logo
CONTENT TYPES

CO2 Reduction to CO with 19% Efficiency in a Solar-Driven Gas Diffusion Electrode Flow Cell under Outdoor Solar Illumination

Cite this: ACS Energy Lett. 2020, 5, 2, 470–476
Publication Date (Web):January 9, 2020
https://doi.org/10.1021/acsenergylett.9b02576
Copyright © 2020 American Chemical Society
Subscribed Access
Article Views
2178
Altmetric
-
Citations
LEARN ABOUT THESE METRICS

Article Views are the COUNTER-compliant sum of full text article downloads since November 2008 (both PDF and HTML) across all institutions and individuals. These metrics are regularly updated to reflect usage leading up to the last few days.

Citations are the number of other articles citing this article, calculated by Crossref and updated daily. Find more information about Crossref citation counts.

The Altmetric Attention Score is a quantitative measure of the attention that a research article has received online. Clicking on the donut icon will load a page at altmetric.com with additional details about the score and the social media presence for the given article. Find more information on the Altmetric Attention Score and how the score is calculated.

PDF (2 MB) OpenURL UNIV OF NORTH TEXAS
Supporting Info (1)»

Abstract

Solar-driven reduction of carbon dioxide represents a carbon-neutral pathway for the synthesis of fuels and chemicals. We report here results for solar-driven CO2 reduction using a gas diffusion electrode (GDE) directly powered by a photovoltaic cell. A GaInP/GaInAs/Ge triple-junction photovoltaic cell was used to power a reverse-assembled gas diffusion electrode employing a Ag nanoparticle catalyst layer. The device had a solar-to-CO energy conversion efficiency of 19.1% under simulated AM 1.5G illumination at 1 Sun. The use of a reverse-assembled GDE prevented transition from a wetted to a flooded catalyst bed and allowed the device to operate stably for >150 h with no loss in efficiency. Outdoor measurements were performed under ambient solar illumination in Pasadena, California, resulting in a peak solar-to-CO efficiency of 18.7% with a CO production rate of 47 mg·cm–2 per day and a diurnal-averaged solar-to-fuel conversion efficiency of 5.8%.

Solar photovoltaic and wind energy conversion are rapidly growing sources of low-carbon electric power.(1) However, the intermittency of solar and wind resources over wide time scales ranging from minutes to months means solar electricity is not a dispatchable power source. Thus, efficient and inexpensive approaches for energy storage are needed for wide penetration of renewable energy into the power grid.(2,3) While electrical energy storage in batteries may be important for short-term storage and grid power management, seasonal energy storage is unlikely to rely on batteries. Transformation of solar energy into chemical bonds provides a long-term energy storage strategy that opens a path for the synthesis of fuels and chemicals.(4) One approach to chemical energy storage is via solar-driven hydrogen generation, where (i) photovoltaics supply carbon-free electricity to the grid that is used to generate H2 by water electrolysis at high current densities;(5) (ii) photovoltaics are used to directly drive electrolysis at low current densities,(6) or (iii) an integrated photoelectrochemical device performs unassisted direct water splitting to form H2.(7,8) Parallel to solar hydrogen generation approaches, pathways for solar-driven reduction of carbon dioxide to fuels have used (i) direct electrolysis,(9) (ii) photovoltaic directly driven electrolysis,(10) and (iii) integrated photoelectrochemical conversion.(11,12) Of particular interest is solar-driven reduction of carbon dioxide using a high-efficiency photovoltaic (PV) device directly coupled to an electrochemical cell tailored for reduction of CO2 to CO.(13,14) Mixtures of solar-generated CO and H2(15) could be used as syngas precursors in a future Fischer–Tropsch chemical synthesis process(16) to produce high molecular weight hydrocarbon fuels or chemicals as products.(17) Carbon dioxide reduction to CO is generally more energy efficient and kinetically easier than direct reduction of CO2 to multicarbon products.(14,18,19)

Among the most efficient heterogeneous solid-state catalysts for CO2 reduction to CO are gold,(20,21) silver,(22) WSe2,(23) and MoS2.(24) The use of high surface area morphology structures such as nanoparticles can improve catalytic activity.(25) Other factors that impact catalytic performance include catalyst morphology,(20) cations present in the electrolyte solution,(26) electrolyte concentration,(27) and local pH.(28) The state-of-the-art CO2-to-CO conversion using a Au needle catalyst(27) showed an operating current of 15 mA·cm–2 and 95% Faradaic efficiency at −0.35 V vs RHE. However, the current record efficiency device for solar conversion of CO2 to CO using a solution-based electrochemical cell suffered from low current density (0.33 mA·cm–2 at −0.6 V vs RHE) due to limited catalyst activity. This required the use of large-area electrodes to match the photovoltaic device area.(10)Table S1 shows overpotential and Faradaic efficiency data at current densities close to 15 mA·cm–2 along with the electrolyte conditions and catalyst loading for various Ag and Au electrodes. The catalytic activities shown in Table S1 indicate that in many cases nanoparticles of Ag have an activity similar to that of Au while costing significantly less.

Bulk aqueous electrolyte cells can exhibit high catalyst overpotentials due to the limited solubility of CO2 (33.4 mM) in the electrolyte, a limited pH operating range of ∼6–10, and slow ionic transport in the solution. In contrast, gas diffusion electrode (GDE) assemblies do not suffer these same restrictions.(29−35) In a GDE using 1 atm CO2 vapor, CO2 is transported in the vapor phase and reacts at a thin (<100 nm) solid–liquid–gas phase interface. In this configuration, liquid-state concentration and diffusion do not limit the conversion rate, resulting in lower overpotentials and higher current densities for CO2 reduction.(30) Simulations have also shown that a cell using a thin (10 nm) layer of electrolyte on the catalysts (wetted catalyst) outperforms cells with either a completely dry or a completely flooded catalyst configuration.(36) These insights have led to the development of gas diffusion electrodes(37) and membrane electrode assemblies (MEA)(38) with a humidified gas supply to facilitate ion conduction and water balance.

Although membrane electrode assembly systems are more scalable, they often suffer from short-term stability due to salt precipitation or membrane dehydration at high current densities.(39) Hence, we chose to work with an aqueous GDE cell configuration. In this work, we employ a triple-junction photovoltaic (PV) device directly coupled with a gas diffusion electrode (GDE) as the first demonstration of an electrolyte flow type PV-GDE reactor that provides both high selectivity and long-term stability. For a directly driven PV-GDE system, the power generated by the PV is directly supplied to the GDE. In our device, the areas of the PV photoabsorber (APV) and GDE (AGDE) were both 0.31 cm2. To match the lower current density of the PV cell with the operating conditions of the anode, a relatively low catalyst loading of GDE was chosen. A Ag nanoparticle catalyst was used because of its relatively high activity and relatively low cost (Table S1).

Figure 1a is an illustration of the compression flow cell employed for the evaluation of gas diffusion electrode catalytic performance. Dilute silver nanoparticles (Ag-NPs) with diameters of ≤50 nm were drop cast onto the microporous side of the GDE substrate (Sigracet 29BC). The loading of Ag-NPs in this work was measured to be 0.12 mg·cm–2. A detailed description can be found in Methods in the Supporting Information. Scanning electron microscopy (SEM) images of the microporous layer with and without Ag-NPs are shown in Figure 1b. Gas was delivered to the GDE through an interdigitated electrode flow field (Figures 1a and S1) against which the GDE is compressed to maximize the interaction of CO2 with the catalyst and gas utilization.(40) Current to the GDE was supplied through the interdigitated electrode to Ag-NP/carbon paper substrate. Gaseous products were collected at the outlet of the flow field, which was directly connected to a gas chromatograph (for more information see Methods in the Supporting Information).

Figure 1

Figure 1. Gas diffusion electrode with Ag-NP catalyst. (a) Cell configuration composed of (1) NiOx or Pt anode, (2) Ag-NPs on Sigracet 29BC carbon paper cathode, (3) anion exchange membrane, (4) CO2 gas inlet and CO/CO2 outlet, (5) acrylic backplate, (6) catholyte chamber, (7) anolyte chamber, (8) reference electrode, (9) GDE (cathode) power connector, and (10) anode power connector. Black arrows indicate the gas flow, and white arrows indicate the electrolyte flow. Note that the backplate (5) is designed to use an interdigitated wire electrode flow field to enhance the interaction between gas and catalysts and improve CO2 utilization (see also Figure S1). (b) Scanning electron microscopy images of carbon paper without (top) and with (bottom) Ag-NP catalyst, secondary electrons image (left row) backscattered electrons image (right row). (c) Illustration of the reverse-assembled GDE cathode cross-section with wetted catalyst and operation for CO2 reduction.

An issue for aqueous GDEs is flooding or saturation of the porous catalyst layer with electrolyte or water during operation. This results in a thick (>1 μm) electrolyte layer and a diffusion-limited supply of CO2 to the electrode.(41) To maintain the catalyst in a wetted but not flooded condition that minimizes losses of CO2 to the electrolyte and extends the operational lifetime, we assembled our aqueous GDE in a nontraditional manner with the catalyst coating of Ag-NPs facing away from the electrolyte and toward the CO2 gas supply. We denote this configuration as a reverse-assembled GDE. The microporous layer of the GDE was treated with polytetrafluoroethylene (PTFE), which helped to prevent flooding. Needle valves in the gas and liquid output streams allowed separation of the liquid and gas phases as well as control of the pressure difference between the aqueous electrolyte and the CO2 stream. Contact angle analysis indicated that the Ag-NP coated surface was significantly less hydrophobic than the surface without Ag-NPs. Contact angle and optical microscope images of the GDE are shown in Figure S2.

With both the gas inlet and outlet on the same side of the GDE, the device operates in a “flow-by” GDE configuration. The Ag-NP catalyst side of the electrode was facing the CO2 gas channel as illustrated in Figure 1c. This orientation of the Ag-NPs maintained a thin electrolyte layer on the catalyst and enhanced the rate of CO2 reduction.(36) The turnover frequency of the Ag-NP catalyst for the reverse-assembled GDE at −0.6 V vs RHE was calculated as ∼9 × 103 h–1 (see the Supporting Information). The anode was made from either Pt or an electrochemically activated Ni foam for three- and two-electrode measurements, respectively. An aqueous catholyte of 1 M aqueous potassium bicarbonate (KHCO3) or potassium hydroxide (KOH) was used under near neutral or basic conditions, respectively. In all cases, 1 M KOH was the anolyte. The anion exchange membrane (AEM) was Selemion for neutral environment or Fumasep FAA-3-50 for alkaline environment. Electrolyte (500 mL) was continuously pumped through the cathode chamber in a closed loop at a rate of 2 mL·min−1. A change of pH (from 14 to 13.7) was observed for the 1 M KOH catholyte after 150 h of continuous operation, corresponding to irreversible loss of 0.25 mol KOH (50% of the electrolyte; see the Supporting Information). Further improvement to reduce CO2 loss or regenerate the electrolyte would be necessary for fully sustainable operation. The neutralized carbonate electrolyte can possibly be utilized in a carbonate-to-syngas system to compensate the loss of CO2 in a gas-fed MEA cell with a bipolar membrane.(42)

Results from three-electrode measurements for reverse- and standard-assembled GDEs are shown in panels a and b of Figure 2, respectively, for 1 M KHCO3 (bulk pH of 8.5) and 1 M KOH (bulk pH of 14). Current densities are substantially lower than for earlier reported GDE devices because of the low catalyst loading used to match the current from the PV (current matching). For the reverse-assembled GDE, both the Faradaic efficiency (fFE,CO) for CO and current density (JGDE) increased with increasing potential with fFE,CO close to 100% at −0.6 V vs RHE in 1 M KOH (Figure 2a). Similar trends of current density and Faradaic efficiency versus applied potential were found for the standard-assembled GDE (Figure 2b). To compare the activity of the Ag-NPs in different orientations and pH, overpotential analysis for CO2 reduction to CO was preformed (Figure 2c). The comparable Tafel slopes (∼0.23 V/dec) in KHCO3 and KOH for either orientation indicate a similar catalytic pathway regardless of the operating conditions. The Tafel behavior plotted with potentials vs NHE falls on a rough single line (Figure S3) and suggests that the rate-determining step for the reduction on our Ag-NP GDE is not proton-limited. The achievable current density and Faradaic efficiency (fFE,CO) for CO are higher in 1 M KOH than in 1 M KHCO3 at the same overpotential (Figure 2c), likely because of a pH-independent rate-determining step. All subsequent measurements were, therefore, performed using 1 M KOH for the PV-GDE integrated device.

Figure 2

Figure 2. Dark catalysis three-electrode measurement of Ag-NPs GDE. Faradaic efficiency versus GDE potential operated in 1 M KHCO3 (left half of graph) or 1 M KOH (right half of graph) of (a) the reserve-assembled Ag-NP GDE and (b) a standard-assembled Ag-NP GDE. (c) Overpotential versus CO partial current of Ag-NPs GDE for CO2 reduction to CO. Overpotential = |UGDE,RHE + 0.11 V|, JCOJGDE × fFE,CO. (d) Stability of reserve-assembled and standard-assembled Ag-NPs GDE operated at −0.6 V vs RHE in 1 M KOH.

Figure 2d shows the Faradaic efficiency for CO versus time at −0.6 V vs RHE for the two GDE orientations in KOH. For the standard configuration, the fFE,CO decreased to ∼75% after 1 h and to 50% after 2 h, while for the reverse configuration, the fFE,CO was ∼97% for 3 h. Though similar in initial current density and fFE,CO, the standard assembly, with the Ag-NP catalyst facing the electrolyte, became flooded during the first hour of operation resulting in a reduction of the Faradaic efficiency.

We performed two-electrode measurements for the GDE using an electrochemically activated nickel foam anode coupled to the GaInP/GaInAs/Ge triple-junction cell. For detailed information about the solar cell see Methods Figures S4 and S5, and Table S2 in the Supporting Information. A schematic of the cell is shown in Figure 3a with 1 M KOH as electrolyte using a Fumasep FAA-3-50 membrane. Both the cell potential (Ucell) and the cathode-to-reference electrode potential (UGDE) were monitored during the operation. We calculated the solar-to-fuel efficiency (ηSTF) for CO2 reduction using eq 1.(1)where ΔUrxn is the thermodynamic potential difference between the oxygen evolution half reaction (OER) and the CO2 reduction half reaction of 1.34 V, A the area of the GDE or PV with AGDE = APV = 0.31 cm2, J (= JGDE = JPV) the operation current density of the system, and Plight the incident light irradiance (mW·cm–2) on the photovoltaic cell. The energy efficiency for the GDE cell (ηGDE) was defined as follows:(2)where JGDE·AGDE = JPV·APV and Ucell is the total operating voltage of the cell.

Figure 3

Figure 3. Light driven PV-GDE measurement (APV = AGDE = 0.31 cm2). (a) Illustration of wire connection between the triple-junction cell and GDE cell. (b) JU characteristic of Ni anode, solar cell with Ni anode, and Ag-NP gas diffusion cathode under 1 Sun. (c) Current, GDE potential vs RHE, and cell voltage measurement over 20 h duration. (d) Corresponding CO Faradaic efficiency and solar-to-fuel efficiency over the same 20 h duration.

To evaluate the efficiency and stability, we measured cell parameters using simulated AM 1.5G sun illumination at 1 Sun in the laboratory, as shown in Figure 3b–d. The blue curve in Figure 3b represents the performance of the electrochemically activated Ni foam anode alone, while the yellow curve indicates the behavior of PV plus anode. The red curve shows the catalytic current of the Ag-NPs GDE. The intersection between the red and yellow curves in Figure 3b defines the operation point, located at −0.6 V vs RHE and 14.4 mA·cm–2 with a cell voltage of 2.23 V. Panels c and d of Figure 3 illustrate the cell performance over 20 h with an average Faradaic efficiency for CO of 99 ± 2% and an average CO production rate of 2.3 mg·h−1. No degradation in performance was observed. From the experimental results, we calculated the average solar-to-CO efficiency for the 20 h operation as 19.1 ± 0.2%, with an average energy efficiency ηGDE of 59.4 ± 0.6%. The error bars were obtained as the variation within the 20 h of operation. All the experimental results are summarized in Table S3. The chemical composition of the Ag-NP catalyst layer was examined before and after the reaction by X-ray photoelectron spectroscopy as shown in Figure S6. No obvious changes were observed other than the absorption of potassium after operation with the Ag-NP catalyst maintaining its metallic phase.

The solar-to-CO efficiency of 19.1% represents a new record efficiency. A performance comparison with the current state-of-the-art PV-electrolyzer for CO2 reduction to CO is shown in Table S4. The PV-GDE device had a CO production rate per projected cathode area 50 times higher than for the bulk electrolyte device (7.4 mg·h–1·cm–2 versus 0.145 mg·h–1·cm–2) with greatly improved stability (20 h with no degradation versus 15% loss in 5 h).(10) A similar PV-GDE device operated under 3.25 Suns illumination with AGDE = 1 cm2 and APV = 0.31 cm2 (3.25 ≈ AGDE/APV) showed over 150 h of stability, with an average Faradaic efficiency of 96 ± 2%, an average solar-to-CO efficiency of 18.9 ± 0.5%, and an average energy efficiency ηGDE of 53.7 ± 1.2% (Figure S7).

Full day outdoor tests were conducted with online gas product analysis in order to obtain the solar-to-fuel efficiency over the entire day. Results are shown in Figure 4. The triple-junction cell and a calibrated silicon photodiode were mounted on a solar tracker to maintain optimum orientation toward the Sun (see illustration in Figure S8). The dips in sun intensity at 7:00–9:00 a.m. and 4:00–6:00 p.m. in the data were the result of trees blocking the sunlight. The system operated at a cell voltage of 2.20 V and GDE potential of −0.57 V vs RHE under natural full sun illumination. A Faradaic efficiency of 96 ± 8% and solar-to-fuel conversion efficiency of 18.7 ± 1.7% was observed over an optimal 6 h period within the day. The diurnal-averaged solar-to-fuel conversion efficiency was 5.8%. The CO production rate for 1 day under actual outdoor sun conditions was calculated to be 15 mg·day−1 of CO. Another outdoor demonstration used a lens to concentrate the sunlight, producing an irradiance of 3.25 Suns (C = 3.25, AGDE = 1 cm2, APV = 0.31 cm2) with data included in Figure S9 and Table S3 with a CO generation rate of 50 mg·day−1. Using this calculated rate, a system scale up to 1 m2 would result in a CO production rate of 0.5 kg·day−1.

Figure 4

Figure 4. Outdoor assessments of solar-driven PV-GDE in Pasadena, CA (APV = AGDE = 0.31 cm2). The solar irradiance was monitored with a calibrated silicon photodiode. Operating current density J (= JGDE = JPV), cell voltage Ucell, GDE potential UGDE vs RHE, CO Faradaic efficiency fFE,CO, and solar-to-fuel efficiency ηSTF were recorded for a 24 h day cycle.

The performance of our directly coupled PV-GDE device was compared to a DC–DC converter coupled PV and GDE with power-matching electronics. We simulate DC–DC converter output curves with the input of our solid-state PV curve as shown in Figure S10. Though the DC–DC converter can track the maximum power point (MPP) of the PV, a practical loss of 5–10% is expected.(43) The operating point for the directly driven PV-GDE cell is Ucell = 2.23 V and J = 14.4 mA·cm–2 with a maximum efficiency of 19.3%. With a 95% efficient DC–DC converter, the operation point would be Ucell = 2.22 V and J = 13.8 mA·cm–2 with a maximum efficiency of 18.5%. For a 90% efficient DC–DC converter, the operation point would be Ucell = 2.20 V and J = 13.2 mA·cm–2 with a maximum efficiency of 17.7%. The maximum efficiencies are calculated assuming 100% CO Faradaic efficiency. All systems are summarized in Table S3. The slightly higher efficiency of our directly driven PV-GDE device, compared to the same setup with integrated DC–DC converter and power matching electronics, reveals the potential of developing a directly coupled PV-GDE device with its reduced complexity.

In summary, we have demonstrated a highly efficient solar-driven CO2 reduction device for CO generation using a flow-by reverse-assembled gas diffusion electrode cell directly coupled to a triple-junction solar cell. The reverse-assembled GDE is designed to minimize parasitic CO2 losses, utilizing a high CO2 concentration and low overpotential catalysts for the CO2 reduction reaction. The Ag-NPs-based catalyst exhibited near unity Faradaic efficiency toward CO generation at approximately −0.6 V vs RHE in 1 M KOH electrolyte. The PV-GDE system was evaluated under both laboratory AM 1.5G simulated solar irradiation and outdoor real sun conditions. Near-unity Faradaic efficiency was observed for CO2-to-CO conversion, and an average solar-to-CO energy efficiency of 19.1% was achieved with AM 1.5G illumination at 1 Sun, leading to a CO production rate per catalyst area over 50 times higher than that of the current record photovoltaic-driven electrolysis device. The GDE was demonstrated to be stable for over 150 h without degradation, supporting our hypothesis that, by using a reverse-assembled GDE device configuration with the catalyst layer facing toward the CO2 gas supply, we could extend the system operation time without suffering a transition from a wetted to a flooded gas diffusion layer. Under outdoor sun conditions, the PV-GDE system exhibited a solar-to-CO conversion efficiency of 18.7% during noontime and yielded a CO production rate of 15 mg·cm–2 per day. This reverse-assembled PV-GDE establishes a new efficiency record for directly solar-driven CO2 reduction and offers an example of a very high-efficiency, stable device for solar CO2 conversion.

Supporting Information

ARTICLE SECTIONS
Jump To

The Supporting Information is available free of charge at https://pubs.acs.org/doi/10.1021/acsenergylett.9b02576.

  • Methods, calculations of solar-to-fuel efficiency, GDE efficiency, turnover frequency, cell potentials, CO2 loss, and supporting figures and tables (PDF)

Terms & Conditions

Electronic Supporting Information files are available without a subscription to ACS Web Editions. The American Chemical Society holds a copyright ownership interest in any copyrightable Supporting Information. Files available from the ACS website may be downloaded for personal use only. Users are not otherwise permitted to reproduce, republish, redistribute, or sell any Supporting Information from the ACS website, either in whole or in part, in either machine-readable form or any other form without permission from the American Chemical Society. For permission to reproduce, republish and redistribute this material, requesters must process their own requests via the RightsLink permission system. Information about how to use the RightsLink permission system can be found at http://pubs.acs.org/page/copyright/permissions.html.

Author Information

ARTICLE SECTIONS
Jump To

  • Corresponding Authors
  • Authors
    • Wen-Hui Cheng - Department of Applied Physics and Material Science, California Institute of Technology, Pasadena, California 91125, United States; Orcidhttp://orcid.org/0000-0003-3233-4606
    • Matthias H. Richter - Division of Chemistry and Chemical Engineering, California Institute of Technology, Pasadena, California 91125, United States; Orcidhttp://orcid.org/0000-0003-0091-2045
    • Ian Sullivan - Division of Chemistry and Chemical Engineering, California Institute of Technology, Pasadena, California 91125, United States; Orcidhttp://orcid.org/0000-0003-0632-4607
    • David M. Larson - Chemical Sciences Division, Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory, Berkeley, California 94720, United States
    • Chengxiang Xiang - Division of Chemistry and Chemical Engineering, California Institute of Technology, Pasadena, California 91125, United States; Orcidhttp://orcid.org/0000-0002-1698-6754
  • Author Contributions

    W.-H.C., M.H.R., and H.A.A. conceived of the experimental study. W.-H.C. and M.H.R. executed the experiments and did the data analysis. D.M.L., I.S., B.S.B., and C.X. provided technical support and scientific discussion. W.-H.C., M.H.R., B.S.B., and H.A.A. wrote the Letter, and all authors commented on the manuscript.

  • Notes

    The authors declare no competing financial interest.

Acknowledgments

ARTICLE SECTIONS
Jump To

This work was supported through the Office of Science of the U.S. Department of Energy (DOE) under award no. DE SC0004993 to the Joint Center for Artificial Photosynthesis, a DOE Energy Innovation Hub. Research was in part carried out at the Molecular Materials Research Center of the Beckman Institute of the California Institute of Technology.

References

ARTICLE SECTIONS
Jump To

This article references 43 other publications.

  1. 1
    Davis, S. J.; Lewis, N. S.; Shaner, M. R.; Aggarwal, S.; Arent, D.; Azevedo, I. L.; Benson, S. M.; Bradley, T.; Brouwer, J.; Chiang, Y.-M.; Clack, C. T. M.; Cohen, A.; Doig, S.; Edmonds, J.; Fennell, P.; Field, C. B.; Hannegan, B.; Hodge, B.-M.; Hoffert, M. I.; Ingersoll, E.; Jaramillo, P.; Lackner, K. S.; Mach, K. J.; Mastrandrea, M.; Ogden, J.; Peterson, P. F.; Sanchez, D. L.; Sperling, D.; Stagner, J.; Trancik, J. E.; Yang, C.-J.; Caldeira, K. Net-Zero Emissions Energy Systems. Science 2018, 360 (6396), eaas9793  DOI: 10.1126/science.aas9793
  2. 2
    Armstrong, R. C.; Wolfram, C.; de Jong, K. P.; Gross, R.; Lewis, N. S.; Boardman, B.; Ragauskas, A. J.; Ehrhardt-Martinez, K.; Crabtree, G.; Ramana, M. V. The Frontiers of Energy. Nature Energy 2016, 1 (1), 15020,  DOI: 10.1038/nenergy.2015.20
  3. 3
    Shaner, M. R.; Davis, S. J.; Lewis, N. S.; Caldeira, K. Geophysical Constraints on the Reliability of Solar and Wind Power in the United States. Energy Environ. Sci. 2018, 11 (4), 914925,  DOI: 10.1039/C7EE03029K
  4. 4
    Lewis, N. S. Toward Cost-Effective Solar Energy Use. Science 2007, 315 (5813), 798801,  DOI: 10.1126/science.1137014
  5. 5
    Gray, E. M.; Webb, C. J.; Andrews, J.; Shabani, B.; Tsai, P. J.; Chan, S. L. I. Hydrogen Storage for Off-Grid Power Supply. Int. J. Hydrogen Energy 2011, 36 (1), 654663,  DOI: 10.1016/j.ijhydene.2010.09.051
  6. 6
    Jia, J.; Seitz, L. C.; Benck, J. D.; Huo, Y.; Chen, Y.; Ng, J. W. D.; Bilir, T.; Harris, J. S.; Jaramillo, T. F. Solar Water Splitting by Photovoltaic-Electrolysis with a Solar-to-Hydrogen Efficiency Over 30%. Nat. Commun. 2016, 7, 13237,  DOI: 10.1038/ncomms13237
  7. 7
    Young, J. L.; Steiner, M. A.; Döscher, H.; France, R. M.; Turner, J. A.; Deutsch, T. G. Direct Solar-to-Hydrogen Conversion via Inverted Metamorphic Multi-Junction Semiconductor Architectures. Nature Energy 2017, 2, 17028,  DOI: 10.1038/nenergy.2017.28
  8. 8
    Cheng, W.-H.; Richter, M. H.; May, M. M.; Ohlmann, J.; Lackner, D.; Dimroth, F.; Hannappel, T.; Atwater, H. A.; Lewerenz, H. J. Monolithic Photoelectrochemical Device for Direct Water Splitting with 19% Efficiency. ACS Energy Lett. 2018, 3 (8), 17951800,  DOI: 10.1021/acsenergylett.8b00920
  9. 9
    Seh, Z. W.; Kibsgaard, J.; Dickens, C. F.; Chorkendorff, I.; Nørskov, J. K.; Jaramillo, T. F. Combining Theory and Experiment in Electrocatalysis: Insights Into Materials Design. Science 2017, 355 (6321), eaad4998  DOI: 10.1126/science.aad4998
  10. 10
    Schreier, M.; Héroguel, F.; Steier, L.; Ahmad, S.; Luterbacher, J. S.; Mayer, M. T.; Luo, J.; Grätzel, M. Solar Conversion of CO2 To CO Using Earth-Abundant Electrocatalysts Prepared by Atomic Layer Modification of CuO. Nature Energy 2017, 2 (7), 17087,  DOI: 10.1038/nenergy.2017.87
  11. 11
    Gurudayal; Beeman, J. W.; Bullock, J.; Wang, H.; Eichhorn, J.; Towle, C.; Javey, A.; Toma, F. M.; Mathews, N.; Ager, J. W., III Si Photocathode with Ag-Supported Dendritic Cu Catalyst for CO2 Reduction. Energy Environ. Sci. 2019, 12 (3), 10681077,  DOI: 10.1039/C8EE03547D
  12. 12
    Zhou, X.; Liu, R.; Sun, K.; Chen, Y.; Verlage, E.; Francis, S. A.; Lewis, N. S.; Xiang, C. Solar-Driven Reduction of 1 atm of CO2 To Formate at 10% Energy-Conversion Efficiency by Use of a TiO2-Protected III–V Tandem Photoanode in Conjunction with a Bipolar Membrane and a Pd/C Cathode. ACS Energy Lett. 2016, 1 (4), 764770,  DOI: 10.1021/acsenergylett.6b00317
  13. 13
    Romero Cuellar, N. S.; Wiesner-Fleischer, K.; Fleischer, M.; Rucki, A.; Hinrichsen, O. Advantages of CO Over CO2 As Reactant for Electrochemical Reduction to Ethylene, Ethanol and N-Propanol on Gas Diffusion Electrodes at High Current Densities. Electrochim. Acta 2019, 307, 164175,  DOI: 10.1016/j.electacta.2019.03.142
  14. 14
    Zhou, X.; Xiang, C. Comparative Analysis of Solar-to-Fuel Conversion Efficiency: a Direct, One-Step Electrochemical CO2 Reduction Reactor Versus a Two-Step, Cascade Electrochemical CO2 Reduction Reactor. ACS Energy Lett. 2018, 3 (8), 18921897,  DOI: 10.1021/acsenergylett.8b01077
  15. 15
    Delacourt, C.; Ridgway, P. L.; Kerr, J. B.; Newman, J. Design of an Electrochemical Cell Making Syngas (CO + H2) From CO2 And H2O Reduction at Room Temperature. J. Electrochem. Soc. 2008, 155 (1), B42B49,  DOI: 10.1149/1.2801871
  16. 16
    Schulz, H. Short History and Present Trends of Fischer–Tropsch Synthesis. Appl. Catal., A 1999, 186 (1–2), 312,  DOI: 10.1016/S0926-860X(99)00160-X
  17. 17
    Nielsen, D. U.; Hu, X.-M.; Daasbjerg, K.; Skrydstrup, T. Chemically and Electrochemically Catalysed Conversion of CO2 To CO with Follow-Up Utilization to Value-Added Chemicals. Nature Catalysis 2018, 1 (4), 244254,  DOI: 10.1038/s41929-018-0051-3
  18. 18
    Lum, Y.; Ager, J. W., III. Sequential Catalysis Controls Selectivity in Electrochemical CO2 Reduction on Cu. Energy Environ. Sci. 2018, 11 (10), 29352944,  DOI: 10.1039/C8EE01501E
  19. 19
    Jouny, M.; Luc, W.; Jiao, F. High-Rate Electroreduction of Carbon Monoxide to Multi-Carbon Products. Nature Catalysis 2018, 1 (10), 748755,  DOI: 10.1038/s41929-018-0133-2
  20. 20
    Welch, A. J.; DuChene, J. S.; Tagliabue, G.; Davoyan, A.; Cheng, W.-H.; Atwater, H. A. Nanoporous Gold as a Highly Selective and Active Carbon Dioxide Reduction Catalyst. ACS Appl. Energy Mater. 2019, 2 (1), 164170,  DOI: 10.1021/acsaem.8b01570
  21. 21
    Chen, Y.; Li, C. W.; Kanan, M. W. Aqueous CO2 Reduction at Very Low Overpotential on Oxide-Derived Au Nanoparticles. J. Am. Chem. Soc. 2012, 134 (49), 1996919972,  DOI: 10.1021/ja309317u
  22. 22
    Hatsukade, T.; Kuhl, K. P.; Cave, E. R.; Abram, D. N.; Jaramillo, T. F. Insights Into the Electrocatalytic Reduction of CO2 On Metallic Silver Surfaces. Phys. Chem. Chem. Phys. 2014, 16 (27), 1381413819,  DOI: 10.1039/C4CP00692E
  23. 23
    Asadi, M.; Kim, K.; Liu, C.; Addepalli, A. V.; Abbasi, P.; Yasaei, P.; Phillips, P.; Behranginia, A.; Cerrato, J. M.; Haasch, R.; Zapol, P.; Kumar, B.; Klie, R. F.; Abiade, J.; Curtiss, L. A.; Salehi-Khojin, A. Nanostructured Transition Metal Dichalcogenide Electrocatalysts for CO2 Reduction in Ionic Liquid. Science 2016, 353 (6298), 467470,  DOI: 10.1126/science.aaf4767
  24. 24
    Asadi, M.; Kumar, B.; Behranginia, A.; Rosen, B. A.; Baskin, A.; Repnin, N.; Pisasale, D.; Phillips, P.; Zhu, W.; Haasch, R.; Klie, R. F.; Král, P.; Abiade, J.; Salehi-Khojin, A. Robust Carbon Dioxide Reduction on Molybdenum Disulphide Edges.. Nat. Commun. 2014, 5, 4470,  DOI: 10.1038/ncomms5470
  25. 25
    Cheng, T.; Huang, Y.; Xiao, H.; Goddard, W. A. Predicted Structures of the Active Sites Responsible for the Improved Reduction of Carbon Dioxide by Gold Nanoparticles. J. Phys. Chem. Lett. 2017, 8 (14), 33173320,  DOI: 10.1021/acs.jpclett.7b01335
  26. 26
    Singh, M. R.; Kwon, Y.; Lum, Y.; Ager, J. W., III; Bell, A. T. Hydrolysis of Electrolyte Cations Enhances the Electrochemical Reduction of CO2 Over Ag and Cu. J. Am. Chem. Soc. 2016, 138 (39), 1300613012,  DOI: 10.1021/jacs.6b07612
  27. 27
    Liu, M.; Pang, Y.; Zhang, B.; De Luna, P.; Voznyy, O.; Xu, J.; Zheng, X.; Dinh, C. T.; Fan, F.; Cao, C.; de Arquer, F. P. G.; Safaei, T. S.; Mepham, A.; Klinkova, A.; Kumacheva, E.; Filleter, T.; Sinton, D.; Kelley, S. O.; Sargent, E. H. Enhanced Electrocatalytic CO2 Reduction via Field-Induced Reagent Concentration. Nature 2016, 537 (7620), 382386,  DOI: 10.1038/nature19060
  28. 28
    Varela, A. S.; Kroschel, M.; Reier, T.; Strasser, P. Controlling the Selectivity of CO2 Electroreduction on Copper: the Effect of the Electrolyte Concentration and the Importance of the Local pH. Catal. Today 2016, 260, 813,  DOI: 10.1016/j.cattod.2015.06.009
  29. 29
    Verma, S.; Lu, X.; Ma, S.; Masel, R. I.; Kenis, P. J. A. The Effect of Electrolyte Composition on the Electroreduction of CO2 To CO on Ag Based Gas Diffusion Electrodes. Phys. Chem. Chem. Phys. 2016, 18 (10), 70757084,  DOI: 10.1039/C5CP05665A
  30. 30
    Higgins, D.; Hahn, C.; Xiang, C.; Jaramillo, T. F.; Weber, A. Z. Gas-Diffusion Electrodes for Carbon Dioxide Reduction: a New Paradigm. ACS Energy Lett. 2019, 4 (1), 317324,  DOI: 10.1021/acsenergylett.8b02035
  31. 31
    Singh, M. R.; Papadantonakis, K.; Xiang, C.; Lewis, N. S. An Electrochemical Engineering Assessment of the Operational Conditions and Constraints for Solar-Driven Water-Splitting Systems at Near-Neutral pH. Energy Environ. Sci. 2015, 8 (9), 27602767,  DOI: 10.1039/C5EE01721A
  32. 32
    Lobaccaro, P.; Singh, M. R.; Clark, E. L.; Kwon, Y.; Bell, A. T.; Ager, J. W., III. Effects of Temperature and Gas–Liquid Mass Transfer on the Operation of Small Electrochemical Cells for the Quantitative Evaluation of CO2 Reduction Electrocatalysts. Phys. Chem. Chem. Phys. 2016, 18 (38), 2677726785,  DOI: 10.1039/C6CP05287H
  33. 33
    Weng, L.-C.; Bell, A. T.; Weber, A. Z. Towards Membrane-Electrode Assembly Systems for CO2 Reduction: a Modeling Study. Energy Environ. Sci. 2019, 12 (6), 19501968,  DOI: 10.1039/C9EE00909D
  34. 34
    Song, J. T.; Song, H.; Kim, B.; Oh, J. Towards Higher Rate Electrochemical CO2 Conversion: From Liquid-Phase to Gas-Phase Systems. Catalysts 2019, 9 (3), 224,  DOI: 10.3390/catal9030224
  35. 35
    Li, J.; Chen, G.; Zhu, Y.; Liang, Z.; Pei, A.; Wu, C.-L.; Wang, H.; Lee, H. R.; Liu, K.; Chu, S.; Cui, Y. Efficient Electrocatalytic CO2 Reduction on a Three-Phase Interface. Nature Catalysis 2018, 1 (8), 592600,  DOI: 10.1038/s41929-018-0108-3
  36. 36
    Weng, L.-C.; Bell, A. T.; Weber, A. Z. Modeling Gas-Diffusion Electrodes for CO2 Reduction. Phys. Chem. Chem. Phys. 2018, 20, 1697316984,  DOI: 10.1039/C8CP01319E
  37. 37
    Cook, R. L.; MacDuff, R. C.; Sammells, A. F. High Rate Gas Phase CO2 Reduction to Ethylene and Methane Using Gas Diffusion Electrodes. J. Electrochem. Soc. 1990, 137 (2), 607608,  DOI: 10.1149/1.2086515
  38. 38
    Hori, Y.; Ito, H.; Okano, K.; Nagasu, K.; Sato, S. Silver-Coated Ion Exchange Membrane Electrode Applied to Electrochemical Reduction of Carbon Dioxide. Electrochim. Acta 2003, 48 (18), 26512657,  DOI: 10.1016/S0013-4686(03)00311-6
  39. 39
    CRC Handbook of Chemistry and Physics; Lide, D. R., Ed.; New York, 2003.
  40. 40
    Ripatti, D. S.; Veltman, T. R.; Kanan, M. W. Carbon Monoxide Gas Diffusion Electrolysis That Produces Concentrated C2 Products with High Single-Pass Conversion. Joule 2019, 3 (1), 240256,  DOI: 10.1016/j.joule.2018.10.007
  41. 41
    Dinh, C. T.; Burdyny, T.; Kibria, M. G.; Seifitokaldani, A.; Gabardo, C. M.; de Arquer, F. P. G.; Kiani, A.; Edwards, J. P.; De Luna, P.; Bushuyev, O. S.; Zou, C.; Quintero-Bermudez, R.; Pang, Y.; Sinton, D.; Sargent, E. H. CO2 Electroreduction to Ethylene via Hydroxide-Mediated Copper Catalysis at an Abrupt Interface. Science 2018, 360 (6390), 783787,  DOI: 10.1126/science.aas9100
  42. 42
    Li, Y. C.; Lee, G.; Yuan, T.; Wang, Y.; Nam, D.-H.; Wang, Z.; Garcia de Arquer, F. P.; Lum, Y.; Dinh, C. T.; Voznyy, O.; Sargent, E. H. Co2 Electroreduction From Carbonate Electrolyte. ACS Energy Lett. 2019, 4 (6), 14271431,  DOI: 10.1021/acsenergylett.9b00975
  43. 43
    Hossain, M. Z.; Rahim, N. A.; Selvaraj, J. A. L. Recent Progress and Development on Power DC-DC Converter Topology, Control, Design and Applications: a Review. Renewable Sustainable Energy Rev. 2018, 81, 205230,  DOI: 10.1016/j.rser.2017.07.017

Cited By


This article is cited by 14 publications.

  1. Xin Shen, Maoqing Yao, Ke Sun, Tianshuo Zhao, Yulian He, Chun-Yung Chi, Chongwu Zhou, Paul Daniel Dapkus, Nathan S. Lewis, Shu Hu. Defect-Tolerant TiO2-Coated and Discretized Photoanodes for >600 h of Stable Photoelectrochemical Water Oxidation. ACS Energy Letters 2020, Article ASAP.OpenURL UNIV OF NORTH TEXAS
  2. P. Agbo. J–V Decoupling: Independent Control over Current and Potential in Electrocatalysis. The Journal of Physical Chemistry C 2020, Article ASAP.OpenURL UNIV OF NORTH TEXAS
  3. Jie He, Csaba Janáky. Recent Advances in Solar-Driven Carbon Dioxide Conversion: Expectations versus Reality. ACS Energy Letters 2020, 5 (6) , 1996-2014. https://doi.org/10.1021/acsenergylett.0c00645OpenURL UNIV OF NORTH TEXAS
  4. Chanon Pornrungroj, Virgil Andrei, Motiar Rahaman, Chawit Uswachoke, Hannah J. Joyce, Dominic S. Wright, Erwin Reisner. Bifunctional Perovskite‐BiVO 4 Tandem Devices for Uninterrupted Solar and Electrocatalytic Water Splitting Cycles. Advanced Functional Materials 2020, 48 , 2008182. https://doi.org/10.1002/adfm.202008182OpenURL UNIV OF NORTH TEXAS
  5. Ibadillah A. Digdaya, Ian Sullivan, Meng Lin, Lihao Han, Wen-Hui Cheng, Harry A. Atwater, Chengxiang Xiang. A direct coupled electrochemical system for capture and conversion of CO2 from oceanwater. Nature Communications 2020, 11 (1) https://doi.org/10.1038/s41467-020-18232-yOpenURL UNIV OF NORTH TEXAS
  6. Joshua A. Rabinowitz, Matthew W. Kanan. The future of low-temperature carbon dioxide electrolysis depends on solving one basic problem. Nature Communications 2020, 11 (1) https://doi.org/10.1038/s41467-020-19135-8OpenURL UNIV OF NORTH TEXAS
  7. Da Wang, Yinning He, Na Zhong, Zhiqiao He, Yi Shen, Tao Zeng, Xiaohui Lu, Jun Ma, Shuang Song. In situ chloride-mediated synthesis of TiO2 thin film photoanode with enhanced photoelectrochemical activity for carbamazepine oxidation coupled with simultaneous cathodic H2 production and CO2 conversion to fuels. Journal of Hazardous Materials 2020, , 124563. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jhazmat.2020.124563OpenURL UNIV OF NORTH TEXAS
  8. Charles E. Creissen, Marc Fontecave. Solar‐Driven Electrochemical CO 2 Reduction with Heterogeneous Catalysts. Advanced Energy Materials 2020, 11 , 2002652. https://doi.org/10.1002/aenm.202002652OpenURL UNIV OF NORTH TEXAS
  9. Bin Wu, Xu-dong Wang, Xiao-fei Gao, Hao Li, Shan Xi Tian. Dissociative electron attachment to carbon dioxide. Chinese Journal of Chemical Physics 2020, 33 (5) , 521-531. https://doi.org/10.1063/1674-0068/cjcp2008152OpenURL UNIV OF NORTH TEXAS
  10. Sheng Chu, Pengfei Ou, Roksana Tonny Rashid, Pegah Ghamari, Renjie Wang, Hong Nhung Tran, Songrui Zhao, Huiyan Zhang, Jun Song, Zetian Mi. Decoupling Strategy for Enhanced Syngas Generation from Photoelectrochemical CO2 Reduction. iScience 2020, 23 (8) , 101390. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.isci.2020.101390OpenURL UNIV OF NORTH TEXAS
  11. Weilai Yu, Harold J. Fu, Thomas Mueller, Bruce S. Brunschwig, Nathan S. Lewis. Atomic force microscopy: Emerging illuminated and operando techniques for solar fuel research. The Journal of Chemical Physics 2020, 153 (2) , 020902. https://doi.org/10.1063/5.0009858OpenURL UNIV OF NORTH TEXAS
  12. Chenyu Xu, Jianan Hong, Pengfei Sui, Mengnan Zhu, Yanwei Zhang, Jing-Li Luo. Standalone Solar Carbon-Based Fuel Production Based on Semiconductors. Cell Reports Physical Science 2020, 1 (7) , 100101. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.xcrp.2020.100101OpenURL UNIV OF NORTH TEXAS
  13. Ya Liu, Liejin Guo. On factors limiting the performance of photoelectrochemical CO 2 reduction. The Journal of Chemical Physics 2020, 152 (10) , 100901. https://doi.org/10.1063/1.5141390OpenURL UNIV OF NORTH TEXAS
  14. Yasuhiko Takeda, Takeshi Morikawa, Naohiko Kato. . Journal of Applied Physics 2020,,, 204503. https://doi.org/10.1063/5.0006310OpenURL UNIV OF NORTH TEXAS
  • Abstract

    Figure 1

    Figure 1. Gas diffusion electrode with Ag-NP catalyst. (a) Cell configuration composed of (1) NiOx or Pt anode, (2) Ag-NPs on Sigracet 29BC carbon paper cathode, (3) anion exchange membrane, (4) CO2 gas inlet and CO/CO2 outlet, (5) acrylic backplate, (6) catholyte chamber, (7) anolyte chamber, (8) reference electrode, (9) GDE (cathode) power connector, and (10) anode power connector. Black arrows indicate the gas flow, and white arrows indicate the electrolyte flow. Note that the backplate (5) is designed to use an interdigitated wire electrode flow field to enhance the interaction between gas and catalysts and improve CO2 utilization (see also Figure S1). (b) Scanning electron microscopy images of carbon paper without (top) and with (bottom) Ag-NP catalyst, secondary electrons image (left row) backscattered electrons image (right row). (c) Illustration of the reverse-assembled GDE cathode cross-section with wetted catalyst and operation for CO2 reduction.

    Figure 2

    Figure 2. Dark catalysis three-electrode measurement of Ag-NPs GDE. Faradaic efficiency versus GDE potential operated in 1 M KHCO3 (left half of graph) or 1 M KOH (right half of graph) of (a) the reserve-assembled Ag-NP GDE and (b) a standard-assembled Ag-NP GDE. (c) Overpotential versus CO partial current of Ag-NPs GDE for CO2 reduction to CO. Overpotential = |UGDE,RHE + 0.11 V|, JCOJGDE × fFE,CO. (d) Stability of reserve-assembled and standard-assembled Ag-NPs GDE operated at −0.6 V vs RHE in 1 M KOH.

    Figure 3

    Figure 3. Light driven PV-GDE measurement (APV = AGDE = 0.31 cm2). (a) Illustration of wire connection between the triple-junction cell and GDE cell. (b) JU characteristic of Ni anode, solar cell with Ni anode, and Ag-NP gas diffusion cathode under 1 Sun. (c) Current, GDE potential vs RHE, and cell voltage measurement over 20 h duration. (d) Corresponding CO Faradaic efficiency and solar-to-fuel efficiency over the same 20 h duration.

    Figure 4

    Figure 4. Outdoor assessments of solar-driven PV-GDE in Pasadena, CA (APV = AGDE = 0.31 cm2). The solar irradiance was monitored with a calibrated silicon photodiode. Operating current density J (= JGDE = JPV), cell voltage Ucell, GDE potential UGDE vs RHE, CO Faradaic efficiency fFE,CO, and solar-to-fuel efficiency ηSTF were recorded for a 24 h day cycle.

  • References

    ARTICLE SECTIONS
    Jump To

    This article references 43 other publications.

    1. 1
      Davis, S. J.; Lewis, N. S.; Shaner, M. R.; Aggarwal, S.; Arent, D.; Azevedo, I. L.; Benson, S. M.; Bradley, T.; Brouwer, J.; Chiang, Y.-M.; Clack, C. T. M.; Cohen, A.; Doig, S.; Edmonds, J.; Fennell, P.; Field, C. B.; Hannegan, B.; Hodge, B.-M.; Hoffert, M. I.; Ingersoll, E.; Jaramillo, P.; Lackner, K. S.; Mach, K. J.; Mastrandrea, M.; Ogden, J.; Peterson, P. F.; Sanchez, D. L.; Sperling, D.; Stagner, J.; Trancik, J. E.; Yang, C.-J.; Caldeira, K. Net-Zero Emissions Energy Systems. Science 2018, 360 (6396), eaas9793  DOI: 10.1126/science.aas9793
    2. 2
      Armstrong, R. C.; Wolfram, C.; de Jong, K. P.; Gross, R.; Lewis, N. S.; Boardman, B.; Ragauskas, A. J.; Ehrhardt-Martinez, K.; Crabtree, G.; Ramana, M. V. The Frontiers of Energy. Nature Energy 2016, 1 (1), 15020,  DOI: 10.1038/nenergy.2015.20
    3. 3
      Shaner, M. R.; Davis, S. J.; Lewis, N. S.; Caldeira, K. Geophysical Constraints on the Reliability of Solar and Wind Power in the United States. Energy Environ. Sci. 2018, 11 (4), 914925,  DOI: 10.1039/C7EE03029K
    4. 4
      Lewis, N. S. Toward Cost-Effective Solar Energy Use. Science 2007, 315 (5813), 798801,  DOI: 10.1126/science.1137014
    5. 5
      Gray, E. M.; Webb, C. J.; Andrews, J.; Shabani, B.; Tsai, P. J.; Chan, S. L. I. Hydrogen Storage for Off-Grid Power Supply. Int. J. Hydrogen Energy 2011, 36 (1), 654663,  DOI: 10.1016/j.ijhydene.2010.09.051
    6. 6
      Jia, J.; Seitz, L. C.; Benck, J. D.; Huo, Y.; Chen, Y.; Ng, J. W. D.; Bilir, T.; Harris, J. S.; Jaramillo, T. F. Solar Water Splitting by Photovoltaic-Electrolysis with a Solar-to-Hydrogen Efficiency Over 30%. Nat. Commun. 2016, 7, 13237,  DOI: 10.1038/ncomms13237
    7. 7
      Young, J. L.; Steiner, M. A.; Döscher, H.; France, R. M.; Turner, J. A.; Deutsch, T. G. Direct Solar-to-Hydrogen Conversion via Inverted Metamorphic Multi-Junction Semiconductor Architectures. Nature Energy 2017, 2, 17028,  DOI: 10.1038/nenergy.2017.28
    8. 8
      Cheng, W.-H.; Richter, M. H.; May, M. M.; Ohlmann, J.; Lackner, D.; Dimroth, F.; Hannappel, T.; Atwater, H. A.; Lewerenz, H. J. Monolithic Photoelectrochemical Device for Direct Water Splitting with 19% Efficiency. ACS Energy Lett. 2018, 3 (8), 17951800,  DOI: 10.1021/acsenergylett.8b00920
    9. 9
      Seh, Z. W.; Kibsgaard, J.; Dickens, C. F.; Chorkendorff, I.; Nørskov, J. K.; Jaramillo, T. F. Combining Theory and Experiment in Electrocatalysis: Insights Into Materials Design. Science 2017, 355 (6321), eaad4998  DOI: 10.1126/science.aad4998
    10. 10
      Schreier, M.; Héroguel, F.; Steier, L.; Ahmad, S.; Luterbacher, J. S.; Mayer, M. T.; Luo, J.; Grätzel, M. Solar Conversion of CO2 To CO Using Earth-Abundant Electrocatalysts Prepared by Atomic Layer Modification of CuO. Nature Energy 2017, 2 (7), 17087,  DOI: 10.1038/nenergy.2017.87
    11. 11
      Gurudayal; Beeman, J. W.; Bullock, J.; Wang, H.; Eichhorn, J.; Towle, C.; Javey, A.; Toma, F. M.; Mathews, N.; Ager, J. W., III Si Photocathode with Ag-Supported Dendritic Cu Catalyst for CO2 Reduction. Energy Environ. Sci. 2019, 12 (3), 10681077,  DOI: 10.1039/C8EE03547D
    12. 12
      Zhou, X.; Liu, R.; Sun, K.; Chen, Y.; Verlage, E.; Francis, S. A.; Lewis, N. S.; Xiang, C. Solar-Driven Reduction of 1 atm of CO2 To Formate at 10% Energy-Conversion Efficiency by Use of a TiO2-Protected III–V Tandem Photoanode in Conjunction with a Bipolar Membrane and a Pd/C Cathode. ACS Energy Lett. 2016, 1 (4), 764770,  DOI: 10.1021/acsenergylett.6b00317
    13. 13
      Romero Cuellar, N. S.; Wiesner-Fleischer, K.; Fleischer, M.; Rucki, A.; Hinrichsen, O. Advantages of CO Over CO2 As Reactant for Electrochemical Reduction to Ethylene, Ethanol and N-Propanol on Gas Diffusion Electrodes at High Current Densities. Electrochim. Acta 2019, 307, 164175,  DOI: 10.1016/j.electacta.2019.03.142
    14. 14
      Zhou, X.; Xiang, C. Comparative Analysis of Solar-to-Fuel Conversion Efficiency: a Direct, One-Step Electrochemical CO2 Reduction Reactor Versus a Two-Step, Cascade Electrochemical CO2 Reduction Reactor. ACS Energy Lett. 2018, 3 (8), 18921897,  DOI: 10.1021/acsenergylett.8b01077
    15. 15
      Delacourt, C.; Ridgway, P. L.; Kerr, J. B.; Newman, J. Design of an Electrochemical Cell Making Syngas (CO + H2) From CO2 And H2O Reduction at Room Temperature. J. Electrochem. Soc. 2008, 155 (1), B42B49,  DOI: 10.1149/1.2801871
    16. 16
      Schulz, H. Short History and Present Trends of Fischer–Tropsch Synthesis. Appl. Catal., A 1999, 186 (1–2), 312,  DOI: 10.1016/S0926-860X(99)00160-X
    17. 17
      Nielsen, D. U.; Hu, X.-M.; Daasbjerg, K.; Skrydstrup, T. Chemically and Electrochemically Catalysed Conversion of CO2 To CO with Follow-Up Utilization to Value-Added Chemicals. Nature Catalysis 2018, 1 (4), 244254,  DOI: 10.1038/s41929-018-0051-3
    18. 18
      Lum, Y.; Ager, J. W., III. Sequential Catalysis Controls Selectivity in Electrochemical CO2 Reduction on Cu. Energy Environ. Sci. 2018, 11 (10), 29352944,  DOI: 10.1039/C8EE01501E
    19. 19
      Jouny, M.; Luc, W.; Jiao, F. High-Rate Electroreduction of Carbon Monoxide to Multi-Carbon Products. Nature Catalysis 2018, 1 (10), 748755,  DOI: 10.1038/s41929-018-0133-2
    20. 20
      Welch, A. J.; DuChene, J. S.; Tagliabue, G.; Davoyan, A.; Cheng, W.-H.; Atwater, H. A. Nanoporous Gold as a Highly Selective and Active Carbon Dioxide Reduction Catalyst. ACS Appl. Energy Mater. 2019, 2 (1), 164170,  DOI: 10.1021/acsaem.8b01570
    21. 21
      Chen, Y.; Li, C. W.; Kanan, M. W. Aqueous CO2 Reduction at Very Low Overpotential on Oxide-Derived Au Nanoparticles. J. Am. Chem. Soc. 2012, 134 (49), 1996919972,  DOI: 10.1021/ja309317u
    22. 22
      Hatsukade, T.; Kuhl, K. P.; Cave, E. R.; Abram, D. N.; Jaramillo, T. F. Insights Into the Electrocatalytic Reduction of CO2 On Metallic Silver Surfaces. Phys. Chem. Chem. Phys. 2014, 16 (27), 1381413819,  DOI: 10.1039/C4CP00692E
    23. 23
      Asadi, M.; Kim, K.; Liu, C.; Addepalli, A. V.; Abbasi, P.; Yasaei, P.; Phillips, P.; Behranginia, A.; Cerrato, J. M.; Haasch, R.; Zapol, P.; Kumar, B.; Klie, R. F.; Abiade, J.; Curtiss, L. A.; Salehi-Khojin, A. Nanostructured Transition Metal Dichalcogenide Electrocatalysts for CO2 Reduction in Ionic Liquid. Science 2016, 353 (6298), 467470,  DOI: 10.1126/science.aaf4767
    24. 24
      Asadi, M.; Kumar, B.; Behranginia, A.; Rosen, B. A.; Baskin, A.; Repnin, N.; Pisasale, D.; Phillips, P.; Zhu, W.; Haasch, R.; Klie, R. F.; Král, P.; Abiade, J.; Salehi-Khojin, A. Robust Carbon Dioxide Reduction on Molybdenum Disulphide Edges.. Nat. Commun. 2014, 5, 4470,  DOI: 10.1038/ncomms5470
    25. 25
      Cheng, T.; Huang, Y.; Xiao, H.; Goddard, W. A. Predicted Structures of the Active Sites Responsible for the Improved Reduction of Carbon Dioxide by Gold Nanoparticles. J. Phys. Chem. Lett. 2017, 8 (14), 33173320,  DOI: 10.1021/acs.jpclett.7b01335
    26. 26
      Singh, M. R.; Kwon, Y.; Lum, Y.; Ager, J. W., III; Bell, A. T. Hydrolysis of Electrolyte Cations Enhances the Electrochemical Reduction of CO2 Over Ag and Cu. J. Am. Chem. Soc. 2016, 138 (39), 1300613012,  DOI: 10.1021/jacs.6b07612
    27. 27
      Liu, M.; Pang, Y.; Zhang, B.; De Luna, P.; Voznyy, O.; Xu, J.; Zheng, X.; Dinh, C. T.; Fan, F.; Cao, C.; de Arquer, F. P. G.; Safaei, T. S.; Mepham, A.; Klinkova, A.; Kumacheva, E.; Filleter, T.; Sinton, D.; Kelley, S. O.; Sargent, E. H. Enhanced Electrocatalytic CO2 Reduction via Field-Induced Reagent Concentration. Nature 2016, 537 (7620), 382386,  DOI: 10.1038/nature19060
    28. 28
      Varela, A. S.; Kroschel, M.; Reier, T.; Strasser, P. Controlling the Selectivity of CO2 Electroreduction on Copper: the Effect of the Electrolyte Concentration and the Importance of the Local pH. Catal. Today 2016, 260, 813,  DOI: 10.1016/j.cattod.2015.06.009
    29. 29
      Verma, S.; Lu, X.; Ma, S.; Masel, R. I.; Kenis, P. J. A. The Effect of Electrolyte Composition on the Electroreduction of CO2 To CO on Ag Based Gas Diffusion Electrodes. Phys. Chem. Chem. Phys. 2016, 18 (10), 70757084,  DOI: 10.1039/C5CP05665A
    30. 30
      Higgins, D.; Hahn, C.; Xiang, C.; Jaramillo, T. F.; Weber, A. Z. Gas-Diffusion Electrodes for Carbon Dioxide Reduction: a New Paradigm. ACS Energy Lett. 2019, 4 (1), 317324,  DOI: 10.1021/acsenergylett.8b02035
    31. 31
      Singh, M. R.; Papadantonakis, K.; Xiang, C.; Lewis, N. S. An Electrochemical Engineering Assessment of the Operational Conditions and Constraints for Solar-Driven Water-Splitting Systems at Near-Neutral pH. Energy Environ. Sci. 2015, 8 (9), 27602767,  DOI: 10.1039/C5EE01721A
    32. 32
      Lobaccaro, P.; Singh, M. R.; Clark, E. L.; Kwon, Y.; Bell, A. T.; Ager, J. W., III. Effects of Temperature and Gas–Liquid Mass Transfer on the Operation of Small Electrochemical Cells for the Quantitative Evaluation of CO2 Reduction Electrocatalysts. Phys. Chem. Chem. Phys. 2016, 18 (38), 2677726785,  DOI: 10.1039/C6CP05287H
    33. 33
      Weng, L.-C.; Bell, A. T.; Weber, A. Z. Towards Membrane-Electrode Assembly Systems for CO2 Reduction: a Modeling Study. Energy Environ. Sci. 2019, 12 (6), 19501968,  DOI: 10.1039/C9EE00909D
    34. 34
      Song, J. T.; Song, H.; Kim, B.; Oh, J. Towards Higher Rate Electrochemical CO2 Conversion: From Liquid-Phase to Gas-Phase Systems. Catalysts 2019, 9 (3), 224,  DOI: 10.3390/catal9030224
    35. 35
      Li, J.; Chen, G.; Zhu, Y.; Liang, Z.; Pei, A.; Wu, C.-L.; Wang, H.; Lee, H. R.; Liu, K.; Chu, S.; Cui, Y. Efficient Electrocatalytic CO2 Reduction on a Three-Phase Interface. Nature Catalysis 2018, 1 (8), 592600,  DOI: 10.1038/s41929-018-0108-3
    36. 36
      Weng, L.-C.; Bell, A. T.; Weber, A. Z. Modeling Gas-Diffusion Electrodes for CO2 Reduction. Phys. Chem. Chem. Phys. 2018, 20, 1697316984,  DOI: 10.1039/C8CP01319E
    37. 37
      Cook, R. L.; MacDuff, R. C.; Sammells, A. F. High Rate Gas Phase CO2 Reduction to Ethylene and Methane Using Gas Diffusion Electrodes. J. Electrochem. Soc. 1990, 137 (2), 607608,  DOI: 10.1149/1.2086515
    38. 38
      Hori, Y.; Ito, H.; Okano, K.; Nagasu, K.; Sato, S. Silver-Coated Ion Exchange Membrane Electrode Applied to Electrochemical Reduction of Carbon Dioxide. Electrochim. Acta 2003, 48 (18), 26512657,  DOI: 10.1016/S0013-4686(03)00311-6
    39. 39
      CRC Handbook of Chemistry and Physics; Lide, D. R., Ed.; New York, 2003.
    40. 40
      Ripatti, D. S.; Veltman, T. R.; Kanan, M. W. Carbon Monoxide Gas Diffusion Electrolysis That Produces Concentrated C2 Products with High Single-Pass Conversion. Joule 2019, 3 (1), 240256,  DOI: 10.1016/j.joule.2018.10.007
    41. 41
      Dinh, C. T.; Burdyny, T.; Kibria, M. G.; Seifitokaldani, A.; Gabardo, C. M.; de Arquer, F. P. G.; Kiani, A.; Edwards, J. P.; De Luna, P.; Bushuyev, O. S.; Zou, C.; Quintero-Bermudez, R.; Pang, Y.; Sinton, D.; Sargent, E. H. CO2 Electroreduction to Ethylene via Hydroxide-Mediated Copper Catalysis at an Abrupt Interface. Science 2018, 360 (6390), 783787,  DOI: 10.1126/science.aas9100
    42. 42
      Li, Y. C.; Lee, G.; Yuan, T.; Wang, Y.; Nam, D.-H.; Wang, Z.; Garcia de Arquer, F. P.; Lum, Y.; Dinh, C. T.; Voznyy, O.; Sargent, E. H. Co2 Electroreduction From Carbonate Electrolyte. ACS Energy Lett. 2019, 4 (6), 14271431,  DOI: 10.1021/acsenergylett.9b00975
    43. 43
      Hossain, M. Z.; Rahim, N. A.; Selvaraj, J. A. L. Recent Progress and Development on Power DC-DC Converter Topology, Control, Design and Applications: a Review. Renewable Sustainable Energy Rev. 2018, 81, 205230,  DOI: 10.1016/j.rser.2017.07.017
  • Supporting Information

    Supporting Information

    ARTICLE SECTIONS
    Jump To

    The Supporting Information is available free of charge at https://pubs.acs.org/doi/10.1021/acsenergylett.9b02576.

    • Methods, calculations of solar-to-fuel efficiency, GDE efficiency, turnover frequency, cell potentials, CO2 loss, and supporting figures and tables (PDF)


    Terms & Conditions

    Electronic Supporting Information files are available without a subscription to ACS Web Editions. The American Chemical Society holds a copyright ownership interest in any copyrightable Supporting Information. Files available from the ACS website may be downloaded for personal use only. Users are not otherwise permitted to reproduce, republish, redistribute, or sell any Supporting Information from the ACS website, either in whole or in part, in either machine-readable form or any other form without permission from the American Chemical Society. For permission to reproduce, republish and redistribute this material, requesters must process their own requests via the RightsLink permission system. Information about how to use the RightsLink permission system can be found at http://pubs.acs.org/page/copyright/permissions.html.

Pair your accounts.

Export articles to Mendeley

Get article recommendations from ACS based on references in your Mendeley library.

Pair your accounts.

Export articles to Mendeley

Get article recommendations from ACS based on references in your Mendeley library.

You’ve supercharged your research process with ACS and Mendeley!

STEP 1:
Click to create an ACS ID

Please note: If you switch to a different device, you may be asked to login again with only your ACS ID.

Please note: If you switch to a different device, you may be asked to login again with only your ACS ID.

Please note: If you switch to a different device, you may be asked to login again with only your ACS ID.

OOPS

You have to login with your ACS ID befor you can login with your Mendeley account.

MENDELEY PAIRING EXPIRED
Your Mendeley pairing has expired. Please reconnect

This website uses cookies to improve your user experience. By continuing to use the site, you are accepting our use of cookies. Read the ACS privacy policy.

CONTINUE