Viewing a single comment thread. View all comments

travellerw t1_iy6cvty wrote

Reply to comment by [deleted] in 'Landmark achievement': Rolls-Royce and easyJet hail successful hydrogen jet engine test by Wagamaga

I agree with the leaking, however, there is tons of methane that naturally leaks out from numerous sources in the earths crust. In the grand scheme of things, the leaks would be insignificant "IF" they stopped the general burning of carbon fuels for shipping.

I don't agree with you on putting the chemicals back. Fracking is a completely different process that pumps a hydraulic fluid down the holes . Carbon capture and sequestering from natural gas hydrogen would pump the chemicals back down dead wells. It would not use hydraulic forces to try and create fractures in the crust. Simply put the unwanted chemicals back in a chamber that is now empty.

2

[deleted] t1_iyahp4i wrote

I think you are confused about what causes earthquakes from fracking. They're not caused by the initial fracturing of the crust, they are caused by wastewater disposal wells, which is exactly the kind of solution you are proposing.

https://www.usgs.gov/faqs/does-fracking-cause-earthquakes

>In Oklahoma, which has the most induced earthquakes in the United States, 2% of earthquakes can be linked to hydraulic fracturing operations. Given the high rate of seismicity in Oklahoma, this means that there are still many earthquakes induced by hydraulic fracturing. The remaining earthquakes are induced by wastewater disposal.

So only 2% of the earthquakes are from the actual fracking, 98% are from wastewater disposal. If waste disposal can trigger that many earthquakes in a relatively inactive zone like Oklahoma, imagine the problems it would cause in a state like California where the majority of the population lives within 30 miles of a fault zone.

1