MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4402414550 · doi:10.1021/acsami.4c11103

Scaling CO<sub>2</sub> Electrolyzer Cell Area from Bench to Pilot

2024· article· en· W4402414550 on OpenAlexafffund
Vivian E. Nelson, Colin P. O’Brien, Jonathan P. Edwards, Shijie Liu, Christine M. Gabardo, Edward H. Sargent, David Sinton

Bibliographic record

VenueACS Applied Materials & Interfaces · 2024
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEnergy
TopicCO2 Reduction Techniques and Catalysts
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Toronto
FundersNatural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of CanadaCanada Research ChairsGovernment of Ontario
KeywordsMaterials scienceScalingCarbon dioxideElectrolysisCarbon fibersChemical engineeringWaste managementElectrodeOrganic chemistryComposite materialPhysical chemistryEngineering

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

To contribute meaningfully to carbon dioxide (CO 2 ) emissions reduction, CO 2 electrolyzer technology will need to scale immensely. Bench-scale electrolyzers are the norm, with active areas <5 cm 2 . However, cell areas on the order of 100s or 1000s of cm 2 will be required for industrial deployment. Here, we study the effects of increasing cell area, scaling over 2 orders of magnitude from a 5 cm 2 lab-scale cell to an 800 cm 2 pilot plant-scale cell. A direct scaling of the bench-scale cell architecture to the larger area results in a ∼20% drop in ethylene (C 2 H 4 ) selectivity and an increase in the parasitic hydrogen (H 2 ) evolution reaction (HER). We instrument an 800 cm 2 electrolyzer cell to serve as a diagnostic tool and determine that nonuniformities in electrode compression and flow-influenced local CO 2 availability are the key drivers of performance loss upon scaling. Machining of an initial 800 cm 2 cell results in a standard deviation in MEA compression that is 7-fold that of a similarly produced 5 cm 2 cell (0.009 mm). Using these findings, we redesign an 800 cm 2 cell for compression tolerance and increased CO 2 transport and achieve an H 2 FE in the revised 800 cm 2 cell similar to that of the 5 cm 2 case (16% at 200 mA cm –2 ). These results demonstrate that by ensuring uniform compression and fluid flow, the CO 2 electrolyzer area can be scaled over 100-fold and retain C 2 H 4 selectivity (within 10% of small-scale 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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation 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 score0.004
Threshold uncertainty score0.015

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0040.001

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 head0.013
GPT teacher head0.240
Teacher spread0.228 · 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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

Citations39
Published2024
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueACS Applied Materials & InterfacesSame topicCO2 Reduction Techniques and CatalystsFrench-language works237,207