No. of Recommendations: 4
This could, might, maybe, there is an outside chance that this might change the economics of fuels cells vs batteries for transportation.


Cheers
Qazulight (Notice the weasel words)

https://phys.org/news/2019-08-scientists-hydrogen-gas-oil-bi...

Scientists have developed a large-scale economical method to extract hydrogen (H2) from oil sands (natural bitumen) and oil fields. This can be used to power hydrogen-powered vehicles, which are already marketed in some countries, as well as to generate electricity; hydrogen is regarded as an efficient transport fuel, similar to petrol and diesel, but with no pollution problems. The process can extract hydrogen from existing oil sands reservoirs, with huge existing supplies found in Canada and Venezuela. Interestingly, this process can be applied to mainstream oil fields, causing them to produce hydrogen instead of oil.
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 0
The problem with any gaseous fuel is it isn't as easy to handle as liquid fuel. You start getting into cryogenic liquids, or high pressure tanks, both of which have a downside in light vehicles.

Steve
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 1
I'm personally holding out for solid state batteries. Lots of work being done on those, hold immense promise if they can make them big and at scale.
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 1
<<Scientists have developed a large-scale economical method to extract hydrogen (H2) from oil sands (natural bitumen) and oil fields. This can be used to power hydrogen-powered vehicles, which are already marketed in some countries, as well as to generate electricity; hydrogen is regarded as an efficient transport fuel, similar to petrol and diesel, but with no pollution problems. The process can extract hydrogen from existing oil sands reservoirs, with huge existing supplies found in Canada and Venezuela. Interestingly, this process can be applied to mainstream oil fields, causing them to produce hydrogen instead of oil.>>



The only reason to do this is to extract the 3% politically correct fuel and waste the other 97% so that it can't be used.


Seattle Pioneer
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 7
CxH2x+2 + O2x = xCO2 + (2x+2)H

What are you going to do with the CO2?

The Captain
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 0
The article doesn't say what happens to the carbon...

In the past I've seen articles about "natural-gas-powered fuel cells" and how they would reduce carbon emissions... which, on closer examination, turned out to include a "reformatter" which released hydrogen in a controlled manner (it got fed to the actual fuel cell) and carbon dioxide in an uncontrolled manner (into the atmosphere).
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 2
....only product of this process is hydrogen, meaning that it the technology is effectively pollution and emission free. All the other gases remain in the ground because they cannot go through the hydrogen filter and up to the surface

I am always curious and studied physics and math much more than chemistry.

"Other gases" would then be a mixture of denser with carbon than the original hydrocarbons and carbohydrates(?).

And how is the "hydrogen filter" configured?

Inquiring minds want to know.


david fb
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 0
I'm personally holding out for solid state batteries. Lots of work being done on those, hold immense promise if they can make them big and at scale.

What is this was adapted to coal. We put autonomous machines in the coal mine and make the hydrogen, use the hydrogen in a fuel cell to make electricity, then ship the electricity?

Cheers
Qazulight
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 0
The article doesn't say what happens to the carbon...

Stays in the ground.

Cheers
Qazulight
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 1
What are you going to do with the CO2?

Stays in the ground.

Cheers
Qazulight
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 0
The article doesn't say what happens to the carbon...

Stays in the ground.

Cheers
Qazulight

=====================================================

So the tar sands oil stays in the ground. Good idea.

jaagu
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 1
CxH2x+2 + O2x = xCO2 + (2x+2)H

What are you going to do with the CO2?

The Captain

==========================================

There is no CO2 when burning hydrogen.

2H2+O2 = 2H20

The Captain needs a chemistry refresher!

jaagu
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 1
What are you going to do with the CO2?

Exactly. This is old technology that had been around for years. Both ammonia and methanol are made this way. Usually from natural gas, but can also be made from coal, which is almost all carbon. The hydrogen comes from water as steam if needed.

But still the carbon goes to an oxide of carbon, usually carbon dioxide. Its at the bottom of the energy scale. Anything you convert carbon dioxide into requires adding lots of energy to reverse the process. Conversion of fossil fuels to hydrogen releases heat. The heat comes from making carbon dioxide.

It would be interesting if someone could work out a process to cook off the hydrogen content of the fuel and convert the carbon to something like petroleum coke or charcoal. That would be the best form in which to bury carbon. But don't hold your breath. I doubt it can be done.
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 1
CxH2x+2 + O2x = xCO2 + (2x+2)H

What are you going to do with the CO2?

The Captain

==========================================

There is no CO2 when burning hydrogen.

2H2+O2 = 2H20

The Captain needs a chemistry refresher!

jaagu


The Captain's post wasn't about burning hydrogen. It was about creating hydrogen from hydrocarbons. To produce hydrogen from a hydrocarbon, you got to replace the hydrogen atoms connected to the carbon unless you are thinking you're going to produce a pure carbon compound. He assumed oxygen was going to replace the hydrogen. I guess another way may be to turn alkanes into alkenes or alkynes by stripping some hydrogen away. I doubt that's the process.

PSU
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 6
The Captain's post wasn't about burning hydrogen. It was about creating hydrogen from hydrocarbons. To produce hydrogen from a hydrocarbon, you got to replace the hydrogen atoms connected to the carbon unless you are thinking you're going to produce a pure carbon compound. He assumed oxygen was going to replace the hydrogen. I guess another way may be to turn alkanes into alkenes or alkynes by stripping some hydrogen away. I doubt that's the process.

No, he did not "assume" it, he actually read the article!


Oil fields, even abandoned oil fields, still contain significant amounts of oil. The researchers have found that injecting oxygen into the fields raises the temperature and liberates H2, which can then be separated from other gases via specialist filters. Hydrogen is not pre-existing in the reservoirs, but pumping oxygen means that the reaction to form hydrogen can take place.

The Captain
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 1
Exasperating thread, because people seem to read tech stuff like they read summaries of political cant?

Captain answered the question I asked upthread, tightly and concisely. The key question then becomes whether or not the CO2 stays well sequestered over time, which is why I asked about the Hydrogen only filters. Similar questions arise regarding the various schemes featuring CO2 injection into the earth.

It is an important question.

david fb
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 0
No, he did not "assume" it, he actually read the article!

Great. I was too busy today.

Considering that are pumping oxygen into the oil sands, why are they assuming it won't be released into the atmosphere? I have the same questions with carbon sequestration from coal-fired power plants.

PSU
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 2
What are you going to do with the CO2?

Magic makes it go away, just like with "clean coal".
/sarcasm

Oil is dandy for a transportation fuel: energy dense and easy to handle.

Anything stationary can be connected to a wire. Anything that can be connected to a wire, can have a carbon free power source at the other end of the wire. I am of a mind that the biggest problem with nuclear power in the US is the profit motive overrides safety and reliability.

Navy's record unblemished

"My friends, the U.S. Navy has sailed ships around the world for 60 years with nuclear power plants on them and we've never had an accident," McCain said in Nashville, Tenn., on June 2, 2008. "That's because we have well-trained and capable people."

"The Navy, they train their people well," said Kurt Zwally, National Wildlife Federation global warming solutions manager."The Navy's safety record is admirable. But there is a different safety record with plants in the U.S."


https://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/statements/2008/jun...

The CO2 problem was known 50 years ago. Spool up a copy of "Soylent Green" from 1973. Why is NYC sweltering 52 weeks/yr? "Greenhouse effect" says Sol Roth.

In the US, transportation accounts for 34.1% of CO2 emissions, electric power generation: 39.8%, residential, commercial and industry: 26.1%. If all power generation was carbon free, hydro, where feasible, geothermal/solar/wind, where feasible, and nuclear elsewhere, and all other fixed sources were converted to electric power, the US would be looking pretty green, and the technology for much of the conversion has been available for decades.

Emissions of Greenhouse Gases in the U. S.

https://www.eia.gov/environment/emissions/ghg_report/ghg_ove...

A "shiny city on a hill" would do the right thing and be a global leader. The "exceptional nation" uses other country's sloth to justify it's own sloth.

Steve
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 3
We put autonomous machines in the coal mine and make the hydrogen,.....

Not a lot of hydrogen in coal. That's why it's coal.

Lots of hydrogen in methane. That's why it's a gas.

Rest of the stuff is in between.

What does Munger say about fishing where the fish are?
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 0
The Captain's post wasn't about burning hydrogen. It was about creating hydrogen from hydrocarbons. To produce hydrogen from a hydrocarbon, you got to replace the hydrogen atoms connected to the carbon unless you are thinking you're going to produce a pure carbon compound. He assumed oxygen was going to replace the hydrogen. I guess another way may be to turn alkanes into alkenes or alkynes by stripping some hydrogen away. I doubt that's the process.

PSU

=============================================

Well the Captain is OT if he is discussing creating hydrogen from hydrocarbons.

The OP is about hydrogen isolation from tar sands and other heavy oils. It is not about hydrocarbons or creating hydrogen from hydrocarbons.

jaagu
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 0
The OP is about hydrogen isolation from tar sands and other heavy oils. It is not about hydrocarbons or creating hydrogen from hydrocarbons.

What I would like to know is, if injecting O2 into a well generates free H2, why don't you end up with a lot of water, instead of free H2?

Steve
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 3
What I would like to know is, if injecting O2 into a well generates free H2, why don't you end up with a lot of water, instead of free H2?

Oil is carbon plus hydrogen. Add oxygen and you get either

carbon + water (C + H2O) <- takes more energy
co2 + hydrogen (C02 + H) <- takes less energy

The Chemist
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 0
carbon + water (C + H2O) <- takes more energy
co2 + hydrogen (C02 + H) <- takes less energy

The Chemist


Thanks!

Steve
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 1
The article is a bit short on details on the carbon. It's statement that it "stays in the ground" does not tell us in what form it remains in the ground. As solid carbon, as CO2 trapped in a rock matrix, as CO2 that can leak up to the surface, as some other carbonaceous material?
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 5
Well the Captain is OT if he is discussing creating hydrogen from hydrocarbons.

The OP is about hydrogen isolation from tar sands and other heavy oils. It is not about hydrocarbons or creating hydrogen from hydrocarbons.


No the Captain isn't OT. The article was on extracting hydrogen from oil using oxygen. Oil is a mixture of hydrocarbons. Did you read the article? One paragraph from the article:

"Oil fields, even abandoned oil fields, still contain significant amounts of oil. The researchers have found that injecting oxygen into the fields raises the temperature and liberates H2, which can then be separated from other gases via specialist filters. Hydrogen is not pre-existing in the reservoirs, but pumping oxygen means that the reaction to form hydrogen can take place."

PSU
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 1
hydrocarbon | ?hidr?'kärb?n |
noun Chemistry

a compound of hydrogen and carbon, such as any of those which are the chief components of petroleum and natural gas.

https://cdn.britannica.com/s:1500x700,q:85/55/1555-004-2CA7B...

The Chemist
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 8
The lack of experience and logical thought is only surpassed by the fractional understanding of chemistry and physics. If you didn't study it and you don't have experience with it, listen to those who are trying to help you figure it out!


/rant off/

Oil sands are very sticky, high viscosity tars, terpentines and pitch which is only slightly better than coal. It has seeped into the sands. It is liberated with oxygen, or high temperature steam or surfactants or excavation and rinsing, etc.

The CO2 sequestration (or fixation, here) is going to be highly dependant on the reservoir type and depth. Looking at oil sands which are shallow, the ability to fix CO2 is going to be problematic and partially effective.

Moving down to firmer rock and deeper depths, there is no route to the surface without filtering, and chemical modification into other compounds like calcium carbonate (limestone) and others. Again, situation, position and geography specific.

Even if I had the data from one location, I would not guess at the % range for any other and my study would cost thousands of dollars without excellent geotech and reservoir prework.
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 6
Thank you GDavenport.

Please post more.

I've got the physics, but not the chemistry. Qaz with the interesting original post, the Captain, PSU and you ruled this thread with experience and logical thought... only surpassed by understanding of chemistry and physics.

Read carefully people, before spouting off. Jaguu, why are you degenerating into a badly tuned primitive AI bot?

david fb
Print the post Back To Top