That has very little to do with the article, which is about actual hydrogen retrievable from underground deposits. It wouldn't be made from anything, just piped out of the ground.
It came from the article.
> Pumping hydrogen out of the ground should be much cheaper, which is why proponents sometimes call the natural stuff “gold.”
If that is the case then there could be vast quantities of hydrocarbons inside the earth.
You’re rejecting an empirical and tested field of science because of a single incident?
In any case it was not a single incident. They torpedoed his career and made it impossible for him to get a position at any university. Inbred hacks.
One correction: he didn’t commit suicide but died on an expedition to Greenland.
https://medium.com/swlh/the-delirious-ravings-of-alfred-wege...
While coal might actually come from organic matter from the Carboniferous era as you suggested, I think oil and gas may not. Hydrocarbons are the most abundant things in the solar system (the Oort Cloud might outweigh the entire solar system) and the outer planets are mostly hydrocarbons… and yet all the hydrocarbons on earth come from fossil plants?
Thomas Gold wrote a book about it. It’s fascinating reading. Here is a review.
As always it’s the political will that’s lacking.
2 FeSiO3 + H2O >> H2 + Fe2O3 + SiO2
As I understand it, this is a "low-pressure" reaction. The FeSiO3 regeneration happens when iron (III) oxide sinks deep into the crust and reacts with silicates, releasing oxygen. I'm not clear on the specifics, but the ultimate energy source is (necessarily) plate tectonics, driven by the decay of uranium, potassium-40 and thorium in the deep Earth. The gross power driving tectonic forces (total underground radioactivity) is estimated with decent confidence at around 30 terawatts; this exceeds humanity's total energy consumption by a small factor (around 2–3), and probably only a fraction of this energy is converted to hydrogen.
So using Brian Cohen's definition [1], I'm not sure geohydrogen is truly "renewable" at world scale, but it's renewed at some scale.
1: http://large.stanford.edu/publications/coal/references/docs/...
More strongly, even if plate tectonics were needed, it doesn’t necessarily take anywhere near 1 TW of power to move enough material to produce 1 TW worth of useful stuff. The energy in question here is chemical, not kinetic.
That's how today's society developed, except with the side effect that we've also released a large amount of CO2 into the atmosphere.
Where do you think the resources for renewable energy come from? Windmills and solar panels don't come out of thin air.
"No more digging stuff" shows such a disconnected view from reality. Everything is "limited" in some sense. The puritan attitude as if you can somehow avoid using resources, is just wrong. And oil is hardly the most scarce resource that's at the biggest risk of running out right now.
Yes they both run out, but one will run out in the 21st century and the other will run out in the 210th century.
Solar and wind power are extremely inefficient in the most scarce resource. Oil can be cheaply moved from far off locations to locations with scarce space.
Also, recycling existing renewable resources is another way that Vestas, the largest wind turbine provider, is attempting to pull windmills "out of thin air."[2]
Maybe the way we draw energy will never be perfect but does that mean we shouldn't try?
[1] https://www.cbsnews.com/minnesota/news/minnesota-iron-air-ba... [2] https://newatlas.com/environment/vestas-cetec-circular-epoxy...