125
Scientists propose converting natural gas into hydrogen directly in gas fields (techxplore.com)
submitted 2 years ago by to c/technology@lemmy.world
65 comments fedilink hide all child comments
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] 32 points 2 years ago (1 child)

Wait. Am I getting this right? They want to inject high-pressure steam and chemicals into a massive underground natural gas reservoir. Then set off a big fire + explosion.

Surely, nothing can go wrong.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • hideshow 2 child comments
    •
  • [–] [S] 7 points 2 years ago (1 child)

    It's called in situ combustion and apparently it's a well established practice in the petroleum industry: https://glossary.slb.com/en/terms/i/in-situ_combustion

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
    •
  • [–] 20 points 2 years ago (1 child)

    So is coal extraction. How long has that coal fire burned under that town? 60 years?

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
    •
  • [–] [S] -4 points 2 years ago (1 child)

    You can read all about the Centralia mine fire here. ISC for oil extraction, as referenced by the paper, is not applicable to coal mining.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
    •
  • [–] 9 points 2 years ago (1 child)

    You miss their point

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
    •
  • [–] [S] 0 points 2 years ago (1 child)

    I do. I hope they will explain.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
    •
  • [–] 8 points 2 years ago (1 child)

    To spell it out for you, Just because something is well established in the industry does not make it good.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
    •
  • [–] [S] -1 points 2 years ago (1 child)

    I never said it was good. I said it was a well established practice in response to @fubarx@lemmy.ml who seemed surprised that anyone would even consider it. I was surprised to learn about it as well, but it makes sense to use the oil or gas in the deposit to directly help fuel the process.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
    •
  • [–] 2 points 2 years ago (1 child)

    MANY WELL ESTABLISHED practices are horribly stupid...

    See the many natural disasters caused by company standard practices.

    1. Dumped raw toxins directly into rivers

    2. Locking the doors on clothing factories

    3. Fracking

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
    •
  • [–] [S] -1 points 2 years ago (1 child)

    None of those things are in situ combustion thermal recovery. It may well be that this method isn't appropriate for the process described in the paper. The paper also suggests RF thermal recovery as an alternative. The process just requires additional heat besides the steam to affect the SMR reaction and get the hydrogen out.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
    •
  • [–] 5 points 2 years ago (1 child)

    No but they all claim their business practices were safe...

    The water dilutes and carries the toxins away. Until the river catches fire..

    If there's a mine fire just close up the entrance and it'll go out. Except it hasn't for 60+ years.

    Fracking can't cause earthquakes, except it does and there is evidence the chemicals could actually be getting in ground water... This one is particularly interesting. Considering they claim this process is safe.

    But I doubt you care about facts.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
    •