Talk:Steam reforming

message: As per the discussion on Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Methane reformer (car) the little extra info found in the article Methane reformer should probably be incorporated into this article. --Tunheim 19:49, 18 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Merge of ''Methane reformer'' into this article 

message: quote: "Small-scale steam reforming units are currently subject to scientific research"
Small-scale steam reformers already exist.. and sold by several manufacturers  —Preceding unsigned comment added by Wikipedroo (talk • contribs) 12:11, 30 March 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Small scale reformers 

message: Quote: "Steam reforming of liquid hydrocarbons is seen as a potential way to provide fuel for fuel cells. The basic idea is that for example a methanol tank and a steam reforming unit would replace the bulky pressurized hydrogen tanks that would otherwise be necessary. This might mitigate the distribution problems associated with hydrogen vehicles". 
:I don't see the point of this.  Why not burn the methanol in an internal combustion engine? Biscuittin (talk) 21:20, 17 May 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: You would need a boiler to produce the steam so the system would be more bulky than a pressurized hydrogen tank. Biscuittin (talk) 21:23, 17 May 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: What the article neglects to mention is that running a fuel in a fuel cell as opposed to an ICE the fuel cell will always produce less pollutants namely because of less heat.  Its a problem indicative of any ICE whether or not you are running hydrogen, gasoline, or even ethanol.  The article also neglects that current fuel cells can't utilize the reformed hydrogen because carbon monoxide is a catalyst poison of the platinum. 129.10.88.73 (talk) 20:29, 20 July 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Fuel cells 

message: Why does the reaction CH4 + 2H2O = CO2 + 4H2 not take place in the reformer?  —Preceding unsigned comment added by Username(obvious username) (talk • contribs) 06:48, 7 July 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Why not CH4 + ''2''H2O? 

message: Having just come across this page (fossil fuel reforming) it seems to me that it is currently a conjunction of two different subjects - one describing steam methane reforming (a large scale industrial process); the other describing development of small scale reformers for use with fuel cells.  
I would like to suggest this entry should aim to describe one or the other since the issues (such as efficiency) are quite different for the two applications.  
If so, and if the interest is in small scale reformers (as it seems to be), this entry should be focussed on that (possibly with a small change of title such as "fossil fuel reforming for fuel cells").  In that case the current entry "methane reformer" might also be re-titled so as to reflect the fact that it discusses the reforming process more than the the actual reformer unit itself. Any views? Paul freund (talk) 11:00, 8 December 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Methane reforming or use of methane reformer with fuel cell ? 

message: is written as if fuel cells would only want to be used by cars etc, bases argument from this point.
please edit this?  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 124.171.27.206 (talk) 23:16, 22 April 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Assumption to be a mobile product 

message: For anyone who is interested in this subject outside of the global warming perspective this article is very weak. how do i sign it up for one of those annoying banner ads that says please rewrite me?
benefits to supplying fuel cells include making use of existing infrastructure (natural gas mains) and providing an alternative to natural gas powered turbines, which tend to be noisy.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 124.171.27.206 (talk) 23:21, 22 April 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Assumes only a "global warming" point of view 

message: In the 'Industrial Reforming' section, will you please put the "+206J" and "+41J" (on the appropriate side) into the equations for the reforming processes, rather than just in the narrative? Thank you. Now it will be all tied together.
71.139.160.146 (talk) 21:16, 18 June 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  Endothermic exothermic 

message: The reference http://auto.howstuffworks.com/fuel-efficiency/fuel-economy/hydrogen-economy4.htm cited at the end of the following paragraph: "Fossil fuel reforming does not eliminate carbon dioxide release into the atmosphere but reduces the carbon dioxide emissions and nearly eliminates carbon monoxide emissions as compared to the burning of conventional fuels due to increased efficiency and fuel cell characteristics." does not seem to support the assertion of the paragraph. 
The most that can be claimed from the reference is "Fossil fuel reforming does not eliminate carbon dioxide release into the atmosphere ..." as is stated in the title of the reference. One would need a separate reference for the claim that "Fossil fuel reforming ... reduces the carbon dioxide emissions and nearly eliminates carbon monoxide emissions as compared to the burning of conventional fuels due to increased efficiency and fuel cell characteristics." Which is nearly entirely opposite of the first claim. Putting the two together then citing the reference is misleading.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by Four current (talk • contribs) 06:02, 7 June 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  Disadvantages of reforming for supplying fuel cells 

message: While looking for numbers on the percentage of hydrogen produced by steam reforming I came across this article, it includes the sentence "Steam reforming of natural gas is the most common method of producing commercial bulk hydrogen at about 95% of the world production"
However looking at the sources given, the 95% statistic seems to be coming from this sentence in source 2 (https://www.energy.gov/eere/fuelcells/hydrogen-production-natural-gas-reforming): "Today, 95% of the hydrogen produced in the United States is made by natural gas reforming in large central plants." 
This source only talks about US production, not world production. While I would guess that the numbers would be the same around the world, this is not what is claimed.
Speederzzz (talk) 11:44, 19 March 2020 (UTC)
thread_title:  US production = World production?