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 are an emerging technology that 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) responsible for the production of carbon monoxide. Some researchers have suggested that it is largely attributed to the reverse water gas shift reaction, since the polarization curves of pure steam electrolysis and co-electrolysis overlap each other; therefore, they surmised the electro-reduction of carbon dioxide is inconsequential to carbon monoxide production. Conversely, other studies have shown the polarization curves corresponding to co-electrolysis lie between those of pure steam and pure carbon dioxide electrolysis, thus indicating the reverse water gas shift reaction and the electro-reduction of carbon dioxide are both contributors. For the first time, this analysis attempts to untangle the conflicting phenomena observed in previous experiments by utilizing dimensional analysis, thermodynamics, and reaction kinetics. We illustrate the operating regime in which both reaction pathways contribute to the production of carbon monoxide, while demonstrating that the reverse water gas shift reaction is inconsequential when steam electrolysis and co-electrolysis polarization curves coincide, which is contrary to what has been concluded in previous analyses. This work is intended to provide an enhanced understanding of the observed behaviour of solid oxide co-electrolysis cells, and can help designers and researchers make informed decisions on how to construct their cell to exploit a desired reaction pathway.
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 | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 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".