2017 Annual Meeting

(471d) A Technoeconomic Evaluation of Carbon Dioxide (CO2) Electroreduction: Results and Implications

Authors

Sumit Verma - Presenter, University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign
Byoungsu Kim, Kyushu University
Molly Jhong, University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign
Shawn Lu, University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign
Sichao Ma, University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign
Paul J. A. Kenis, University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign
The electroreduction of carbon dioxide (CO2) to value added C1-C2 chemicals (such as formic acid, carbon monoxide, methanol, ethylene, and ethanol) has been proposed as a possible technological solution that can utilize excess anthropogenic CO2 emissions, thereby providing a sustainable pathway for closing the CO2 emission cycle.[1, 2] However, even after a few decades of research, key questions regarding the technoeconomic feasibility of the process remain unanswered. These include: (i) what products of CO2 electroreduction are the most economically viable to produce; and (ii) what performance targets such as maximum operating cell potential (Vmax), minimum operating current density (jmin), Faradaic efficiency (FE), and catalyst durability (tcatdur), are required for an economically viable process.

In this talk, we will present results from a gross-margin based economic model that we recently developed to evaluate the technoeconomic feasibility of the CO2 electroreduction process.[3] Using the model, we were able to quantitatively estimate the operating parameters (Vmax, jmin, FE, tcatdur) required for an economically viable process of CO2 electroreduction. A comparison of the operating parameters required for economic viability with the experimentally achievable performance of the state of the art electrochemical systems indicate that formic acid and carbon monoxide are the most economically viable CO2 electroreduction products, and the process can be cost competitive with the existing industrial production methods for the same. However, to improve the economic viability of other products (such as ethanol, ethylene), alternate reaction chemistry/process designs with a lower electrical energy requirement need to be developed. This talk will cover some of our recent advances with respect to developing such alternate process design strategies as well.

References:

[1] A.M. Appel, J.E. Bercaw, A.B. Bocarsly, H. Dobbek, D.L. DuBois, M. Dupuis, J.G. Ferry, E. Fujita, R. Hille, P.J.A. Kenis, C.A. Kerfeld, R.H. Morris, C.H.F. Peden, A.R. Portis, S.W. Ragsdale, T.B. Rauchfuss, J.N.H. Reek, L.C. Seefeldt, R.K. Thauer, G.L. Waldrop, Chem. Rev. 2013, 113, 6621-6658.

[2] H.R.M. Jhong, S. Ma, P.J.A. Kenis, Curr. Opin. Chem. Eng. 2013, 2, 191-199.

[3] S. Verma, B. Kim, H.R.M. Jhong, S. Ma, P.J.A. Kenis, ChemSusChem 2016, 9, 1972-1979.