4.8 Article

Performance of advanced automotive fuel cell systems with heat rejection constraint

期刊

JOURNAL OF POWER SOURCES
卷 309, 期 -, 页码 178-191

出版社

ELSEVIER SCIENCE BV
DOI: 10.1016/j.jpowsour.2016.01.060

关键词

Polymer electrolyte fuel cells; Automotive application; Heat rejection; Kinetic and mass transfer losses; Mass transfer in cathode catalysts; Oxygen reduction reaction kinetics; Stability and durability

资金

  1. Fuel Cell Technologies Office of the U.S. Department of Energy's (DOE) Office of Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy
  2. DOE, Office of Science Laboratory [DE-AC02-06CH11357]

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Although maintaining polymer electrolyte fuel cells (PEFC) at temperatures below 80 degrees C is desirable for extended durability and enhanced performance, the automotive application also requires the PEFC stacks to operate at elevated temperatures and meet the heat rejection constraint, stated as Q/Delta T < 1.45 kW/degrees C, where Q is the stack heat load for an 80-kW(e) net power PEFC system and Delta T is the difference between the stack coolant temperature and 40 degrees C ambient temperature. We have developed a method to determine the optimum design and operating conditions for an automotive stack subject to this Q/Delta T constraint, and illustrate it by applying it to a state-of-the-art stack with nano-structured thin film ternary catalysts in the membrane electrode assemblies. In the illustrative example, stack coolant temperatures >90 degrees C, stack inlet pressures >2 atm, and cathode stoichiometries <2 are needed to satisfy the Q/Delta T constraint in a cost effective manner. The reference PEFC stack with 0.1 mg/cm(2) Pt loading in the cathode achieves 753 mW cm(-2) power density at the optimum conditions for heat rejection, compared to 964 mW cm(-2) in the laboratory cell at the same cell voltage (663 mV) and pressure (2.5 atm) but lower temperature (85 degrees C), higher cathode stoichiometry (2), and 100% relative humidity. (C) 2016 Elsevier B.V. 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

4.8
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