Geologic hydrogen - separating reality from fiction

OVERKILL

$100 Site Donor 2021
Joined
Apr 28, 2008
Messages
60,009
Location
Ontario, Canada
This article was shared by an industrial chemist friend of mine (chemical engineer), who is also part of our nuclear group. I think it does an excellent job separating the hype and fiction from the reality of the geologic hydrogen space and providing some much-needed insight on those realities.


A solid paragraph that leads the rest of the article:


Despite recent high-profile findings from France to Albania, the world’s only documented hydrogen producer well is located in the village of Bourakébougou, Mali.

It produces almost pure hydrogen from a shallow reservoir layer at a very low rate of about 5 to 50 tonnes per year. This is equivalent to 0.3 to 3 barrels of oil per day – a power output less than a tenth of a single medium-sized wind turbine [2].

With the exception of Mali, no findings of geologic hydrogen to date have flow tests measuring the rate at which a well can extract hydrogen from underground and thus demonstrating evidence that hydrogen can be produced commercially.

Only the finding in Mali can be firmly considered a “discovery”, while all others are speculative in nature: natural “seeps” where some hydrogen has been detected to leak out from the earth’s subsurface, or “shows” where some traces of hydrogen have been observed during the drilling of a well. Neither of these terms indicate evidence of producible hydrogen.
 
Sounds interesting. I read somewhere abandoned and unplugged oil wells are venting methane gas, maybe they can be used in a similar fashion.
 
In other words, any commercial hydrogen still needs to be produced by electrolysis or steam forming or other methods.
And when the input cost of hydrogen energy (production, transport, storage) is more than the energy output, it will never be a viable vehicle fuel.
Unless the economics are skewed by regulatory changes.
 
Sounds interesting. I read somewhere abandoned and unplugged oil wells are venting methane gas, maybe they can be used in a similar fashion.
You've brought up an important point: We already waste methane (natural gas) from sources where it's not economic/worthwhile to capture, typically these are oil wells and the natural gas is flared off.

Many of these hydrogen "discoveries" are simply high(er) concentrations of hydrogen in natural gas deposits and you have to do something with the methane, which is arguably just as valuable as the hydrogen, in order to retrieve it. So if the methane is regarded as not economically viable for retrieval, that's not looking good for the colocated hydrogen that's mixed in with it.

Currently, the vast majority of hydrogen (98-99%) is made from methane reformation; is made from natural gas, which is immeasurably more abundant than geologic hydrogen, for which there is tremendous hype, but no real evidence of exploitable capacity (which the article details). In order for geologic hydrogen to be worthwhile to pursue, it would need to present in an abundance that brings it to economic parity with methane reformation, otherwise, just like incidental methane flows, there is insufficient value to make exploitation worthwhile.
 
In other words, any commercial hydrogen still needs to be produced by electrolysis or steam forming or other methods.
And when the input cost of hydrogen energy (production, transport, storage) is more than the energy output, it will never be a viable vehicle fuel.
Unless the economics are skewed by regulatory changes.
Well, it does have one thing going for it: it provides a transportable storage medium for otherwise unstorable sources like wind and solar. If otherwise unused capacity can be used to make hydrogen then it’s a win even considering the underlying inefficiency. I know excess hydro power can be used for pumped storage in a handful of places but it’s only portable if you run it through the turbines to make electricity and charge a battery (or make H2).
 
Even storage is difficult. Either low pressure at -253C or high pressure at 5000-10000psi. Either sucks. It can be changed into amonia for transport but extra energy is required at both ends for the conversion. Hydrogen is not an answer for today's requirements.
 
Well, it does have one thing going for it: it provides a transportable storage medium for otherwise unstorable sources like wind and solar. If otherwise unused capacity can be used to make hydrogen then it’s a win even considering the underlying inefficiency. I know excess hydro power can be used for pumped storage in a handful of places but it’s only portable if you run it through the turbines to make electricity and charge a battery (or make H2).
And this is where it needs to be competitive with natural gas (and where it currently isn't). Let's say an offshore wind farm has a $0.13/kWh PPA. A CCGT can be profitable at <$0.04/kWh (this includes OPEX). Using $0.13/kWh wind to produce hydrogen, that then has to be compressed and stored (and ideally consumed on site so that you aren't incurring transportation costs as well) already is economically disadvantaged.

So, then we have to forget about the PPA's, as these over-value the electricity, but nobody is building wind without some form out out-of-market compensation. But if we pretend they would, and the wind farm operator wants to produce hydrogen when the market value of the wind generation drops below $0.04/kWh, that hydrogen would somehow still have to be competitive with a CCGT, which it won't be. Intermittently operating an electrolysis rig, then compressing the resultant hydrogen will not yield the market revenue necessary to cover the CAPEX and OPEX of the wind farm, the electrolysis system, the pumps and the modified gas turbines used to combust the hydrogen to generate electricity.

The steps to make hydrogen a "battery" are considerably more expensive than just building batteries at this point, and even those have a considerable cost (and limited lifespan). While pumped hydro has the best longevity and lowest OPEX, it has massive capital cost which means that it needs either guaranteed compensation (PPA) or a market structured in such a manner that there is sufficient confidence to justify the investment by a participant, which means the expectation that it won't be undercut by natural gas or coal.

Fossil fuels are insanely cheap, which means the electricity they produce is also cheap. This is why solar fab in China is powered by mine-to-mouth coal. Alternatives aren't, and this is why electricity gets more expensive as we try to reduce the role of fossil sources, through either incentives/subsidies (FIT's, PPA's, REC's...etc) or fees/taxes like a carbon tax.
 
On many levels hydrogen is a poor fuel, all the way from production to storage to transport. All it really has going for it is the product of combustion, and if that is your singular concern then it is more attractive.

Some little well putting out some little amount of hydrogen doesn't change the unfavorable thermodynamics. No one will ever find geological hydrogen on earth in amounts that are anywhere near enough to make a bit of difference.
 
We already waste methane (natural gas) from sources where it's not economic/worthwhile to capture, typically these are oil wells and the natural gas is flared off.
I don’t have much to add besides I think wellhead-colocated AI compute centers powered by waste natural gas is a super neat concept.

I suspect we’re going to see more and more compute centers on or near major plays in the coming years.
 
On many levels hydrogen is a poor fuel, all the way from production to storage to transport. All it really has going for it is the product of combustion, and if that is your singular concern then it is more attractive.

Some little well putting out some little amount of hydrogen doesn't change the unfavorable thermodynamics. No one will ever find geological hydrogen on earth in amounts that are anywhere near enough to make a bit of difference.
Even with a "perfect pairing"; a fully-depreciated nuke churning out massive amounts of electricity 24/7 at $0.03/kWh, running an electrolyzer, pumps and gas turbine is going to be a challenge to be competitive with natural gas. The only thing this setup would have going for it is that non-peak use is totally covered by the nuke and the electrolyzer could be run at some capacity 24/7, so the generation from the hydrogen would be used exclusively to cover higher-cost peak periods.

The problem is how cheap gas is. Your embedded cost for hydrogen is more than the total OPEX for a CCGT. Peakers get paid a premium not because they are expensive to run, but because they are capacity resources. If you increase the operating cost, this just becomes even more expensive.

Ontario is currently exporting wind we are paying $0.148/kWh for at $0.0144/kWh. Yep, 1.4 cents.
Screenshot 2024-12-30 at 3.04.51 PM.webp
 
Oh, I just remembered something to add. Silanes are hydrogenated silicon chains which might be a feasible LOHC storage mechanism. I’ve been meaning to read up more on them because there is some interesting chemical research going on there.
 
Back
Top