https://www.prnewswire.com/news-releases/monolith-raises-mor…
WSJ has article today advising that Monolith Materials is moving forward with a process to crack methane into hydrogen and carbon black (using renewable electricity as a heat source).
Hydrogen is usually made from natural gas producing carbon oxides as a by-product. With blue hydrogen this carbon dioxide is collected and stored somewhere underground.
Carbon black is a far better coproduct in that it is commonly used as black pigment (with reinforcing properties) in tires making it more valuable that carbon dioxide.
Plus carbon black is much easier to get rid of. It could probably be spread on farm fields as a soil amendment little risk.
They have a demo unit running and have received funding for a larger unit due in 2026.
https://monolith-corp.com/methane-pyrolysis
https://www.wsj.com/articles/big-name-investors-pour-billion…
1 Like
WSJ has article today advising that Monolith Materials is moving forward with a process to crack methane into hydrogen and carbon black (using renewable electricity as a heat source).
If they want to produce hydrogen on an industrial scale, they will want to run the cracking plant 24 hours a day. Unless they are using a reliable renewable energy source such as hydro, it would not be efficient to shut down the methane cracking operation whenever the wind dies down. A small, modular nuclear reactor would be ideal for this.
But, as with everything, it all comes down to cost. If there are huge piles of government subsidy money available, then this might be a good idea. Otherwise, they will need to show how their process is cheaper than the traditional steam reforming of methane to produce the H2.
1 Like
Agreed. The technology appears to be feasible. They need to demonstrate the economics on a larger scale. That will take a while. Then we will see if the numbers look attractive.
Many preliminary technology developments fail to make their numbers. Its a risky investment. But its not a public company. They do have some prominent companies backing their work.
From the original post…
Plus carbon black is much easier to get rid of. It could probably be spread on farm fields as a soil amendment little risk.
Putting the carbon into a solid form is much better. It is easier to simply dump into a landfill or some other hole in the ground. Gaseous CO2 needs to be compressed and pumped deep underground into the right kind of geology to ensure long-term sequestration.
So, if the costs of disposal are included, the carbon black option may turn out to be competitive.
I know there are ideas for spreading carbon on farms to improve the soil. I have no doubt it can work. I wonder, though, how permanent it is? Does it eventually get picked up by plants or perhaps microbes, and then eventually released into the atmosphere as CO2?
Carbon black (charcoal) will burn if it gets hot enough. But does it “oxidize” at lower temperatures over a long time? If so, it will eventually be released into the air as CO2. It might be better to have a more permanent burial solution.
Agreed. Carbon black or charcoal is an excellent way to store carbon and take it out of the atmosphere. Its still part of the carbon cycle and will eventually return to the atmosphere as carbon dioxide or methane. Delaying that as long as possible helps reduce carbon dioxide in the atmosphere.
An added advantage of natural gas cracking to hydrogen and carbon black is that the carbon black can be sold for use in tires adding to the economics of the process. But who knows. Carbon bricks may be possible that would make it practical to store carbon safely for eons.