[chimere]

Interesting question - I'm not sure I know the answer but happy to speculate. Electrolysis certainly is a much tidier process than gasification, but everyone seems to assume it's powered by 100% renewable energy. What incentives exist to make H2 production decarbonize faster than the rest of the electricity grid? I'd expect electrolysis to only be fully carbon-neutral when the rest of the grid is, which will take some time.

On the other hand, our process is close to carbon neutral from day one (we've confirmed this with an external life cycle assessment), and will become significantly carbon negative when we begin sequestration. And as I mentioned elsewhere, sequestration is the primary mission and electrolysis is unremarkable at it :]

[mojomark]

Thanks for the response!

So, my point is that in the bio-gas process, you are generation H2 + CO2 and using some proceeds from H2 sales to sequester the CO2 you produce.

However, with electrolysis (from renewable elect. plants), you aren't generating any CO2, so any profit that you spend on Carbon sequestration (from somebody else's process) would be a much more Carbon negative proposition overall.

All this depends on the H2 production cost as to which is a mor effective Carbon sequestration scheme, right?

In the paper I cite (I convert SEK to $): bio-gas costs ~$4/kg H2 (let's say this produces 5 kg of CO2), and electrolysis ~$4.50/kg H2 (producing 0 kg Carbon).

Now say it costs $0.50/kg for CO2 sequestration). In the biogas process, because of the cost to sequester the CO2 byproduct, your actually spending ($0.5×$5)+$4 = $6.50/kg H2 produced just to get Carbon Neutral. However, for electrolysis (without the mess) you're only spending $4 to be Carbon Neutral, and if you want you can spend $2.50 (which you avoided by chosing elect. over gas), to go Carbon negative.

These are rough numbers I guessed at based on a little googling. Am I far off on the real numbers?

I'm really not trying to be a pain. What you're proposing is still light years better than the greedy bastards reforming natural gas and pocketing 100% of the profits without giving a second thought to the environment. I'm just wondering if there might be a way for you guys to do even more good, more easily.

[pkrein]

The economics you're looking at for biogas and electrolysis look roughly right to me. But our models suggest that thermal gasification of biomass can get down to $1/kg. So then you're looking at $4.50+/kg for electrolysis or $1/kg for gasification... and you can see how all that math changes.

Electrolysis also typically costs more than you'd expect as soon as you add the requirement of renewable energy supply. Usually the renewable energy supply is solar, which has a ~30% duty cycle. So 70% of the time your electrolyzer is sitting idle. This crushes your economics and makes solar-powered electrolysis untenable in all of the analyses I've seen. We didn't have any clever ideas for how to change that situation, so after looking at it ~1.5 years ago we decided to look elsewhere.

[mojomark]

Good answer, thank you. Like I said, it all boils down to the cost of H2 production for a given process. If you have a path to get to $1/kg H2, that is truly awesome!

Working very peripherally in this sector, I applaud your efforts, not only for the ingenuity, but also for the guts to consider environmental impact as opposed to stock-holder happiness from a profit margins perspective.

Honestly, it would be cool if on your site you showed a side-by-side comparison on your profit model compared to a competing natural gas reforming competitor's profit structure to demonstrate to customers how you are sacrificing some profit for environmental benefit, whereas the competition simply pockets the profit and turns a blind eye to the environment. For me, that would help me decide to buy potentially higher cost H2 from you, just like I choose to pay a higher premium for energy I know is renewable sourced.

The world needs more innovators like you folks. Good luck!