4.6 Article

Rapid Laser Reactive Sintering for Sustainable and Clean Preparation of Protonic Ceramics

期刊

ACS OMEGA
卷 5, 期 20, 页码 11637-11642

出版社

AMER CHEMICAL SOC
DOI: 10.1021/acsomega.0c00879

关键词

-

资金

  1. U.S. Department of Energy's Office of Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy (EERE) under the Fuel Cell Technologies Office [DE-EE0008428]

向作者/读者索取更多资源

One of the essential challenges for energy conversion and storage devices based on protonic ceramics is that the high temperature (1600-1700 degrees C) and long-time firing (>10 h) are inevitably required for the fabrication, which makes the sustainable and clean manufacturing of protonic ceramic devices impractical. This study provided a new rapid laser reactive sintering (RLRS) method for the preparation of nine protonic ceramics [i.e., BaZr0.8Y0.2O3-delta (BZY20), BZY20 + 1 wt % NiO, BaCe0.7Zr0.1Y0.1Yb0.1O3-delta (BCZYYb), BCZYYb + 1 wt % NiO, 40 wt % BCZYYb + 60 wt % NiO, BaCe0.85Fe0.15O3-delta BaCe0.15Fe0.85O3-delta (BCF), BaCo0.4Fe0.4Zr0.1Y0.1O3-delta (BCFZY0.1), BaCe0.6Zr0.3Y0.1O3-delta (BCZY63), and La0.7Sr0.3CrO3-delta (LSC)] with desired crystal structures and microstructures. Following this, the dual-layer half-cells, comprising the porous electrode and dense electrolyte, were prepared by the developed RLRS technique. After applying the BCFZY0.1 cathode, the protonic ceramic fuel cell (PCFC) single cells were prepared and tested initially. The derived conductivity of the RLRS electrolyte films showed comparable proton conductivity with the electrolyte prepared by conventional furnace sintering. The initial cost estimation based on electricity consumption during the sintering process for the fabrication of PCFC single cells showed that RLRS is more competitive than the conventional furnace sintering. This RLRS can be combined with the rapid additive manufacturing of ceramics for the sustainable and clean manufacturing of protonic ceramic energy devices and the processing of other ceramic devices.

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

4.6
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