4.7 Review

Materials development and prospective for protonic ceramic fuel cells

Journal

INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF ENERGY RESEARCH
Volume 46, Issue 3, Pages 2212-2240

Publisher

WILEY
DOI: 10.1002/er.7371

Keywords

anode; cathode; electrolyte; protonic ceramic fuel cells; solid oxide fuel cells

Funding

  1. China Postdoctoral Science Foundation [2021T140471]
  2. National Natural Science Foundation of China [22109101, 52006150]
  3. Natural Science Foundation of Guangdong Province [2020A1515010550]
  4. Research Grants Council, University Grants Committee [PolyU 152064/18E]

Ask authors/readers for more resources

Protonic ceramic fuel cells (PCFCs) are considered a potential and more efficient upgrade to conventional solid oxide fuel cells (SOFCs) due to their efficient operation at low and intermediate temperatures and nonfuel dilution at the anode during operation. This review provides a detailed exposition of material development strategies for major components of PCFCs and discusses credible science-backed recommendations for synthesis and fabrication of PCFCs materials. Additionally, the opportunities, challenges, and future directions for P-SOFCs are highlighted as well.
Protonic ceramic fuel cells (PCFCs) are considered a potential and more efficient upgrade to conventional solid oxide fuel cells (SOFCs). This is predominantly due to their capacity to operate efficiently at low and intermediate temperatures and their quality of nonfuel dilution at the anode during operation. This review presents a detailed exposition of the material development strategies for the major components of PCFCs (i.e., electrolyte, cathode, and anode) and how they differ from the traditional SOFCs. Credible science backed recommendations for the synthesis and fabrication of PCFCs materials are discussed. In the end, the opportunities, challenges, and future directions for P-SOFCs are buttressed.

Authors

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

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.7
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available