...that the world has been drilled on every continent, except perhaps Antarctica, without running into a shit load of hydrogen.
If, however, geological hydrogen has formed from geological reformation of a dangerous fossil fuel, it will definitely be in the presence of carbon dioxide.
The chemical reaction for methane is CH4 +2 H2O -> 6H2 + CO2.
This is the same reaction by which the bulk of the world's hydrogen is made right now, which is why hydrogen is a rather filthy fuel, although fossil fuel companies never tire of advertising it as "green" with a bait and switch.
To find any of this "astonishing" one either has be rather uneducated.
The full paper, not the bullshit wishful thinking interpretation of the paper is here:
Geoffrey S. Ellis, Sarah E. Gelman, Model predictions of global geologic hydrogen resources. Sci. Adv.10, eado0955(2024)
Given the uncertainties in the model construction and the inputs, the model results should be viewed as a first-order approximation of the magnitude of the potential in-place geologic hydrogen resource. The model makes no predictions about the distribution of the hydrogen in the subsurface, which is critical for the economic viability of any potential resource (21). Given what is known about the distribution of petroleum and nonpetroleum fluids (e.g., helium and CO2) in the subsurface, it is likely that recovery of most subsurface hydrogen can be expected to be in accumulations that are too deep, too far offshore, or too small to be economically recovered. However, if even a small amount of the most probable predicted in-place resource (~5.6 × 106 Mt) was recoverable, this could represent a substantial resource.
I added the bold.
The operative words in the full paper are words like "suggests," "could."
Now, I fully recognize that people selling fossil fuels by rebranding them as "hydrogen," couldn't give a rat's ass about the extreme global heating we now observe after 5 decades of hydrogen bullshit, but the paper also contains this sentence, which "suggests" a time scale:
Furthermore, there is a approximately 94% probability that the subsurface endowment of natural hydrogen will exceed future extraction capacity through the year 2100 and a greater than 75% probability of this being the case beyond the year 2200.
Since, as of 2024, it is already far too late to address extreme global heating, this wishful thinking won't mean shit to the future generations suffering on a destroyed planet, a planet destroyed by fossil fuel marketing, including the rebranding of fossil fuels as "hydrogen," with "bait and switch" graphics of huge stretches of wilderness industrialized for solar industrial plants.
In any case, if one really is interested in telling the truth, a good approach is to go to the original source, rather than a dubious interpretation, especially one that is deliberately dishonest, clearly disingenuous marketing.
Right now the planet is in flames, this after close to half a century of "hydrogen will save us" bullshit largely handed out by fossil fuel companies to encourage wishful thinking and of course, to convince people to use their product, since the production of hydrogen from dangerous fossil fuels degrades the energy value overall according to the second law of thermodynamics, of which fossil fuel companies expect, regrettably correctly, most to be ignorant.
First issue (1976) :
International Journal of Hydrogen Energy
All this wishful thinking actually
kills people, since fossil fuels
kill people in vast numbers while morons carry on about tritium from Fukushima, which doesn't kill people.
Hydrogen is a
dirty fuel, and is likely to remain a dirty fuel in any "drill, baby, drill" scenario to recover it from geological sources.
A Giant Climate Lie: When they're selling hydrogen, what they're really selling is fossil fuels.
= new reply since forum marked as read