4.8 Review

Polymer electrolyte electrolysis: A review of the activity and stability of non-precious metal hydrogen evolution reaction and oxygen evolution reaction catalysts

Journal

RENEWABLE & SUSTAINABLE ENERGY REVIEWS
Volume 139, Issue -, Pages -

Publisher

PERGAMON-ELSEVIER SCIENCE LTD
DOI: 10.1016/j.rser.2021.110709

Keywords

Energy storage; PEM Electrolyser; Hydrogen evolution reaction; Renewable energy; Oxygen evolution reaction; Water splitting

Funding

  1. Innovate UK [11607]
  2. European Marine Energy Centre (EMEC)
  3. Engineering and Physical Sciences Research Council [EP/P007767/1, EP/N0011877/1]
  4. European Regional Development Fund

Ask authors/readers for more resources

The article reviews the usage of non-precious metal catalysts in water splitting, emphasizes the need for stability testing of catalysts, and proposes a stability testing regime suitable for commercial electrolyzers.
The potential for generating green hydrogen by electrolysis (water splitting) has resulted in a substantial amount of literature focusing on lowering the current production cost of hydrogen. A significant contributor to this high cost is the requirement for precious metals (namely Pt and Ir/Ru (oxides)) to catalyse the two main reactions involved in electrolysis: the hydrogen evolution reaction (HER) and the oxygen evolution reaction (OER). Herein we overview the current literature of non-precious metal HER and OER catalysts capable of efficient water splitting within a polymer electrolyte membrane (PEM) electrolyser, recording the activity and stability of each catalyst and allowing for direct comparison to be made. Additionally, we highlight the inapplicability of catalyst stability testing in many academic studies for commercial electrolyser applications and propose a universal stability-testing regime for HER and OER catalysts that more accurately mimics the conditions within an operating electrolyser.

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