
At high temperatures, water reacts with iron-rich rocks to make hydrogen. The fast and renewable reactions, called serpentinization, may drive most production.

3 Deep-seated
Streams of hydrogen from Earth’s core or mantle may rise along tectonic plate boundaries and faults. But the theory of these vast, deep stores is controversial.

[odysseus2000]

Suspect this is predominantly nonsense.

I can not think of a mechanism that would trap hydrogen in vast quantities, nor one that would keep it confined as hydrogen is notoriously difficult to store.

There are no known nuclear decay process that produce hydrogen, unlike helium 4 which is a product of radioactive decay.

Regards,

Worth reading the article I just posted a link to. Hydrogen is not found in gas reserves trapped in rock formations like methane or helium is found.

Thank you! Interesting ideas.

The cross-section for radioactive induced break up seem way too small to produce the amounts of gas claimed unless it is somehow trapped & hydrogen is notorious for being hard to store, escaping many confinement methods, although possible as used in fusion bombs, but at high cost.

Kind of suspicious as to where all the water would come from & that if it is surface water we would likely have seen depletion of the world’s oceans as the h2o seems to get split with the hydrogen molecule free & as it escapes to the surface it presumably would gain enough energy to reach escape velocity & leave earth, the same mechanism put forward for the relatively small amounts of helium-3 whereas helium-4 has more trouble reaching escape velocity and is mostly trapped.

As far as a fuel goes it suffers due to being hard to store & if used in combustion would waste at least half of the energy as prescribed by the laws of thermodynamics, suggesting fuel cells would be the best use case.

Regards,

[ursaminortaur]

Worth reading the article I just posted a link to. Hydrogen is not found in gas reserves trapped in rock formations like methane or helium is found.

Thank you! Interesting ideas.

The cross-section for radioactive induced break up seem way too small to produce the amounts of gas claimed unless it is somehow trapped & hydrogen is notorious for being hard to store, escaping many confinement methods, although possible as used in fusion bombs, but at high cost.

Kind of suspicious as to where all the water would come from & that if it is surface water we would likely have seen depletion of the world’s oceans as the h2o seems to get split with the hydrogen molecule free & as it escapes to the surface it presumably would gain enough energy to reach escape velocity & leave earth, the same mechanism put forward for the relatively small amounts of helium-3 whereas helium-4 has more trouble reaching escape velocity and is mostly trapped.

There is a lot of water underground which is why you need pumping equipment to prevent mines flooding as you dig deeper. Helium is the first of the noble gases and pretty much non-reactive whereas hydrogen is very reactive and hence escaping hydrogen would likely react with atmospheric oxygen to form water long before it reached the edge of space.

[odysseus2000]

Thank you! Interesting ideas.

The cross-section for radioactive induced break up seem way too small to produce the amounts of gas claimed unless it is somehow trapped & hydrogen is notorious for being hard to store, escaping many confinement methods, although possible as used in fusion bombs, but at high cost.

Kind of suspicious as to where all the water would come from & that if it is surface water we would likely have seen depletion of the world’s oceans as the h2o seems to get split with the hydrogen molecule free & as it escapes to the surface it presumably would gain enough energy to reach escape velocity & leave earth, the same mechanism put forward for the relatively small amounts of helium-3 whereas helium-4 has more trouble reaching escape velocity and is mostly trapped.

There is a lot of water underground which is why you need pumping equipment to prevent mines flooding as you dig deeper. Helium is the first of the noble gases and pretty much non-reactive whereas hydrogen is very reactive and hence escaping hydrogen would likely react with atmospheric oxygen to form water long before it reached the edge of space.

Great points. To understand this in detail would require Monte Carlo calculations with all the appropriate factors quantified & it would need calculating over geological time when atmospheric constituents changed. There would also have to be an allowance for scale heights in the atmosphere. Hydrogen being light would rapidly go up high, but oxygen being heavier would not go as high. These are very complicated calculations & prone to scientific fears. Not so long ago serious scientists used to worry about the world running out of co2, the exact opposite to what we have now. If you Goggle the distribution of hydrogen in the atmosphere there are a wide range of answers & I am not sure how well the answer is known. However, mountaineers & pilots who travel high need to have an oxygen supply so there is clear evidence that oxygen’s abundance falls rapidly with elevation.

Regards,

[ursaminortaur]

There is a lot of water underground which is why you need pumping equipment to prevent mines flooding as you dig deeper. Helium is the first of the noble gases and pretty much non-reactive whereas hydrogen is very reactive and hence escaping hydrogen would likely react with atmospheric oxygen to form water long before it reached the edge of space.

Great points. To understand this in detail would require Monte Carlo calculations with all the appropriate factors quantified & it would need calculating over geological time when atmospheric constituents changed. There would also have to be an allowance for scale heights in the atmosphere. Hydrogen being light would rapidly go up high, but oxygen being heavier would not go as high. These are very complicated calculations & prone to scientific fears. Not so long ago serious scientists used to worry about the world running out of co2, the exact opposite to what we have now. If you Goggle the distribution of hydrogen in the atmosphere there are a wide range of answers & I am not sure how well the answer is known. However, mountaineers & pilots who travel high need to have an oxygen supply so there is clear evidence that oxygen’s abundance falls rapidly with elevation.

Regards,

If any does make it to the top of the atmosphere the amount lost would be swamped by the hydrogen lost through the disassociation of water in the upper atmosphere. However losses of water to space are countered by meteorites bringing new water and protons being delivered to Earth in the solar wind. The balance seems to be about constant currently with any gain or loss being so small that it wouldn't make much of a difference for many billions of years if things remained the same - however since the sun is gradually getting hotter that balance will shift in the future (more water vapour in the upper atmosphere will increase the amount of loss to space and that loss will then be further boosted when the Earth's magnetic field fails).

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Future_of_Earth

The luminosity of the Sun will steadily increase, resulting in a rise in the solar radiation reaching Earth, resulting in a higher rate of weathering of silicate minerals, affecting the carbonate–silicate cycle, which will cause a decrease in the level of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere. In about 600 million years from now, the level of carbon dioxide will fall below the level needed to sustain C3 carbon fixation photosynthesis used by trees. Some plants use the C4 carbon fixation method to persist at carbon dioxide concentrations as low as ten parts per million. However, the long-term trend is for plant life to die off altogether. The extinction of plants will be the demise of almost all animal life since plants are the base of much of the animal food chain on Earth.[12][13]

In about one billion years, the solar luminosity will be 10% higher, causing the atmosphere to become a "moist greenhouse", resulting in a runaway evaporation of the oceans. As a likely consequence, plate tectonics and the entire carbon cycle will end.[14] Following this event, in about 2–3 billion years, the planet's magnetic dynamo may cease, causing the magnetosphere to decay and leading to an accelerated loss of volatiles from the outer atmosphere. Four billion years from now, the increase in Earth's surface temperature will cause a runaway greenhouse effect, creating conditions more extreme than present-day Venus and heating Earth's surface enough to melt it. By that point, all life on Earth will be extinct.[15][16] Finally, the most probable fate of the planet is absorption by the Sun in about 7.5 billion years, after the star has entered the red giant phase and expanded beyond the planet's current orbit.[17]

[Jam2Day]

As a footnote to this article which I suspect is utter luvvy nonsense, my understanding, based on my limited recollection from my chemistry lessons, is that Hydrogen combustion is a great idea with one major problem. The process and cost of energy conversion by saline electrolysis etc is not cost effective simply because it takes almost as much energy to convert it . What is interesting is that Bamford (the JCB people) are taking hydrogen very seriously and are now developing their combustion engines as a future replacement for diesel. However, as with electric cars and their battery storage problem, it seems no one has really solved the cost effective hydrogen supply problem. However, as with solar power, the real problem is getting it to market. Since there are places on the planet where there is an abundance of sunshine, if nothing else, I just wonder if hydrogen (stored in pressure tanks) is the solution. In other words, solar generated energy transfer/conversion to hydrogen cells for onward distribution to the market in modified pressure proof tankers and transporters etc. Of course, there is the risk of explosion as with LPG but it is my understanding that rapidly escaping hydrogen is better behaved than LPG, if that makes sense. Be very interested to hear the informed views of the experts on this angle?

[ursaminortaur]

As a footnote to this article which I suspect is utter luvvy nonsense, my understanding, based on my limited recollection from my chemistry lessons, is that Hydrogen combustion is a great idea with one major problem. The process and cost of energy conversion by saline electrolysis etc is not cost effective simply because it takes almost as much energy to convert it .

The point of the article is that this is naturally occurring hydrogen which can be extracted from the ground - which is known as white hydrogen. There is no electrolysis used.

When people propose using electrolysis to create hydrogen as a replacement for carbon fuels they generally mean by using electricity produced from some other renewable sources to power the electrolysis - this is known as green hydrogen. This white hydrogen though if it exists in large quantities as the article suggests and can be easily extracted would do away with the need to produce lots of green hydrogen.

[CliffEdge]

Yes but there are a few other things to consider here.

[odysseus2000]

ursaminotaur

If any does make it to the top of the atmosphere the amount lost would be swamped by the hydrogen lost through the disassociation of water in the upper atmosphere. However losses of water to space are countered by meteorites bringing new water and protons being delivered to Earth in the solar wind. The balance seems to be about constant currently with any gain or loss being so small that it wouldn't make much of a difference for many billions of years if things remained the same - however since the sun is gradually getting hotter that balance will shift in the future (more water vapour in the upper atmosphere will increase the amount of loss to space and that loss will then be further boosted when the Earth's magnetic field fails).

The physics of upper atmospheric interactions is complicated.

Many of the protons in the solar wind have enough energy to initiate nuclear reactions and for example are responsible for the continued production of c14 via the 14n(p,n) reaction, neutrons reach the ground and are continuously monitored by neutron detectors all over the plane and any free neutrons that have not interacted with something will become protons via beta-decay.

As I understand the spectrum of meteorites there is a wide range of possibilities, from those with enough energy and relatively weak cores burning up, to those with iron cores reaching the ground at relatively high rates. This has long been a controversial subject. Hoyle famously suggested that life on earth came from meteorites. Others argue that the majority of water on earth also came by meteroites. There is currently a big disagreement with the results of Avi Loeb who is arguing he has found evidence for alien tech in the remains of an interstellar meteorite. Oxford physics chair (Chris Lintott) is arguing that Loeb's results are wrong as both the meteorite is not interstellar (disagreeing with the US defence NORAD) and that the back ground rate is 10,000 times larger than what Loeb claims to have measured. Countering some of Lintott's assertions is that the elemental composition that Loeb has measured is unlike other iron meteorites that have been measured.

There have also been disagreements as the rate of earth mass build up via dust and meteorites against the loss of mass via atoms reaching escape velocity and there is also controversy over whether the arrival of positive charge in the solar winds is enough to cause the earth to charge up or whether space is not a good insulator and a similar level of charge to that which arrives is lost from the earth. Added to all of this are the effects of the radiation belts that surround earth such as the Van Allen radiation belt.

Regards,

[odysseus2000]

As a footnote to this article which I suspect is utter luvvy nonsense, my understanding, based on my limited recollection from my chemistry lessons, is that Hydrogen combustion is a great idea with one major problem. The process and cost of energy conversion by saline electrolysis etc is not cost effective simply because it takes almost as much energy to convert it .

The point of the article is that this is naturally occurring hydrogen which can be extracted from the ground - which is known as white hydrogen. There is no electrolysis used.

When people propose using electrolysis to create hydrogen as a replacement for carbon fuels they generally mean by using electricity produced from some other renewable sources to power the electrolysis - this is known as green hydrogen. This white hydrogen though if it exists in large quantities as the article suggests and can be easily extracted would do away with the need to produce lots of green hydrogen.

As I understand the green hydrogen lobby, whom I feel are challenged in their views on energy for transport, the idea is to create not hydrogen alone but an e-fuel hydrocarbon that would replace petrol and be far easier to handle than hydrogen and would be used to allow folk to continue to drive combustion engined vehicles that have efficiencies of less than 30% rather than electric vehicles that have efficiencies of well over 80%. Depending upon how the green hydrogen is made the efficiency of production is low or very low, leading to a ultra low overall system efficiencies. But this does not deter petrol heads and for example Harry's garage youtube channel and JCB are both great enthusiasts for e-fuels and even direct green hydrogen use for transportation and various heavy plant equipment. These folk argue that electricity can never be used for heavy machines and Bill Gates argued that this included 18 wheeler wagons, but the Tesla semi seems to be saying this is not true.

Regards,

[tjh290633]

However, mountaineers & pilots who travel high need to have an oxygen supply so there is clear evidence that oxygen’s abundance falls rapidly with elevation.

Regards,

There is a misconception here. Atmospheric pressure falls with altitude, but the relative concentration of oxygen remains the same. For aviation the rule was that you used oxygen above 10,000 feet, and on pure oxygen you were limited to 35,000 feet, unless you cabin was pressurised. At 10,000 feet the partial pressure of oxygen in the atmosphere is at the limit which someone acclimatised to living at sea level can cope with. At 35,000 feet the atmospheric pressure is down to that limit, and so pure oxygen is needed to sustain life.

TJH

[JohnB]

The Earth's atmosphere is well mixed, and with common gasses with similar molecular weight O2=32 N2=28 don't vary in concentration much with height. H2=2 is very much an outlier, and will tend to rise into the mesosphere, joining photo-dissocated hydrogen from water (H2O=18) which is very spatially varied in being ionised by cosmic rays and escaping.

You really can't trap hydrogen in rock strata like you can oil in salt domes, so any "white hydrogen" reserves will be minimal. Its hardly a revolutionary idea, so I'd ignore its proponents.

Your best use for hydrogen in long distance air transport is airships, but try to persuade people of that...

[Jam2Day]

As a footnote to this article which I suspect is utter luvvy nonsense, my understanding, based on my limited recollection from my chemistry lessons, is that Hydrogen combustion is a great idea with one major problem. The process and cost of energy conversion by saline electrolysis etc is not cost effective simply because it takes almost as much energy to convert it .

The point of the article is that this is naturally occurring hydrogen which can be extracted from the ground - which is known as white hydrogen. There is no electrolysis used.

When people propose using electrolysis to create hydrogen as a replacement for carbon fuels they generally mean by using electricity produced from some other renewable sources to power the electrolysis - this is known as green hydrogen. This white hydrogen though if it exists in large quantities as the article suggests and can be easily extracted would do away with the need to produce lots of green hydrogen.

Thanks for the response. I think my original comment was badly worded. I hope this is a little more cogent. I understood the point of the article but question the evidence and rational on whether it would make financial sense to 'drill' for 'white hydrogen' when we know it can actually be produced as 'green hydrogen'. It is the latter bit that interests me, hence my comment about solar energy. We have thousands of miles of desert on the planet which, in most cases, receive a plentiful supply of sunshine which is largely untapped. Surely this potential solar energy could be used to convert H2O into its' consituent bits of two parts hydrogen and one part oxygen and shipped to market. It is my understanding that when combusted it returns to its original state of H2O and therefore forms part of a continuous cycle. Therefore this process is really nothing more than a transfer of energy, in this case, solar. The first problem that springs to mind is geopolitics and logistics in many areas that are unstable. There are also the practical questions which involve physics on a quid pro quo principle. Much of the sun's rays in a white sand desert are reflected during the day and the remaining residual dry heat accumulated in the land during the day is dissipated into the atmosphere at night but do we know enough about the impact of this on the weather patterns if this balance is interrupted?