Contrary to the article's assertions, the main sticking point is not a low-cost catalyst to convert CO2 + H2 to CH4.
The main sticking point is the fact that CH4 can come from myriad other sources far far less expensively (some of them also carbon neutral, like landfill gas), and by the time you've renewably generated H2, I'd seriously hope you have something better to do with it than store it for later combustion (unlike H2, there's not many other uses for CH4).
Roundtrip efficiency from electricity to H2 to CH4 to heat, be it physical or economic, is pathetic compared to electricity to battery to heat.
Now if you've managed to make some heavier hydrocarbons, the US Navy might be interested in talking to you.
>Now if you've managed to make some heavier hydrocarbons, the US Navy might be interested in talking to you.
Every army, navy and airforce globally should be extremely interested in talking to you. Their most strategic resource could turn into commodity. Stuff like widespread algaic fuel production could significantly lessen geopolitical pressures globally. This should be in top three priorities of any pacifist institution.
easily??!! i need a reference for that. the reason we blast it way the @#$@#4 up the energy mountain of syn gas via steam reforming is because methane is a stubbornly happy little camper...
The main sticking point is the fact that CH4 can come from myriad other sources far far less expensively (some of them also carbon neutral, like landfill gas), and by the time you've renewably generated H2, I'd seriously hope you have something better to do with it than store it for later combustion (unlike H2, there's not many other uses for CH4).
Roundtrip efficiency from electricity to H2 to CH4 to heat, be it physical or economic, is pathetic compared to electricity to battery to heat.
Now if you've managed to make some heavier hydrocarbons, the US Navy might be interested in talking to you.