Research Challenges for Non-Photosynthetic Solar Fuels Production

Bill Tumas

Associate Laboratory Director National Renewable Energy Lab

July 8, 2017

bill.tumas@nrel.gov

NREL: PinChing Maness, Ling Tao, Paul King, Todd Deutsch, John

Turner, Nate Neale, Bryan Pivovar, Mark Ruth, Kevin Harrison

CARBON TEAM: Karl Mueller, PNNL; Blake Simmons, LBNL; Roger Aines,

LLNL, Christine Negri, Argonne; Amy Halloran, Sandia; Babs Marrone, LANL; Cindy Jenks, Ames Lab

CARBON National Lab Workshop Participants (March 2017)

Acknowledgements

Captureand

concentra-on

Hybridconversiontechnologies

Recoveryand

purifica-on

Fuels

Chemicals

Materials

Polymers

Cataly3creduc3on/Homologa3onBiomime3c/BioinspiredcatalysisElectrocatalysisPhotocatalysisThermal/Solarthermal

Biochemical/Enzyma3cFermenta3onSynthe3cbiologyHybridapproaches-  electrobiocatalysis-  tandemcatalysis-reac-vesepara-ons

Integrated Approach for Adding Value to CO2

Captureand

concentra-on

Hybridconversiontechnologies

Recoveryand

purifica-on

Fuels

Chemicals

Materials

Polymers

Cataly3creduc3on/Homologa3onBiomime3c/BioinspiredcatalysisElectrocatalysisPhotocatalysisThermal/Solarthermal

Biochemical/Enzyma3cFermenta3onSynthe3cbiologyHybridapproaches-  electrobiocatalysis-  tandemcatalysis-reac-vesepara-ons

Integrated Approach for Adding Value to CO2

Materials Interfaces Components/Organisms Systems

•  Cost • Efficiency • Performance • Reliability • Scalability •

•  Major advances in synthetic biology –  Engineering RubisCO, hydrogenases,… –  e.g. CRISPR-enabled high throughput genome editing

•  Changing energy landscape and market opportunities

•  Curtailment, storage, products •  Advances in electrochemistry, materials discovery, synthesis

characterization, catalysis science, synthetic biology

Why Now?

Rewiringbiologybycouplinganthropogenicreductantswithbiologicalprocesses(C-C)

–  Coupletheefficiencyandcostadvantagesofabio-callygeneratedreducants(e-,H2,other)withtheselec-vityofbioprocesses

–  Electro-biocatalysis;Synthe-cbiology

6

Reac3vecaptureforCO2andwastegases–  CoupleCO2capturewithreduc-on/

reac-on–  Newcataly-creac-ons–  Cataly-cmembranes–  Alterna-vecapture/reac-vemedia,–  Innova-veelectrochemicalprocesses

Innova3vematerialsandproductsynthesisandprocessingfromCO2-basedprecursors-Exis-ngandnewmaterials-In-kindreplacements-Newfunc-onality

Innova-vehybridapproachesandtandemreac-ons,catalysisandbiocatalysis

–  CH4+CO2–  Innova-vesupportsfortandem

catalysis–  Reac-onandreactorengineering

R&DOpportuni3esandChallengesEfficientGenera3onofreductantsfromRenewableEnergy

-Electrolysis, PEC water splitting, …

Fit-for-purposewatertreatment

Rewiringbiologybycouplinganthropogenicreductantswithbiologicalprocesses(C-C)

–  Coupletheefficiencyandcostadvantagesofabio-callygeneratedelectrons,hydrogenorotherreductantswiththeselec-vityofbioprocesses

–  Electro-biocatalysis;Synthe-cbiology

7

Reac3vecaptureforCO2andwastegases–  CoupleCO2capturewithreduc-on/

reac-on–  Newcataly-creac-ons–  Cataly-cmembranes–  Alterna-vecapture/reac-vemedia,–  Innova-veelectrochemicalprocesses

Innova3vematerialsandproductsynthesisandprocessingfromCO2-basedprecursors-Exis-ngandnewmaterials-In-kindreplacements-Newfunc-onality

Innova-vehybridapproachesandtandemreac-ons,catalysisandbiocatalysis

–  CH4+CO2–  Innova-vesupportsfortandem

catalysis–  Reac-onandreactorengineering

R&DOpportuni3esandChallenges

Howdowelowertheenergyrequirements/costsandcreateefficientprocesses?

Understandbioenerge-cstoincreasecarbon,e-,energyflux?Kine-cmatchingofabio-c/bio-c?H2andCO2uptakeNewchassesforsynbio?Designandcontrolofinterfaces?

Howdowecreatetandemapproaches?Newchemistries(H2+CO2àC-C)Couplechem/bioapproaches?Novelreac-onandreactorengineering?

EfficientGenera3onofreductantsfromRenewableEnergy-Electrolysis, PEC water splitting, …

Cost,Efficiency,Performance,Reliabilty,Scalability

Newprocessingconcepts?Beyondin-kindreplacements?TEA,LCA

Fit-for-purposewatertreatment

Design and control of energy and charge generation and transport

New materials - photoelectrodes - electrodes - membranes - catalysts - power electronics

Interfacial Science - energy, charge, mass transfer

- control and design

Catalysis, Electrocatalysis - new reactions - mechanisms - selectivity

Synthetic biology - H2 and CO2 uptake - productivity/selectivity/robustness

- bioenergetics (pathways and control)

New Concepts …

Foundational R&D Needs (to name a few)

H2atScaleCEERTMay9,2017 9

R&DforH2byElectrolysis

0.0CapacityFactor

CostofElectricityCapitalCost

Efficiency(LHV)

IntermiNentintegra3on

R&DAdvances

1kgH2≈1gallonofgasolineequivalent(gge)

10

ElectrolyzerComponentR&DNeeds•  Electrocatalysts

o  ImprovedOERperformanceanddurabilityo  PGMreplacement;SupportsforIrcatalysts

•  Membraneso  Resistancetodifferen-alpressures/cyclingo  Alkalinesystems

•  Durability/Tes3ngo  Degrada-onmechanisms;acceleratedtes-ng

•  Cell/ElectrodeLayero  Impactofopera-ngcondi-onso  Electrodestructure/performanceo  Manufacturing/Scale-upo  Modeldevelopment

•  BipolarPlates/Poroustransportlayerso  Structure/performance;Corrosiono  Manufacturing/Scale-up

•  BalanceofPlanto  Lowercostpowersupplies,inverters;DCsystemso  Hightemperaturecompa-blematerialso  Impactofopera-ngcondi-ons

PEC Water Splitting: H2O à H2 + ½O2

•  Invertedmetamorphicmul3junc3on(IMM)PECdeviceenablesmoreidealbandgaps

•  Grownbyorganometallicvaporphaseepitaxy•  Incorporatesburiedp/nGaInP2junc3onand

AlInPpassiva3onlayer

NatureEnergy,2,17028(2017)

Approach Solar-to-hydrogenEfficiency

16.4%Benchmarkedunder

outdoorsunlightatNREL

-15

-10

-5

0

curr

ent d

ensi

ty (m

A/c

m2 )

-1.0 -0.5 0.0 0.5bias (V vs. RuOx)

Upright GaInP2/GaAs Inverted GaInP2/GaAs IMM (GaInP2/InGaAs) p-n IMM p-n IMM w/ passivation

16.4% STH Si wafer handle

epoxy

Au contact/reflector

III-V tandem 5 µm

top surface

10 µm

Gro

wth

dire

ctio

n

p-GaInP2

p-n InGaAs

graded buffer

1 µm

SEM TEM

IMM device cross sections

UnderstandingandDesigningmorestableandefficientsolarfuelgeneratorsNewultrafastlaserspectroscopytechnique

uncovershowphotoelectrodesproducesolarhydrogenfromwater

NREL’snewprobemeasurestransientelectricalfieldsandshowshowsemiconductorjunc-onsconvertsunlighttofuels

ThefieldformedbytheTiO2layerdriveselectronstothesurfacewheretheyreducewatertoformhydrogen.

Theoxidepreventsphotocorrosionbykeepingholesawayfromthesurface

Thisnewunderstandingwillleadtomorestableandefficientsolarfuelgenerators

Science350,1061-1065,(2015)

Thetransientphotoreflectance(TPR)techniquetechniquemeasuresshort-livedelectricalfieldsthatariseduetochargesgeneratedbylightthataredriveninoppositedirec-onsbytheproper-esoftheinterface.

Cell and Module Testing

•  Invertedmetamorphicmul3junc3on(IMM)PECdeviceenablesmoreidealbandgaps

•  Grownbyorganometallicvaporphaseepitaxy•  Incorporatesburiedp/nGaInP2junc3onand

AlInPpassiva3onlayer

Approach Solar-to-hydrogenEfficiency

16.4%Benchmarkedunder

outdoorsunlightatNREL

-15

-10

-5

0

curr

ent d

ensi

ty (m

A/c

m2 )

-1.0 -0.5 0.0 0.5bias (V vs. RuOx)

Upright GaInP2/GaAs Inverted GaInP2/GaAs IMM (GaInP2/InGaAs) p-n IMM p-n IMM w/ passivation

16.4% STH Si wafer handle

epoxy

Au contact/reflector

III-V tandem 5 µm

top surface

10 µm

Gro

wth

dire

ctio

n

p-GaInP2

p-n InGaAs

graded buffer

1 µm

SEM TEM

IMM device cross sections

Material Challenges (the big four) Photoelectrochemical Hydrogen Production Material

Ø Photomaterials Ø Efficiency Ø Energetics Ø Coupling to catalytic rxns

Ø Catalysis – Efficient selective catalysis at low overpotential

Ø Interfacial Materials, Membranes – keep O2 from fuel; charge/ion balance

Ø Material Durability –

semiconductor/catalyst must be stable in electrolyte solution

Ø Protective coatings

Approaches to PEC Hydrogen

EnergyEnviron.Sci.,6,1983(2013)

1)SingleBed,10% 2)DoubleBed,5%

3)FixedPanel,10% 4)Concentrator,15%

costs as shown in Fig. 8. For every system, the output variessignicantly over the course of the year, with the Decemberoutput being much lower than the June production. If adequatestorage options are not available and winter demand is high,the systems would need to be scaled up and the costs would beelevated. We once again emphasize that these are conceptualsystems for which there is a large degree of uncertainty in thesystem performance, H2 demand schedule, durability, and cost.To help illustrate the effects of these uncertainties on the cost of

the H2 output at the plant gate, a sensitivity analysis was carriedout to gauge the relative effects of system efficiency andcomponent lifetime. Sensitivity to the cost of the photocatalyticparticles was also considered for the Type 1 and 2 systems whilethe cost of the PEC cells was considered for the Type 3 and 4systems. The sensitivity analysis presented here is an attempt toidentify the most impactful parameters on the nal cost of H2

but other assumed costs (e.g. land costs, labor rates, pumps/compressors, etc.) will also vary to some degree; a more exten-sive sensitivity analysis of all parameters to determine the fullrange of error is beyond the scope of the current work but willlikely be pursued as the technology matures. The results of thesensitivity analysis are shown in Fig. 9 along with the range ofevaluation parameters explored.

For all four systems, the capital costs make up a signicantfraction of the overall cost. We consider themajor contributionsin each case to identify where design uncertainty could lead toincreases in cost and where research progress could drive downcosts signicantly. The cost of hydrogen produced from theType 1 and Type 2 systems is very low at $1.60 per kg and $3.20per kg, respectively. However, the performance of the particu-late systems on a large scale is not well established givenincomplete demonstration of the effective performance ofparticles as a function of depth in the baggies, photovoltagegenerated by multilayer particles, voltage losses across porousbridges, particle lifetime, and scalable particle fabricationmethods. For the Type 1 system, gas compression equipmentaccounts for over half of the direct capital costs. Given the safety

Fig. 9 Effect of efficiency, particle or panel cost, and component lifetime on the cost of hydrogen from each reactor design. Each calculation represents the variation ofa single parameter from the base case to a higher and lower value as indicated on the left axis.

Fig. 8 Distribution of cost contributions to the levelized price of hydrogen.

1998 | Energy Environ. Sci., 2013, 6, 1983–2002 This journal is ª The Royal Society of Chemistry 2013

Energy & Environmental Science Analysis

Publ

ishe

d on

12

June

201

3. D

ownl

oade

d by

Nat

iona

l Ren

ewab

le E

nerg

y La

bora

tory

on

31/0

7/20

13 1

8:46

:19.

View Article Online

costs as shown in Fig. 8. For every system, the output variessignicantly over the course of the year, with the Decemberoutput being much lower than the June production. If adequatestorage options are not available and winter demand is high,the systems would need to be scaled up and the costs would beelevated. We once again emphasize that these are conceptualsystems for which there is a large degree of uncertainty in thesystem performance, H2 demand schedule, durability, and cost.To help illustrate the effects of these uncertainties on the cost of

the H2 output at the plant gate, a sensitivity analysis was carriedout to gauge the relative effects of system efficiency andcomponent lifetime. Sensitivity to the cost of the photocatalyticparticles was also considered for the Type 1 and 2 systems whilethe cost of the PEC cells was considered for the Type 3 and 4systems. The sensitivity analysis presented here is an attempt toidentify the most impactful parameters on the nal cost of H2

but other assumed costs (e.g. land costs, labor rates, pumps/compressors, etc.) will also vary to some degree; a more exten-sive sensitivity analysis of all parameters to determine the fullrange of error is beyond the scope of the current work but willlikely be pursued as the technology matures. The results of thesensitivity analysis are shown in Fig. 9 along with the range ofevaluation parameters explored.

For all four systems, the capital costs make up a signicantfraction of the overall cost. We consider themajor contributionsin each case to identify where design uncertainty could lead toincreases in cost and where research progress could drive downcosts signicantly. The cost of hydrogen produced from theType 1 and Type 2 systems is very low at $1.60 per kg and $3.20per kg, respectively. However, the performance of the particu-late systems on a large scale is not well established givenincomplete demonstration of the effective performance ofparticles as a function of depth in the baggies, photovoltagegenerated by multilayer particles, voltage losses across porousbridges, particle lifetime, and scalable particle fabricationmethods. For the Type 1 system, gas compression equipmentaccounts for over half of the direct capital costs. Given the safety

Fig. 9 Effect of efficiency, particle or panel cost, and component lifetime on the cost of hydrogen from each reactor design. Each calculation represents the variation ofa single parameter from the base case to a higher and lower value as indicated on the left axis.

Fig. 8 Distribution of cost contributions to the levelized price of hydrogen.

1998 | Energy Environ. Sci., 2013, 6, 1983–2002 This journal is ª The Royal Society of Chemistry 2013

Energy & Environmental Science Analysis

Publ

ishe

d on

12

June

201

3. D

ownl

oade

d by

Nat

iona

l Ren

ewab

le E

nerg

y La

bora

tory

on

31/0

7/20

13 1

8:46

:19.

View Article Online

costs as shown in Fig. 8. For every system, the output variessignicantly over the course of the year, with the Decemberoutput being much lower than the June production. If adequatestorage options are not available and winter demand is high,the systems would need to be scaled up and the costs would beelevated. We once again emphasize that these are conceptualsystems for which there is a large degree of uncertainty in thesystem performance, H2 demand schedule, durability, and cost.To help illustrate the effects of these uncertainties on the cost of

the H2 output at the plant gate, a sensitivity analysis was carriedout to gauge the relative effects of system efficiency andcomponent lifetime. Sensitivity to the cost of the photocatalyticparticles was also considered for the Type 1 and 2 systems whilethe cost of the PEC cells was considered for the Type 3 and 4systems. The sensitivity analysis presented here is an attempt toidentify the most impactful parameters on the nal cost of H2

but other assumed costs (e.g. land costs, labor rates, pumps/compressors, etc.) will also vary to some degree; a more exten-sive sensitivity analysis of all parameters to determine the fullrange of error is beyond the scope of the current work but willlikely be pursued as the technology matures. The results of thesensitivity analysis are shown in Fig. 9 along with the range ofevaluation parameters explored.

For all four systems, the capital costs make up a signicantfraction of the overall cost. We consider themajor contributionsin each case to identify where design uncertainty could lead toincreases in cost and where research progress could drive downcosts signicantly. The cost of hydrogen produced from theType 1 and Type 2 systems is very low at $1.60 per kg and $3.20per kg, respectively. However, the performance of the particu-late systems on a large scale is not well established givenincomplete demonstration of the effective performance ofparticles as a function of depth in the baggies, photovoltagegenerated by multilayer particles, voltage losses across porousbridges, particle lifetime, and scalable particle fabricationmethods. For the Type 1 system, gas compression equipmentaccounts for over half of the direct capital costs. Given the safety

Fig. 9 Effect of efficiency, particle or panel cost, and component lifetime on the cost of hydrogen from each reactor design. Each calculation represents the variation ofa single parameter from the base case to a higher and lower value as indicated on the left axis.

Fig. 8 Distribution of cost contributions to the levelized price of hydrogen.

1998 | Energy Environ. Sci., 2013, 6, 1983–2002 This journal is ª The Royal Society of Chemistry 2013

Energy & Environmental Science Analysis

Publ

ishe

d on

12

June

201

3. D

ownl

oade

d by

Nat

iona

l Ren

ewab

le E

nerg

y La

bora

tory

on

31/0

7/20

13 1

8:46

:19.

View Article Online

costs as shown in Fig. 8. For every system, the output variessignicantly over the course of the year, with the Decemberoutput being much lower than the June production. If adequatestorage options are not available and winter demand is high,the systems would need to be scaled up and the costs would beelevated. We once again emphasize that these are conceptualsystems for which there is a large degree of uncertainty in thesystem performance, H2 demand schedule, durability, and cost.To help illustrate the effects of these uncertainties on the cost of

the H2 output at the plant gate, a sensitivity analysis was carriedout to gauge the relative effects of system efficiency andcomponent lifetime. Sensitivity to the cost of the photocatalyticparticles was also considered for the Type 1 and 2 systems whilethe cost of the PEC cells was considered for the Type 3 and 4systems. The sensitivity analysis presented here is an attempt toidentify the most impactful parameters on the nal cost of H2

but other assumed costs (e.g. land costs, labor rates, pumps/compressors, etc.) will also vary to some degree; a more exten-sive sensitivity analysis of all parameters to determine the fullrange of error is beyond the scope of the current work but willlikely be pursued as the technology matures. The results of thesensitivity analysis are shown in Fig. 9 along with the range ofevaluation parameters explored.

For all four systems, the capital costs make up a signicantfraction of the overall cost. We consider themajor contributionsin each case to identify where design uncertainty could lead toincreases in cost and where research progress could drive downcosts signicantly. The cost of hydrogen produced from theType 1 and Type 2 systems is very low at $1.60 per kg and $3.20per kg, respectively. However, the performance of the particu-late systems on a large scale is not well established givenincomplete demonstration of the effective performance ofparticles as a function of depth in the baggies, photovoltagegenerated by multilayer particles, voltage losses across porousbridges, particle lifetime, and scalable particle fabricationmethods. For the Type 1 system, gas compression equipmentaccounts for over half of the direct capital costs. Given the safety

Fig. 9 Effect of efficiency, particle or panel cost, and component lifetime on the cost of hydrogen from each reactor design. Each calculation represents the variation ofa single parameter from the base case to a higher and lower value as indicated on the left axis.

Fig. 8 Distribution of cost contributions to the levelized price of hydrogen.

1998 | Energy Environ. Sci., 2013, 6, 1983–2002 This journal is ª The Royal Society of Chemistry 2013

Energy & Environmental Science Analysis

Publ

ishe

d on

12

June

201

3. D

ownl

oade

d by

Nat

iona

l Ren

ewab

le E

nerg

y La

bora

tory

on

31/0

7/20

13 1

8:46

:19.

View Article Online

EnergyEnviron.Sci.,6,1983(2013)

Technoeconomic Analyses: Approaches to PEC Hydrogen

HydroGEN Consortium Accelerating research, development and deployment of advanced water splitting technologies for clean sustainable hydrogen production HydroGEN offers a suite of capabilities that partners can leverage capabilities (81) and expertise in a number of areas: •  Computational tools and modeling •  Materials synthesis •  Process and manufacturing scale-up •  Materials and device characterization •  Durabiliity •  Systems Integration •  Analysis

hhps://www.h2awsm.org

1818

BioHybridApproaches(Electrochem,H2,Mediators)

Innova3on•  Bea-ngphotosynthesisbycouplinganthropogenicreductantswithbiologicalprocess

•  Microbialcatalysisoffershighselec-vitytowardtailoredproducts

•  Theadvancesinsynthe-cbiologyunderpinthisinnova-ontocosteffec-velyconvertwastecarbontofuels,chemicals,andmaterials.

Electrosynthesis

TheElectricEconomyMeets

Synthe8cBiology

19

Electroac3veBacteria–MolecularMechanism

(1)DirectElectronTransfer (2)MediatedET (3)IndirectET

Threepossibleelectrontransfermechanisms(1)  Directviaconduc-ngpiliorc-typecytochrome(mul--heme)(2)Mediatorsreleasedbythecells(flavin,quinones)(3)Exogenouslyaddedelectronshuhles(i.e.H2,formate,Fe++)

Moreunderstandingcouldguidethedesignofbehermechanismtoaccelerateelectrontransferandprovidethebreakthroughsolu-ontomatchcurrentdensitybetweenelectrodeandmicrobes

FigurefromSydow2014.ApplMicrobiolBiotechnol98:8481.

Biohybrid:ScienceChallenges

Cat

hode

CO2

Ano

de

e- e- Products

H+

H2

Products

CO2

Electrochemistry•  Surfacearealimitsmicrobe

ahachment•  Internallost•  Scaleup

Electrofermenta3on•  Matchingenerge-csandkine-csbetweenmicrobesandelectrode•  Mechanismsofelectrontransferbetweenmicrobeandelectrode•  Understandingbioenerge-cstoincreasecarbon,electron,andenergyflux•  Synbio,metabolicengineeringtocontrolanddesignpathways•  EnhancedH2andCO2uptakebydesignerchassismicrobes•  Biofilmforma-on;mechanismofmicrobialahachment•  Biofouling

21

WaterSpli>ngbyaBioassistedBlackSiPhotocathode

•  [FeFe]-H2aseenzymeimmobilizeddirectlyontoananoporoussilicon(blackSi)photoelectrodesurfacecatalyzesHERonablackSiphotoelectrodecomparabletoPt

•  Currentdensi3es>1mAcm–2

≤12pmol/cm2TOF=1300s–1TON≈107

TMAH(Me4NOH)etchtoremovesharpsurfacefeaturesshowsnanostructuredb-Sisurfacecri3caltoeffec3vebinding

interac3onwith[FeFe]-H2ase

ACSAppl.Mater.Interfaces2016,8,14481

Candidateplaoormmicrobes Candidateplaoormcommuni-es

C.ljungdahliiC.autethanogenumM.thermoaceKca

Newisolatedmicrobes

C.ljungdahlii+

C.klyveri

C.autethanogenum+

M.elsdenii

Newsynbiomicrobes

Newsynbiomicrobes

R.eutropha

23

SynbioToolbox•  Advancedgene-ctoolbox:

─  DeveloprobustDNAtransfermethods/CRISPR─  Knock-out/Knock-ingenes─  Alterexpressedpaherns/levels─  Conductsystemsbiologybasedapproaches(-omics)─  Conduct13C-metabolicfluxanalysis(13C-MFA;carbon/electronflow)─  Developpredictedgenome-scalemodels(energy/electron/carbon)─  Algorithmsandautomatedassembly─  “Synthe-cparts”libraryformodularplug-and-play(promoters,synthe-cpathways)─  Predic-ve(re)designandop-miza-onofsynthe-cpathways─  Highthroughputscreen/sensortoscreenDNAlibraries

•  Acceleratethedesign-build-test-redesigncycleformicrobialredesign

(Re)

Maness,Simmons

24

CouplingAnthropogenicReductantswithMicrobes

Yang,…Science351,74(2016) Nocera,Silver,…Science352,1210(2016)

Challenges/Opportuni3es:CO2toProducts

Carbonse.g.carbonfiber,CNTsGraphene,…(StructuralCarbon)•  Removeoxygen•  MakeproductsApproaches•  Electrocatalysis•  Pyrolysis

Challenges•  Couplingelectricityto

catalysis•  Productpurity•  Efficientcatalysis

Carbonatese.g.cement,aggregate,polycarbonates•  Alkalinity:HCO3

-

•  Ca-onsforproductApproaches•  Electrolysis•  Directreac-onfrom

solventscapturingCO2asCO3

Challenges•  Efficientelectrolysis•  Ca-onsourcing,e.g.

seawater

Hydrocarbonse.g.polymers,fuels,chemicals•  Providehydrogen•  Makepolymers

Approaches•  CatalysistomakeC-C

andpolymerprecursors

Challenges•  Low-CHydrogen•  De-oxygena-on•  Selec-vity•  Integratedcapture/

reac-on

AdaptedfromR.Aines,CARBONworkshop,March2017

26

CO2U-liza-onPathways

CO2FlueGas

MEA

Photosynthesis

Algaebiofuel Isopropanol

+H2

Thermo-chemical+H2

Syngas

Methanol

Methane

Urea

+NH3

Poly-carbonate

FuelsFermenta-on

FT

Gasoline

Fuelorchemicalprecursors

+Electron

3a

3b

4

5a

6

7 8

1 5b

Diesel2

LingTao,MaryBiddy,….

O

OHHO3-HPA

Poly-ACN

N

ACN N

OH

IsopropanolIsopropanol

DeH2O Ammoxidation

Esterification Nitrilation

Renewable CF

CO2 NH3

HO OH

OO

Malonic Acid O O

OOPolymerization CO2

Polyesters

Renewable Polyester

CO2-BasedMaterialsandPolymers

PolycarbonateMarket3%ofcurrentpolymerGDP

CarbonFiber:LargeandGrowingMarket2005—$90millionmarketsize,2015—$2billion2020—projectedtoreach$3.5TheNorthAmericaregionisexpectedtobethelargestmarketgloballyduetotheincreaseddemandfromaerospace&defense,windenergy,infrastructure,andautomo3veindustry.

Reductants: Reagents:e-,H2,CH4 Epoxides,propyleneCa(OH)2

DiluteCO2Stream TreatedGas

ValueAddedProducts

CO2gasOH-solu-on(Alkaline)CO2+H2O(Acidic)

Cathodeflowfield

CarbonGDL

2.CO2RRcatalyst

1.Ionexchangemembrane 3.OERcatalyst

CarbonGDL

Anodeflowfield

ReACTIVESepara3on

Challenges:•  Energyintensity•  Processintegra-on•  Cost•  Advancedmaterials

development

Challenges:•  Reducingequivalents•  Catalystreac-vity/selec-vityinmedia•  Cataly-cmembranes•  Alterna-vemedia•  Electrochem

From C. Matranga, NETL

NREL: PinChing Maness, Ling Tao, Paul King, Todd Deutsch, John

Turner, Nate Neale, Bryan Pivovar, Mark Ruth, Kevin Harrison

CARBON TEAM: Karl Mueller, PNNL; Blake Simmons, LBNL; Roger Aines,

LLNL, Christine Negri, Argonne; Amy Halloran, Sandia; Babs Marrone, LANL; Cindy Jenks, Ames Lab

CARBON National Lab Workshop Participants (March 2017)

Acknowledgements