I 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?
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.
In a concept green fab design, I have pyrolysis of (fractionated) cellulose feeding CVD to make CNT (metallic CNT, nonmetallic (semiconducting (*)) CNT, A-CNT, VACNT), or Methane, or CO2.
Now that there's a scholarly article describing creation of air filters and CO2 filters out of graphene, CO2 capture that yields high carbon graphene wafers would also be useful to feed to a pyrolysis reactor that feeds to CVD.
The model indicated that CVD from pyrolysis of cellulose biofeedstock would yield 33% metallic CNTs and 67% non-metallic CNTs, which are semiconducting.
In this concept design at present, I have Lignin and Phytic acid to contain the Carbon Nanotubes so that the CNTs are not hazardous to life if they enter soil or water or are burnt.
A research question for basic research with real world applications:
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.
This is apparently already an issue because CNTs are added to various products - like synthetic tires - and the CNTs are ~aerosolized if burnt.
For safety in a production process, this model (Gemini3Pro) suggests that all-liquid low-pressure lower-tempetature processing of CNT would help to minimize risk.
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."
Math 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."
The 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.
Calling 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.
ScholarlyArticle: "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
When 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.
It has nothing to do with clean energy, other than the downstream effects of cheap CNTs should the process be refined enough to scale and commercialize. The hydrogen is recycled in the process. The primary thing that it produces are CNT aerogels. However according to the paper catalyst efficiency is shit. Says less than 0.1% of catalyst particles actually grew CNTs. No wonder CNTs are currently ≥$200/kg. Needs improvement by either dramatically increasing catalyst efficiency or finding dirt cheap iron/sulfur sources.
Carbon fouling is also a major block to scale. 15-20% of carbon deposits as soot on reactor walls. At a 1MW scale thats 15-30 kg/h of crud degrading the catalytic heat transfer. Continuous cleaning or scheduled downtime would drive OPEX out of possible realities.
Hot hydrogen loops are a son-of-a-bitch and equal continuous embrittlement of pipes, valves, pumps. Seals that work at temperature. H2 Leak detection. Some real heavyweight process safety engineering here.
The reactor chemistry is solved. The paper proves it works.
The scale-up is where clean-tech startups go to burn money and die.
There will be more atomic C in the upper layers of the Earth if you dig deep and pump out natural gas.
How long will the C atoms in those "stable product" stay there?
Burning wood is clean energy: it does not increase the number of atomic C in the upper layers. Natural gas is not, unless you find a way to store those C.
That 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.
The problems with natural gas are definitely not confined to combustion. Methane leakage is a huge problem.
That and if you just encourage more exploration, and it's cheaper to just burn the stuff anyways, guess what happens in the price conscious free market?
Wrong. 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
I 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?
Things take longer this time of year, and fake internet points never matter anyway.
A big research area, see "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
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
In a concept green fab design, I have pyrolysis of (fractionated) cellulose feeding CVD to make CNT (metallic CNT, nonmetallic (semiconducting (*)) CNT, A-CNT, VACNT), or Methane, or CO2.
Now that there's a scholarly article describing creation of air filters and CO2 filters out of graphene, CO2 capture that yields high carbon graphene wafers would also be useful to feed to a pyrolysis reactor that feeds to CVD.
The model indicated that CVD from pyrolysis of cellulose biofeedstock would yield 33% metallic CNTs and 67% non-metallic CNTs, which are semiconducting.
In this concept design at present, I have Lignin and Phytic acid to contain the Carbon Nanotubes so that the CNTs are not hazardous to life if they enter soil or water or are burnt.
A research question for basic research with real world applications:
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.
This is apparently already an issue because CNTs are added to various products - like synthetic tires - and the CNTs are ~aerosolized if burnt.
For safety in a production process, this model (Gemini3Pro) suggests that all-liquid low-pressure lower-tempetature processing of CNT would help to minimize risk.
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."
Math 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."
The 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.
(I had to reread that paragraph a couple times too)
Are the max yield and the yield efficiency numbers mixed up?
Calling 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.
That.. 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 :)
ScholarlyArticle: "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
When 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.
It 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.
almost certain to be uneconomical.
Oh come on. Produces 'clean energy' from natural gas? Yeah of course.
It has nothing to do with clean energy, other than the downstream effects of cheap CNTs should the process be refined enough to scale and commercialize. The hydrogen is recycled in the process. The primary thing that it produces are CNT aerogels. However according to the paper catalyst efficiency is shit. Says less than 0.1% of catalyst particles actually grew CNTs. No wonder CNTs are currently ≥$200/kg. Needs improvement by either dramatically increasing catalyst efficiency or finding dirt cheap iron/sulfur sources.
Carbon fouling is also a major block to scale. 15-20% of carbon deposits as soot on reactor walls. At a 1MW scale thats 15-30 kg/h of crud degrading the catalytic heat transfer. Continuous cleaning or scheduled downtime would drive OPEX out of possible realities.
Hot hydrogen loops are a son-of-a-bitch and equal continuous embrittlement of pipes, valves, pumps. Seals that work at temperature. H2 Leak detection. Some real heavyweight process safety engineering here.
The reactor chemistry is solved. The paper proves it works.
The scale-up is where clean-tech startups go to burn money and die.
I'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.
There will be more atomic C in the upper layers of the Earth if you dig deep and pump out natural gas.
How long will the C atoms in those "stable product" stay there?
Burning wood is clean energy: it does not increase the number of atomic C in the upper layers. Natural gas is not, unless you find a way to store those C.
That 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.
> Except natural gas is a hydrocarbon, isn't it?
Why is that disqualifying?
The problem is combustion’s emission of sequestered carbon. If you don’t have that you don’t have this problem.
The problems with natural gas are definitely not confined to combustion. Methane leakage is a huge problem.
That and if you just encourage more exploration, and it's cheaper to just burn the stuff anyways, guess what happens in the price conscious free market?
Nice job conveniently ignoring the dirty processing problem.
Not sure what's wrong here. They said clean, not renewable right?
It's clean, but it's still non-renewable. Oil companies have to keep finding ways to greenwash themselves.
Yes, did you read it? Hydrogen and solid carbon, so the result is no greenhouse gas emissions.
Wrong. 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