4.4 Article

Benchmark study of performances and durability between different stack technologies for high temperature electrolysis

期刊

FUEL CELLS
卷 -, 期 -, 页码 -

出版社

WILEY-V C H VERLAG GMBH
DOI: 10.1002/fuce.202300028

关键词

benchmark; high temperature electrolysis; hydrogen production; solid oxide cell (SOC); stack

向作者/读者索取更多资源

This article presents the application of two solid oxide cell (SOC) technologies in high temperature electrolysis and the implementation of stack testing in a laboratory environment. The research findings include performance maps, voltage and stack temperature profiles over time, and discussions on the difficulties of long-term testing.
In the current landscape of high temperature electrolysis, mainly two solid oxide cell (SOC) technologies are being used: electrolyte-supported and cathode-supported SOCs. The geometrical differences, namely the thickness of the electrolyte, can lead to vastly different operating temperatures. Since most phenomena affecting performance and durability remain thermally activated, comparing stack technologies can be a difficult endeavor at best.While the most visible goal of the European project MultiPLHY consists of Sunfire GmbH building the first multi-megawatt solid oxide electrolyzer, a work package is being dedicated to stack testing in a laboratory environment. A harmonized protocol was first elaborated to allow comparing different stack technologies. It includes the recording of performance maps, several galvanostatic steps in thermoneutral conditions, as well as load point and thermal cycles. Subsequently, Sunfire operated a pile-up of two 30-cell electrolyte-supported stacks for over 8200 h, while a 25-cell cathode-supported stack was tested at CEA for 6800 h.The present article aims at presenting the findings gathered during the implementation of the protocol. This benchmark study puts forward performance maps as well as voltage and stack temperature profiles over time, and discusses some of the difficulties inherent to long-term testing.

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

4.4
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