4.6 Article

FexCo0.5-xNi0.5-SDC anodes for low-temperature solid oxide fuel cells

Journal

ELECTROCHIMICA ACTA
Volume 51, Issue 15, Pages 3052-3057

Publisher

PERGAMON-ELSEVIER SCIENCE LTD
DOI: 10.1016/j.electacta.2005.08.039

Keywords

trimetallic anode; FeCoNi-SDC cermet; glycine-nitrate technique; co-firing process; low-temperature solid oxide fuel cells; SOFCs

Ask authors/readers for more resources

Trimetal alloys, FexCo0.5-xNi05 (x=0.1, 0.2, 0.25, 0.3, 0.4), were studied as anodes for low-temperature solid oxide fuel cells (LT-SOFCs) based on GDC (Ce09Gd01O195) electrolytes. The alloys were formed by in situ reduction of FexCo0.5-xNi05OY composities, which were synthesized using a glycine-nitrate technique. Symmetrical cells consisted of FexCo05-xNi05-SDC electrodes and GDC electrolytes, and single cells consisted of FexCo05-xNi05-SDC (Ce08SM02O1.9) anodes, GDC electrolytes, and SSC (Sm05Sr05CoO3)-SDC cathodes were prepared using a co-pressing and co-firing process. Interfacial polarization resistances and I-V curves of these cells were measured at temperature from 450 to 600 degrees C. With Fe0.25Co025Ni05-SDC as anodes, the cells showed the lowest interfacial resistance and highest power density. For example, at 600 degrees C, the resistance was about 0.11 Omega cm(2) and power density was about 750 mW cm(-2) when humidified (3% H2O) hydrogen was used as fuel and stationary air as oxidant. Further, the cell performance was improved when the molar ratio of Fe:Co:Ni approached 1: 1:2, i.e. Fe025CO025Ni0.5. In addition, higher power density and lower interfacial resistance were obtained for cells with the Fe025Co025Ni05-SDC anodes comparing to that with Ni-SDC anodes, which have been usually used for LT-SOFCs. The promising performance of FexCo05-xNi05 as anodes suggests that trimetallic anodes are worth considering for SOFCs that operate at low-temperature. (c) 2005 Elsevier Ltd. 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

4.6
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available