4.8 Article

Microstructural comparison of solid oxide electrolyser cells operated for 6100 h and 9000 h

Journal

JOURNAL OF POWER SOURCES
Volume 275, Issue -, Pages 901-911

Publisher

ELSEVIER SCIENCE BV
DOI: 10.1016/j.jpowsour.2014.10.188

Keywords

SOEC; Degradation; Post-test analysis; Long-term operation

Funding

  1. Federal Ministry of Economics and Technology, Germany [03ET2014C]

Ask authors/readers for more resources

Solid oxide electrolyser cells (SOEC) operated for 6100 h and 9000 h with a current density of -0.75 and -1 A/cm(2), respectively, were analyzed and compared with a non-operated cell. The cathode-supported cells consisted of an 8 mu m thick Ni/8YSZ cermet as hydrogen cathode, a 10 mu m thick 8YSZ electrolyte, a screen-printed Ce0.8Gd0.2O1.9 diffusion barrier with a thickness of 5 mu m and a 30 mu m thick La0.58Sr0.4Co0.2Fe0.8O3 layer as oxygen anode. The cells were investigated by various electron microscopy as well as microanalytical techniques. The post-test analyses showed several degradation phenomena such as formation of nano-sized pores at grain boundaries, formation of SrZrO3 at the interface electrolyte/anode and agglomeration of nickel particles in the cathode. Comparisons of the operated cells with the non-operated cell indicate that nickel depletion in the cathode is responsible for a loss of performance since this depletion leads to a significant enlargement of electrolyte thickness. Analysis of these cells leads to the conclusion that two mass transport processes in the electrolyte caused by different driving forces are the main reason of the cell performance loss: at the cathode side, the electrical potential gradient appears to govern the formation of pores, while at the anode side, formation of SrZrO3 generates a chemical potential gradient causing the cations to migrate against the direction of the electric field. (C) 2014 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