4.6 Article

A parameter study of solid oxide electrolysis cell degradation: Microstructural changes of the fuel electrode

期刊

ELECTROCHIMICA ACTA
卷 276, 期 -, 页码 162-175

出版社

PERGAMON-ELSEVIER SCIENCE LTD
DOI: 10.1016/j.electacta.2018.04.170

关键词

Solid oxide electrolysis cell (SOEC); Ni/YSZ electrode; Degradation; Electrochemical impedance spectroscopy; Ni depletion

资金

  1. Helmholtz Association

向作者/读者索取更多资源

A parameter study of 20 solid oxide electrolysis cells was carried out to systematically investigate long-term degradation each over 1000 h under variation of temperature, humidity and current density. The influence of operating temperature was investigated between 750 and 850 degrees C, the humidity ranged from 40% to 80% H2O, and the current density varied between open circuit voltage (OCV) and 1.5 A cm(-2). The progress of degradation was monitored in-situ by electrochemical impedance spectroscopy. Five different contributions to the spectra were identified by calculating the distribution of relaxation times and separated via a complex non-linear square fitting routine. The present work focuses on the degradation of the fuel electrode. From SEM analysis, Ni depletion and an increased pore fraction close to the electrode/electrolyte interface was derived, which is correlated with an increased ohmic resistance of the cells. This unidirectional transport of Ni away from the fuel electrode/electrolyte interface leads to an effective electrolyte extension and is the main source of degradation. Ni depletion is shown to be driven by current density and its extent is shown to be dependent on the complex interplay between the operating parameters current density, anode overpotential, humidity and temperature. It is particularly pronounced for pH(2)O larger than 0.8 atm and temperatures above 800 degrees C. Furthermore, the fuel electrode electrochemistry also exhibits degradation in the high-frequency region around 10(4) Hz. (C) 2018 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