4.7 Article

Fabrication and evaluation of Ni-GDC composite anode prepared by aqueous-based tape casting method for low-temperature solid oxide fuel cell

期刊

INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF HYDROGEN ENERGY
卷 35, 期 1, 页码 301-307

出版社

PERGAMON-ELSEVIER SCIENCE LTD
DOI: 10.1016/j.ijhydene.2009.09.101

关键词

Anode-supported SOFC; Aqueous-based tape casting; Ni-GDC anode; GDC electrolyte; LSCF-GDC cathode

资金

  1. Agency for Science, Technology and Research (A*STAR)
  2. Singapore and Ministry of Science and Higher Education, Poland

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Large-size, 8 cm x 8 cm, NiO-Gd0.1Ce0.9O1.95 (Ni-GDC) composite anodes have been successfully fabricated by aqueous-based tape casting method for anode-supported solid oxide fuel cell (SOFC). The pre-sintered anode green tape was coated with a GDC electrolyte film by spray coating method and then co-sintered together to obtain electrolyte/anode bi-layer. The cathode, which is made of La0.8Sr0.2Co0.2Fe0.8O3-GDC (LSCF-GDC) was screen printed onto the electrolyte film and sintered to form a complete anode-supported SOFC. The performance of the cell was evaluated on an in-house developed test station between 500 and 650 degrees C. Due to the limitation of the test station for large-cell testing, small-size samples with dimensions of 2.5 cm x 2.5 cm were cut out from the large-cell. For the single cell with humidified hydrogen as fuel and air as oxidant, the maximum power density achieved 909, 623, 335 and 168 mW cm(-2) at 650, 600, 550 and 500 degrees C, respectively. Impedance analysis confirmed that the performance of single cells below 600 degrees C was retarded primarily due to the slow interfacial reaction kinetics at reduced temperatures. Development of catalytically active electrode materials, especially the cathode material and improvement of the electrode microstructure are thus crucial for achieving a high performance low-temperature SOFC. (C) 2009 Professor T. Nejat Veziroglu. Published by Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.7
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据