And we’re not doing so well on the gas leak part…
Comment on How is the hydrogen made?
Tar_alcaran@sh.itjust.works 8 months agoIn reverse order:
1 - it needs to be tranported
2 - it needs to compressed and cooled, in order to transport it. You need to cool it down around 1700 degrees, because:
3 - methane pyrolysis is done at around 1500 degrees C, getting something that hot isn’t free.
4 - methane isn’t the only component in natural gas, so you need to seperate out all the impurities.
5 - methane is a very strong contributor to global warming, so any natural gas leak from the drill to the factory adds co2equivalent.
6 - you need to extract natural gas from the ground and transport it, which takes energy.
MashedTech@lemmy.world 8 months ago
danekrae@lemmy.world 8 months ago
So what is the best solution, in your opinion?
Tar_alcaran@sh.itjust.works 8 months ago
Hydrogen isn’t a solution at all. Literally anything is better than using hydrogen from methane, even shovelling coal into steam engines produces less CO2 equivalent.
So, “don’t do that, it makes things worse”.
I don’t think I should have to produce an answer to one of the main problems facing Western society to be able to point out that hydrogen is mostly natural gas under an asbestos bedsheet.
JohnDClay@sh.itjust.works 8 months ago
It could make sense for planes, where batteries are just too heavy. But you’d need to weigh it against things like synthetic electrically produced kerosene or biodiesel.
danekrae@lemmy.world 8 months ago
Should keep doing what we’ve been doing?
Tar_alcaran@sh.itjust.works 8 months ago
Obviously not. But switching to something new and worse also clearly isn’t the solution.
Resistentialism@sopuli.xyz 8 months ago
How about hydrogen from water? Yeah, you need high amounts of electricity to get it, but, as one example, if it’s used in ICE engines, isn’t that significantly cleaner than petrol? And a lot less damaging than making lithium batteries? Once burned, wouldn’t it just react with oxygen to then form water vapour? And then, if it’s making water, that’s a self-sufficient cycle?
I feel like hydrogen can potentially be a very good solution, but the technology needs to catch up massively. I mean, scientists are getting to on nuclear fusion reactors, and their yield seems a lot better than everything else. Even fission reactors.
Also, I had this thought the other day, and yes, it’s extremely futuristic, with the right people in charge thought, but mining gas planets for the hydrogen. We’ll more than likely never inhabit those ones or use them for much, so we might as well use them for something, at least. At least before Dyson swarms become a thing.
Tar_alcaran@sh.itjust.works 8 months ago
Using excess green energy to produce hydrogen is a great option, but those events are pretty rare, and it doesn’t produce very much, compared to pyrolysis of natural gas. Using regular electricity isn’t very smart, since you’re burning hydrocarbons to create hydrogen from water, when you could just get them from the hydrocarbons, so that’s even less efficient.
JohnDClay@sh.itjust.works 8 months ago
Plus the big one is that my taking the hydrogen off of the methane, you’re left with carbon. And that carbon is usually reacted with oxygen to make carbon dioxide during the refining process. So for every two liters of hydrogen you make, you’d make a liter of CO2.