4.8 Article

Preparation and characterization of La0.75Sr0.25Cr0.5Mn0.5O3-δ-yttria stabilized zirconia cathode supported solid oxide electrolysis cells for hydrogen generation

Journal

JOURNAL OF POWER SOURCES
Volume 208, Issue -, Pages 276-281

Publisher

ELSEVIER
DOI: 10.1016/j.jpowsour.2012.02.062

Keywords

Solid oxide electrolysis cells; Steam electrolysis; Hydrogen generation; Short-term durability

Funding

  1. Natural Science Foundation of China (NSFC) [21105021, 21101056]
  2. Key Laboratory of Fuel Cell Technology of Guangdong Province

Ask authors/readers for more resources

La0.75Sr0.25Cr0.5Mn0.5O3-delta (LSCM)-YSZ cathode supported solid oxide electrolysis cells (SOECs), with the LSM-YSZ vertical bar YSZ vertical bar LSCM-YSZ configuration, have been prepared and evaluated for high temperature hydrogen generation. Electrochemical impedance spectra (EIS) and voltage-current curves were recorded out to characterize the cell performance. EIS results showed that the cell resistance increased as the proportion of steam in the feed supply increased, at open circuit voltage. The hydrogen generation rate calculated from Faraday's law is 561 ml cm(-2) h(-1) at 850 degrees C with 80 vol.% absolute humidity (AH) at a 1.6V electrolysis voltage. Although there is a 8.2% increase of the applied electrolysis voltage, the cell has endured a test lasting more than 103h with 45 vol.% AH and 0.33 A cm(-2) electrolysis current density at 850 degrees C. Energy-dispersive X-ray (EDX) spectroscopy analysis showed that there is no elemental diffusion between the electrode and electrolyte interface after the durability test. Scanning electron microscopy (SEM) images indicate that the slight split between the LSCM-YSZ cathode and the YSZ electrolyte is responsible for the increase of ohmic resistance of the cell; this resistance rise led to the degradation of the cell performance. (C) 2012 Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.8
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available