4.8 Article

Voltage losses in zero-gap alkaline water electrolysis

期刊

JOURNAL OF POWER SOURCES
卷 497, 期 -, 页码 -

出版社

ELSEVIER
DOI: 10.1016/j.jpowsour.2021.229864

关键词

Alkaline water electrolysis; Zero-gap; Bubble Overpotential; Concentration overpotential; Zirfon PERL

向作者/读者索取更多资源

The article provides a detailed account of the relationship between the electrodes and diaphragm in zero-gap configuration, with findings that the ohmic resistance is usually larger than that of the separator. Factors such as bubbles, hydroxide depletion, and dissolved hydrogen and oxygen contribute to voltage losses.
Reducing the gap between the electrodes and diaphragm to zero is an often adopted strategy to reduce the ohmic drop in alkaline water electrolyzers for hydrogen production. We provide a thorough account of the current?voltage relationship in such a zero-gap configuration over a wide range of electrolyte concentrations and current densities. Included are voltage components that are not often experimentally quantified like those due to bubbles, hydroxide depletion, and dissolved hydrogen and oxygen. As is commonly found for zero-gap configurations, the ohmic resistance was substantially larger than that of the separator. We find that this is because the relatively flat electrode area facing the diaphragm was not active, likely due to separator pore blockage by gas, the electrode itself, and or solid deposits. Over an e-folding time-scale of ten seconds, an additional ohmic drop was found to arise, likely due to gas bubbles in the electrode holes. For electrolyte concentrations below 0.5 M, an overpotential was observed, associated with local depletion of hydroxide at the anode. Finally, a high supersaturation of hydrogen and oxygen was found to significantly increase the equilibrium potential at elevated current densities. Most of these voltage losses are shown to be easily avoidable by introducing a small 0.2 mm gap, greatly improving the performance compared to zero-gap.

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

4.8
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