As long as you don't burn the carbon and store it underground or use it for other purposes, it won't be CO2.

@@richardlai465 no I get it, of course it isn't CO2, that's the whole idea, duh! The problem is the large amounts of carbon black that are produced, which as of today far exceeds the amount of hydrogen. Now, let's start with the fact that soring it underground is not a solution. No one in the field even makes that point as a serious way to deal with it. On the other hand, I get that you can use that carbon to make tires or asphalt but that's not really a problem in today's society (worldwide). We know how to make asphalt and tires cheaply. Yet, there is so much emphasis on the applications of that bulk carbon. It seems to me that type of flawed argument is pushed to mask the even more flawed argument that this is indeed a sustainable way to produce energy. A hydrogen-based energy economy isn't flawed in my opinion. This method of methane pyrolysis is.

@@dgv646 I think the root problem is we do not have a perfect solution for low/no carbon fuels but it is still be pushed very hard. Although the developed countries will reduce CO2 but the developing and undeveloped countries will continue burning coals and gasoline to boost their economy with lower fuel costs. For this hydrogen production method may not be perfect but it's one step further towards an environmentally friendly fuels I think.

Closest towns are Büsum and Friedrichskoog

Carbon is lighter than tin. Tin is also a liquid and is heated accordingly such that the tip of the carbon mountain is uncontaminated

Use the hydrogen derived from the process to boil the tin. Hydrogen flame temperature is high + other assisting device