Methane cracking - Revision history

Elie: /* Energy viability */

2024-02-09T06:07:15Z

Energy viability

← Older revision		Revision as of 02:07, 9 February 2024
Line 2:		Line 2:

	==Energy viability==		==Energy viability==
	{{sum\|'''Not''' viable ~~(except~~ in theory)}}		{{sum\|'''Not''' viable - but could work in theory}}

	Every methane-cracking method ''invented so far'' is a '''net loss''' of energy. Meaning that it takes more energy to crack the methane than you ultimately get from burning the hydrogen.		Every methane-cracking method ''invented so far'' is a '''net loss''' of energy. Meaning that it takes more energy to crack the methane than you ultimately get from burning the hydrogen.

Elie: /* Energy viability */

2024-02-09T06:02:47Z

Energy viability

← Older revision		Revision as of 02:02, 9 February 2024
Line 2:		Line 2:

	==Energy viability==		==Energy viability==
	{{sum\|'''Not''' viable}}		{{sum\|'''Not''' viable (except in theory)}}

	Every methane-cracking method ''invented so far'' is a '''net loss''' of energy. Meaning that it takes more energy to crack the methane than you ultimately get from burning the hydrogen.		Every methane-cracking method ''invented so far'' is a '''net loss''' of energy. Meaning that it takes more energy to crack the methane than you ultimately get from burning the hydrogen.

Elie: /* Energy viability */

2024-02-09T05:59:45Z

Energy viability

← Older revision		Revision as of 01:59, 9 February 2024
Line 2:		Line 2:

	==Energy viability==		==Energy viability==
			{{sum\|'''Not''' viable}}

	Every methane-cracking method ''invented so far'' is a '''net loss''' of energy. Meaning that it takes more energy to crack the methane than you ultimately get from burning the hydrogen.		Every methane-cracking method ''invented so far'' is a '''net loss''' of energy. Meaning that it takes more energy to crack the methane than you ultimately get from burning the hydrogen.

Elie at 05:55, 9 February 2024

2024-02-09T05:55:05Z

← Older revision		Revision as of 01:55, 9 February 2024
Line 1:		Line 1:
	Methane cracking{{x\|Note: the word 'cracking' has nothing to do with physical cracks in any material.}} is a process that converts methane (usually from [[fossil fuels\|natural gas]]) into '''[[hydrogen gas]] and solid carbon'''. The hydrogen can be burned for [[energy]], and the carbon could be buried in the ground or used for something else. The carbon '''does not become [[climate change\|~~CO2~~]]''' (unlike normal combustion of methane).		Methane cracking{{x\|Note: the word 'cracking' has nothing to do with physical cracks in any material.}} is a process that converts methane (usually from [[fossil fuels\|natural gas]]) into '''[[hydrogen gas]] and solid carbon'''. The hydrogen can be burned for [[energy]], and the carbon could be buried in the ground or used for something else. The carbon '''does not become [[climate change\|CO<sub>2</sub>]]''' (unlike normal combustion of methane).

	==Energy viability==		==Energy viability==

Elie at 17:51, 30 March 2023

2023-03-30T17:51:26Z

← Older revision		Revision as of 13:51, 30 March 2023
Line 1:		Line 1:
	Methane cracking {{p\|Note: the word 'cracking' has nothing to do with physical cracks in any material.}} is a process that converts methane (usually from [[fossil fuels\|natural gas]]) into '''[[hydrogen gas]] and solid carbon'''. The hydrogen can be burned for [[energy]], and the carbon could be buried in the ground or used for something else. The carbon '''does not become [[climate change\|CO2]]''' (unlike normal combustion of methane).		Methane cracking{{x\|Note: the word 'cracking' has nothing to do with physical cracks in any material.}} is a process that converts methane (usually from [[fossil fuels\|natural gas]]) into '''[[hydrogen gas]] and solid carbon'''. The hydrogen can be burned for [[energy]], and the carbon could be buried in the ground or used for something else. The carbon '''does not become [[climate change\|CO2]]''' (unlike normal combustion of methane).

	==Energy viability==		==Energy viability==

Elie: /* Energy viability */

2022-05-31T05:09:25Z

Energy viability

← Older revision		Revision as of 01:09, 31 May 2022
Line 7:		Line 7:
	But '''in theory''', this need not be true:		But '''in theory''', this need not be true:
	: Cracking the methane:		: Cracking the methane:
	:: ~~CH4~~ → C + 2 H2 &emsp; &emsp; ({{p2\|energy in:\|'''endo'''thermic reaction}} 74.850 kJ/mol)<br />		:: CH<sub>4</sub> → C + 2 H<sub>2</sub> &emsp; &emsp; ({{p2\|energy in:\|'''endo'''thermic reaction}} &emsp; 74.850 kJ/mol)<br />
	: Burning the hydrogen:		: Burning the hydrogen:
	:: 2 H2 + O2 → 2 ~~H2O~~ &emsp; ({{p2\|energy out:\|'''exo'''thermic reaction}} ~~285~~.~~820~~ kJ/mol)		:: 2 H<sub>2</sub> + O<sub>2</sub> → 2 H<sub>2</sub>O &emsp; ({{p2\|energy out:\|'''exo'''thermic reaction}} 571.640 kJ/mol)

	===Hydrogen production efficiency comparison===		===Hydrogen production efficiency comparison===
Line 20:		Line 20:
	\|Methane cracking		\|Methane cracking
	\|Theoretical best case		\|Theoretical best case
	\|~~382~~% {{p\|from the chemistry equations above}}		\|764% {{p\|from the chemistry equations above}}
	\|-		\|-
	\|'''Not''' methane cracking		\|'''Not''' methane cracking
	\|Electrolysis of water		\|Electrolysis of water
	\|80%		\|  80%
	\|-		\|-
	\|Methane cracking		\|Methane cracking
	\|Best technologies so far		\|Best technologies so far
	\|__ {{p\|to be filled in soon}}		\|  . . .   {{p\|To be filled in soon.<br />It's almost certainly less than 80%.}}
	\|-		\|-
	\|'''Not''' methane cracking		\|'''Not''' methane cracking
	\|Heat -> turbine -> electrolysis of water		\|Heat -> turbine -> electrolysis of water
	\|25%		\|  25%
	\|}		\|}

	There have been some green initiatives to use ''non-fossil-fuel energy'' to crack methane to make hydrogen gas. However, this is only worthwhile if the ''efficiency'' is better than non-methane-cracking ways to make hydrogen (see table).		There have been some green initiatives to use ''non-fossil-fuel energy'' to crack methane to make hydrogen gas. However, this is only worthwhile if the ''efficiency'' is better than ''non-methane-cracking'' ways to make hydrogen (see table).

	Above 100%, you don't need any ''non-fossil-fuel energy'' for it to be green. Just burn some of the hydrogen to keep cracking the methane. Sadly, this has never been achieved.		Above 100%, you don't need any ''non-fossil-fuel energy'' for it to be green. Just burn some of the hydrogen to keep cracking the methane. Sadly, this has never been achieved.

	In the ideal case, fossil fuels could power the entire world with zero carbon emissions. At least, until [[peak oil\|oil and gas reserves run out]].		In the ideal case, fossil fuels could power the entire world with zero carbon emissions. At least, until [[peak oil\|oil and gas reserves run out]].

Elie at 04:33, 31 May 2022

2022-05-31T04:33:02Z

← Older revision		Revision as of 00:33, 31 May 2022
Line 1:		Line 1:
			Methane cracking {{p\|Note: the word 'cracking' has nothing to do with physical cracks in any material.}} is a process that converts methane (usually from [[fossil fuels\|natural gas]]) into '''[[hydrogen gas]] and solid carbon'''. The hydrogen can be burned for [[energy]], and the carbon could be buried in the ground or used for something else. The carbon '''does not become [[climate change\|CO2]]''' (unlike normal combustion of methane).

	==Energy viability==		==Energy viability==

Elie at 04:29, 31 May 2022

2022-05-31T04:29:24Z

← Older revision		Revision as of 00:29, 31 May 2022
Line 1:		Line 1:
	==Energy viability==		==Energy viability==

	Every methane-cracking method ''invented so far'' is a ''net loss'' of energy. Meaning that it takes more energy to crack the methane than you ultimately get from burning the hydrogen. But in theory, this need not be true:~~<br />~~		Every methane-cracking method ''invented so far'' is a '''net loss''' of energy. Meaning that it takes more energy to crack the methane than you ultimately get from burning the hydrogen.
	: CH4 -> C + 2 H2 (~~endothermic~~: 74.850 kJ/mol)<br />
	: 2 H2 + O2 -> 2 H2O (~~exothermic~~: 285.820 kJ/mol)		But '''in theory''', this need not be true:
			: Cracking the methane:
			:: CH4 → C + 2 H2 &emsp; &emsp; ({{p2\|energy in:\|'''endo'''thermic reaction}} 74.850 kJ/mol)<br />
			: Burning the hydrogen:
			:: 2 H2 + O2 → 2 H2O &emsp; ({{p2\|energy out:\|'''exo'''thermic reaction}} 285.820 kJ/mol)

	===Hydrogen production efficiency comparison===		===Hydrogen production efficiency comparison===
Line 14:		Line 18:
	\|Methane cracking		\|Methane cracking
	\|Theoretical best case		\|Theoretical best case
	\|382% {{p\|~~see~~ chemistry ~~equation~~ above}}		\|382% {{p\|from the chemistry equations above}}
	\|-		\|-
	\|'''Not''' methane cracking		\|'''Not''' methane cracking

Elie: /* Hydrogen production efficiency comparison */

2022-05-31T04:20:35Z

Hydrogen production efficiency comparison

← Older revision		Revision as of 00:20, 31 May 2022
Line 22:		Line 22:
	\|Methane cracking		\|Methane cracking
	\|Best technologies so far		\|Best technologies so far
	\|		\|__ {{p\|to be filled in soon}}
	\|-		\|-
	\|'''Not''' methane cracking		\|'''Not''' methane cracking
Line 29:		Line 29:
	\|}		\|}

	There have been some green initiatives to use ''non-fossil-fuel energy'' to crack methane. However, this is only worthwhile if the efficiency is better than non-methane-cracking ways to make hydrogen (see table).		There have been some green initiatives to use ''non-fossil-fuel energy'' to crack methane to make hydrogen gas. However, this is only worthwhile if the ''efficiency'' is better than non-methane-cracking ways to make hydrogen (see table).

	Above 100%, you ~~can keep the system going without~~ any ''non-fossil-fuel energy'' ~~inputs~~. Just burn some of the hydrogen ~~itself~~ to ~~crack~~ the methane.		Above 100%, you don't need any ''non-fossil-fuel energy'' for it to be green. Just burn some of the hydrogen to keep cracking the methane. Sadly, this has never been achieved.

	In the ideal case, fossil fuels could power the entire world with zero carbon emissions. At least, until [[peak oil\|oil and gas reserves run out]].		In the ideal case, fossil fuels could power the entire world with zero carbon emissions. At least, until [[peak oil\|oil and gas reserves run out]].

Elie: /* Hydrogen production efficiency levels */

2022-05-31T04:10:06Z

Hydrogen production efficiency levels

← Older revision		Revision as of 00:10, 31 May 2022
Line 5:		Line 5:
	: 2 H2 + O2 -> 2 H2O (exothermic: 285.820 kJ/mol)		: 2 H2 + O2 -> 2 H2O (exothermic: 285.820 kJ/mol)

	===Hydrogen production efficiency ~~levels~~===		===Hydrogen production efficiency comparison===

	{\| class='wikitable'		{\| class='wikitable'
Line 14:		Line 14:
	\|Methane cracking		\|Methane cracking
	\|Theoretical best case		\|Theoretical best case
	\|382% (see chemistry equation above)		\|382% {{p\|see chemistry equation above}}
	\|-		\|-
	\|'''Not''' methane cracking		\|'''Not''' methane cracking
Line 29:		Line 29:
	\|}		\|}

	There have been some green initiatives to use non-fossil-fuel energy to crack methane. However, this is only worthwhile if the efficiency is better than non-methane-cracking ways to make hydrogen (see ~~chart above~~).		There have been some green initiatives to use ''non-fossil-fuel energy'' to crack methane. However, this is only worthwhile if the efficiency is better than non-methane-cracking ways to make hydrogen (see table).

	Above 100%, you ~~don~~'~~t need~~ non-fossil-fuel energy~~; you can just use~~ some of the hydrogen ~~gas~~ to ~~keep~~ the ~~system going~~.		Above 100%, you can keep the system going without any ''non-fossil-fuel energy'' inputs. Just burn some of the hydrogen itself to crack the methane.

	In the ideal case, fossil fuels could power the entire world with zero carbon emissions. At least, until [[peak oil\|oil and gas reserves run out]].		In the ideal case, fossil fuels could power the entire world with zero carbon emissions. At least, until [[peak oil\|oil and gas reserves run out]].