Hydrogenation to convert <scp>CO<sub>2</sub></scp> to <scp>C1</scp> chemicals: Technical comparison of different alternatives by process simulation
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract Carbon dioxide (CO 2 ) conversion by catalytic reaction with hydrogen to produce different C1 chemicals is a promising strategy in view of the development of a sustainable chemical industry. In this work, two CO 2 hydrogenation routes are investigated in detail, respectively syngas and formic acid syntheses. Starting from published experimental reaction data, simulation models based on a kinetic analysis were developed and implemented in Aspen Plus process simulator. The two processes are analyzed according to a number of selected technological indicators, comprising CO 2 conversion, specific H 2 consumption, product yield, energy duties, and carbon emissions. To extend our study, three additional CO 2 conversion pathways are considered, respectively methanol, methane, and urea syntheses, whose technological performances were retrieved from similar studies available in the scientific literature. Under the assumption that H 2 is available from renewable sources, our results highlight that CO 2 conversion routes towards fuel compounds (ie, syngas and methane) look particularly appealing from the energy balance point of view. If non‐renewable energy is used to produce H 2 , the actual environmental benefits (in terms of net CO 2 emissions) strongly depend on the country‐specific carbon intensity for electricity generation.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.006 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".