[Teknomadix]

Totally misleading and editorialized title! No. The reactor CONSUMES energy. Pyrolysis is endothermic bro. They're running a furnace at 1300°C. That heat comes from somewhere. The reactor produces hydrogen, which is an energy CARRIER, not a source. And the energy content of the hydrogen output is less than the methane input plus the heat dumped in. This is thermodynamics. You don't get to call an energy-losing conversion process "producing energy."

[credit_guy]

Let's look at the numbers. The energy to split one mole of CH4 (i.e. 16 grams) into C and 2H2 is 74.6 kJ. If you burn that carbon you get 393.5 kJ and if you burn the hydrogen you get 483.6 kJ [1].

> And the energy content of the hydrogen output is less than the methane input plus the heat dumped in. This is thermodynamics.

You are right, but you forgot something. You are not creating the methane. You are extracting it from the ground. The energy content of the hydrogen is only 60% of the energy content of the methane you use to get it, and if you account for the energy to split the CH4, you are left with only 50% of the original energy of the methane. But then you get hydrogen that can generate emissions-free electricity. It's a good trade off.

[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Standard_enthalpy_of_formation...

[softwaredoug]

Sure but if you attached a hydrogen burner would it be net positive?

Then wouldn’t you have a cleaner energy system then burning the methane directly?