Is There A Future For White Hydrogen?–John Thorogood
Guest Post by John Thorogood
.
AEP is the most contradictory correspondent I’ve ever come across. I’m ashamed to say that, despite the number of Nobel prize winners my old Cambridge college produced, he went there as well! Sometimes, when he knows what he’s talking about (economics), he writes remarkably good sense and, especially, about Brexit (hahaha)! However, on climate issues, he’s a sock puppet for the climate vested interested rent-seekers and his normally incisive intelligence totally deserts him.
Having said that, abiogenic hydrogen is well known and, a few years ago there was an epic fail in Sweden in a drilling project on the Siljan ring led by a Cornell U academic Thomas Gold. http://www.geotimes.org/oct05/feature_abiogenicoil.html .
AEP’s article on white hydrogen is, generally, quite sound although from an engineering point of view I will take issue with his comment that “hydrogen has a little understood and incalculable advantage over fossil fuels”. It plays hell with metallurgy which compromises steel properties (hydrogen embrittlement) and is incredibly dangerous to handle because (unlike town gas, a mixture of hydrogen, methane and carbon monoxide) it is odourless.
The key point he quotes from Prof Gluyas at Durham is “Nobody has yet made a commercial discovery ready for the market. As soon as one happens, there is going to be absolute frenzy”. The operative word being “commercial”, i.e.: unsubsidised, unlike all other renewables, see above remark about rent-seekers……
Conclusion: academically this source of hydrogen (and also helium) has been known for a long time. The latter being produced commercially in the USA and other places. The challenge with hydrogen being the simple economics of exploring for it, being able to drill the resource economically and then design a production system to handle, transport and distribute it safely and at a price which won’t destroy our economies.
I’ve spent the last week working at the vast Wilton chemical complex and it caused me to reflect just how much of everything we do or use (beyond mere hydrocarbon-based fuels) depends on vast volumes of oil and gas. When hydrocarbon production ceases, today’s civilisation comes to a full stop. But then that’s what Pol Pot tried in Cambodia back in the 1970s and see where that ended up.
Comments are closed.
NOT A LOT OF PEOPLE KNOW THAT 
“Nobody has yet made a commercial discovery ready for the market. As soon as one happens, there is going to be absolute frenzy”.
– – –
So much for ‘limitless’ then. Meanwhile Mr Net Zero Shapps has discovered that hydrogen molecules are very small, hence leaks are inevitable, and lots of them.
One small step for his tiny intellect. The next one is to learn that hydrogen explodes with more force than other gases.
At last some sense about hydrogen from someone who really knows what he is writing about.
Trinity Man eh! Not a guarantee as Archbishop of Canterbury demonstrates. Even Newton was an enthusiastic alchemist. Nobel Prizes still impressive, last time I looked (2017) more than any country except USA, UK, Germany and France.
They all ignore the risk of hydrogen in the stratosphere where it will destroy the ozone layer far more efficiently than CFCs. As usual the law of unforeseen consequences will not be broken.
Instead of “white”, I suggest “pink” for the natural H2 found, captured, processed, distributed, consumed, and exploded on the way to climate Valhalla.
These things will all use or cause CO2 emissions, especially the fires following the explosions.
https://media.gettyimages.com/photos/color-explosion-picture-id503271081
Just gasify coal.
I always understood that as the hydrogen atoms oscillate faster the the earth’s escape velocity that they dissipate into space and that is why the atmosphere has zero hydrogen content.
They do not ‘oscillate;’ they move in straight lines until they encounter another molecule and then bounce away in a perfectly elastic collision. The average speed of a hydrogen molecule is about twice that of other molecules in the atmosphere which makes it a better candidate for leaving the earth – MUCH better.
Everything proceeds according to the regularities of statistical mechanics, because there are trillions of trillions of trillions of collisions in the atmosphere each second, with a DISTRIBUION of speeds at any moment. A very, very, very small proportion of molecules will have a momentary speed above the escape velocity of the earth and, over time, a few which are near the edge of space will leave the earth for good. There are off-setting conditions. Higher up, they are moving slower on average because it is cold. However, the travel times between collisions are longer because it is a rarefied environment.
The bottom line is that any pure hydrogen (there will not be much) which happens to reach the ozone layer will be lost to space but not immediately (a few hundred years probably).
But, hey, what does it matter ‘outside these walls?’ The information war has gone so badly for us that there is nothing to be gained from scientific discussion with the priests let alone their flocks. Witness this headline on a rubbishy, nonsensical article in the MSM: “Hydrogen 11 times worse for climate than CO2.” Good! Let the buggers scare themselves to death and run round in mental circles. And let us comfort ourselves with the thought that “The Revolution always eats its children.”
Why don’t we just tap the huge reserves of shale gas under our feet. The British Geological Survey estimated 10 years ago that we have somewhere between 822 and 2281 trillion cubic feet (tcf). As a comparison, the total gas consumption in 2018 in the UK was 2.98 tcf.
No need, Centrica has signed a deal to import more LNG from the US. This will be more expensive so it ensures that the UK will not see any meaningful growth as per World Empire of Fascism instructions.
Just because something is a bad idea that doesn’t preclude it from becoming main stream.
Exactly. It’s what you get when government decides. What government considers important never coincides with what the public thinks important.
The government only decides on matters put to it by ‘advisers’ and their agencies/quangos. They are the ones with vested interests that often do not coincide with the wishes of the people that elects its representatives in Parliament. But our representatives have delegated much of the parliamentary powers to those agencies/quangos, and now have little say in what transpires within them.
Hence the increasing focus by them on invoking woke Common Purpose (leadership and hence empowerment outside authority) philosophy that now has as its focus delivery of UN Charter 2030, not those of the UK government. Why? Our politicians are so embroiled in petty interpersonal issues and the legacy of EU ineffectiveness that they have lost the ability to run this nation of ours. The powers for that is now in the hands of the Civil Service and all the instruments of government under it.
And it is so evident that the leaders of our national institutions have been captured by the infantile-minded generations that have emerged since the 1960s, and our traditional values are increasingly being rent asunder under the creed of the globalists.
“The government only decides on matters put to it by ‘advisers’ and their agencies/quangos. They are the ones with vested interests”
No, sir. EVERYONE in government is human. Each influenced by a million things. Yeah, some have vested interests. ALL have biases.
People are people. Putting them in government doesn’t change them.
The root problem is government has been given too much power. Wishing they would do a better job with that power isn’t going to work; removing their power is the only way. Such that when “matters put to it,” it can usually only say, “We can’t do anything about that.”
Then magic occurs: the “‘advisers’ and their agencies/quangos” disappear! They are caused by government. Government power. No power, no lobbyists.
There are more. Not only are there “‘advisers’ and their agencies/quangos,” there is an equal but opposite cadre of people for the defense.
Advisors tell government to go after the oil companies. Oil companies don’t just wait for their destruction; they send their own representatives to lobby government, to counter the advisors.
But it’s more complicated than that. They too can be advisors. A characteristic of fascist government is cooperation with corporations. Corporations learn to stop fighting government control, and cooperate, to use government power against their competition. Help tailor regulations they can meet but their competition can’t.
It’s hard to think of a time when government picking a “winner” turned out well. However, they deserve a Nobel prize for choosing losers.
Perhaps they should concentrate on picking ‘losers.’ Then some of the losers will turn out to be wonderful winners, just to prove them wrong.
We are not that far from the commercial exploitation of raw materials in space and from other planets.
Titan has a low gravity and oceans of hydrocarbons….
But does our atmosphere have enough oxygen to support all that combustion?
Hydrogen has to be compressed to be transported and supplied. Cost? Danger?