4.3 Article

Assessment of doped ceria as electrolyte

Journal

JOURNAL OF SOLID STATE ELECTROCHEMISTRY
Volume 10, Issue 8, Pages 547-561

Publisher

SPRINGER
DOI: 10.1007/s10008-006-0135-x

Keywords

electrolytes; electrochemistry; fuel cells

Ask authors/readers for more resources

A model describing the performance of a fuel cell based on 10 mol% gadolinia-doped ceria, Ce0.9Gd0.1O1.95-x (CG10), was formulated. The total electrical conductivity of CG10 was measured under very reducing conditions in the temperature range of 753 K to 948 K. Oxygen permeation experiments were carried out to measure the leak current through a ceria electrolyte. The results of the measurements are compared with predictions of the formulated model. Furthermore, the response of a fuel cell to changing operating conditions such as external load, temperature, electrode polarization resistances, and defect chemistry is investigated using the model. It is found that the maximum achievable efficiency of a CG10-based fuel cell is increased when (1) the temperature is decreased, when (2) the electrolyte thickness is increased, or when (3) the cathode polarization resistance is decreased. The efficiency can also in certain circumstances be increased by an increase of anode polarization resistance. Finally, the efficiency is reduced if the vacancy formation enthalpy is decreased to the level of fine-grained CG10. The performance of a CG10-based cell is evaluated by comparing it with a state-of-the-art zirconia-based cell. At 873 K, the efficiency of a fuel cell with a 10-mu m CG10 electrolyte was limited to 0.74, whereas a cell with a perfect electrolyte would have an efficiency of 1. The power output of the CG10 cell at this efficiency is, however, four times larger than the zirconia-based cell at the same efficiency. This is due to the much lower cathode polarization resistance of (La0.6Sr0.4)(z)Co0.2Fe0.8O3-delta -CG10 cathodes on CG10 compared to the (La0.75Sr0.25)(0.95)MnO3 cathodes on stabilized zirconia.

Authors

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

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.3
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available