Please create an account to participate in the Slashdot moderation system

 


Forgot your password?
Close
typodupeerror
×
Earth Education Power News Science Technology

Large Source Of Hydrogen Gas May Lie Near Slow-Spreading Tectonic Plates Under The Ocean (sciencedaily.com) 79

Posted by BeauHD from the under-the-sea dept.
New submitter pyroclast writes: According to research from Duke University, rocks forming from fast-spreading tectonic plates create hydrogen gas in large quantities. The tectonic alternation of hydrolyzed ultramafic rock to serpentinized rock has the byproduct of hydrogen gas. Science Daily reports: "'A major benefit of this work is that it provides a testable, tectonic-based model for not only identifying where free hydrogen gas may be forming beneath the seafloor, but also at what rate, and what the total scale of this formation may be, which on a global basis is massive,' said [researcher] Lincoln F. Pratson[.] 'Most scientists previously thought all hydrogen production occurs only at slow-spreading lithosphere, because this is where most serpentinized rocks are found. Although faster-spreading lithosphere contains smaller quantities of this rock, our analysis suggests the amount of H2 produced there might still be large,' [researcher Stacy] Worman said. [S]cientists need to understand where the gas goes after it's produced. 'Maybe microbes are eating it, or maybe it's accumulating in reservoirs under the seafloor. We still don't know,' Worman said. 'Of course, such accumulations would have to be quite significant to make hydrogen gas produced by serpentinization a viable fuel source.'"
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

Large Source Of Hydrogen Gas May Lie Near Slow-Spreading Tectonic Plates Under The Ocean More

Large Source Of Hydrogen Gas May Lie Near Slow-Spreading Tectonic Plates Under The Ocean

Comments Filter:
  • Is there enough that, if we tap it as a fuel source, we could use up all this pesky oxygen in the air?

    • Re: (Score:1)

      by Anonymous Coward

      H2 doesn't use more oxygen than hyrdocarbons when burning,

      • Re: (Score:1)

        by Anonymous Coward

        There is no natural cycle in which H2O is turned back into oxygen and hydrogen. The source of oxygen is photosynthesis, and while there is currently no shortage of CO2, draining the oxygen from that cycle would eventually cause global-scale problems.

        • Re: (Score:1, Interesting)

          by Hylandr ( 813770 )

          I can't even.

          Another millennial that get's their 'science' from the entertainment industry. ( CBS, NBC, ABC, CNN, Magazines, Radio, Movies, etc )

          Plants convert CO2 to Oxygen that we turn back into CO2 by breathing in Oxygen. ( Photosynthesis )

          Plants breathe in what we breathe out, and we breathe out what plants breathe in. ( This goes for any source of CO2 )

          If you want to get more CO2 out of the air, replant the Amazon rain forest. Plant more tree's period. Tree's scrub the air for us and provide cooler tem

          • Yeah,... no. The science is not settled here by any means. There's a lot of free oxygen released by oceanic bacteria and BGalgae. Further, many plants reverse the process at night, so the magnitude O2 in the atmosphere due to plants is not entirely clear. .

            • Re: (Score:2)

              by Hylandr ( 813770 )

              Anything green produces oxygen and consumes CO2.

              The problem with the 'green movement' is misdirected science. We have long known what eats CO2. That's been 'settled' for some time.

              Buy Carbon credit from people growing 3 or more trees. Problem is the bureaucrats won't be able to magically create 'carbon credits' to purchase.

              Ask yourself seriously; "who makes the 'carbon credits' now and how do I make them myself to join in on the profit?"

            • Re: (Score:1)

              by Anonymous Coward
              Also, it is probably a good idea to not allow Brazilian farmers to immigrate to Siberia

          • Re: (Score:1)

            by spazzmo ( 743767 )
            Plants breathe oxygen just like us. It's just that photosynthesis produces around 50 times as much oxygen as the plants need to breathe. At night they are consuming oxygen.
      • 2H2 + O2 = 2H20
        CH4 + 3O2 = CO2 + 2H2O
        C2H6 + 4O2 = 2CO2 + 3H2O
        C3H8 + 5O2 = 3CO2 + 4H2O

        Interestingly on a "volume of air used per volume of gas" (i.e. molar) basis, one mole of methane uses six times the amount of air as one mole of hydrogen gas.

      • Re: (Score:2)

        by Rei ( 128717 )

        More on a mass basis. Less on an energy basis.

        2 H2 (~4 AMU) + O2 (~32 AMU) = 2 H2O. 8 times as much O2 as fuek.
        1 C7H16 (~100 AMU) + 15 O2 (~480) = 7 CO2 + 8 H2O. 4,8 times as much O2 as fuel.

        Energy density of H2: 142 MJ/kg
        Energy density of gasoline: 46,4 MJ/kg
        Ratio: 3:1

      • Actually, you're a stupid AC so it is understandable that you would just spout such nonsense, but H2 certainly does use proportionally more O2 that hydrocarbons when burnt. But that wasn't even my point. Supposedly we are close to being out of hydrocarbons (or so the eko-kooks would have us believe), so I'm not too concerned that burning the little left could deplete our oxygen. On the other hand, if someone has found a "vast" reserve of hydrogen and can tap it as a fuel source, then we are likely to focus

    • Re: (Score:3)

      by rew ( 6140 )

      That should prevent forest fires for a long time, right?

  • No it will not. (Score:3)

    by LWATCDR ( 28044 ) on Friday July 22, 2016 @08:21AM (#52560067) Homepage Journal

    'Of course, such accumulations would have to be quite significant to make hydrogen gas produced by serpentinization a viable fuel source.'

    If it is on the mid atlantic ridge it will be very difficult to drill for most of the ridge is really deep far deeper than the continental shelf. Now if the Hydrogen is near one of the Islands on the mid atlantic ridge then it could be reachable.
    Then you have the problem of transport. You can liquify it but it is will still have a very low energy density plus people will tend to freak out over giant tankers filled with Hydrogen. Then you have hydrogen embrittlement to deal with and that makes hydrogen transportation a real pain. Over all if it is not at an island it will be too deep to use.

    • Transportation is easy! Blimps!

    • plus people will tend to freak out over giant tankers filled with Hydrogen.

      Why? We already have giant tankers full with liquified natural gas, and oil ofc.

      You can liquify it but it is will still have a very^H^H^H^H relatively low energy density
      FTFY.

      • Re: (Score:2)

        by LWATCDR ( 28044 )

        "Why? We already have giant tankers full with liquified natural gas, and oil ofc." and people freak out about them. The new always causes people to freak out.
        The big problem is that most of the mid atlantic ridge is REALLY DEEP.

        • The big problem is that most of the mid atlantic ridge is REALLY DEEP.

          ... and devoid of effective traps.

          Yes, people have looked. Seismic is cheap, particularly if academics pay to shoot it, and then release the results.

    • Now if the Hydrogen is near one of the Islands on the mid atlantic ridge then it could be reachable.

      Volcanic islands are above sea-level ("Doh!"), but are built up in layers by eruptions from a more-or less central vent. Try working out a way to do that which doesn't have, on average, beds of contrasting ages inclined to the vertical. The geometry doesn't allow for it.

      So you're going to have a really severe problem accumulating large amounts of hydrogen in one place.

      Finding a good natural example of a com

  • Why would you need to get hydrogen from so deep?
    Plain electrolysis, 46 kWh per kg of H2 and $0.04/kWh surplus wind electricity results in 46 * 0.04 = $1.84/kg. Not much different from wholesale gas price per gallon, but can be used more efficiently and conveniently compared to combustion. The problem is scaling up hydrogen distribution, which is too expensive at current low scale, and not production.

    • Re: (Score:2)

      by mspohr ( 589790 )

      The problem is the round trip efficiency of making H2 with electricity and then converting it back to electricity in a fuel cell is only 30-50% efficient compared to storing the electricity in a battery which is 90+% efficient.
      In addition, compressing, storing and transporting H2 is difficult and causes further losses and inefficiencies. (H2 has a nasty habit of leaking through most containers)

      • Re: (Score:2)

        by rch7 ( 4086979 )

        Straight from Musk ad, huh? The only problem is that you don't have any batteries that can store energy over the winter and will not have any time soon. Musk sells Powerpacks for around $500/kwh. US natural gas storage peaks at around 4000 bcf, just enough get over the winter. That is only 1,171,989,452,094 kWh. By Musk battery prices, it would be $585,994,726,047,000. How many trillions do you have to buy all these fantasy batteries? Are you sure they will hold charge over months?

        Hydrogen was used in gas

        • Re: (Score:2)

          by mspohr ( 589790 )

          Good sir (I assume you are a male, pardon if not).
          I was merely responding to the prior post which was extolling the virtues of storing electrical energy as H2. I pointed out a few problems with the scheme and why it is a bad electricity storage medium.
          I'm not sure what set you off on the tangent of Elon Musk but it seems that you have a pathological hatred of the man.
          Batteries do have their limits but are much better than H2 storage of electricity which is grossly inefficient.
          It's really hard to store any e

          • Re: (Score:2)

            by rch7 ( 4086979 )

            You are just repeating the same nonsensical Musk advertising about "fool cells" for 12 year olds.
            Please do reading of some studies on the subject.
            Storing energy for many months works just fine and essential part of this civilization. Never heard of natural gas storage? Please read here:
            http://ir.eia.gov/ngs/ngs.html [eia.gov]
            Basically the same storage can be applied to hydrogen:
            http://www.h2fc-fair.com/hm13/... [h2fc-fair.com]
            It is the only scaleable way to store energy for long term that is necessary both for electric grid and seas

            • Re: (Score:2)

              by mspohr ( 589790 )

              There is no need for long term energy storage.
              Wind, solar and hydro have daily variations but reliable generation when averaged over even very short time spans. There is no need to store this energy for more than a few days.
              If you have a source of H2 (such as this article posits), you can tap that as needed (similar to CH4) if you can work out a way to get if from the middle of the ocean. However, the thermodynamic inefficiencies of converting electricity to H2 and back to electricity (30%) makes it unecono

              • Re: (Score:2)

                by rch7 ( 4086979 )

                This is complete nonsense. US alone requires 4000 bcf natural gas storage to get over winter, and US is not entirely in North. You may be living somewhere in South California or imaginary dream world and never heard about snow and ice that covers all solar panels for few months in winter elsewhere and never read any serious papers with real world numbers how electric grid and energy distribution works.

                • Re: (Score:2)

                  by mspohr ( 589790 )

                  We've gotten a bit off track here.
                  I originally responded to a post which proposed making H2 from electricity, storing it and then converting that back to electricity. I pointed out that this is very inefficient (you only recoup about 30%). This is a very poor method to store electricity. I also pointed out that there is no need for long term battery electricity storage since short term fluctuations in wind, solar, hydro tend to even out. Recently published models of electric production from renewables have

        • What, batteries don't store energy over the winter? I guess that's why all of us Canadians have dog sleds in the winter. It's a wonderful scene all of the sleds going down the highways as everyone heads downtown. Tens of thousands of dogs pulling thousands of sleds. And our replacements for buses have hundreds of dogs pulling sleds with 20 people at a time.

  • It's increasingly hard to deny his theories [wikipedia.org].

    • Clearly you've not read Tom Gold's work. I have, which is why I've not wasted my time on the Wikipedia article.

Slashdot Top Deals

Technology is dominated by those who manage what they do not understand.

Close