I am either under equipped with intelligence .. or your question is too confusing to be easily understood.
If your intention is to get any kind of useful feedback on your message here .. I suggest you try to rephrase it or explain further what you're asking.
Looks like you yourself are dangerously wrong here.
You know which way we will not solve the problem?
By failing to recognize technologies that are going to help solve the problem.
It's the same with CCS.
The "green" mantra of "this is all just a strategy to help the fossil industry survive and we must boycott it" is shooting in one's foot.
As long as the world's energy infrastructure can not be built solely on renewables - which will still be the case in at least 2-3 decades - it makes sense to develop/use technologies that make the footprint of fossil energy smaller.
The key feature of hydrogen as energy storage wouldn't necessarily be round trip efficiency but cost effectiveness (compared to batteries) of long-term storage over months.
Think about transporting peaks of renewables electricity generation that are not economically usable at the time when they're produced to times when renewables produce too little to meet demand. (Mostly in regions where generation depends significantly on seasons.)
> > Commonsense should tell you e- generated by H2 can't compete with CH4, because Ch4 is the feedstock & H2 is the product!
> Didn't parse this statement, sorry. Can you rephrase?
They might have meant something like: if you process A through B to C while you could also process A to C directly, then the latter direct process will usually be more economically viable.
While this heuristic sounds broadly reasonable, it neglects so many details of any real production processes and value chains that it seems hardly applicable to real world situations.
> .. but the problem is that tech like this is a cheap commodity in a massively oversaturated space, and without a hook that makes the platform exceptional (innovative/clever/beautiful design, unique aggregation features, inherently interesting content, reimagined user/content/moderation dynamics etc etc), this kind of thing is dead in the water because it lacks a network effect.
How about said hook being? "absence of dark patterns" .. which is possible because of stable funding, so there's no enshittification dynamic needed to make money.
But let's not forget that it's not about merely pumping the water around. All this water must be processed. And I figure the process is a little more involved than simple reverse osmosis for seawater desalination.
In the desalination business 1 m diameter pipes with water traveling at 1 m/s and the resulting volumetric flow rate isn't a big thing .. but I'd guess for more complex processes it indicates huge/expensive apparatuses.
Wow .. 11,000 tonnes of seawater per tonne of CO2 is indeed huge.
Assuming that the new process stochiometrically generates CaO according to the amount of CO2 taken up from the ocean you'd produce 1.27 tonnes of CaO per tonne of CO2. (molar masses of CO2 and CaO: 44 g/Mol and 56 g/Mol)
Cementa website states [1] an annual output of 2.7 million tonnes of cement.
So in order to produce what is only a portion of Sweden's (a comparatively small country) annual demand for cement, Heimdal's process would require processing of ~ 23 billion tonnes of seawater.
That's 23 billion cubic metres or 23 cubic kilometres per year or ~ 730 litres of seawater per second.
If your intention is to get any kind of useful feedback on your message here .. I suggest you try to rephrase it or explain further what you're asking.