It's a great move! Methane economy already exists. Methane storage and transport is reasonably simple and scalable.

Convert to hydrogen at point of use, and you can claim all the hydrogen hype without having to do all the hard things with hydrogen. If you accidentally oxidize methane instead of converting to hydrogen and oxidizing hydrogen, whoopsie-doodles, but it might be a simpler system.

Sure, but how is methane obtained if not from a byproduct of drilling up oil? Isn't it the "gas" in oil&gas?

It's probably a good move to "hydrogenize" the economy if we can, but it sure would be nice to move away from extraction into something that's more sustainably produced in-situ. Either electricity, or even methane synthesis.

We will always need some oil in near future. And gas is considered a byproduct only because oil is more economically attractive. It is technically perfectly feasible to obtain gas only and leave oil in the ground.

Why is it the wrong direction? It seems to me to be the perfect direction, if we can make it happen. Methane is plentiful and cheap. If we can burn it without emitting CO2, what's not to like?

What's the actual point of doing this? This is another sneaky fossil fuel "idea" that just wants to make sure their product is still required in the electrified future. Hydrogen isn't an energy source, it's a storage medium. It compares poorly to batteries is a variety of use cases, fuel cells can be a consumable component, and you have to deal with storing the hydrogen before you convert it to electricity or burn it (have fun assembling all of those parts for a combustion engine).

I get it - it's cool science and there's probably a couple of edge cases or whatever where this does make sense, but solar panels, batteries, and electric motors are all here and mostly work. The technology for all of that will continue to get better and make any hydrogen use cases even less practical. Just leave the oil in the ground.

> What's the actual point of doing this?

Hydrogen is heavily used industrially, and today the most common and economical way it is produced is via steam reforming of methane, which emits CO2 as a byproduct. This method has the benefit of outputting solid carbon instead of CO2 while still being economically viable unlike most other ways of generating hydrogen.

In this case hydrogen is an energy source. You split CH4 into C and 2H2, put the solid carbon in some storage, and either burn the hydrogen in a regular power plant, or you put it in a fuel cell. Either way, you generate electricity. With methane pyrolysis, hydrogen is not a storage medium, it becomes a regular fuel.

We already need carbon black, graphite, etc. This process makes production have dramatically less carbon emissions with hydrogen as a bonus. Of course we use millions of tons of hydrogen for things like fertilizer. What's not to like?

Exactly right.

Carbon black has the average CO2 intensity of almost 4 kgCO2/kgC [1] and its conventional production is so dirty and low-margin, that companies have been walking away from their plants rather than implement EPA-mandated upgrades. [2]

[1] https://static1.squarespace.com/static/5fd161c5b1bc2872873bd...

[2] https://www.ledger-enquirer.com/news/business/article2703292...

The other commenters are myopically, dangerously wrong in the worst possible way. We must stop pulling carbon out of the ground yesterday. Climate change isn't a hoax, isn't going away, and is an existential crisis that must be addressed by eliminating carbon extraction to the greatest degree possible sooner rather than never.

Pulling carbon out of the ground doesn't cause climate change. Neither does consuming energy. Burning carbon into CO₂ or releasing other carbon-bearing gases like CH₄ or C₂H₄ causes climate change. Methane pyrolysis avoids that. Too bad it's uneconomic next to solar panels.

leaking methane definitely does though, and pretty much all natural gas pipelines and facilities are leaking it at levels way higher than producers care to admit

You're not wrong, but you're not right either.

In 2015, the Department of Energy estimated that the CO2 footprint for production, processing, and pipeline transportation of natural gas averaged between 8 and 14 kgCO2-e per MMBTU of natural gas [1].

The average natural gas CO2 emissions (kgCO2/MMBTU) has been going down over time [2], and will be reduced even further in the next few years thanks to increasing fines [3] on one hand and financial incentives to reduce flaring and venting [4] on the other hand. A large percentage of these emissions are not due to accidental leaks, but are essentially intentional -- due to flaring, venting, and high-bleed controllers and actuators [2].

For an idea of how much emissions can be reduced, consider that the so-called certified gas has 90% lower CO2 footprint than the average today [5]. For example, the methane emissions for a natural gas utility in Oregon are 90% lower than EPA nationwide assumptions [6].

[1] https://greet.es.anl.gov/files/EERE-LCA-NG

[2] https://www.epa.gov/ghgemissions/inventory-us-greenhouse-gas...

[3] https://community.citizensclimate.org/resources/item/19/530#...

[4] https://www.epa.gov/inflation-reduction-act/methane-emission...

https://www.epa.gov/sites/default/files/2020-04/documents/us...

[5] https://www.cfindustries.com/newsroom/2023/bp-certified-natu...

[6] https://www.nwnatural.com/about-us/environment/less-we-can

Serious cognitive dissonance and strawmanning. Using the sky as an open-air sewer does. No amount of "clean coal" or "clean hydrogen" will change the problem of normalization of continued ff extraction by greenwashing it.

You don't seem to have addressed my argument, and parts of your response aren't even coherent, such as "Using the sky as an open-air sewer does." Possibly you are too upset to have a conversation successfully right now.

> Be kind. Don't be snarky. Converse curiously; don't cross-examine. Edit out swipes.

> Comments should get more thoughtful and substantive, not less, as a topic gets more divisive.

> When disagreeing, please reply to the argument instead of calling names. "That is idiotic; 1 + 1 is 2, not 3" can be shortened to "1 + 1 is 2, not 3."

> Don't be curmudgeonly. Thoughtful criticism is fine, but please don't be rigidly or generically negative.

> Please don't fulminate. Please don't sneer, including at the rest of the community.

> Please respond to the strongest plausible interpretation of what someone says, not a weaker one that's easier to criticize. Assume good faith.

https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html

Yes, if you begin to follow these guidelines, you may find that ypur attempts to converse here are more successful.

The carbon extracted in this manner is a solid - carbon black, essentially graphite particles. It could be dumped in old coal mines and recovered - essentially burying the carbon we took out again.

Looks like you yourself are dangerously wrong here.

You know which way we will not solve the problem?

By failing to recognize technologies that are going to help solve the problem.

It's the same with CCS.

The "green" mantra of "this is all just a strategy to help the fossil industry survive and we must boycott it" is shooting in one's foot.

As long as the world's energy infrastructure can not be built solely on renewables - which will still be the case in at least 2-3 decades - it makes sense to develop/use technologies that make the footprint of fossil energy smaller.