Slashdot Mirror
NASA Reports Vast Hydrogen Reserves in Earth's Crust
Garin writes: "The Vancouver Sun is reporting that NASA scientists have discovered vast quantities of hydrogen stored in the Earth's crust while they were trying to explain the presence of living bacteria. Could this be the beginning of the end for our dependence on oil? I hope so."
Sure, it sounds like a neat idea now.
But wait until we've been burning hydrogen-powered cars for a thousand years, locking up all of the atmospheric oxygen in water. People will be gasping for air at sea level, and the 'dead zone' on mountains (which the oxygen level is too low to support human life) will include cities like Denver and Mexico City.
For every complex problem there is an answer that is clear, simple, and wrong. -- H L Mencken
Posted anonymously because I don't need the karma.
LONDON -- Scientists have discovered vast quantities of hydrogen gas, widely regarded as the most promising alternative to today's dwindling stocks of fossil fuels, lying beneath the Earth's crust.
The discovery has stunned energy experts, who believe that it could provide virtually limitless supplies of clean fuel for cars, homes and industry.
Governments across the world are urgently seeking ways of switching from conventional energy sources such as coal, gas and nuclear power to cleaner, safer alternatives.
Energy specialists estimate that oil production will start to decline within the next 10 to 15 years, as the economically viable reserves start to run out.
Hydrogen gas has been hailed as the ultimate clean fuel, as it produces only water when burned. Until now, however, moves to switch to a "hydrogen economy" have been dogged by the cost of making the gas. The two most common ways -- extraction from natural gas and sea water -- are expensive and create environmental problems.
Now scientists at the American space agency Nasa have found that the Earth's crust is a vast natural reservoir of hydrogen which has become trapped in ancient rocks.
The team made its discovery while trying to explain how bacteria live many miles below the Earth's surface. Such bugs have no access to sunlight, forcing them to rely on another source of energy for life. Scientists suspected that hydrogen was the source.
According to Professor Friedemann Freund and colleagues at Nasa's Ames Research Center in California, the gas is produced when water molecules trapped inside molten rock break down to release hydrogen.
"In the top 20 kilometres of the Earth's crust, the conditions are right to produce a nearly inexhaustible supply of hydrogen," said Professor Freund.
Studies by the team of common rock types such as granite and olivine have revealed extraordinarily high levels of trapped hydrogen. Professor Freund said that his team had "tantalizing evidence" that as much as 1,000 litres of hydrogen may be trapped in each cubic metre of rock.
Although formidable engineering problems remain to be overcome in abstracting the gas, the sheer volume of the Earth's crust means that such a high concentration would solve the world's energy problems.
"Everyone thinks of gas and oil as the main sources, and it's very difficult to get anyone to take alternatives seriously," said Dr. David Elliott, the professor of technology policy at the Open University in London. "The possibility of vast reserves of hydrogen in the Earth's crust could change that mindset."
The low yield of energy from burning hydrogen compared to gas, however, means that vast quantities of rock would have to be mined.
Professor Freund believes that the extraction and crushing of rock to extract the trapped hydrogen is likely to be prohibitively expensive. The reaction which creates the gas takes place at depths far below those involved in oil extraction, which are typically about two miles down.
The most promising source of the hydrogen may be geological "traps" similar to those now drilled for natural gas. Professor Freund said: "One of these natural hydrogen fields is already known to exist in North America, and extends from Canada to Kansas."
Economics. Oil is cheaper to use than any of those. Solar, Wind and Nuclear require big capital investments up front and provide electrical energy which can't be stored without a big drop in efficiency. Oil and hydrogen, depending on how difficult it will be to mine it, don't have this problem.
Are you sure? Hydrogen is the most common element in the universe. If we've found a large, easily tapped reserve, this is a good thing, I think.
Considering that they already control most of the equipment resources needed for mining and processing pretty much anything I don't think it will be a problem for them to make a lateral move from Oil Conglomerate to Hydrogen Conglomerate.
Kintanon
Check out JoshJitsu.info for Brazilian Ji
Could this be the beginning of the end for our dependence on oil?
I can think of many reasons why it won't.
The article claims that Professor Freund said that his team had "tantalizing evidence" that as much as 1,000 litres of hydrogen may be trapped in each cubic metre of rock.
This basically means that any particular volume of rock contains its own volume (at atmospheric pressume, presumably) in hydrogen. Unfortunately, that really isn't that much. It takes much more energy than that to extract and presumably, crush 1 m of rock. The article states this, too.
The article somewhat confusingly states The low yield of energy from burning hydrogen compared to gas, however, means that vast quantities of rock would have to be mined. Hydrogen is in fact the most energy-rich chemical fuel, per unit weight, in existence, the problem is that at the concentrations they're talking about, this won't be solving any problems any time soon, unless they find these things trapped. Not that unlike drilling for natural gas.
What might be a lot more promising is that some scientists have been working on bioengineering algae to produce hydrogen when deprived of sunlight. This basically amounts to a very cheap form of solar energy: grow algae in ponds, then pump them into a bioreactor where they produce hydrogen. Leave them in for a few days, then before they start to die off pump them back out. A lot cheaper than refined silicon covering all that area...
the beginning of the end for our dependence on oil
I guess I'll bite.
The problem with the dependence of oil isn't an alternative means. Someone has pointed/will point out that we have many alternative energy sources. Instead oil as a means of energy is dominant because it is cheap.
The world's energy infrastructure is based on using crude oil. There are oil power plants, oil refineries, gasoline engines, etc. Oil is simply cheaper to use. Companies spend billions of dollars researching new drill sites, lobbying Congress, etc. to maintain oil production because it is cheaper than investing in alternative energy sources; i.e. solar, nuclear.
Now what if this limitless source of Hydrogen comes on-line? What if we start using it instead of drilling for crude oil? At some point, the demand for oil begins to decline. Seeing as there is still a supply of oil (a diminishing supply, but still a supply) the price of oil will go down. Eventually, oil will be cheaper to use, and begin to rise in demand. A happy medium will be reached where crude oil drilling and this new hydrogen production will co-exist.
Admitidly, at this point there will no longer be a complete depedence on oil, but I would argue that we (the globe) are not as dependent as the media makes us out to seem. Alternative energies exist, but simply cost more. If we are willing to bear higher costs, we can reduce our oil dependence today.
As I see it the world's dependence on oil will not diminish with new energy sources. At least not until that source is so incredably inexpensive that it will replace all other energy supplies. Or all crude oil supplies run dry. Perhaps the correct question is not: will hydrogen reduce our oil dependence? But will this new hydrogen supply produce limitless inexpensive energy, so inexpensive that all other means of energy are outpriced?
The original article says:
"The low yield of energy from burning hydrogen compared to gas, however, means that vast quantities of rock would have to be mined."
Any petroleum geologist would tell you that there is oodles of available oil in the ground, but it is unprofitable to recover it. That is, it cost more to get it than it would be worth on the market. Obviously, the same economies would apply to recovering the hydrogen trapped in the rock. The profits have to be available to make the business work
Also, the article says:
"Energy specialists estimate that oil production will start to decline within the next 10 to 15 years, as the economically viable reserves start to run out."
The key word here is "economically viable". Think for a moment, what would happen if oil supplies started running low because of a lack of profitable reserves? Demand for oil is pretty inelastic (not dependant on price), so the price would almost assuredly go up, just as when supplies are cut short for other reasons, like an OPEC quota. As the price of oil goes up, reserves that cost more to extract will now be profitable. We'll still have oil, but it will just be more expensive.
This is why the estimates for the amount of recoverable petroleum reserve are SO varied. When you hear doomsday predictions of running out of oil supply, remember these effects of supply and demand on price and profitability.
Don't get me wrong, I don't like the rising CO2 levels at all, and I don't think fossil fuels are a sustainable energy source. I just think that clear-eyed skepticism is more productive than knee-jerk idealism.
Many alternatives are more freely available than hydrogen, but none of them are particularly efficient nor cheap, except for nuclear, and the only reason we don't use more nuclear power is solely because of political factors.
<digression>
Instead of calling it "radiation" maybe we should call it "Patriot Power Rays" or "Atomic Nature Juice". Maybe we're just marketing it wrong, since everyone associates nukes with things like hysterical movies starring Hanoi Jane, or Chernobyl, which was poorly-maintained, obsolete technology run by a bunch of guys with eyebrows like caterpillars and atrocious taste in winter hats who are always calling each other "Comrade" in the hours-long bread lines. Stop thinking "Gamma World" and start thinking "The Jetsons". Hooray!
</digression>
The only reason we will ever switch from oil is either because we run out, or we develop something cheaper. From reading the article, it sounds to me like drilling down two miles or so and processing huge quantities of rock to release the hydrogen sounds a lot harder and more expensive than drilling for oil, regardless of how much there is.
I'm still waiting for a "Mr. Fusion" for my car so I can go 1000 miles on two banana peels and a quarter cup of coffee grounds.
You are in a maze of twisty little passages, all alike.
You know, Soccer Mom's I really don't have that much of an issue with (presuming that they actually transport large numbers of children around, making the additional space and utility of a minivan necessary), but as you mentioned with the Range Rover (which gets 12mpg in the city, 15mpg on the highway. A Toyota Camry gets 24/33mpg, by comparison, and is actually a mid-sized car. A Corolla gets 32mpg/40mpg): There are a massive number of vehicles out there that have absolutely no use or utility whatsoever. Indeed, the public at large doesn't pay enough attention to fuel economy when purchasing cars either (though they absolutely should if they don't like killing kids from emphyzema and they're patriotic), and this is perhaps because of pump prices that too low, considering (why is it that a bottle of Coke costs me about 3x more than some oil which was dug up underground half a world away, processed, transported in many stages, and has about 60% of its price as taxes?).
If the US really cared about being strategically strong (presuming that the administration wasn't in the oil company's pockets) they would impose a large tax (with proceeds going to alternative energy research) based upon energy efficiency, or rather lack thereof, in vehicles.
Sidenote: I was recently urged to buy a minivan because "What about when you go camping in the summer? You'll need the space!" : That in a nutshell defined why most people have inappropriately sized vehicles for daily commutes and runs to the supermarket -> For that once every two year event where they actually might need it. RENT SOMETHING FOR CRYING OUT LOUD! I'm a big fan of rentals, and for a low cost you can have the larger vehicle for the period that you need it, going back to a more efficient configuration when you're done.
In the states there are thousands of farmers who cannot afford to eat.
Huh? Support for this, please? (Farmers having trouble making their loan payments or going bankrupt I might believe...)
I mean, if they really couldn't eat, they could, I dunno, consume some edible plants. If only there were some way farmers might have access to those...