MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4285398116 · doi:10.1149/ma2022-01391742mtgabs

The Economics of High Temperature and Supercritical Water Electrolysis

2022· article· en· W4285398116 on OpenAlexaff
Tory Borsboom-Hanson, Thomas R. Holm, Walter Mérida

Bibliographic record

VenueECS Meeting Abstracts · 2022
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicSubcritical and Supercritical Water Processes
Canadian institutionsUniversity of British Columbia
Fundersnot available
KeywordsElectrolysis of waterElectrolysisSupercritical fluidHydrogen productionProcess engineeringHigh-pressure electrolysisPolymer electrolyte membrane electrolysisEnvironmental scienceHydrogenHigh-temperature electrolysisChemistryEnvironmental engineeringWaste managementEngineeringElectrode

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The growth of green energy in recent decades has resulted in increasing demand for hydrogen production with net-zero carbon emissions. Water electrolysis provides a solution to meet this demand, however it is currently too expensive to be cost competitive with hydrogen production methods of higher carbon intensity. High-temperatures and pressures can be leveraged to increase the energy efficiency of water electrolysis through kinetics and thermodynamic benefits, thereby reducing the overall cost of green hydrogen [1]. Additionally, performing water electrolysis directly at high pressures can help to avoid the added cost associated with gaseous hydrogen compression. Little is known about the electrolysis of supercritical water and what benefits it might offer in terms of hydrogen cost reduction [2,3]. In this work, experimental data was collected for supercritical water electrolysis and used to build an electrochemical model suitable for use under those conditions. The results of this model, combined with components of a previously published technoeconomic model for a high-temperature and pressure water electrolysis plant [4], indicate that while supercritical water electrolysis is achievable it is not the most economically efficient choice for hydrogen production. High-temperature and pressure water electrolysis performed under optimal conditions can be used to achieve higher economic efficiency when compared with contemporary water electrolysis solutions. Finally, a thorough optimization of the model presents a grim picture for achieving the US Department of Energy’s $2 kgH 2 -1 target through water electrolysis without government subsidy. References: [1] D. Todd, M. Schwager, W. Mérida, Thermodynamics of high-temperature, high-pressure water electrolysis, J. Power Sources. 269 (2014) 424–429. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jpowsour.2014.06.144. [2] H. Boll, E.. Franck, H. Weingärtner, Electrolysis of supercritical aqueous solutions at temperatures up to 800K and pressures up to 400MPa, J. Chem. Thermodyn. 35 (2003) 625–637. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0021-9614(02)00236-7. [3] P.C. Ho, D.A. Palmer, Determination of ion association in dilute aqueous potassium chloride and potassium hydroxide solutions to 600°C and 300 MPa by electrical conductance measurements, J. Chem. Eng. Data. 43 (1998) 162–170. https://doi.org/10.1021/je970198b. [4] T. Holm, T. Borsboom-Hanson, O.E. Herrera, W. Mérida, Hydrogen costs from water electrolysis at high temperature and pressure, Energy Convers. Manag. 237 (2021) 114106. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.enconman.2021.114106. Figure 1

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Bench or experimental · Consensus signal: Bench or experimental
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.035
Threshold uncertainty score0.321

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.005
GPT teacher head0.178
Teacher spread0.173 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designBench or experimental
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations0
Published2022
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueECS Meeting AbstractsSame topicSubcritical and Supercritical Water ProcessesFrench-language works237,207