Reverse Water Gas Shift versus Carbon Dioxide Electro-Reduction: The Reaction Pathway Responsible for Carbon Monoxide Production in Solid Oxide Co-Electrolysis Cells
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Solid oxide co-electrolysis cells can utilize renewable energy sources for the conversion of steam and carbon dioxide into valuable chemicals and feedstocks. An important challenge in the analysis of these devices is understanding the reaction pathway(s) that govern carbon monoxide generation. Studies in which co-electrolysis polarization lies between those of pure steam and pure carbon dioxide electrolysis suggest that carbon dioxide electro-reduction (CO2ER) and the reverse water gas shift (RWGS) reaction are both contributors to CO generation. However, experiments in which co-electrolysis polarization overlaps that of pure steam electrolysis propose that the RWGS reaction dominates CO production and CO2ER is negligible. Supported by dimensional analysis, thermodynamics, and reaction kinetics, this work elucidates the reasons for which the latter conclusion is infeasible, and provides evidence for why the observed overlap between co-electrolysis and pure steam electrolysis is a result of the slow kinetics of CO2ER in comparison to that of steam, with the RWGS reaction being inconsequential. For sufficiently thin cathode current collectors, we reveal that CO2ER is dominant over the RWGS reaction, while the rate of steam electro-reduction is much higher than that of carbon dioxide, which causes the co-electrolysis and pure steam electrolysis polarization curves to overlap. This is contrary to what has been proposed in previous experimental analyses. Ultimately, this work provides insight into how to design solid oxide co-electrolysis cells such that they can exploit a desired reaction pathway in order to improve their efficiency and product selectivity.
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 | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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".