[narag]

Making any type of chemical energy carrier comes with substantial losses

The goal presented in the article seems to be cleaning the atmosphere, not generating chemicals. So H2 and ammonia would be irrelevant. And it's not so much about maximazing efficiency as not losing too much.

The alternative should be other carbon-based chemicals, as useful as methane, needed in huge volumes and with a practical process of extraction using solar panels. Is there something like that?

Also, is there another product with the same characteristics with methane as a starting point?

[slashdev]

That’s nonsensical, because you burn the methane and put the carbon right back into the atmosphere. It didn’t clean anything. It’s merely a carbon neutral form of chemical energy. H2, ammonia, methanol would be just as carbon neutral.

[narag]

Well, it's there in the title of the article, so don't shoot me. If the premise of the article is bs, it doesn't make sense to discuss efficiency.

Is it nonsensical though? IDK, it seems somehow better than extracting the gas from the ground and adding it to the system. Also if there's another more complex chemical not for burning, that you can synthesize from the methane, it would be a net gain.

[slashdev]

It’s much better than extracting it from the ground, hence carbon neutral. It is not carbon negative though.

The article was reasonably well written, but I can see how you’d draw that conclusion if you only read the title.