Abstract
Solar energy is the most sustainable alternative to fossil fuels. The production of solar thermochemical fuels from water/carbon dioxide not only overcomes the intermittent nature of solar energy, but also allows for flexible transportation and distribution. In this paper, the challenges for solar thermochemical H2/CO production are reviewed. New perspectives and insights to overcome these challenges are presented. For two-step cycles, the main challenges are high temperatures, low conversions and the intensive oxygen removal work. Theoretically feasible temperature and pressure ranges are needed to develop reactant materials. The fundamental mechanism to reduce the temperature and the potential to improve the efficiency by minimizing the oxygen removal work need be revealed. Various material modification strategies and advanced reactors are proposed to improve the efficiency by reducing the temperature and enhancing heat transfer process. But the oxygen removal work required has not been minimized. For multi-step cycles, the main challenges are the separation of corrosive acid and insufficient reaction kinetics. For the separation of acids, many methods have been proposed. But these methods require extra energy and causes undesired side reactions or byproducts. The reaction kinetics have been enhanced by improving catalysts with noble materials or complex fabrication methods. Developing novel multi-step cycles using metal oxides, hydroxides and carbonates may be promising.
Similar content being viewed by others
Explore related subjects
Discover the latest articles, news and stories from top researchers in related subjects.Avoid common mistakes on your manuscript.
1 Introduction
Renewable energy resources are most promising sustainable alternatives to the fossil fuels and are attracting growing attention globally due to increasing climate change [46, 189]. Among different kinds of renewable energy, e.g., solar, wind, water, tidal, geothermal, biomass, solar energy is most abundant and prevalent [24, 115]. The incident solar energy on the surface of the Earth is over 1.3 × 105 TW, which is roughly four orders of magnitude larger than the predicted global energy consumption rate, i.e., ~ 16.9 TW in 2013 [163]. Moreover, solar energy is attractive with the market and the political stabilization. However, the intermittent nature of solar energy limits its capability of providing continuous power supply. In order to overcome the limitation of intermittence, solar energy can be stored in the form of fuel and heat [45, 173]. Solar fuel, as a stable chemical form for both short- and long-term storage, can be transported and distributed flexibly (see Fig. 1) [173]. The application of the solar fuel is also flexible. Solar H2 and CO cannot only be used directly as the fuel of power sources but also as feedstocks for other chemicals including methanol, ammonia and other carbon-based fuels [114, 133, 143].
The process to produce solar fuel can be viewed as a chemical reaction with reactants of either H2O or CO2. Figure 2 shows the reaction process that converts solar energy into solar fuel. Sunlight (photochemical), electricity (photovoltaic), and heat (thermochemical), collected or converted from solar energy, act as the driving force for the reaction [170]. Among the methods, the photovoltaic has been studied extensively and used as an efficiency benchmark for alternative solar-driven fuel production [132]. While the practical photovoltaic efficiency is impressive, the solar thermochemical pathway using concentrating solar power exhibits a higher theoretical efficiency potential [127, 175, 191]. The higher efficiency potential stems from the fact that more portions of solar resource can be converted to heat an endothermic chemical reaction [175]. Recently, photothermocatalysis is also interesting due to the combination effects on the electronic structure of the catalyst and the adsorption state of the reaction species in the catalytic process [119, 203]. However, the operating conditions, i.e., reaction temperature, solar irradiation and wavelengths of different catalytic system, are difficult to be adjusted for a desired performance.
Numerous thermochemical cycles have been investigated to produce H2 or CO, which can be categorized into two-step and multi-step cycles based on the number of steps. The reaction temperature of the two-step cycle is higher than that of the multi-step cycle. With several decades of research and development, the solar thermochemical fuel production technology still has not been commercially viable. There are two limits, i.e., low efficiency and high cost [54]. Although using full solar spectrum is very promising with a high theoretical conversion efficiency (over 20%) [108], while the state-of-the-art efficiency of the practical solar thermochemical cycle is limited ~ 5% [129]. The cost of solar fuel production system is associated with feedstocks, the main components of systems, and the balance of system (BoS) expenses, operating costs, and solar energy conversion efficiency. Currently, the estimated levelized cost of hydrogen of the solar thermochemical cycle varies between 3 and 15 $/kg H2 [153, 177], while commercial steam methane reforming (SMR) and coal gasification (CG) are much more cost-effective with a LCOH of 1.93 − 2.26 $/kg H2 and 2.24 − 2.68 $/kg H2, respectively [148]. In order to breakthrough these limits, a comprehensive review on solar thermochemical fuel (H2/CO) production is necessary. In this review, solar thermochemical cycles, including two-step cycle and multi-step cycle, are reviewed from reactions to reactors, as well as the system. The specific technical challenges in solar thermochemical cycles are revealed and discussed, and thermodynamically favorable ways of improving solar thermochemical systems are discussed.
2 Solar concentrators
Solar concentrators are the prerequisite of the solar thermochemical cycle. Categorized by the type, there are four primary configurations, i.e., Parabolic Trough Collector (PTC), Linear Fresnel Reflector (LFR), Parabolic Dish Systems (PDS) and Solar Power Tower (SPT). Figure 3 shows the schematics and corresponding pictures of the four configurations [198, 204].
Four configurations of the CSP technologies [198]
As shown in Fig. 3, the Parabolic Trough Collector (PTC) has parabolic reflector focusing sunlight to the absorber which is mounted in the focal line of the parabola [89]. The Linear Fresnel Reflector (LFR) has long rows of flat or slightly curved mirrors to reflect the sunlight onto a downward facing linear receiver [206]. The Parabolic Dish Collector (PDC) concentrates the sunlight at a focal point mounted above the center of a parabolic-shaped dish [21]. The PDC including the dish and receiver must track the sun on a two-axis tracking system to maintain light convergence at its focal point [22]. The Solar Power Tower (SPT) has a field of heliostats reflecting and concentrating the sunlight onto a central receiver placed in the top of a fixed tower. Here, heliostats are flat or slightly concave mirrors tracking the sun during the day. Due to the different mechanisms, the four configurations have different operating temperature ranges, concentrations, and costs. Table 1 lists the properties of the four configurations [22].
As listed in the Table 1, SPT and PDC have relatively higher concentration ratios. That is because both SPT and PDC are point-focus systems, which can achieve higher concentration ratios with complex and expensive two-axis solar tracking [198]. On the other hand, PTC and LFR are line-focus systems that have lower concentration ratios with simpler, less expensive one-axis solar tracking [206]. Since the operating temperature is determined by the concentration, SPT and PDC can supply the heat required for high-temperature thermochemical cycles (> 1000 K). In addition, SPT is anticipated to be feasible for large scale high-temperature solar thermochemical cycles, as SPT is able to achieve an even higher operating temperature with a lower cost.
3 Two-step cycle
The two-step thermochemical cycle mostly operates between the oxidized and reduced state of a metal oxide, which is expressed as:
Or
The endothermic reduction reaction proceeds at a much higher temperature than that for exothermic oxidation. Although there are other two-step cycles involving sulphates, e.g., MnO/MnSO4, FeO/FeSO4, and CoO/CoSO4 [4], the sulphates is not popular due to the demand for the gaseous products separation of SO2 and O2. A large number of metal oxides have been proposed for thermochemical cycles. Based on whether the metal oxides remain in the condensed state or not, metal oxides can be categorized as the volatile and the non-volatile [127]. Based on the reduction mechanism, the non-volatile metal oxides can be further classified to be the stoichiometric, and the non-stoichiometric. The stoichiometric metal oxide is reduced to a lower-metal-valence oxide or the respective metal, while the non-stoichiometric metal oxide is reduced partially [131]. The non-stoichiometric metal oxides are non-volatile due to a relatively high structural and crystalline stability at high temperatures [35, 77, 100, 131]. Figure 4 shows the category.
3.1 Volatile metal oxide
Most volatile metal oxide cycles including ZnO/Zn [27, 101, 107],Loutzenhiser, P. G. et al. 2010; [197], SnO2/SnO [1, 5] and GeO2/GeO [96] all operate at temperatures higher than 1700 K. However, the volatile cycle requires a high-temperature separation method, e.g., quench [20, 59, 146, 149, 159], to prevent products recombination, which strongly lowers the conversion and efficiency. The majority of the high-grade thermal energy is lost through the separation method.
The reduction of ZnO at 1 atm cannot proceed spontaneously until the temperature reaches ~ 2300 K (corresponding ∆G° = 0) [101]. Although lower pressures and/or a carrier gas can shift the thermodynamic equilibrium to favor the reaction at lower temperatures, the reduction reaction temperature is still above ~ 1700 °C [27], Loutzenhiser, P. G. et al. 2010). SnO2 has a lower reduction temperature ~ 1600 °C [1, 5, 158]. The conversion rate of SnO2 reduction is high and less dependent on the quenching rate than that of ZnO because of a narrower gap between reaction temperature and SnO condensation temperature [5]. GeO2/GeO cycle [195], also referred as KIER 4, has a potential lower reduction temperature 1400–1800 °C. But the research on GeO2/GeO cycle is not enough to verify its practical feasibility.
For the oxidation, there are some challenges related to the kinetics of the oxidation. The recent researches for volatile metal oxides mainly focus on modifying the morphologies to enhance the reaction kinetics and heat transfer of the oxidation, e.g., nanoparticles and micro-nanofibers. Table 2 lists the specific reactants and morphologies. For Zn oxidation, the exothermic oxidation reaction proceeds at temperatures lower than 1300 K [107]. The oxidation reaction proceeds faster at a high temperature with molten zinc [197]. Nonetheless, the ZnO layer formed during oxidation limited the conversion. Further, it requires extra work for the system to continuously feed Zn and simultaneously remove ZnO layer in the real system. Wegner et al. [196] proposed a process for the oxidation, i.e., encompasses the formation of Zn nanoparticles followed by their in situ hydrolysis for H2 generation. The high specific surface area of the nanoparticle enhances the reaction kinetics and heat/mass transfer, which in turn permits operating at short residence times. The continuous operation mode of the oxidation can be realized by following the procedure of Zn-evaporation, H2O or CO2 quenching, and oxidation-reaction. Although the process improves kinetics with a promising conversion, there is still more unsolved issues when incorporating the oxidation with the reduction step at such a high temperature. Specifically, extra energy is required to heat the Zn to 1023 K for nanoparticle formation since the Zn from the reduction step is expected to be quenched to a low temperature (298 K). The activation energies for SnO oxidation is higher than that for Zn, which indicates a slower re-oxidation rate for SnO [31]. Abanades et al. [30] investigated and compared the conversion and the reaction rate of Zn and SnO nanoparticles hydrolysis in a fixed-bed. Their result shows that the SnO nanoparticle has much higher conversion whereas the Zn particle has a much faster reaction rate.
3.2 Non-volatile metal oxide
In contrast to volatiles, non-volatile cycles inherently avoid undesired oxidization of gaseous products between the steps. Non-volatile cycles, including Fe3O4/FeO [32, 57], CeO2/Ce2O3 [6] and Perovskite (ABO3), are limited by the high vacuum for lower reduction temperature or higher conversion. The recent improvements in non-volatile cycles with respect to the reactant material are reviewed in this section.
The reactions of Fe3O4/FeO pair are:
Although the cycle is volatile at 1 bar [179, 188], it becomes non-volatile at 1700 K under an inert atmosphere, e.g., under nitrogen gas flow. However, it requires another large energy input, e.g., pumping power for the inert sweeping gas. The PROMES group experimentally investigated the performance of the cycle under nitrogen gas flow at 0.1 bar with a solar furnace [32]. They found that the conversion of the reduction can reach 100%, while the oxidation kinetics is limited by the coagulation due to alternating fusion and solidification of FeO within the cycle. As a result, a granulation is needed in the continuous process, even though it is hard to be implemented. The mixed solid solutions of Fe3O4/FeO and M3O4/MO (ferrites) can further reduce the reduction temperature [102]. Lots of ferrites with lower reduction temperatures have been investigated, which are listed in Table 3. Based on the theoretical thermodynamic analysis [15], the stabilities of M-ferrite follows the rank of Fe3O4 > CoFe2O4 ∼ NiFe2O4 > ZnFe2O4. Moreover, Fresno et al. [60, 61] experimentally evaluated the activity of commercially available ferrites with different compositions, NiFe2O4, Ni0.5Zn0.5Fe2O4, ZnFe2O4, Cu0.5Zn0.5Fe2O4 and CuFe2O4. The net hydrogen production and cyclability after the first reduction–oxidation cycle decreases in the order NiFe2O4 > Ni0.5Zn0.5Fe2O4 > ZnFe2O4 > Cu0.5Zn0.5Fe2O4 > CuFe2O4. Among the ferrites in Table 3, Ni0.5Mn0.5Fe2O4 has the lowest reduction temperature, while the cyclability is unfeasible. NiFe2O4/m-ZrO2 has the highest hydrogen production rate [60, 61, 79]. ZnFe2O4 is least desirable because of the high temperature for the reduction.
CeO2/Ce2O3 was originally proposed as a stoichiometric redox pair under the conditions of 1 atm and 2300 K. Utilizing the non-stoichiometric reduction via the oxygen-vacancies mechanism, CeO2−δ can reach a δ value of 0.10 at 1773 K and p O2 of 10−6 atm [37, 147]. The reduced CeO2−δ can be oxidized by H2O or CO2 to produce H2 and CO [29, 144, 145]:
The reduction temperature is lower than the melting temperature of CeO2, which not only alleviates the high temperature requirement but also avoids the impact of the sublimation. Figure 5 shows the non-stoichiometry of CeO2 at different temperatures and partial pressures of oxygen by the thermogravimetric analysis [127]. In Fig. 5, the oxygen non-stoichiometry increases with the decrease of P O2. The high temperature and low non-stoichiometry are main challenges for the CeO2 cycle. Modifying CeO2 by adding MOx (M = Mn, Fe, Ni, Cu) [90], Kaneko, Hiroshi et al. 2007; Kaneko, H. et al. 2007), developing mixed solid solution [164], and morphological modifications [85, 152] have been proposed. The production rate has been increased, while the cyclability has not been verified. Adding transition metal ions including Zr [97] and Sm [36] into ceria is attractive with promising conversions and cyclability.
Perovskite (ABO3) is attractive due to the high structural and crystalline stability at high temperatures [77]. The reactions can be expressed as:
ABO3 is known for a higher reduction extent than other cycles at relatively low temperatures. But it has a poorer oxidation performance [41, 53]. More than 100 perovskites are identified as thermodynamically favorable for the cycle based on the high-throughput density functional theory (HT-DFT) study [49]. Many experimental researches have been performed to investigate different kinds of perovskites, which are summarized and listed in Table 4.
Recently, high entropy oxides (HEOs) have attracted significant interest due to their unique properties and designable structures. HEOs are referred to as a new group of crystalline solid solution materials formed from five or more ceramic elements with an equimolar ratio [13]. The thermochemical performance of the metal oxides can be improved by the dual actions of oxygen vacancies [13, 122]. The first action of oxygen vacancy is for adsorption and dissociation of H2O/CO2 molecules. The second action is to anchor the doped ions by creating extra accommodation sites and strong adsorption [192]. In order to overcome the problem of the reduction/oxidation reactions time imbalance, Gao et al. [64] used short-term microwave irradiation to increase the oxygen vacancy of the (FeMgCoNi)O1.2@SiC. The maximum hydrogen yield of 122 mL/ g at 700 W can be obtained. Later, they enlarged the Metal–Oxygen bond length of the spinel phase of FeMgCoNiOx and produced more oxygen vacancies by introducing Zr4+ [65]. A H2 yield of 4.84 mmol/g can be obtained with FeMgCoNiOx/Zr0.6. But the cyclability of most HEOs are still not verified.
3.3 Reactors
The solar reactor (receiver), proceeds the reaction driven by solar energy, is very important. In this review, solar reactors are classified to be stationary-bed, moving-bed and fluidized-bed reactors based on the method to load the reactant. Figure 6 shows the schematics of these reactors.
3.3.1 Stationary-bed reactors
The stationary-bed reactor simply packs reactants for the reactor bed. In contrast to the other two kinds of reactors, the stationary-bed reactor does not need energy for the movement. But its heat and mass transfer processes are generally insufficient. Moreover, heat recuperation of the high-temperature reduction cannot be applied easily. In this section, some typical stationary-bed reactors including ceramic honeycomb reactor [8, 161], porous monolithic reactor [35] and indirectly irradiated reactor [118, 128] are reviewed.
Ceramic honeycomb reactors have been developed by loading solid reactant powders on the multi-channeled ceramic honeycomb. Agrafiotis and Roeb et al. [66, 161] developed a volumetric solar reactor equipped with a multi-channeled ceramic honeycomb receiver coated with an active ferrite powder. Figure 7 shows a ceramic honeycomb reactor, which is subjected directly to concentrated solar irradiation. The reactor allows the quasi-continuous removal of the evolved oxygen and hydrogen gases by alternate between steam flow and inert gas flow. However, it is difficult to adjust the appropriate alternating time with different scales and solar radiation. Later, the DLR group [159] developed another honeycomb reactor consisting of two separate chambers, which realized the quasi-continuous operating and continuous supply of hydrogen. Further, the reactor is scaled up to 100 kW and installed at the SSPS solar power plant in Spain for quasi-continuous hydrogen production [28]. Table 5 lists the research progress in improving the honeycomb reactor. For the honeycomb reactor, the degradation of the redox material coated on a support structure is a challenge that has not been overcome.
Schematics of the honeycomb receiver [8]
The porous reactor can solve the problems of undesired products from the metal oxides and ceramic [165], which packs the reactants as a fixed bed. Figure 8 shows a porous monolithic reactor, which consists of a thermally insulated cavity receiver containing a porous monolithic ceria cylinder [35]. The porous monolithic reactor can be further improved with a reticulated porous ceramic (RPC) foams made of pure solid reactants, e.g., CeO2 [63]. Compared with the porous monolithic reactor, the RPC foam reactor can be more advanced with volumetric radiative absorption and enhanced reaction rates by optimizing the pore size and mass loading [14, 19, 63].
Solar porous monolithic reactor [35]
In contrast to the directly irradiated reactors, indirectly irradiated reactors eliminate a transparent window by enclosing reactants in opaque absorbing tubes or a separate cavity (in Fig. 9 [11]). Inside the cavity, rays bounce around multiple times for a high optical efficiency (a low solar reflection), e.g., rays would not bounce out of the cavity with an ideal design [172]. But a large temperature difference can occur within the indirectly irradiated reactors, affecting reaction rates and limiting the utilization of reactive particles [17, 76].
Packed-bed solar reactor [11]
3.3.2 Moving-bed reactors
Moving-bed reactors are rotational, in which the rotation can be applied to the whole packed bed (Figs. 10 and 11) [80],Kaneko, Hiroshi et al. 2007; [171] and reactive particles (Fig. 12) [50, 51, 176]. A continuous evolution of the fuel can be achieved by rotating between the reduction and oxidation. In addition, the reactor enables solid–solid heat recovery in an effective opposing arrangement [44, 110, 111]. However, the mass of the reactant mounted on the support is limited and only the reactant coated on a limited surface area can react effectively. It is hard to adjust the kinetics of both reduction and hydrolysis with rotation. The reactant mass, solar radiation and rotation speed have to be adjusted for different scales and locations [34]. Minimizing the power required for the rotation is another challenge that need to be overcome.
A rotary-type solar reactor using CeO2–MOx for solar hydrogen production [93]
A 4.4 kW solar reactor capable of continuous CO production and gas-phase heat recuperation [80]
Moving packed particle bed reactor [51]
3.3.3 Fluidized-bed Reactors
Fluidized-bed reactors, also known as aerosol reactors, are realized by flowing a carrier gas through the reactor to create the internal circulation. In the reactor, reaction particles did not sinter or coagulate throughout successive reactions. Fluidized-bed reactors commonly have better heat and mass transfer process and smaller risk of severe thermal shocks [141, 150]. However, large inert gas usage consumes lots of pumping power, which lowers the overall efficiency. In this study, fluidized reactors are classified as the upward-fed reactor, gravity-fed reactor, and rotational aerosol reactor.
The upward-fed reactor absorbs solar radiation through the top of the bed (In Fig. 13) [69, 72, 73]. The inert gas and the oxidation reactant gas including H2O [169] and CO2 [123] are fed consecutively. The recent researches on the upward-fed single bed reactor focus on enhancing the conversion by optimizing the reactant particle size and gas flow rate [199]. Using the dual-reactor configuration in Fig. 14 [83], the heat of the inert gas can be recuperated at some extent. Still, the overall energy efficiency is low even with the heat recuperation. Minimizing the pumping power is a big challenge.
Solar thermochemical reactor with fluidized beds [69]
Solar cavity receiver consisting of dual fluidized bed reactors [83]
The gravity-fed reactor can significantly decrease the pumping power by using gravity. In a gravity-fed solar-thermochemical reactor (GRAFSTR) [106] shown in Fig. 15, gravity-driven reactive flows on a sloped surface by feeding reactants continuously from the top with an aerosolized vortex flow. However, agglomerated particles may block the outlet and affect the conversion. To resolve the issue, proper operation methods are needed to prevent outlet blockages. Nevertheless, the economic viability and practical applicability of the reactor have not been validated.
Gravity-fed solar-thermochemical reactor (GRAFSTR) [106]
Rotational aerosol reactors require the high-temperature resistant rotational assembly. Figure 16 shows a typical rotational aerosol reactor, which uses a crew feeder for the rotation [3]. The reactant powder can be fed continuously in the reactor, while the reduced gaseous products are swept out of the reactor. The reactor with a rotating chamber receiver and an open window is more promising as it has been scaled up from 10 kW [81] to 100 kW [107]. The reactor in Fig. 17 has a dynamic feeder that extends and contracts within the cavity, enabling even spreading of solid reactants along the entire cavity wall. The efficiency of the reactor is unfeasible due to the energy consumption from the rotational assembly and the carrier gas.
Aerosol reactor with rotation [3]
Aerosol reactor with rotating assembly [81]
4 Multi-step cycle
The maximum operating temperature of thermochemical cycles decreases with reaction steps increasing. The multi-step cycle has lower operating temperatures at the expenses of more complex reactions and separation processes. The majority of multi-step cycles involve acids, which require the system to be high temperature corrosion resistant [162, 183]. Electro-chemical methods are also used in some multi-step cycles to simplify process and enhance conversion. There are different kinds of multi-step cycles with the operating temperature below 1100 K, among which the sulphur-iodine (S-I) cycle, the Westinghouse cycle and the copper-chlorine (Cu-Cl) cycle are relatively mature. The comparisons of theses multi-step thermochemical cycles are listed in Table 6.
4.1 Sulphur-Iodine cycle
The S-I cycle [47, 202] consists of three reactions:
Sulfuric acid decomposition:
Bunsen reaction:
Hydroiodic acid decomposition:
4.1.1 Sulfuric acid decomposition
The endothermic sulfuric acid decomposition proceeds at a temperature over 1050 K. There are three sub-steps for the sulfuric acid decomposition:
-
1)
H2SO4 solution is vaporized to concentrated sulfuric acid;
-
2)
Concentrated sulfuric acid decomposes into SO3 and H2O;
-
3)
The unstable SO3 decomposes into SO2 and O2.
For the sulfuric acid decomposition process, the challenges are the poor catalyst activity, inefficient reactor, and insufficient product separation. The poor catalyst activity affects the production rate of SO3 decomposition. Many studies try to improve the catalyst, including Pt-based catalysts [68, 142], complex metal oxides [180] and transition metal oxides [99, 205]. Compared to the other two kinds, complex metal oxides have better activities [180]. However, the techno-economic feasibility of using complex metal oxides in large scale systems has not been verified considering the complexity and expenses in manufacturing. Besides catalysts, the reactor is also critical for SO3 decomposition. The reactor using moving catalyst particles as the solar energy absorption media has been developed (Fig. 18) [9] to improve the heat transfer process. The extra heat, after the reaction, can be used to evaporate sulfuric acid into SO3 and steam. Such catalytic systems exhibited excellent high temperature mechanical properties [74]. Nonetheless, moving catalyst particles require extra work.
Centrifugal particle receiver using particles with catalytic function [9]
The separation of of SO2 and O2 is another challenge. For the separation, yttria-stabilized zirconia (YSZ) membrane has been proposed, which increases the decomposition yield from 62.3% to 90.1% [18]. But the energy required to make the partial pressure difference between the membrane has not been investigated. Ionic liquids as absorbents for SO2, e.g., 1-Butyl-3-methylimidazolium chloride ([BMIm][Cl]) and 1-Butyl-3-methylimidazolium acetate ([BMIm][OAc]), have also been proposed [112]. Hydroxyl ammonium ionic liquids [154] and Caprolactam tetrabutyl ammonium bromide ([CPL][TBAB]) [121] exhibited better potential for the separation process. Nonetheless, the entire system become more complex and energy consuming.
4.1.2 Bunsen reaction
The Bunsen reaction is an exothermic reaction that conventionally operates at 400 K. Excessive H2O is added practically to make the reaction thermodynamically feasible. It is difficult to separate HI and H2SO4 mixed solution since the distillation causes reverse Bunsen reaction. HI concentration of HI-H2O solution is close to HI and H2O azeotrope, which requires excess heat to vaporize H2O from HI. Commonly, extra I2 is added to make a spontaneous separation of the reaction products by gravity [67]:
The mixture of HI/I2/H2O solution and H2SO4/H2O solution can be separated by a liquid–liquid phase separator. The pure concentrated HI vapor can be obtained through distilling HI/I2/H2O solution and H2SO4/H2O solution is concentrated for the next cycle. This method introduces several new problems:
-
1)
The assistant distillation and purification for pure HI vapor and concentrated H2SO4 significantly reduce the efficiency and increase the cost.
-
2)
Purification of HI from HIx solution needs a great amount of energy to overcome HI-H2O azeotrope.
-
3)
Some undesired side reactions may occur:
In order to overcome the above challenges, PbSO4 has been added in the mixture of H2SO4 and HI solution to trigger the nature phase separation [167]. The corresponding chemical reaction steps are given as follows:
H2SO4 (aq) and PbI2 (s) can be separated easily. Similarly, high concentrations of HI(g) can be obtained by allowing HPO4 to react with PbI2. The intermediates of PbSO4 and PbI2 are recycled. Energy consumption for distilling H2SO4 solution and purifying HI is reduced.
4.1.3 Hydroiodic acid decomposition
The endothermic hydroiodic acid decomposition can be ideally driven by the heat recuperated from sulfuric acid decomposition. As the mixture (HIx) of HI, I2 and H2O are due to the excessive H2O and I2 in the Bunsen reaction, the actual hydroiodic acid decomposition step becomes:
Hydroiodic acid decomposition reaction requires catalysts. There are much research progress made in the catalyst to improve the reaction kinetics, including Pt based catalyst [78, 109, 194], active carbon [117, 151] and metal oxides supported by Pt and Ni [33]. It was reported that Pt-25%Ir/ C is a promising candidate for high activity and stability [78].
4.2 Westinghouse cycle
The Westinghouse cycle [25], namely the hybrid sulfur cycle [116, 190], avoids the Bunsen reaction and hydroiodic acid decomposition by introducing an electrochemical reaction. The process become much simpler. However, it brings many challenges for the electrolysis. The cycle consists of the following reactions:
Sulfuric acid decomposition:
Aqueous sulfur dioxide electrolysis:
High temperatures contribute to enhancing reaction kinetics and decreasing the concentration of SO2 [125], while high pressures increase the sulfur dioxide solubility [126]. The electrolysis step can be driven by solar PV power (see Fig. 19) [82] or solar thermal power cycle (see Fig. 20) [74]. For the electrolysis, the practical electrical power, due to the high cell potential, can be larger than that of the water electrolysis [75, 87, 178], which makes the cycle less efficient than the direct water electrolysis. The cell potential increases due to the complex and irreversible mechanisms for SO2 oxidation and the increased membrane resistance in the presence of concentrated sulfuric acid [88, 156]. Consequently, developing more active catalysts and more conductive membranes are meaningful. For the catalyst, the catalyzed carbon is considered as the best support [16]. Platinum (Pt) and Palladium (Pd) are found to have the high activity. Compared with the Pd/C, Pt/C had better catalytic activity [38]. In addition, gold is more active than Pt [155].
Schematic of solar HyS cycle [82]
Solar plant with thermal energy storage coupled to a HyS cycle [74]
4.3 Copper chlorine cycle
Copper chlorine cycle does not only operate at a much lower temperature (maximum 530 °C [56]) but demands a low voltage for the electrochemical step [12, 66, 136, 158, 174, 195]. Based on the theoretical analysis [168], the solar copper chlorine cycle with the heat recover achieved the thermal efficiency of 49.84% and the exergy efficiency of 58.23%. In addition, the manufacturing materials are not required to be high-temperature corrosion-resistant [140]. There are four steps within the cycle [113, 139, 157, 200].
Hydrogen production step:
Evaporation step:
Endothermic hydrolysis step:
Oxygen production/ Thermolysis step:
The main challenges for the copper chlorine cycle are the membrane of the electrolyzer [136, 139], the evaporation rate [136], and the side reaction [138]. For the membrane, the crossover of copper ion cannot be prevented by Nafion [181]. The physically modified Nafion, polymer matrix with inter-winding Nafion chains, the polysulfone membranes based on Radel NT5500, and the porous polyethylene membrane have been proved to be with higher copper diffusion and lower permeability [137, 140]. For the evaporation, spray drying and crystallization are two commonly-used methods for the evaporation. Spray drying is with a high evaporative drying rate [135] while the crystallization can be scaled up easily [140]. For undesired side reactions, i.e., CuCl2(s) dissociates into CuCl(s) and Cl2 (g), excess steam is used to enhance conversion of CuCl2 (s) [58]. But the excessive reactants require extra energy, which significantly decreases the efficiency [55].
5 Challenges of solar thermochemical cycles
As discussed above, there have been many research achievements for solar fuel production with thermochemical cycles. There are several challenges need to be addressed.
For reactants of two-step cycles, the material modification is attractive to improve the redox performance e.g., lower reduction temperature and higher conversion. With the development of the computational implements on the first-principle theory and high-throughput density functional theory, more material screening processes are provided. However, there are not much convincing guidance for modification strategies. Although the research on experimentally testing and improving the existing perovskites is ongoing, it takes much more efforts and time than the theoretical method to reach a conclusion. For the volatile metal oxides, there have been theoretical feasible reduction temperature boundaries [7, 62]. But the theoretical feasible temperature boundary of the attractive non-volatile metal oxides is rarely defined. For non-volatile metal oxides, the low oxygen partial pressure maintained by inert gas sweeping and vacuum pumping can effectively decrease the reduction temperature. But the extra pumping power and sweeping gas preheating are significant, which largely impacts the overall efficiency. Therefore, the fundamental mechanism to reduce the temperature and the potential to improve the efficiency by minimizing the oxygen removal work have not been revealed clearly.
For the reactor of two-step cycles, the stationary bed, moving bed, and fluidized bed all have pros and cons. The stationary bed did not require parts and energy for the movement. However, heat recuperation and the heat/mass transfer process are insufficient. Although porous foam has been used to enhance the heat/mass transfer, the scaling up capacity and techno-economic feasibility have not been verified. For the moving bed, the heat recovery can be employed. However, the reactant mass, solar radiation and movements need be adjusted for different scales. Moreover, the power required for the rotation impacts the efficiency. For the fluidized bed (aerosol), the heat and mass transfer processes are enhanced. The 100-kW aerosol reactor has been developed and demonstrated. But the preheating and pumping power required for the inert carrier gas lowers the efficiency. Considering the scale-up capability, the stationary bed and fluidized bed are promising. The stationary bed need improve the heat/mass transfer processes and heat recuperation. The fluidized bed need minimize the extra energy consumption for the inert carrier gas.
For multi-step cycles, the separation of liquid acids is technically difficult. Introducing intermediate reactants and adding reactants have been proposed. But these methods may cause extra energy losses and undesired side reactions. In addition, reactions kinetics need be improved. Many advanced catalysts have been proposed. Their techno-economical feasibilities have rarely been validated. Using electro-chemical reactions can simplify the process and avoid the complicated acid separation. However, the electro-chemical reactions may require noble material for the membrane and catalyst. In addition, there is a gap between the theoretical and practical cell efficiency, which needs to be further minimized for a high overall efficiency of the cycle. The comparison of major challenges for different cycles are summarized and listed in Table 7.
6 Outlook
Thermochemical cycles offer valuable options for fuel production with solar energy. The challenges of both two-step and multi-step cycles have been discussed in sections above. Here, new perspectives concerning from reactions to reactors and accessary separation processes are provided, in order to address the challenges and improve the efficiency.
For reactant candidates of two-step cycles, theoretical method is necessary to further select the existing metal oxides and develop novel metal oxides. Assuming that the reduction and oxidation are at equilibrium (ΔG red = ΔG ox = 0), the relations of reaction temperatures, reaction enthalpy and reaction entropy can be quantified for existed metal oxides. As a result, theoretical temperature limit (the lowest reduction temperature) can be evaluated. Thermodynamically favorable temperature and pressure ranges can be obtained. With the DFT calculations, the relationships between the thermodynamic parameters (enthalpy and entropy) and the microscopic electronic structure of metal oxides can be analyzed. The relationships can provide guidance to develop novel metal oxides. Considering the practical reaction conditions, i.e., reactions are not in chemical equilibrium, the fundamental mechanism to reduce the temperature and the potential to improve the efficiency by minimizing the oxygen removal work need be revealed. As the pump efficiency is low in practice, the corresponding exergy loss should never be ignored, which strongly affect the efficiency. Although the sensible heat of the sweeping gas between the reduction and oxidation steps can be theoretically recovered, the exergy loss of the pump cannot be recovered. Developing novel efficient methods to keep a high vacuum is very attractive. Even though other methods including electron-conducting (MIEC) membranes [52] and thermochemical oxygen pump [26, 120] have been proposed, significant energy requirement is not avoided. Further, the temperature, conversion and vacuum should be simultaneously optimized, e.g., the lowest temperature or highest conversion may not be optimal. The cycles with both moderate temperature and oxygen removal work may have the potential to reach a high efficiency.
For two-step cycle reactors, the gap between the experimental and theoretical efficiency is large, which is mainly caused by the insufficient heat recovery and heat/mass transfer processes. For the heat recovery, the theoretically feasible heat recuperation methods, e.g., solid–solid heat recuperation for solid reactants and gas–gas heat recuperation for sweeping gas, can hardly be achieved in practice. The heat recuperation become more difficult in the case of scaling up reactors. Absorbing solar energy with a heat transfer fluid and releasing heat for the reduction away from the solar receiver has the potential to improve the heat recovery. In order to enhance the heat/mass transfer, porous foam stationary bed has been used, which in turn increases the pressure drop of the sweeping gas. As a result, the pumping power required become larger, which lowers the efficiency. To improve heat transfer and reduce pressure drop in the stationary-bed reactor, microchannel reactors can be tried. The reactants can be packed as structured micro channel and the pressure drop can be kept relatively low.
In terms of multi-step cycles, the separation of acids is difficult. Adding extra reactants for the separation and reaction spontaneity cause extra energy loss. The issue of energy loss has not been systematically analyzed or addressed. Introducing electrochemical reaction to multi-step cycles helps simplify reactions. But it sacrifices high grade electricity. The low practical efficiency of the electrical cell limits the overall efficiency of the system. Designing novel multi-step cycles is welcome. Ideal cycles, with both advantages of low-temperature and simpler reactions, are anticipated. The use of automatic separation of products and introducing non-corrosive solid–gas reactions are feasible to avoid halide mixtures and the corresponding separations. Developing multi-step reactions by replacing the stoichiometric reduction of metal oxides seems to be feasible. Hydroxides and carbonates can be involved in such solid–gas reactions, e.g., replacing water with a better oxidizing compound, such as potassium hydroxide, to enhance the oxidation of the reduced metal oxide.
7 Conclusions
In this work, the advances of both two-step and multi-step thermochemical cycles for solar fuels production have been reviewed comprehensively. The challenges and perspectives concerning fundamental thermodynamics of reactants, mechanisms of reactors and performance of accessary separation processes are discussed and provided.
For two-step cycle reactants, non-volatile metal oxides including cerium-based oxides and the perovskite-based oxides are more promising. High temperature and low conversion at ambient pressure challenge the applications of non-volatile metal oxides. Theoretically feasible temperature and pressure ranges are needed to develop reactant materials. Various material modification strategies including doping and mixed solid solutions have been proved to be effective for reducing reaction temperature or increasing conversion. But the extra pumping power and sweeping gas preheating are significant, which significantly impacts the overall efficiency. The fundamental mechanism to reduce the temperature and the potential to improve the efficiency by minimizing the oxygen removal work need be revealed. The temperature, conversion and vacuum should be simultaneously optimized based on the overall efficiency.
With respect to two-step cycle reactors, the stationary bed, moving bed and fluidized bed are reviewed. The stationary bed did not require energy for the movement. But the heat recuperation and heat/mass transfer are insufficient. For moving bed reactors, the heat recovery can be realized. But the power required for the movement impacts the efficiency. For fluidized bed reactors, the heat and mass transfer processes are enhanced. But the preheating and pumping power required for the inert carrier gas lowers the efficiency. To address the issues mentioned, reactors with secondary heat transfer fluid and microchannel reactors can be tried.
In terms of the multi-step cycle, the operating temperature in multi-step cycles is much lower than two-step cycles. Currently, the main challenges for multi-step cycles are the separation of corrosive acid and insufficient reaction kinetics. For the separation of acids, many methods have been proposed, including electrochemical reactions. These methods require extra energy and causes undesired side reactions or byproducts. The reaction kinetics have been enhanced by improving catalysts with noble materials, e.g., Pt, or complex fabrication methods. But more research is needed to verify the techno-economic feasibility for a large-scale system. In addition, developing novel multi-step cycles may be promising. The stoichiometric reduction of metal oxides can be used for reduction, while hydroxides and carbonates can be involved in the oxidation.
Availability of data and materials
All data generated or analysed during this study are included in this published article.
Abbreviations
- [BMIm][Cl]:
-
1-Butyl-3-methylimidazolium chloride
- [BMIm][OAc]:
-
1-Butyl-3-methylimidazolium acetate
- [CPL][TBAB]:
-
Caprolactam tetrabutyl ammonium bromide
- MIEC:
-
Electron-conducting
- GRAFSTR:
-
Gravity-fed solar-thermochemical reactor
- HT-DFT:
-
High-throughput density functional theory
- RPC:
-
Reticulated porous ceramic
- YSZ:
-
Yttria-stabilized zirconia
References
Abanades S (2012) CO2 and H2O reduction by solar thermochemical looping using SnO2/SnO redox reactions: Thermogravimetric analysis. Int J Hydrogen Energy 37(10):8223–8231. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijhydene.2012.02.158
Abanades S, Chambon M (2010) CO2 Dissociation and Upgrading from Two-Step Solar Thermochemical Processes Based on ZnO/Zn and SnO2/SnO Redox Pairs. Energ Fuel 24(12):6667–6674. https://doi.org/10.1021/ef101092u
Abanades S, Charvin P, Flamant G (2007) Design and simulation of a solar chemical reactor for the thermal reduction of metal oxides: Case study of zinc oxide dissociation. Chem Eng Sci 62(22):6323–6333. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ces.2007.07.042
Abanades S, Charvin P, Flamant G, Neveu P (2006) Screening of water-splitting thermochemical cycles potentially attractive for hydrogen production by concentrated solar energy. Energy 31(14):2805–2822. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.energy.2005.11.002
Abanades S, Charvin P, Lemont F, Flamant G (2008) Novel two-step SnO2/SnO water-splitting cycle for solar thermochemical production of hydrogen. Int J Hydrogen Energy 33(21):6021–6030. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijhydene.2008.05.042
Abanades S, Flamant G (2006) Thermochemical hydrogen production from a two-step solar-driven water-splitting cycle based on cerium oxides. Sol Energy 80(12):1611–1623. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.solener.2005.12.005
Abraham BM, Schreiner F (1974) General Principles Underlying Chemical Cycles Which Thermally Decompose Water into the Elements. Ind Eng Chem Fundam 13(4):305–310. https://doi.org/10.1021/i160052a002
Agrafiotis C, Roeb M, Konstandopoulos AG, Nalbandian L, Zaspalis VT, Sattler C, Stobbe P, Steele AM (2005) Solar water splitting for hydrogen production with monolithic reactors. Sol Energy 79(4):409–421. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.solener.2005.02.026
Agrafiotis C, Thomey D, de Oliveira L, Happich C, Roeb M, Sattler C, Tsongidis NI, Sakellariou KG, Pagkoura C, Karagiannakis G, Konstandopoulos AG, Pomykalska D, Zagaja M, Janus D (2019) Oxide particles as combined heat storage medium and sulphur trioxide decomposition catalysts for solar hydrogen production through sulphur cycles. Int J Hydrogen Energy 44(20):9830–9840. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijhydene.2018.11.056
Agrafiotis CC, Pagkoura C, Zygogianni A, Karagiannakis G, Kostoglou M, Konstandopoulos AG (2012) Hydrogen production via solar-aided water splitting thermochemical cycles: Combustion synthesis and preliminary evaluation of spinel redox-pair materials. Int J Hydrogen Energ 37(11):8964–8980
Al-Shankiti I, Ehrhart BD, Weimer AW (2017) Isothermal redox for H2O and CO2 splitting – A review and perspective. Sol Energy 156:21–29. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.solener.2017.05.028
Al-Zareer M, Dincer I, Rosen MA (2020) Analysis and assessment of the integrated generation IV gas-cooled fast nuclear reactor and copper-chlorine cycle for hydrogen and electricity production. Energy Convers Manage 205:112387
Albedwawi SH, AlJaberi A, Haidemenopoulos GN, Polychronopoulou K (2021) High entropy oxides-exploring a paradigm of promising catalysts: A review. Mater. Des. 202, 109534. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.matdes.2021.109534.
Albrecht KJ, Jackson GS, Braun RJ (2016) Thermodynamically consistent modeling of redox-stable perovskite oxides for thermochemical energy conversion and storage. Appl Energy 165:285–296. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.apenergy.2015.11.098
Allendorf MD, Diver RB, Siegel NP, Miller JE (2008) Two-Step Water Splitting Using Mixed-Metal Ferrites: Thermodynamic Analysis and Characterization of Synthesized Materials. Energ Fuel 22(6):4115–4124. https://doi.org/10.1021/ef8005004
Appleby AJ, Pinchon B (1980) Electrochemical aspects of the H2SO4 SO2 thermoelectrochemical cycle for hydrogen production. Int J Hydrogen Energy 5(3):253–267. https://doi.org/10.1016/0360-3199(80)90070-1
Arifin D, Aston VJ, Liang X, McDaniel AH, Weimer AW (2012) CoFe2O4 on a porous Al2O3 nanostructure for solar thermochemical CO2 splitting. Energy Environ Sci 5(11):9438–9443. https://doi.org/10.1039/c2ee22090c
Atkin I, Elder RH, Priestman GH, Sinclair DC, Allen RWK (2011) High temperature oxygen separation for the sulphur family of thermochemical cycles - part I: Membrane selection and flux testing. Int J Hydrogen Energy 36(17):10614–10625. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijhydene.2011.05.113
Babiniec SM, Coker EN, Miller JE, Ambrosini A (2015) Investigation of LaxSr1−xCoyM1−yO3−δ (M=Mn, Fe) perovskite materials as thermochemical energy storage media. Sol Energy 118:451–459. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.solener.2015.05.040
Bader R, Venstrom LJ, Davidson JH, Lipiński W (2013) Thermodynamic Analysis of Isothermal Redox Cycling of Ceria for Solar Fuel Production. Energ Fuel 27(9):5533–5544. https://doi.org/10.1021/ef400132d
Baharoon DA, Rahman HA, Omar WZW, Fadhl SO (2015) Historical development of concentrating solar power technologies to generate clean electricity efficiently – A review. Renew Sustain Energy Rev 41:996–1027. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.rser.2014.09.008
Barlev D, Vidu R, Stroeve P (2011) Innovation in concentrated solar power. Sol Energ Mat Sol C 95(10):2703–2725. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.solmat.2011.05.020
Bhaduri B, Verma N (2014) A zinc nanoparticles-dispersed multi-scale web of carbon micro-nanofibers for hydrogen production step of ZnO/Zn water splitting thermochemical cycle. Chem Eng Res Des 92(6):1079–1090. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cherd.2013.08.025
Blankenship RE, Tiede DM, Barber J, Brudvig GW, Fleming G, Ghirardi M, Gunner MR, Junge W, Kramer DM, Melis A, Moore TA, Moser CC, Nocera DG, Nozik AJ, Ort DR, Parson WW, Prince RC, Sayre RT (2011) Comparing Photosynthetic and Photovoltaic Efficiencies and Recognizing the Potential for Improvement. Science 332(6031):805. https://doi.org/10.1126/science.1200165
Brecher LE, Wu CK (1975) Electrolytic decomposition of water. Google Patents.
Brendelberger S, von Storch H, Bulfin B, Sattler C (2017) Vacuum pumping options for application in solar thermochemical redox cycles – Assessment of mechanical-, jet- and thermochemical pumping systems. Sol Energy 141:91–102. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.solener.2016.11.023
Brogren M, Helgesson A, Karlsson B, Nilsson J, Roos A (2004) Optical properties, durability, and system aspects of a new aluminium-polymer-laminated steel reflector for solar concentrators. Sol Energ Mat Sol C 82(3):387–412. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.solmat.2004.01.029
Carrillo AJ, Sastre D, Serrano DP, Pizarro P, Coronado JM (2016) Revisiting the BaO2/BaO redox cycle for solar thermochemical energy storage. Phys Chem Chem Phys 18(11):8039–8048. https://doi.org/10.1039/C5CP07777J
Chacartegui R, Alovisio A, Ortiz C, Valverde JM, Verda V, Becerra JA (2016) Thermochemical energy storage of concentrated solar power by integration of the calcium looping process and a CO2 power cycle. Appl Energy 173:589–605. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.apenergy.2016.04.053
Chambon M, Abanades S, Flamant G (2009) Kinetic investigation of hydrogen generation from hydrolysis of SnO and Zn solar nanopowders. Int J Hydrogen Energy 34(13):5326–5336. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijhydene.2009.04.064
Chambon M, Abanades S, Flamant G (2010) Solar thermal reduction of ZnO and SnO2: Characterization of the recombination reaction with O2. Chem Eng Sci 65(11):3671–3680. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ces.2010.03.005
Charvin P, Abanades S, Flamant G, Lemort F (2007) Two-step water splitting thermochemical cycle based on iron oxide redox pair for solar hydrogen production. Energy 32(7):1124–1133. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.energy.2006.07.023
Chaubey R, Sahu S, James OO, Maity S (2013) A review on development of industrial processes and emerging techniques for production of hydrogen from renewable and sustainable sources. Renewable Sustainable Energy Rev 23:443–462. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.rser.2013.02.019
Cheng W-H, de la Calle A, Atwater HA, Stechel EB, Xiang C (2021) Hydrogen from Sunlight and Water: A Side-by-Side Comparison between Photoelectrochemical and Solar Thermochemical Water-Splitting. ACS Energy Lett 6(9):3096–3113. https://doi.org/10.1021/acsenergylett.1c00758
Chueh WC, Falter C, Abbott M, Scipio D, Furler P, Haile SM, Steinfeld A (2010) High-Flux Solar-Driven Thermochemical Dissociation of CO<sub>2</sub> and H<sub>2</sub>O Using Nonstoichiometric Ceria. Science 330(6012):1797. https://doi.org/10.1126/science.1197834
Chueh WC, Haile SM (2009) Ceria as a Thermochemical Reaction Medium for Selectively Generating Syngas or Methane from H2O and CO2. Chemsuschem 2(8):735–739. https://doi.org/10.1002/cssc.200900138
Chueh WC, Haile SM (2010) A thermochemical study of ceria: exploiting an old material for new modes of energy conversion and CO2 mitigation. Philos Trans A Math Phys Eng Sci 368(1923):3269–3294. https://doi.org/10.1098/rsta.2010.0114
Colón-Mercado HR, Hobbs DT (2007) Catalyst evaluation for a sulfur dioxide-depolarized electrolyzer. Electrochem Commun 9(11):2649–2653
Deml AM, Stevanović V, Holder AM, Sanders M, O’Hayre R, Musgrave CB (2014) Tunable Oxygen Vacancy Formation Energetics in the Complex Perovskite Oxide SrxLa1–xMnyAl1–yO3. Chem Mater 26(22):6595–6602. https://doi.org/10.1021/cm5033755
Demont A, Abanades S (2014) High redox activity of Sr-substituted lanthanum manganite perovskites for two-step thermochemical dissociation of CO2. RSC Adv 4(97):54885–54891. https://doi.org/10.1039/C4RA10578H
Demont A, Abanades S, Beche E (2014) Investigation of Perovskite Structures as Oxygen-Exchange Redox Materials for Hydrogen Production from Thermochemical Two-Step Water-Splitting Cycles. J Phys Chem C 118(24):12682–12692. https://doi.org/10.1021/jp5034849
Dey S, Naidu BS, Govindaraj A, Rao CNR (2015) Noteworthy performance of La1−xCaxMnO3 perovskites in generating H2 and CO by the thermochemical splitting of H2O and CO2. Phys Chem Chem Phys 17(1):122–125. https://doi.org/10.1039/c4cp04578e
Dimitrakis DA, Tsongidis NI, Konstandopoulos AG (2016) Reduction enthalpy and charge distribution of substituted ferrites and doped ceria for thermochemical water and carbon dioxide splitting with DFT+U. Phys Chem Chem Phys 18(34):23587–23595. https://doi.org/10.1039/c6cp05073e
Diver RB, Miller JE, Allendorf MD, Siegel NP, Hogan RE (2008) Solar Thermochemical Water-Splitting Ferrite-Cycle Heat Engines. J Solar Energy Eng 130(4). https://doi.org/10.1115/1.2969781.
Dotan H, Landman A, Sheehan SW, Malviya KD, Shter GE, Gravel DA, Arzi Z, Yehudai N, Halabi M, Gal N, Hadari N, Cohen C, Rothschild A, Grader GS (2019) Decoupled hydrogen and oxygen evolution by a two-step electrochemical-chemical cycle for efficient overall water splitting. Nat Energy 4(9):786–795. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41560-019-0462-7
Dresselhaus MS, Thomas IL (2001) Alternative energy technologies. Nature 414(6861):332–337. https://doi.org/10.1038/35104599
Duigou AL, Borgard J-M, Larousse B, Doizi D, Allen R, Ewan BC, H. Priestman G, Elder R, Devonshire R, Ramos V, Cerri G, Salvini C, Giovannelli A, De Maria G, Corgnale C, Brutti S, Roeb M, Noglik A, Rietbrock P-M, Mohr S, de Oliveira L, Monnerie N, Schmitz M, Sattler C, Martinez AO, de Lorenzo Manzano D, Cedillo Rojas J, Dechelotte S, Baudouin O, (2007) HYTHEC: An EC funded search for a long term massive hydrogen production route using solar and nuclear technologies. Int J Hydrogen Energy 32(10):1516–1529. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijhydene.2006.10.047
Ehrensberger K, Frei A, Kuhn P, Oswald HR, Hug P (1995) Comparative experimental investigations of the water-splitting reaction with iron oxide Fe1−yO and iron manganese oxides (Fe1−xMnx)1−yO. Solid State Ionics 78(1):151–160. https://doi.org/10.1016/0167-2738(95)00019-3
Emery AA, Saal JE, Kirklin S, Hegde VI, Wolverton C (2016) High-Throughput Computational Screening of Perovskites for Thermochemical Water Splitting Applications. Chem Mater 28(16):5621–5634. https://doi.org/10.1021/acs.chemmater.6b01182
Ermanoski I (2014) Cascading pressure thermal reduction for efficient solar fuel production. Int J Hydrogen Energ 39(25):13114–13117. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijhydene.2014.06.143
Ermanoski I, Siegel NP, Stechel EB (2013) A New Reactor Concept for Efficient Solar-Thermochemical Fuel Production. J Solar Energy Eng 135(031002). https://doi.org/10.1115/1.4023356.
Evdou A, Nalbandian L, Zaspalis VT (2008) Perovskite membrane reactor for continuous and isothermal redox hydrogen production from the dissociation of water. J Membr Sci 325(2):704–711. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.memsci.2008.08.042
Ezbiri M, Takacs M, Stolz B, Lungthok J, Steinfeld A, Michalsky R (2017) Design principles of perovskites for solar-driven thermochemical splitting of CO(2). J Mater Chem A Mater 5(29):15105–15115. https://doi.org/10.1039/c7ta02081c
Falter C, Valente A, Habersetzer A, Iribarren D, Dufour J (2020) An integrated techno-economic, environmental and social assessment of the solar thermochemical fuel pathway. Sustainable Energy Fuels 4(8):3992–4002. https://doi.org/10.1039/d0se00179a
Farsi A, Dincer I, Naterer GF (2020) Second law analysis of CuCl2 hydrolysis reaction in the Cu–Cl thermochemical cycle of hydrogen production. Energy, 117721.
Farsi A, Zamfirescu C, Dincer I, Naterer GF (2019) Thermodynamic assessment of a lab-scale experimental copper-chlorine cycle for sustainable hydrogen production. Int J Hydrogen Energy 44(33):17595–17610. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijhydene.2019.04.177
Fernández AG, Gomez-Vidal J, Oró E, Kruizenga A, Solé A, Cabeza LF (2019) Mainstreaming commercial CSP systems: A technology review. Renewable Energy 140:152–176. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.renene.2019.03.049
Ferrandon MS, Lewis MA, Alvarez F, Shafirovich E (2010) Hydrolysis of CuCl2 in the Cu–Cl thermochemical cycle for hydrogen production: Experimental studies using a spray reactor with an ultrasonic atomizer☆. Int J Hydrogen Energy 35(5):1895–1904. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijhydene.2009.12.034
Fletcher EA (1999) Solarthermal and Solar Quasi-Electrolytic Processing and Separations: Zinc from Zinc Oxide as an Example. Ind Eng Chem Res 38(6):2275–2282. https://doi.org/10.1021/ie990053t
Fresno F, Fernandez-Saavedra R, Gomez-Mancebo MB, Vidal A, Sanchez M, Rucandio MI, Quejido AJ, Romero M (2009) Solar hydrogen production by two-step thermochemical cycles: Evaluation of the activity of commercial ferrites. Int J Hydrogen Energ 34(7):2918–2924
Fresno F, Yoshida T, Gokon N, Fernández-Saavedra R, Kodama T (2010) Comparative study of the activity of nickel ferrites for solar hydrogen production by two-step thermochemical cycles. Int J Hydrogen Energ 35(16):8503–8510. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijhydene.2010.05.032
Funk JE, Reinstrom RM (1966) Energy Requirements in Production of Hydrogen from Water. Ind Eng Chem Process Des Dev 5(3):336–342. https://doi.org/10.1021/i260019a025
Furler P, Scheffe J, Gorbar M, Moes L, Vogt U, Steinfeld A (2012) Solar Thermochemical CO2 Splitting Utilizing a Reticulated Porous Ceria Redox System. Energ Fuel 26(11):7051–7059. https://doi.org/10.1021/ef3013757
Gao Y, Mao Y, Song Z, Zhao X, Sun J, Wang W, Chen G, Chen S (2020) Efficient generation of hydrogen by two-step thermochemical cycles: Successive thermal reduction and water splitting reactions using equal-power microwave irradiation and a high entropy material. Appl. Energy 279, 115777. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.apenergy.2020.115777.
Gao Y, Zhang M, Mao Y, Cao H, Zhang S, Wang W, Sun C, Song Z, Sun J, Zhao X (2022) Microwave-triggered low temperature thermal reduction of Zr-modified high entropy oxides with extraordinary thermochemical H2 production performance. Energy Convers. Manage. 252, 115125. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.enconman.2021.115125.
Ghandehariun S, Naterer GF, Dincer I, Rosen MA (2010) Solar thermochemical plant analysis for hydrogen production with the copper–chlorine cycle. Int J Hydrogen Energy 35(16):8511–8520. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijhydene.2010.05.028
Giaconia A, Caputo G, Ceroli A, Diamanti M, Barbarossa V, Tarquini P, Sau S (2007) Experimental study of two phase separation in the Bunsen section of the sulfur–iodine thermochemical cycle. Int J Hydrogen Energy 32(5):531–536. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijhydene.2006.08.015
Ginosar DM, Petkovic LM, Glenn AW, Burch KC (2007) Stability of supported platinum sulfuric acid decomposition catalysts for use in thermochemical water splitting cycles. Int J Hydrogen Energy 32(4):482–488. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijhydene.2006.06.053
Gokon N, Mataga T, Kondo N, Kodama T (2011) Thermochemical two-step water splitting by internally circulating fluidized bed of NiFe2O4 particles: Successive reaction of thermal-reduction and water-decomposition steps. Int J Hydrogen Energ 36(8):4757–4767. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijhydene.2011.01.076
Gokon N, Mizuno T, Nakamuro Y, Kodama T (2007) Iron-Containing Yttria-Stabilized Zirconia System For Two-Step Thermochemical Water Splitting. J Solar Energy Eng 130(011018). https://doi.org/10.1115/1.2807197.
Gokon N, Murayama H, Nagasaki A, Kodama T (2009) Thermochemical two-step water splitting cycles by monoclinic ZrO2-supported NiFe2O4 and Fe3O4 powders and ceramic foam devices. Sol Energy 83(4):527–537. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.solener.2008.10.003
Gokon N, Takahashi S, Yamamoto H, Kodama T (2008) Thermochemical two-step water-splitting reactor with internally circulating fluidized bed for thermal reduction of ferrite particles. Int J Hydrogen Energ 33(9):2189–2199. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijhydene.2008.02.044
Gokon N, Yamamoto H, Kondo N, Kodama T (2010) Internally Circulating Fluidized Bed Reactor Using m-ZrO2 Supported NiFe2O4 Particles for Thermochemical Two-Step Water Splitting. J Solar Energy Eng 132(021102). https://doi.org/10.1115/1.4001154.
Gorensek MB, Corgnale C, Summers WA (2017) Development of the hybrid sulfur cycle for use with concentrated solar heat. I. Conceptual design. Int J Hydrogen Energ 42(33), 20939–20954. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijhydene.2017.06.241.
Gorensek MB, Staser JA, Stanford TG, Weidner JW (2009) A thermodynamic analysis of the SO2/H2SO4 system in SO2-depolarized electrolysis. Int J Hydrogen Energy 34(15):6089–6095. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijhydene.2009.06.020
Groehn AJ, Lewandowski A, Yang R, Weimer AW (2016) Hybrid radiation modeling for multi-phase solar-thermal reactor systems operated at high-temperature. Sol Energy 140:130–140. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.solener.2016.11.003
Haeussler A, Abanades S, Jouannaux J, Julbe A (2018) Non-Stoichiometric Redox Active Perovskite Materials for Solar Thermochemical Fuel Production: A Review. Catalysts 8(12). Artn 611. 103390/Catal8120611
Han Q, Li D, Wang L, Zhang P, Chen S, Xu J, Liu B (2014) Influence of iridium content on the performance and stability of Pd–Ir/C catalysts for the decomposition of hydrogen iodide in the iodine–sulfur cycle. Int J Hydrogen Energ 39(25):13443–13447. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijhydene.2014.04.028
Han SB, Kang TB, Joo OS, Jung KD (2007) Water splitting for hydrogen production with ferrites. Sol Energy 81(5):623–628. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.solener.2006.08.012
Hathaway BJ, Bala Chandran R, Gladen AC, Chase TR, Davidson JH (2016) Demonstration of a Solar Reactor for Carbon Dioxide Splitting via the Isothermal Ceria Redox Cycle and Practical Implications. Energ Fuel 30(8):6654–6661. https://doi.org/10.1021/acs.energyfuels.6b01265
Haueter P, Moeller S, Palumbo R, Steinfeld A (1999) The production of zinc by thermal dissociation of zinc oxide—solar chemical reactor design. Sol Energy 67(1):161–167. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0038-092X(00)00037-2
Hinkley JT, O’Brien JA, Fell CJ, Lindquist S-E (2011) Prospects for solar only operation of the hybrid sulphur cycle for hydrogen production. Int J Hydrogen Energ 36(18):11596–11603. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijhydene.2011.06.048
Hoskins AL, Millican SL, Czernik CE, Alshankiti I, Netter JC, Wendelin TJ, Musgrave CB, Weimer AW (2019) Continuous on-sun solar thermochemical hydrogen production via an isothermal redox cycle. Appl Energ 249:368–376. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.apenergy.2019.04.169
Houaijia A, Sattler C, Roeb M, Lange M, Breuer S, Sack JP (2013) Analysis and improvement of a high-efficiency solar cavity reactor design for a two-step thermochemical cycle for solar hydrogen production from water. Sol Energy 97:26–38
Humphries TD, Møller KT, Rickard WDA, Sofianos MV, Liu S, Buckley CE, Paskevicius M (2019) Dolomite: a low cost thermochemical energy storage material. J Mater Chem A 7(3):1206–1215. https://doi.org/10.1039/C8TA07254J
Ishihara H, Kaneko H, Hasegawa N, Tamaura Y (2008) Two-step water-splitting at 1273–1623K using yttria-stabilized zirconia-iron oxide solid solution via co-precipitation and solid-state reaction. Energy 33(12):1788–1793. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.energy.2008.08.005
Jeong YH, Kazimi MS (2007) Optimization of the hybrid sulfur cycle for nuclear hydrogen generation. Nucl. Technol. 159(2), 147–157. https://doi.org/10.13182/NT07-A3861.
Junginger R, Struck BD (1982) Separators for the electrolytic cell of the sulphuric acid hybrid cycle. Int J Hydrogen Energy 7(4):331–340. https://doi.org/10.1016/0360-3199(82)90126-4
Kalogirou SA (2012) A detailed thermal model of a parabolic trough collector receiver. Energy 48(1):298–306. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.energy.2012.06.023
Kaneko H, Ishihara T, Lee C-i, Meng Q-L, Tamaura Y (2014) O2-releasing reactivity of ceria-based reactive ceramics on irradiation of artificial concentrated solar beam for solar hydrogen production. Int J Hydrogen Energ 39(23):11880–11888. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijhydene.2014.06.032
Kaneko H, Kodama T, Gokon N, Tamaura Y, Lovegrove K, Luzzi A (2004) Decomposition of Zn-ferrite for O2 generation by concentrated solar radiation. Sol Energy 76(1):317–322. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.solener.2003.08.034
Kaneko H, Kojima N, Hasegawa N, Inoue M, Uehara R, Gokon N, Tamaura Y, Sano T (2002) Reaction mechanism of H2 generation for H2O/Zn/Fe3O4 system. Int J Hydrogen Energ 27(10):1023–1028. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0360-3199(02)00012-5
Kaneko H, Miura T, Fuse A, Ishihara H, Taku S, Fukuzumi H, Naganuma Y, Tamaura Y (2007) Rotary-Type Solar Reactor for Solar Hydrogen Production with Two-step Water Splitting Process. Energ Fuel 21(4):2287–2293. https://doi.org/10.1021/ef060581z
Kaneko H, Miura T, Ishihara H, Taku S, Yokoyama T, Nakajima H, Tamaura Y (2007) Reactive ceramics of CeO2–MOx (M=Mn, Fe, Ni, Cu) for H2 generation by two-step water splitting using concentrated solar thermal energy. Energy 32(5):656–663. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.energy.2006.05.002
Kaneko H, Yokoyama T, Fuse A, Ishihara H, Hasegawa N, Tamaura Y (2006) Synthesis of new ferrite, Al–Cu ferrite, and its oxygen deficiency for solar H2 generation from H2O. Int J Hydrogen Energ 31(15):2256–2265. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijhydene.2006.03.008
Kang K-S, Kim C-H, Cho W-C, Bae K-K, Kim S-H, Park C-S (2009) Novel two-step thermochemical cycle for hydrogen production from water using germanium oxide: KIER 4 thermochemical cycle. Int J Hydrogen Energ 34(10):4283–4290. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijhydene.2009.03.017
Kang KS, Kim CH, Park CS, Kim JW (2007) Hydrogen reduction and subsequent water splitting of Zr-added CeO2. J Ind Eng Chem 13(4):657–663
Karagiannakis G, Pagkoura C, Halevas E, Baltzopoulou P, Konstandopoulos AG (2016) Cobalt/cobaltous oxide based honeycombs for thermochemical heat storage in future concentrated solar power installations: Multi-cyclic assessment and semi-quantitative heat effects estimations. Sol Energy 133:394–407. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.solener.2016.04.032
Kim YS, No HC, Choi JY, Yoon HJ (2013) Stability and kinetics of powder-type and pellet-type iron (III) oxide catalysts for sulfuric acid decomposition in practical Iodine-Sulfur cycle. Int J Hydrogen Energy 38(9):3537–3544. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijhydene.2013.01.039
Knoblauch N, Simon H, Schmücker M (2017) Chemically induced volume change of CeO2−δ and nonstoichiometric phases. Solid State Ionics 301:43–52. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ssi.2017.01.003
Kodama T, Gokon N (2007) Thermochemical Cycles for High-Temperature Solar Hydrogen Production. Chem Rev 107(10):4048–4077. https://doi.org/10.1021/cr050188a
Kodama T, Gokon N, Yamamoto R (2008) Thermochemical two-step water splitting by ZrO2-supported NixFe3−xO4 for solar hydrogen production. Sol Energy 82(1):73–79. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.solener.2007.03.005
Kodama T, Hasegawa T, Nagasaki A, Gokon N (2007) Reactive Fe-YSZ Coated Foam Devices for Solar Two-Step Water Splitting. pp. 821–829. https://doi.org/10.1115/es2007-36060.
Kodama T, Kondoh Y, Yamamoto R, Andou H, Satou N (2005) Thermochemical hydrogen production by a redox system of ZrO2-supported Co(II)-ferrite. Sol Energy 78(5):623–631. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.solener.2004.04.008
Kodama T, Nakamuro Y, Mizuno T (2004) A Two-Step Thermochemical Water Splitting by Iron-Oxide on Stabilized Zirconia. J SolEnergy Eng 128(1):3–7. https://doi.org/10.1115/1.1878852
Koepf E, Advani SG, Steinfeld A, Prasad AK (2012) A novel beam-down, gravity-fed, solar thermochemical receiver/reactor for direct solid particle decomposition: Design, modeling, and experimentation. Int J Hydrogen Energ 37(22):16871–16887. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijhydene.2012.08.086
Koepf E, Villasmil W, Meier A (2016) Pilot-scale solar reactor operation and characterization for fuel production via the Zn/ZnO thermochemical cycle. Appl Energy 165:1004–1023. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.apenergy.2015.12.106
Kubicek M, Bork AH, Rupp JLM (2017) Perovskite oxides – a review on a versatile material class for solar-to-fuel conversion processes. Journal of Materials Chemistry A 5(24):11983–12000. https://doi.org/10.1039/c7ta00987a
Kubo S, Nakajima H, Kasahara S, Higashi S, Masaki T, Abe H, Onuki K (2004) A demonstration study on a closed-cycle hydrogen production by the thermochemical water-splitting iodine–sulfur process. Nucl Eng Des 233(1–3):347–354. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.nucengdes.2004.08.025
Lapp J, Davidson JH, Lipiński W (2013) Heat Transfer Analysis of a Solid-Solid Heat Recuperation System for Solar-Driven Nonstoichiometric Redox Cycles. Journal of Solar Energy Engineering 135(031004). https://doi.org/10.1115/1.4023357.
Lapp J, Lipiński W (2014) Transient Three-Dimensional Heat Transfer Model of a Solar Thermochemical Reactor for H2O and CO2 Splitting Via Nonstoichiometric Ceria Redox Cycling. Journal of Solar Energy Engineering 136(031006). https://doi.org/10.1115/1.4026465.
Lee KY, Gong GT, Song KH, Kim H, Jung K-D, Kim CS (2008) Use of ionic liquids as absorbents to separate SO2 in SO2/O2 in thermochemical processes to produce hydrogen. Int J Hydrogen Energy 33(21):6031–6036. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijhydene.2008.08.002
Lewis MA, Ferrandon MS, Tatterson DF, Mathias P (2009) Evaluation of alternative thermochemical cycles – Part III further development of the Cu–Cl cycle. Int J Hydrogen Energy 34(9):4136–4145. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijhydene.2008.09.025
Lewis NS (2016) Research opportunities to advance solar energy utilization. Science 351(6271), aad1920. https://doi.org/10.1126/science.aad1920.
Lewis NS, Nocera DG (2006) Powering the planet: Chemical challenges in solar energy utilization. Proc Natl Acad Sci 103(43):15729. https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.0603395103
Liberatore R, Bassi A, Turchetti L, Venturin M (2018) Multi-objective optimization of a hydrogen production through the HyS process powered by solar energy in different scenarios. Int J Hydrogen Energ 43(18):8683–8697. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijhydene.2018.03.109
Liberatore R, Caputo G, Felici C, Spadona A (2010) Demonstration of hydrogen production by the sulphur–iodine cycle: realization of a 10 NL/h plant, Proc. 18th World Hydrogen Energy Conf. WHEC.
Lichty P, Liang X, Muhich C, Evanko B, Bingham C, Weimer AW (2012) Atomic layer deposited thin film metal oxides for fuel production in a solar cavity reactor. Int J Hydrogen Energ 37(22):16888–16894. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijhydene.2012.08.004
Lin L, Wang K, Yang K, Chen X, Fu X, Dai W (2017) The visible-light-assisted thermocatalytic methanation of CO2 over Ru/TiO(2-x)Nx. Appl. Catal., B 204, 440–455. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.apcatb.2016.11.054.
Lin M, Haussener S (2015) Solar fuel processing efficiency for ceria redox cycling using alternative oxygen partial pressure reduction methods. Energy 88:667–679. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.energy.2015.06.006
Liu Y-Z, Wu W, Liu Y, Li B-B, Luo Y, Chu G-W, Zou H-K, Chen J-F (2020) Desulfurization intensification by ionic liquid in a rotating packed bed. Chemical Engineering and Processing - Process Intensification 148, 107793. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cep.2019.107793.
Lökçü E, Toparli Ç, Anik M (2020) Electrochemical Performance of (MgCoNiZn)1–xLixO High-Entropy Oxides in Lithium-Ion Batteries. ACS Appl Mater Interfaces 12(21):23860–23866. https://doi.org/10.1021/acsami.0c03562
Loutzenhiser PG, Elena Gálvez M, Hischier I, Graf A, Steinfeld A (2010) CO2 splitting in an aerosol flow reactor via the two-step Zn/ZnO solar thermochemical cycle. Chem Eng Sci 65(5):1855–1864. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ces.2009.11.025
Loutzenhiser PG, Meier A, Steinfeld A (2010) Review of the Two-Step H2O/CO2-Splitting Solar Thermochemical Cycle Based on Zn/ZnO Redox Reactions. Materials 3(11):4922–4938. https://doi.org/10.3390/ma3114922
Lu P, Ammon R (1982) Sulfur dioxide depolarized electrolysis for hydrogen production: development status. Int J Hydrogen Energy 7(7):563–575
Lu PW (1983) Technological aspects of sulfur dioxide depolarized electrolysis for hydrogen production. Int J Hydrogen Energy 8(10):773–781
Lu YJ, Zhu LY, Agrafiotis C, Vieten J, Roeb M, Sattler C (2019) Solar fuels production: Two-step thermochemical cycles with cerium-based oxides. Prog Energ Combust 75. 10.1016/J.Pecs.2019.100785. Unsp 100785
Martinek J, Viger R, Weimer AW (2014) Transient simulation of a tubular packed bed solar receiver for hydrogen generation via metal oxide thermochemical cycles. Sol Energy 105:613–631. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.solener.2014.04.022
Marxer D, Furler P, Takacs M, Steinfeld A (2017) Solar thermochemical splitting of CO2 into separate streams of CO and O2 with high selectivity, stability, conversion, and efficiency. Energy Environ Sci 10(5):1142–1149. https://doi.org/10.1039/C6EE03776C
McDaniel AH, Miller EC, Arifin D, Ambrosini A, Coker EN, O’Hayre R, Chueh WC, Tong J (2013) Sr- and Mn-doped LaAlO3−δ for solar thermochemical H2 and CO production. Energy Environ Sci 6(8):2424–2428. https://doi.org/10.1039/c3ee41372a
Miller JE, Allendorf MD, Diver RB, Evans LR, Siegel NP, Stuecker JN (2008) Metal oxide composites and structures for ultra-high temperature solar thermochemical cycles. J Mater Sci 43(14):4714–4728. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10853-007-2354-7
Miller JE, McDaniel AH, Allendorf MD (2014) Considerations in the Design of Materials for Solar-Driven Fuel Production Using Metal-Oxide Thermochemical Cycles. Adv Energy Mater 4(2):1300469. https://doi.org/10.1002/aenm.201300469
Montoya JH, Seitz LC, Chakthranont P, Vojvodic A, Jaramillo TF, Nørskov JK (2017) Materials for solar fuels and chemicals. Nat Mater 16(1):70–81. https://doi.org/10.1038/nmat4778
Nalbandian L, Evdou A, Zaspalis V (2009) La1−xSrxMO3 (M = Mn, Fe) perovskites as materials for thermochemical hydrogen production in conventional and membrane reactors. Int J Hydrogen Energ 34(17):7162–7172. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijhydene.2009.06.076
Naterer G, Daggupati V, Marin G, Gabriel K, Wang Z (2008) Thermochemical hydrogen production with a copper–chlorine cycle, II: flashing and drying of aqueous cupric chloride. Int J Hydrogen Energy 33(20):5451–5459
Naterer G, Suppiah S, Lewis M, Gabriel K, Dincer I, Rosen MA, Fowler M, Rizvi G, Easton EB, Ikeda BM, Kaye MH, Lu L, Pioro I, Spekkens P, Tremaine P, Mostaghimi J, Avsec J, Jiang J (2009) Recent Canadian advances in nuclear-based hydrogen production and the thermochemical Cu–Cl cycle. Int J Hydrogen Energy 34(7):2901–2917. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijhydene.2009.01.090
Naterer G, Suppiah S, Stolberg L, Lewis M, Ferrandon M, Wang Z, Dincer I, Gabriel K, Rosen M, Secnik E (2011) Clean hydrogen production with the Cu–Cl cycle–progress of international consortium, I: experimental unit operations. Int J Hydrogen Energy 36(24):15472–15485
Naterer GF, Suppiah S, Rosen MA, Gabriel K, Dincer I, Jianu OA, Wang Z, Easton EB, Ikeda BM, Rizvi G, Pioro I, Pope K, Mostaghimi J, Lvov SN (2017) Advances in unit operations and materials for the Cu Cl cycle of hydrogen production. Int J Hydrogen Energy 42(24):15708–15723. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijhydene.2017.03.133
Naterer GF, Suppiah S, Stolberg L, Lewis M, Wang Z, Daggupati V, Gabriel K, Dincer I, Rosen MA, Spekkens P (2010) Canada’s program on nuclear hydrogen production and the thermochemical Cu–Cl cycle. Int J Hydrogen Energy 35(20):10905–10926. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijhydene.2010.07.087
Naterer GF, Suppiah S, Stolberg L, Lewis M, Wang Z, Dincer I, Rosen MA, Gabriel K, Secnik E, Easton EB, Pioro I, Lvov S, Jiang J, Mostaghimi J, Ikeda BM, Rizvi G, Lu L, Odukoya A, Spekkens P, Fowler M, Avsec J (2013) Progress of international hydrogen production network for the thermochemical Cu–Cl cycle. Int J Hydrogen Energy 38(2):740–759. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijhydene.2012.10.023
Noglik A, Roeb M, Sattler C, Pitz-Paal R (2009) Experimental study on sulfur trioxide decomposition in a volumetric solar receiver–reactor. Int J Energ Res 33(9):799–812. https://doi.org/10.1002/er.1514
Noh S-C, Lee SY, Shul YG, Jung K-D (2014) Sulfuric acid decomposition on the Pt/n-SiC catalyst for SI cycle to produce hydrogen. Int J Hydrogen Energy 39(9):4181–4188. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijhydene.2014.01.021
Olah GA (2013) Towards Oil Independence Through Renewable Methanol Chemistry. Angew Chem Int Ed 52(1):104–107. https://doi.org/10.1002/anie.201204995
Otsuka K, Hatano M, Morikawa A (1983) Hydrogen from water by reduced cerium oxide. J Catal 79(2):493–496. https://doi.org/10.1016/0021-9517(83)90346-9
Otsuka K, Hatano M, Morikawa A (1985) Decomposition of water by cerium oxide of δ-phase. Inorg Chim Acta 109(3):193–197. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0020-1693(00)81768-5
Palumbo R, Léde J, Boutin O, Elorza Ricart E, Steinfeld A, Möller S, Weidenkaff A, Fletcher EA, Bielicki J (1998) The production of Zn from ZnO in a high-temperature solar decomposition quench process—I. The scientific framework for the process. Chem Eng Sci 53(14), 2503–2517. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0009-2509(98)00063-3.
Panlener RJ, Blumenthal RN, Garnier JE (1975) A thermodynamic study of nonstoichiometric cerium dioxide. J Phys Chem Solids 36(11):1213–1222. https://doi.org/10.1016/0022-3697(75)90192-4
Parkinson B, Balcombe P, Speirs JF, Hawkes AD, Hellgardt K (2019) Levelized cost of CO2 mitigation from hydrogen production routes. Energy Environ Sci 12(1):19–40. https://doi.org/10.1039/C8EE02079E
Peng X, Root TW, Maravelias CT (2017) Storing solar energy with chemistry: the role of thermochemical storage in concentrating solar power. Green Chem 19(10):2427–2438. https://doi.org/10.1039/C7GC00023E
Perkins C, Lichty PR, Weimer AW (2008) Thermal ZnO dissociation in a rapid aerosol reactor as part of a solar hydrogen production cycle. Int J Hydrogen Energ 33(2):499–510. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijhydene.2007.10.021
Petkovic LM, Ginosar DM, Rollins HW, Burch KC, Deiana C, Silva HS, Sardella MF, Granados D (2009) Activated carbon catalysts for the production of hydrogen via the sulfur–iodine thermochemical water splitting cycle. Int J Hydrogen Energy 34(9):4057–4064. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijhydene.2008.07.075
Petkovich ND, Rudisill SG, Venstrom LJ, Boman DB, Davidson JH, Stein A (2011) Control of Heterogeneity in Nanostructured Ce1–xZrxO2 Binary Oxides for Enhanced Thermal Stability and Water Splitting Activity. The Journal of Physical Chemistry C 115(43):21022–21033. https://doi.org/10.1021/jp2071315
Pregger T, Graf D, Krewitt W, Sattler C, Roeb M, Möller S (2009) Prospects of solar thermal hydrogen production processes. Int J Hydrogen Energy 34(10):4256–4267. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijhydene.2009.03.025
Qi Y, Hu X, Liu Y, Sun D, Li R, Zhu H (2019) Highly efficient and reversible absorption of SO2 by hydroxyl ammonium ionic liquids at low partial pressure. 94(10), 3325–3332. https://doi.org/10.1002/jctb.6143.
Quijada C, Morallon E, Vázquez J, Berlouis L (2001) Electrochemical behaviour of aqueous SO2 at polycrystalline gold electrodes in acidic media. A voltammetric and in-situ vibrational study. Part II. Oxidation of SO2 on bare and sulphur-modified electrodes. Electrochimica acta 46(5), 651–659.
Quijada C, Vázquez JL (2005) Electrochemical reactivity of aqueous SO2 on glassy carbon electrodes in acidic media. Electrochim Acta 50(27):5449–5457. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.electacta.2005.03.027
Ratlamwala TAH, Dincer I (2012) Energy and exergy analyses of a Cu–Cl cycle based integrated system for hydrogen production. Chem Eng Sci 84:564–573. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ces.2012.08.052
Ratlamwala TAH, Dincer I (2013) Performance assessment of solar-based integrated Cu–Cl systems for hydrogen production. Sol Energy 95:345–356. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.solener.2013.06.018
Roeb M, Neises M, Säck J-P, Rietbrock P, Monnerie N, Dersch J, Schmitz M, Sattler C (2009) Operational strategy of a two-step thermochemical process for solar hydrogen production. Int J Hydrogen Energ 34(10):4537–4545. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijhydene.2008.08.049
Roeb M, Säck JP, Rietbrock P, Prahl C, Schreiber H, Neises M, de Oliveira L, Graf D, Ebert M, Reinalter W, Meyer-Grünefeldt M, Sattler C, Lopez A, Vidal A, Elsberg A, Stobbe P, Jones D, Steele A, Lorentzou S, Pagkoura C, Zygogianni A, Agrafiotis C, Konstandopoulos AG (2011) Test operation of a 100kW pilot plant for solar hydrogen production from water on a solar tower. Sol Energy 85(4):634–644. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.solener.2010.04.014
Roeb M, Sattler C, Klüser R, Monnerie N, de Oliveira L, Konstandopoulos AG, Agrafiotis C, Zaspalis VT, Nalbandian L, Steele A, Stobbe P (2005) Solar Hydrogen Production by a Two-Step Cycle Based on Mixed Iron Oxides. J SolEnergy Eng 128(2):125–133. https://doi.org/10.1115/1.2183804
Roeb M, Thomey D, de Oliveira L, Sattler C, Fleury G, Pra F, Tochon P, Brevet A, Roux G, Gruet N, Mansilla C, LeNaour F, Poitou S, Allen RWK, Elder R, Kargiannakis G, Agrafiotis C, Zygogianni A, Pagkoura C, Konstandopoulos AG, Giaconia A, Sau S, Tarquini P, Haussener S, Steinfeld A, Canadas I, Orden A, Ferrato M (2013) Sulphur based thermochemical cycles: Development and assessment of key components of the process. Int J Hydrogen Energ 38(14):6197–6204. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijhydene.2013.01.068
Romero M, Steinfeld A (2012) Concentrating solar thermal power and thermochemical fuels. Energy Environ Sci 5(11):9234–9245. https://doi.org/10.1039/C2EE21275G
Ruan C, Tan Y, Li L, Wang J, Liu X, Wang X (2017) A novel CeO2–xSnO2/Ce2Sn2O7 pyrochlore cycle for enhanced solar thermochemical water splitting. Aiche J 63(8):3450–3462. https://doi.org/10.1002/aic.15701
Säck JP, Breuer S, Cotelli P, Houaijia A, Lange M, Wullenkord M, Spenke C, Roeb M, Sattler C (2016) High temperature hydrogen production: Design of a 750KW demonstration plant for a two step thermochemical cycle. Sol Energy 135:232–241. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.solener.2016.05.059
Sastre D, Carrillo AJ, Serrano DP, Pizarro P, Coronado JM (2017) Exploring the Redox Behavior of La0.6Sr0.4Mn1−xAlxO3 Perovskites for CO2-Splitting in Thermochemical Cycles. Topics in Catalysis 60(15), 1108–1118. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11244-017-0790-4.
Sau S, Giaconia A, Caputo G, Prosini PP (2008) Decrease the rate of recycling agents in the sulfur–iodine cycle by solid phase separation. Int J Hydrogen Energy 33(22):6439–6444. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijhydene.2008.07.124
Sayyaadi H, Saeedi Boroujeni M (2017) Conceptual design, process integration, and optimization of a solar CuCl thermochemical hydrogen production plant. Int J Hydrogen Energy 42(5):2771–2789. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijhydene.2016.12.034
Scheffe JR, Welte M, Steinfeld A (2014) Thermal Reduction of Ceria within an Aerosol Reactor for H2O and CO2 Splitting. Ind Eng Chem Res 53(6):2175–2182. https://doi.org/10.1021/ie402620k
Schiffer ZJ, Limaye AM, Manthiram K (2021) Thermodynamic Discrimination between Energy Sources for Chemical Reactions. Joule 5(1):135–148. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.joule.2020.12.014
Schunk LO, Lipiński W, Steinfeld A (2009) Heat transfer model of a solar receiver-reactor for the thermal dissociation of ZnO—Experimental validation at 10kW and scale-up to 1MW. Chem Eng J 150(2):502–508. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cej.2009.03.012
Sedighi M, Taylor RA, Lake M, Rose A, Izadgoshasb I, Vasquez Padilla R (2020) Development of a novel high-temperature, pressurised, indirectly-irradiated cavity receiver. Energ Convers Manage 204, 112175. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.enconman.2019.112175.
Shih CF, Zhang T, Li J, Bai C (2018) Powering the Future with Liquid Sunshine. Joule 2(10):1925–1949. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.joule.2018.08.016
Siddiqui O, Ishaq H, Dincer I (2019) A novel solar and geothermal-based trigeneration system for electricity generation, hydrogen production and cooling. Energy Convers Manage 198:111812
Siegel NP, Miller JE, Ermanoski I, Diver RB, Stechel EB (2013) Factors Affecting the Efficiency of Solar Driven Metal Oxide Thermochemical Cycles. Ind Eng Chem Res 52(9):3276–3286. https://doi.org/10.1021/ie400193q
Singh A, Lapp J, Grobbel J, Brendelberger S, Reinhold JP, Olivera L, Ermanoski I, Siegel NP, McDaniel A, Roeb M, Sattler C (2017) Design of a pilot scale directly irradiated, high temperature, and low pressure moving particle cavity chamber for metal oxide reduction. Sol Energy 157:365–376. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.solener.2017.08.040
Song H, Luo S, Huang H, Deng B, Ye J (2022) Solar-Driven Hydrogen Production: Recent Advances, Challenges, and Future Perspectives. ACS Energy Lett 7(3):1043–1065. https://doi.org/10.1021/acsenergylett.1c02591
Staser J, Ramasamy RP, Sivasubramanian P, Weidner JWJE, Letters SS (2007) Effect of water on the electrochemical oxidation of gas-phase SO2 in a PEM electrolyzer for H2 production. 10(11), E17.
Steinfeld A, Sanders S, Palumbo R (1999) DESIGN ASPECTS OF SOLAR THERMOCHEMICAL ENGINEERING—A CASE STUDY: TWO-STEP WATER-SPLITTING CYCLE USING THE Fe3O4/FeO REDOX SYSTEM. Sol Energy 65(1):43–53. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0038-092X(98)00092-9
Su T, Zhang P, Wang L, Chen S (2010) Preparation of Copper Chromite by Vaccum Freezing Drying Method and Its Catalytic Activity for Sulfuric Acid Decomposition 28(12):2339–2344. https://doi.org/10.1002/cjoc.201190001
Suppiah S, Naterer G, Lewis M, Lvov S, Easton B, Dincer I (2010) Thermo-mechanical design of nuclear-based hydrogen production, ORF Workshops on Nuclear-Based Thermochemical Hydrogen Production.
Takahashi Y, Aoki H, Kaneko H, Hasegawa N, Suzuki A, Tamaura Y (2004) Oxygen-gas-releasing reaction of Zn ferrite by Xe lamp beam irradiation in air at 1800 K. Solid State Ionics 172(1):89–91. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ssi.2004.01.038
Takegami H, Noguchi H, Tanaka N, Iwatsuki J, Kamiji Y, Kasahara S, Imai Y, Terada A, Kubo S (2020) Development of strength evaluation method of ceramic reactor for iodine-sulfur process and hydrogen production test in Japan Atomic Energy Agency. Nucl. Eng. Des. 360, 110498. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.nucengdes.2019.110498.
Tamaura Y, Kaneko H (2005) Oxygen-releasing step of ZnFe2O4/(ZnO+Fe3O4)-system in air using concentrated solar energy for solar hydrogen production. Sol Energy 78(5):616–622. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.solener.2004.10.012
Tamaura Y, Kojima N, Hasegawa N, Inoue M, Uehara R, Gokon N, Kaneko H (2001) Stoichiometric studies of H2 generation reaction for H2O/Zn/Fe3O4 system. Int J Hydrogen Energ 26(9):917–922. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0360-3199(01)00039-8
Tamaura Y, Steinfeld A, Kuhn P, Ehrensberger K (1995) Production of solar hydrogen by a novel, 2-step, water-splitting thermochemical cycle. Energy 20(4):325–330. https://doi.org/10.1016/0360-5442(94)00099-O
Tamaura Y, Uehara R, Hasegawa N, Kaneko H, Aoki H (2004) Study on solid-state chemistry of the ZnO/Fe3O4/H2O system for H2 production at 973–1073 K. Solid State Ionics 172(1):121–124. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ssi.2004.02.041
Tofighi A, Sibieude F (1984) Dissociation of magnetite in a solar furnace for hydrogen production. Tentative production evaluation of a 1000 kW concentrator from small scale (2 kW) experimental results. Int. J. Hydrogen Energy 9(4), 293–296. https://doi.org/10.1016/0360-3199(84)90079-X.
van Vuuren DP, Stehfest E, Gernaat D, van den Berg M, Bijl DL, de Boer HS, Daioglou V, Doelman JC, Edelenbosch OY, Harmsen M, Hof AF, van Sluisveld MAE (2018) Alternative pathways to the 1.5 degrees C target reduce the need for negative emission technologies. Nat. Clim. Chang. 8(5), 391-+. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41558-018-0119-8.
Venturin M, Turchetti L, Liberatore R (2020) Uncertainty quantification in a hydrogen production system based on the solar hybrid sulfur process. Int J Hydrogen Energ 45(29):14679–14695. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijhydene.2020.03.200
Villafán-Vidales HI, Arancibia-Bulnes CA, Riveros-Rosas D, Romero-Paredes H, Estrada CA (2017) An overview of the solar thermochemical processes for hydrogen and syngas production: Reactors, and facilities. Renew Sustain Energy Rev 75:894–908. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.rser.2016.11.070
Wan J, Chen W, Jia C, Zheng L, Dong J, Zheng X, Wang Y, Yan W, Chen C, Peng Q, Wang D, Li Y (2018) Defect Effects on TiO2 Nanosheets: Stabilizing Single Atomic Site Au and Promoting Catalytic Properties. Adv Mater 30(11):1705369. https://doi.org/10.1002/adma.201705369
Wang L, Al-Mamun M, Liu P, Zhong YL, Wang Y, Yang HG, Zhao H (2018) Enhanced Thermochemical H2 Production on Ca-Doped Lanthanum Manganite Perovskites Through Optimizing the Dopant Level and Re-oxidation Temperature. Acta Metallurgica Sinica (English Letters) 31(4):431–439. https://doi.org/10.1007/s40195-018-0715-7
Wang L, Li D, Zhang P, Chen S, Xu J (2012) The HI catalytic decomposition for the lab-scale H2 producing apparatus of the iodine–sulfur thermochemical cycle. Int J Hydrogen Energy 37(8):6415–6421. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijhydene.2012.01.052
Wang Z, Naterer GF, Gabriel KS, Secnik E, Gravelsins R, Daggupati V (2011) Thermal design of a solar hydrogen plant with a copper–chlorine cycle and molten salt energy storage. Int J Hydrogen Energy 36(17):11258–11272. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijhydene.2010.12.003
Wegner K, Ly HC, Weiss RJ, Pratsinis SE, Steinfeld A (2006) In situ formation and hydrolysis of Zn nanoparticles for H2 production by the 2-step ZnO/Zn water-splitting thermochemical cycle. Int J Hydrogen Energ 31(1):55–61. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijhydene.2005.03.006
Weidenkaff A, Reller AW, Wokaun A, Steinfeld A (2000) Thermogravimetric analysis of the ZnO/Zn water splitting cycle. Thermochim Acta 359(1):69–75. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0040-6031(00)00508-6
Weinstein LA, Loomis J, Bhatia B, Bierman DM, Wang EN, Chen G (2015) Concentrating Solar Power. Chem Rev 115(23):12797–12838. https://doi.org/10.1021/acs.chemrev.5b00397
Welte M, Warren K, Scheffe JR, Steinfeld A (2017) Combined Ceria Reduction and Methane Reforming in a Solar-Driven Particle-Transport Reactor. Ind Eng Chem Res 56(37):10300–10308. https://doi.org/10.1021/acs.iecr.7b02738
Wu W, Chen HY, Hwang J-J (2017) Energy analysis of a class of copper–chlorine (Cu–Cl) thermochemical cycles. Int J Hydrogen Energy 42(25):15990–16002
Yang C-K, Yamazaki Y, Aydin A, Haile SM (2014) Thermodynamic and kinetic assessments of strontium-doped lanthanum manganite perovskites for two-step thermochemical water splitting. Journal of Materials Chemistry A 2(33):13612–13623. https://doi.org/10.1039/c4ta02694b
Yilmaz F, Selbaş R (2017) Thermodynamic performance assessment of solar based Sulfur-Iodine thermochemical cycle for hydrogen generation. Energy 140:520–529. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.energy.2017.08.121
Yu S, Zhang T, Xie Y, Wang Q, Gao X, Zhang R, Zhang Y, Su H (2015) Synthesis and characterization of iron-based catalyst on mesoporous titania for photo-thermal F-T synthesis. Int J Hydrogen Energy 40(1):870–877. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijhydene.2014.10.121
Zhang HL, Baeyens J, Degreve J, Caceres G (2013) Concentrated solar power plants: Review and design methodology. Renew Sust Energ Rev 22:466–481. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.rser.2013.01.032
Zhang Y, Yang H, Zhou J, Wang Z, Liu J, Cen K (2015) Catalytic decomposition of sulfuric acid over CuO/CeO2 in the sulfur–iodine cycle for hydrogen production. Int J Hydrogen Energy 40(5):2099–2106. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijhydene.2014.12.048
Zhu G, Wendelin T, Wagner MJ, Kutscher C (2014) History, current state, and future of linear Fresnel concentrating solar collectors. Sol Energy 103:639–652. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.solener.2013.05.021
Zinkevich M, Djurovic D, Aldinger F (2006) Thermodynamic modelling of the cerium–oxygen system. Solid State Ionics 177(11):989–1001. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ssi.2006.02.044
Acknowledgements
The work was financially supported by the National Natural Science Foundation of China (No. 52090061) and the Basic Science Center Program for Ordered Energy Conversion of the National Natural Science Foundation of China (No.51888103).
Funding
Open access funding provided by Shanghai Jiao Tong University. The work was financially supported by the National Natural Science Foundation of China (No. 52090061) and the Basic Science Center Program for Ordered Energy Conversion of the National Natural Science Foundation of China (No.51888103).
National Natural Science Foundation of China,No. 52090061,Chen Chen,Basic Science Center Program for Ordered Energy Conversion of the National Natural Science Foundation of China,No. 51888103,Chen Chen
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Contributions
CC and FJ were major contributors in writing the manuscript. BC L and TX L analyzed the data. QB L and HG J reviewed and edited the manuscript. All authors read and approved the final manuscript.
Corresponding author
Ethics declarations
Ethics approval and consent to participate
Not applicable.
Consent for publication
Not applicable.
Competing interests
The authors declare no competing financial interest.
Additional information
Publisher's Note
Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.
Rights and permissions
Open Access This article is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License, which permits use, sharing, adaptation, distribution and reproduction in any medium or format, as long as you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons licence, and indicate if changes were made. The images or other third party material in this article are included in the article's Creative Commons licence, unless indicated otherwise in a credit line to the material. If material is not included in the article's Creative Commons licence and your intended use is not permitted by statutory regulation or exceeds the permitted use, you will need to obtain permission directly from the copyright holder. To view a copy of this licence, visit http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/.
About this article
Cite this article
Chen, C., Jiao, F., Lu, B. et al. Challenges and perspectives for solar fuel production from water/carbon dioxide with thermochemical cycles. Carb Neutrality 2, 9 (2023). https://doi.org/10.1007/s43979-023-00048-6
Received:
Revised:
Accepted:
Published:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s43979-023-00048-6