Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Scottie
BP and Edison Mission Group (EMG), a subsidiary of Edison International, today announced that they are planning a new $1 billion hydrogen-fueled power plant in California that would generate clean electricity with minimal carbon dioxide (CO2) emissions.
|
So we take natural gas, and consume something like 30% of it to produce hydrogen (in terms of energy value). The conversion produces a lot of waste C02. We repeatedly call the product clean hydrogen, with no CO2 emissions when used as a fuel (which it is, technically) Then we put the waste C02 underground, stored forever where it won't have a chance of getting out into the atmosphere, even though there is a fault line there (OK, the underground storage could be some distance away, but the pipeline would go across the fault line).
The above process is described by the promoter as being expensive, and relying on government grants/tax breaks to go ahead.
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by asawadude
I hope that the environmental impact assessment of this new hydrogen plant is done right. I love the idea, but I wonder if oil company bucks are fueling this project
|
Best part of all, the waste C02 is injected into older oil fields, and boosts production. Why wouldn't the oil company bucks be motivated?
Not trying to be cynical here, the economics may turn out to be wonderful, but it sounds an awful lot like a press release designed to position an oil company as an energy company (which isn't altogether a bad thing, IMO).
I think they would be more intellectually honest to say that since we/they are going to burn the natural gas anyway, the 30% overhead for conversion is a good investment in their increased future oilfield production, as long as tax breaks cover the additional costs for the hydrogen production. If the project stands up to that scrutiny, great.
I just think that if the hydrogen economy comes along, it will be fueled by nuclear, solar, and wind, and not by natural gas.