Economic Viability of Integrated CO<sub>2</sub> Capture and Conversion
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The capture of CO 2 using alkaline solutions requires significant thermal energy to release CO 2 from a (bi)carbonate-enriched solution. This release of CO 2 can instead be performed electrochemically with a “bicarbonate electrolyzer”. The bicarbonate electrolyzer forms acid equivalents to convert a (bi)carbonate-enriched eluent from a CO 2 capture unit into CO 2 and, in turn, an upgraded carbon product such as CO and ethylene. There exists a tension for this closed-loop cycle to be put into practice: a smaller CO 2 capture unit is required when using a more caustic CO 2 capture solution, yet the electrolyzer works more effectively at a lower pH. Here, we elaborate on three different methods to align different pH regimes to couple air capture to CO 2 electrolysis. We also use a mass-balance model to assess the commercial viability of a reactive carbon capture system that integrates the CO 2 capture unit with a bicarbonate electrolyzer to show a levelized CO breakeven price below $1 kg CO –1 . These economics, coupled with the other practical advantages of providing an electrolyzer with a liquid feedstock, present a compelling case for reactive carbon capture.
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 | 0.001 |
| 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 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 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".