"That good of a storage method" in terms of what, arbitrage? We should be producing hydrogen for the practical and environmental benefits of having emissions-free vehicle fuel (that avoids the problems of battery production and disposal), steel, and fertilizer.
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.
I'm unaware of any examples of subterranean carbon monoxide storage. However, underground helium storage has been done successfully for a while. Helium is one of the best gases at leaking because of its small size, which should provide some reassurance as to the storage of larger gases underground.
I agree that greed and corporate malfeasance are a thing, but it's kind of a separate problem. The government is either going to enforce environmental regulations and manage our resources properly or it's not.
Are you implying that there are subterranean ecosystems somehow dependent on natural gas deposits that are harmed by the exploitation of these resources?
You forgot to quote the rest of that sentence. We need hydrogen, which is easy to get from natural gas, of which there is a lot. The right thing to do is figure out how to use it without emitting greenhouse gases. The problem is the same whether we're under the current mode of production or some hypothetical moneyless condition.
That used to be my thinking, but there's a lot of natural gas ready to be exploited and we need hydrogen. Therefore, methods like the one described in the article as well as ex situmethane pyrolysis are worth investigating.
I disagree. We need hydrogen for GHG-free fertilizer and steel production and it's the superior choice for powering vehicles. Regardless, this research is interesting because it could help solve the natural gas problem.
The alternatives are the status quo or severely restricting natural gas extraction. I won't say the latter isn't doable, especially if we can ramp up nuclear power capacity, but there's a lot of baggage there. We should welcome a solution that effectively makes natural gas an emissions-free resource.
This worst case scenario is probably the same as with any reservoir of natural gas (a massive leak and explosion), which is all the more reason to convert it to hydrogen and sequester the weaker, non-flammable GHG byproduct in situ.
"That good of a storage method" in terms of what, arbitrage? We should be producing hydrogen for the practical and environmental benefits of having emissions-free vehicle fuel (that avoids the problems of battery production and disposal), steel, and fertilizer.