4 ms·
New reactor produces clean energy and carbon nanotubes from natural gas
- PaulHoule 10mo agoA big research area, see "Turquoise Hydrogen" https://www.aga.org/its-time-to-pay-attention-to-turquoise-hydrogen/ https://www.aga.org/its-time-to-pay-attention-to-turquoise-h... in contrast to "Grey Hydrogen" [1] made by steam reforming https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Steam_reforming https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Steam_reforming The self-taught ChemE in me worries a little about any process that makes a solid product since that product could plate out inside the machine and clog it up, but maybe that's not really a problem here. [1] "Blue" if you capture the CO2
- westurner 10mo ago[flagged]
- cwillu 10mo ago“this model (Gemini3Pro)” Stop it.
- PaulHoule 10mo agoIt's funny, what he posts is similar to mine except I blend in some stuff which is "characteristic of the HN front page" (rust and it's discontents) and no sports and political science but the science and engineering themes are similar.
- westurner 10mo agoHere's a log of what I post: https://westurner.github.io/hnlog/ https://westurner.github.io/hnlog/ Which research themes do they share in common?
- westurner 10mo agoAre they censoring information about health hazards of CNT? Because an LLM helped and I cited that? We could go find many examples of people using LLMs to do their work without citation
- westurner 10mo ago[flagged]
- westurner 10mo ago> If lignin is not enough to make the inflamed CNTs char instead of ~aerosolize, is the phosphorous in phytic acid would encase the CNT in phosphorus and char. If lignin is not enough to make the inflamed CNTs char instead of ~aerosolize, would the phosphorous in phytic acid encase the CNT in phosphorus and char (to prevent the health hazards of CNT if burnt) Is "aerosolized" the word? How could you correct me to help us understand this?
- showmexyz 10mo agoMath seems wrong "The team found that the loop design would convert 75% of the gas entering the system into useful resources, producing carbon nanotubes and hydrogen in a 3:1 mass ratio. In other words, for every 4 kilograms of methane the system successfully converts into useful resources, it makes 3 kilograms of nanotubes and 1 kilogram of hydrogen."
- credit_guy 10mo agoThe 75% and the 3:1 ratio are not related. Methane has the formula CH4, so for 12 grams of carbon you have 4 grams of hydrogen. If you successfully break down the molecule CH4 you get a carbon-hydrogen ratio of 3:1. Now, let's say you start with 5.33 kg of methane. Only 75% gets converted, so that's 4 kg. Of that, you get 3 kg of carbon and 1 kg of hydrogen.
- westurner 10mo ago(I had to reread that paragraph a couple times too) Are the max yield and the yield efficiency numbers mixed up?
- cmrdporcupine 10mo agoWhen carbon byproducts are produced from these kinds of reactions, are they "pure" carbon, or will there be residues from the impurities in the methane? The reason I ask is I wonder if the carbon could be used as a soil amendment to help replenish top soils in agriculture, or as a growing medium generally. But this would only be conceivable if it's just carbon.
- estimator7292 10mo agoIt extremely depends on the exact reactions. I'm not a chemist but AFAIK carbon nanotube production doesn't like taking in non-carbon atoms. Things like crystallization reactions will produce very pure products, some other reactions will absorb more contaminants.
- jaggs 10mo agoOh come on. Produces 'clean energy' from natural gas? Yeah of course.
- eulgro 10mo agoIt's clean, but it's still non-renewable. Oil companies have to keep finding ways to greenwash themselves.
- O5vYtytb 10mo agoYes, did you read it? Hydrogen and solid carbon, so the result is no greenhouse gas emissions.
- tfourb 10mo agoWrong. First of all only 25% of the natural gas inserted into the reactor are converted (with the rest presumably resulting in emissions) and natural gas also produces emissions during exploration and exploitation
- anovikov 10mo agoNot sure what's wrong here. They said clean, not renewable right?
- estimator7292 10mo agoI'm a hardline no-fossi-fuels ever kind of guy and yes, this is clean energy. If you collect the pollutants before emitting them and turn them into stable products, you aren't polluting. Ergo, clean.
- jaggs 10mo agoThat sounds perfect. Except natural gas is a hydrocarbon, isn't it? Which means the processing is dirty at source? This idea of natural gas as a clean energy is rather the same as clean coal. In other words it's greenwashing.
- 10mo ago
- westurner 10mo agoScholarlyArticle: "Production of hydrogen and carbon nanotubes from methane using a multi-pass floating catalyst chemical vapour deposition reactor with process gas recycling" (2025) https://www.nature.com/articles/s41560-025-01925-3 https://www.nature.com/articles/s41560-025-01925-3
- wendgeabos 10mo agoalmost certain to be uneconomical.
- _aavaa_ 10mo agoCalling H2 clean energy is dumb. We currently use millions of tonnes of H2 every year, almost all of that being significantly more carbon intensive. Until that stuff has been replaced, using new H2 for “energy” is wasteful, stupid, or predatory delay.
- tuetuopay 10mo agoThat.. is the whole point of the reactor? It produces clean H2 to make it worthwhile as a clean fuel. Currently H2 is clean only at the usage stage, not at the production stage. Just like electricity for EVs in Germany :)
- actionfromafar 10mo agoAt least electricity is easier to transfer and use than H2 which is brittle pain all the way. Methane is more useful as a fuel.
- _aavaa_ 10mo agoWasting it as a “clean” fuel is not clean though. There are emissions at: 1) production, 2) usage, and 3) the averted emissions due to this being used. As a fuel, the alternatives are electricity for land and biofuels for land and sea. But as a chemical feedstock the alternator is dirtier hydrogen. So wasting this as a fuel means that you aren’t replacing dirty hydrogen with it, but rather cleaner electricity.
- givinguflac 10mo agoI don’t understand how HN works I guess; I submitted this exact article 24 hours ago, yet the hivemind has yet to call this a dupe. Not complaining, just truly don’t get it. When I submit a dupe it tells me?
- stronglikedan 10mo agoThings take longer this time of year, and fake internet points never matter anyway.
- westurner 10mo agoCould be the time of day? dupe: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=46368776 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=46368776 It didn't show any matching posts when I shared the URL. ENH: HN: search for matching articles on debounced update to the submit URL field
- r721 10mo agoI think in HN terms "dupe" means this story was on front page for some time and got some discussion, just a previous submission with few upvotes and no comments doesn't count as a dupe if it's clear it hardly can get on front page now (older than n hours).
- Teknomadix 10mo agoTotally 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."
- softwaredoug 10mo agoSure 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?
- credit_guy 10mo agoLet'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#Examples:_standard_enthalpies_of_formation_at_25_%C2%B0C https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Standard_enthalpy_of_formation...