4.8 Article

Nanoengineering of cathode layers for solid oxide fuel cells to achieve superior power densities

期刊

NATURE COMMUNICATIONS
卷 12, 期 1, 页码 -

出版社

NATURE PORTFOLIO
DOI: 10.1038/s41467-021-24255-w

关键词

-

资金

  1. Advanced Technology Consortium for Solid State Energy Conversion (ASEC)

向作者/读者索取更多资源

This study presents an innovative concept for high-performance thin-film cathodes by nanoengineering techniques, which integrated nanoporous La0.6Sr0.4CoO3-delta cathodes with highly ordered, self-assembled nanocomposite La0.6Sr0.4Co0.2Fe0.8O3-delta and Ce0.9Gd0.1O2-delta cathode layers into conventional anode-supported cells, achieving high current densities at elevated temperatures.
Solid oxide fuel cells (SOFCs) are power-generating devices with high efficiencies and considered as promising alternatives to mitigate energy and environmental issues associated with fossil fuel technologies. Nanoengineering of electrodes utilized for SOFCs has emerged as a versatile tool for significantly enhancing the electrochemical performance but needs to overcome issues for integration into practical cells suitable for widespread application. Here, we report an innovative concept for high-performance thin-film cathodes comprising nanoporous La0.6Sr0.4CoO3-delta cathodes in conjunction with highly ordered, self-assembled nanocomposite La0.6Sr0.4Co0.2Fe0.8O3-delta (lanthanum strontium cobalt ferrite) and Ce0.9Gd0.1O2-delta (gadolinia-doped ceria) cathode layers prepared using pulsed laser deposition. Integration of the nanoengineered cathode layers into conventional anode-supported cells enabled the achievement of high current densities at 0.7 V reaching similar to 2.2 and similar to 4.7 A/cm(2) at 650 degrees C and 700 degrees C, respectively. This result demonstrates that tuning material properties through an effective nanoengineering approach could significantly boost the electrochemical performance of cathodes for development of next-generation SOFCs with high power output.

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