Technology

59201 readers

2945 users here now

This is a most excellent place for technology news and articles.

Our Rules

Follow the lemmy.world rules.
Only tech related content.
Be excellent to each another!
Mod approved content bots can post up to 10 articles per day.
Threads asking for personal tech support may be deleted.
Politics threads may be removed.
No memes allowed as posts, OK to post as comments.
Only approved bots from the list below, to ask if your bot can be added please contact us.
Check for duplicates before posting, duplicates may be removed

Approved Bots

founded 1 year ago

MODERATORS

121

Scientists propose converting natural gas into hydrogen directly in gas fields (techxplore.com)

submitted 5 months ago by CrimeDad@lemmy.crimedad.work to c/technology@lemmy.world

58 comments fedilink hide all child comments

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments

[–] fubarx@lemmy.ml 32 points 5 months ago (1 children)

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.

[–] CrimeDad@lemmy.crimedad.work 7 points 5 months ago (1 children)

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

[–] corsicanguppy@lemmy.ca 20 points 5 months ago (1 children)

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

[–] CrimeDad@lemmy.crimedad.work -4 points 5 months ago (1 children)

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.

[–] optissima@lemmy.world 9 points 5 months ago (1 children)

You miss their point

[–] CrimeDad@lemmy.crimedad.work 0 points 5 months ago (1 children)

I do. I hope they will explain.

[–] optissima@lemmy.world 8 points 5 months ago (1 children)

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

[–] CrimeDad@lemmy.crimedad.work -1 points 5 months ago (1 children)

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.

[–] Crashumbc@lemmy.world 2 points 5 months ago (1 children)

MANY WELL ESTABLISHED practices are horribly stupid...

See the many natural disasters caused by company standard practices.

Dumped raw toxins directly into rivers
Locking the doors on clothing factories
Fracking

[–] CrimeDad@lemmy.crimedad.work -1 points 5 months ago (1 children)

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.

[–] Crashumbc@lemmy.world 5 points 5 months ago (1 children)

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.

[–] CrimeDad@lemmy.crimedad.work -1 points 4 months ago

I do care about facts, but relevance and context matter.