I just had a look at their site, and I like it a lot, as it provides proper figures.

So for instance:
https://hycamite.com/technology

I was wondering about the claim of 13% of the energy needed compared to electrolysis, and they answer the question, without fandancing.

They give the energy needed for electrolysis per kg of hydrogen as 52KWh, which is ballpark right, and say they need 6-10KWh..

And here:

https://hycamite.com/hydrogen-production

In their ' Lifecycle emissions of different hydrogen production technologies'

They show hydrogen production by electrolysis using renewable energy as releasing 0.2 kg of CO2 per Kg of Hydrogen, less than their technology at 0.59kg of CO2 using renewable energy and LNG unless biofuel is used.

I like it when there is not a pretence that a tech is the best at everything, or anything less than perfect is simply not mentioned.

On the pluses elsewhere on the site they say that it can be put in right where it is needed, ie it does not have to have a gigantic facility:

' Hycamite’s process can be added to any type of existing industrial plant that uses natural gas as a fuel or raw material. Hycamite plants can also be built in any size to meet industry hydrogen needs.'

https://hycamite.com/hydrogen-production

So all the hassle of transporting and storing hydrogen in large quantities is avoided.

I await the cost information - I do hope it is not overly dependent on selling the carbon by-products.

According to this source:
“ Current estimates (depending on the cost of carbon) put the cost of hydrogen from methane pyrolysis at $2,600 to $3,200 per ton of hydrogen, as compared to steam methane reforming, which is around $2,000 per ton. ”
https://www.third-derivative.org/blog/hydrogen-produced-from-methane-pyrolysis-key-considerations-for-investors#:~:text=Current%20estimates%20(depending%20on%20the,is%20around%20%242%2C000%20per%20ton.
This may be a slightly different Methane Pyrolysis if this uses the Aurora Hydrogen process which is microwave pyrolysis. They claim a 80% reduction in electricity compared to Electrolysis, which is a similar reduction to Hycamite.
Also, this may include the sale of the Carbon (all the cost breakdowns are not listed).
However, it does appear to be close to the cost of SMR even without Carbon Capture.

The problem with working out the economics of this is that the by-products would be in very large quantity, way beyond established demand.

I could come up with virtually any projected costs that whoever was buying it fancied, by assuming a very large market for the high end produces such as carbon fibre, when these markets are not currently established, by their nature, as we did not have the supply!

So it is a chicken and egg situation, with a lot of the by-products such as reinforcements for concrete of very low value.

In reality, many companies are simply blagging it, with fake emission reduction targets, so that for instance many oil and gas companies are pressing on with fossil fuel projects, which may be uneconomic with the falling cost of renewables, but they rely on the politicians they have just bought to say that their investments cannot possibly be allowed to go to waste, so unfortunately they will have to continue to produce fossil fuels, even if they are more expensive than renewables.

As Gryf said:
' Also, this may include the sale of the Carbon (all the cost breakdowns are not listed)'

and there is the rub.

Hi Roger!
Great contribution, which has looked at the process to make a detailed critique!

However:

' CO2 + 4H2 ==> CH4 +2H2O

The CH4 is then transported the site of use and pyrolized to hydrogen and carbon:

CH4 ==> 2H2 + C

There are two problems with this scheme. The first is that you lose half of the hydrogen so that cost is doubled based on efficiency alone. In addition you have to add the cost of the pyrolysis.'

The hydrogen is not lost, half of it just needs further processing, presumably by electroylis, so good catch to note that.

Without getting too far into the weeds, for which I have neither the info nor the expertise do to to any effect, it might be that the process heat can contribute to the further electrolysis, so the overall efficiency it not half, as you say on first blush, but something more than 3/4ths or so.

And:

' Secondly each time you synthesize a fresh batch of CH4 you need a fresh batch of CO2 which, in the long run cannot come from fossil sources.'

Loads of sources of CO2 which are currently simply vented, and of course bioCO2 has the potential to be actually CO2 negative.

Great critique though!

Posted in the wrong place.

Apologies,

The technique of making synthetic jet fuel at the natural gas processing plant has real merit you're getting half of it CO2 and half of it is methane there's some butane and propane but you can sell that for pretty good price. What you need to CO2 to make a hydrocarbon chain or like a C12 so you can make synthetic fuels pretty cost-effectively.

Shell Pearl in the Middle East a 20 billion dollar installation is turning natural gas into jet fuel they're getting the natural gas for free from the country the country is getting a take at the end when they sell to distribution it's been running for a decade very profitable.

The idea of making SAF from palm oil and cutting down rain forests it is not the way to go.
Rather than sustainable aviation fuel I refer to it as synthetic aviation fuel. We use biocarbon and wind solar hydrogen, sell the oxygen for medical industrial, life is good.

The bio-carbon obviously comes from biomass there's a hundred million acres of corn stalks out there, you can make 10 billion gallons a year of jet fuel and not use any fossil carbon, piece of cake.