Electrocatalysis for Chemical and Fuel Production: Investigating Climate Change Mitigation Potential and Economic Feasibility
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The manufacture of goods from oil, coal, or gas to everyday consumer products comprises in more or less all cases at least one catalytic step. Compared to conventional hydrothermal catalysis, electrocatalysis possesses the advantage of mild operational conditions and high selectivity, yet the potential energy savings and climate change mitigation have rarely been assessed. This study conducted a life cycle assessment (LCA) for the electrocatalytic oxidation of crude glycerol to produce lactic acid, one of the most common platform chemicals. The LCA results demonstrated a 31% reduction in global warming potential (GWP) compared to the benchmark (bio- and chemocatalytic) processes. Additionally, electrocatalysis yielded a synergetic potential to mitigate climate change depending on the scenario. For example, electrocatalysis combined with a low-carbon-intensity grid can reduce GWP by 57% if the process yields lactic acid and lignocellulosic biofuel as compared to a conventional fossil-based system with functionally equivalent products. This illustrates the potential of electrocatalysis as an important contributor to climate change mitigation across multiple industries. A technoeconomic analysis (TEA) for electrocatalytic lactic acid production indicated considerable challenges in economic feasibility due to the significant upfront capital cost. This challenge could be largely addressed by enabling dual redox processing to produce separate streams of renewable chemicals and biofuels simultaneously.
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 machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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".