4.6 Article

Cell Performance Determining Parameters in High Pressure Water Electrolysis

期刊

ELECTROCHIMICA ACTA
卷 211, 期 -, 页码 989-997

出版社

PERGAMON-ELSEVIER SCIENCE LTD
DOI: 10.1016/j.electacta.2016.06.120

关键词

Polymer electrolyte; water electrolysis; overpotential analysis; pressure dependence

资金

  1. Swiss Federal Office of Energy (SFOE)
  2. Belenos Clean Power Holding Ltd.
  3. Energy System Integration (ESI) platform at PSI

向作者/读者索取更多资源

When hydrogen is used for energy applications, then often elevated pressure is required, i.e. up to 1000 bar for hydrogen refueling stations. When polymer electrolyte electrolyzers are operated at elevated pressures, to reduce external mechanical compression needs, the thermodynamically expected cell voltage increase with pressure is not generally observed. Consequently, beneficial processes have to compensate for the increased work performed. In this paper, the influence of the operating pressure up to 100 bar on the cell voltage behavior is investigated in detail. Data from galvanotstatic polarization curves up to 4 A/cm(2) combined with high frequency resistance measurements are analyzed using a zero-dimensional Tafel model. It shows that beneficial processes with increasing pressure are related to both the kinetic and mass transport overpotentials. At current densities above 1 A/cm(2) about two thirds of the overpotential gain can be related to reaction kinetics. Based on the Tafel model approach an increase of the apparent exchange current density by a factor of 4 to 7 is observed for the pressure increase from 10 to 100 bar. In contrast, the Tafel slope is independent of pressure and only the expected increase with temperature (73 to 81 mV/dec) for 30 to 70 degrees C is observed. Mass transport losses decrease with pressure. At 50 degrees C and 2 A/cm(2), increasing the pressure from 1 to 100 bar results in a decrease of the mass transport overpotential from 130 to 80 mV. (C) 2016 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

4.6
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