CO2 conversion to CO via plasma and electrolysis: a techno-economic and energy cost analysis

Abstract

Electrification and carbon capture technologies are essential for achieving net-zero emissions in the chemical sector. A crucial strategy involves converting captured CO2 into CO, a valuable chemical feedstock. This study evaluates the feasibility of two innovative methods: plasma activation and electrolysis, using clean electricity and captured CO2. Specifically, it compares a gliding arc plasma reactor with an embedded novel carbon bed system to a modern zero-gap type low-temperature electrolyser. The plasma method stood out with an energy cost of 19.5 GJ per tonne CO, marking a 43% reduction compared to electrolysis and conventional methods. CO production costs for plasma- and electrolysis-based plants were $671 and $962 per tonne, respectively. However, due to high uncertainty regarding electrolyser costs, the CO production costs in electrolysis-based plants may actually range from $570 to $1392 per tonne. The carbon bed system in the plasma method was a key factor in facilitating additional CO generation from O-2 and enhancing CO2 conversion, contributing to its cost-effectiveness. Challenges for electrolysis included high costs of equipment and low current densities. Addressing these limitations could significantly decrease production costs, but challenges arise from the mutual relationship between intrinsic parameters, such as CO2 conversion, CO2 input flow, or energy cost. In a future scenario with affordable feedstocks and equipment, costs could drop below $500 per tonne for both methods. While this may be more challenging for electrolysis due to complexity and expensive catalysts, plasma-based CO production appears more viable and competitive.

We acknowledge financial support from the European Research Council (ERC) under the European Union's Horizon 2020 research and innovation programme (grant agreement no. 810182 - SCOPE ERC Synergy project) and the Fund for Scientific Research (FWO) Flanders (Grant ID 110221 N). We also thank Georgi Trenchev and Robbe Bryssinck for the interesting discussions.