Cascading the Electrochemical Reduction of CO <sub>2</sub> with Bioprocesses for the Production of Reduced-Carbon-Intensity Chemicals
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Electrochemical reduction of CO 2 (eCO 2 R) offers a route to one- and two-carbon (C1/C2) intermediates, and these can serve as lower-carbon-intensity feedstocks for the biobased synthesis of C3+ products. We evaluate the energy inputs for ∼1000 cases of the integrated system, considering 9 intermediates and 50+ bioproducts. The most energetically compelling options include aerobic bioconversion of C2 intermediates or methanol to more oxidized products. As an intermediate, ethanol provides the highest overall bioproduction mass yield among candidate substrates, with over 25% of the products having a mass yield greater than one. For fuels, the anaerobic bioconversion of methanol and CO each appear promising, with energy inputs in the range of 40–60 GJ/ton. We find that the recycling of CO 2 generated during bioproduction is optimal when CO 2 capture costs for eCO 2 R exceed the separation costs of the bioreactor gas stream. Overall, this analysis points to privileged {intermediate, product} pairings in such integrated systems.
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) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
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.
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".