1. You correctly state the carbon to hydrogen mass ratio is 3:1. If we produce even a fraction of the world’s hydrogen (75 Mt/year) via this route, we’re looking at over 200 million tonnes of solid carbon per year. The global carbon black market you cite is a tiny fraction of that. You mention using it for “graphite” or “soil amendment” as if these are mature, scalable markets.
This isn’t a “co-product opportunity.” This is a solid waste problem of staggering proportions that will dwarf the existing market overnight. How can you present this as an economic driver when the math clearly shows you’d be producing a material with no home, effectively making it a disposal liability that destroys your entire business case?
2. The entire premise hinges on “no direct CO₂ emissions.” But look at the TEA section – you cite processes that combust natural gas or the carbon itself to provide the >1000°C heat. In many designs, you’re burning fossil fuels to make this work.
Isn’t this paper dodging the central inconvenient truth? By excluding the combustion emissions required to drive this highly endothermic reaction, aren’t you presenting a CO₂ mass balance that is fundamentally misleading and makes turquoise hydrogen look far cleaner than it will actually be in practice?