Posted on 07/08/2025 8:34:54 AM PDT by Red Badger
The accidental reaction was quietly reported within the company and then forgotten for nearly two decades.
ack in the early 2000s, engineers working for the Techint Group, a multinational conglomerate based in Italy and Argentina, were trying to fine-tune a new electric arc furnace at a steel plant. But something strange happened. The carbon electrodes in the furnace weren’t breaking down as expected. Instead, they were getting bigger.
What the engineers had unknowingly triggered was a chemical process called pyrolysis, burning a material in the absence of oxygen.
In this case, the furnace was splitting methane into two valuable byproducts: hydrogen gas and solid carbon. This accidental reaction was quietly reported within the company and then forgotten for nearly two decades.
“Back then, nobody cared because nobody cared about methane pyrolysis, about hydrogen,” said Massimiliano Pieri, now CEO of Tulum Energy.
That changed recently when Techint’s venture capital arm, TechEnergy Ventures, began looking for cleaner ways to make hydrogen. It didn’t take long for someone at the company to remember that forgotten internal report.
“Someone in the company realized, ‘But we already have that. We have this discovery,’” Pieri explained.
The result was Tulum Energy—a new startup formed to revive the two-decade-old discovery and turn it into a real business. And so far, it’s working.
Tulum just raised $27 million in seed funding from big names like TDK Ventures and CDP Venture Capital, with support from Doral Energy-Tech Ventures, MITO Tech Ventures, and TechEnergy Ventures, as reported by TechCrunch.
Hydrogen without the CO₂
Methane pyrolysis is now attracting interest from multiple startups as a cleaner way to produce hydrogen. The usual method—called steam methane reforming—releases a lot of carbon dioxide. But pyrolysis avoids that by operating without oxygen, leaving behind only hydrogen gas and solid carbon.
Several companies are now chasing this low-emission method, including Modern Hydrogen, Molten Industries, and Monolith. But Tulum claims it has a unique advantage.
Unlike some competitors, Tulum doesn’t need expensive catalysts to drive the chemical reaction. Instead, it relies on its modified electric arc furnace—a common industrial tool. That makes the process simpler and potentially cheaper.
“This gives you a big head start,” Pieri said.
Now, Tulum is building a pilot plant in Mexico right next to one of Techint Group’s existing steel mills. If the pilot goes smoothly, the steel plant could start buying both the hydrogen and the solid carbon directly from Tulum for use in its daily operations.
At full-scale operation, a commercial Tulum plant could produce two tons of hydrogen and 600 tons of carbon each day. Those numbers are meaningful, especially when you consider how much industry is shifting toward lower-emission energy options.
$1.50 hydrogen could disrupt the market
One of the biggest advantages of Tulum’s approach is cost. The company believes it can eventually produce hydrogen for around $1.50 per kilogram in the U.S. That’s just 50 cents more than today’s hydrogen made from natural gas, and significantly cheaper than so-called “green hydrogen” made from electrolysis using renewable power.
And that estimate doesn’t even include revenue from selling the solid carbon. Depending on how the carbon is used—whether in materials, construction, or even electronics—it could become an added revenue stream, helping to further lower the cost of hydrogen production.
Oh, that’s right. Bubba’s still alive. I thought for sure the syphilis would have gotten him by now.
He looks like he’s 90 years old................
“In this case, the furnace was splitting methane into two valuable byproducts: hydrogen gas and solid carbon.”
Interesting development for the future of methane.
I produce methane a lot easier than that!................
Just make them out of plastic.
J/k
Although it might work.
Hydrogen embrittlement is a critical issue in high pressure, high temperature steam power plants, particularly affecting high-strength steel components like last-stage turbine blades and disks and boiler tubes. It occurs when hydrogen atoms (from steam corrosion reactions) diffuse into the metal grain structure, reducing ductility and promoting cracking under stress, which can lead to catastrophic failures.
In the 80s and 90s Japanese researchers developed a ceramic adiabatic engine. That could have handled hydrogen.
Not really that great.
Basically, we can just burn the Methane and get a lot more net energy that way, but that would release the “terrible” Co2.
If this is a byproduct of making steel or similar product, then maybe there is something good in this. Otherwise, it will take more energy to make the hydrogen, than we can get back burning the hydrogen.
Let’s face it, all the greenies and the media wishful thinking cannot defeat the second law of thermodynamics!
So yet another feel good project, design to waste energy to make it “green”!
Basically, we can just burn the Methane and get a lot more net energy that way, but that would release the “terrible” Co2.
The reason to convert methane to hydrogen and solid carbon is if you don’t want to release carbon dioxide into the atmosphere.
Methane itself is a useful fuel, and is far easier to use and transport than hydrogen.
Good point. A higher level of thinking:)
Hydrogen molecules are the smallest of all. It seeps through the walls of every thing trying to contain it.
Boom.
.
It takes Legacy Energy, Coal, NG, Petroleum, Gasoline, or burning wood, to make “alternative energy”.
We need to use more so called “Climate destroying fuel”, making energy sources than we would use just using the fuel sources stated in my first paragraph. That includes the energy needed to make solar panels, concrete, Wind turbines or digging up rare earth metals, for electric STORING batteries.
In other words, Clinton perfected a method to screw you coming and going.
Hydrogen was tried once, in clean energy dirigibles.
His third eye could see around the corner to see if Hillary was around.
the unasked question is how efficient is it. How many watts out are there for every watt in.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.