Carbon Bipolar Plates in PEM Water Electrolysis: Bust or Must?
Source abstract
Abstract
Abstract Reducing the cost of PEM water electrolyzers is crucial for making green hydrogen economically viable achievable by cheaper catalysts as well as bipolar plates. This study demonstrates for the first time the use of uncoated carbon bipolar plates (C‐BPs) as an alternative to titanium bipolar plates (Ti‐BPs). The corrosion phenomena of C‐BPs versus Ti‐BPs are investigated through ex situ and in situ accelerated stress tests. The findings show that pH values, especially between 1 and 0, exponentially influence the corrosion current density of bipolar plates. Ex situ tests revealed significantly higher corrosion current densities for C‐BPs compared to Ti‐BPs (e.g., 170 times higher at pH 1 and 80 °C). Yet, tests applying C‐BPs in a Proton Exchange Membrane Electrolyzer operated for at least 567 h at alternating current densities of 1 and 3 A cm⁻2 with low degradation rates (16.41 µV h⁻¹ at 1 A cm⁻2 and 31.92 µV h⁻¹ at 3 A cm⁻2), comparable to Ti‐BPs. Contrary to general perceptions, C‐BPs are stable under application‐ready conditions and do not corrode as previously expected. This study highlights the potential of C‐BPs in electrolyzers, showcasing the potential to reduce the costs of the electrolyzers.
Source: crossref · Quality: baseline
Research context
OpenAlex topics: Hybrid Renewable Energy Systems · Fuel Cells and Related Materials · Electrocatalysts for Energy Conversion
SciVX discovery tags are terminology-based. OpenAlex topics are source-provided classifications.
Affiliations
Fraunhofer Institute for Environmental Safety and Energy Technology UMSICHT 46047 Oberhausen Germany
Cross Energy Systems Faculty of Mechanical Engineering Ruhr University Bochum 44801 Bochum Germany
Inorganic Chemistry I Faculty of Chemistry and Biochemistry Ruhr University Bochum 44801 Bochum Germany
Funding
Fraunhofer-Gesellschaft
References (30)
Show source-provided references
1. 10.1021/jacsau.1c0009210.1021/jacsau.1c00092 ↗
2. 10.1038/nature1147510.1038/nature11475 ↗
3. Metz S. · 2023
4. 10.1016/j.mset.2019.03.00210.1016/j.mset.2019.03.002 ↗
5. 10.1002/er.718210.1002/er.7182 ↗
6. 10.1016/B978-0-08-102830-8.00001-110.1016/B978-0-08-102830-8.00001-1 ↗
7. M.Grohol C.Veeh2023 https://doi.org/10.2873/725585.
8. 10.1016/j.ijhydene.2021.03.10010.1016/j.ijhydene.2021.03.100 ↗
9. 10.1016/j.jpowsour.2022.23246910.1016/j.jpowsour.2022.232469 ↗
10. 10.3390/ma1505162810.3390/ma15051628 ↗
11. 10.1038/srep4403510.1038/srep44035 ↗
12. 10.1039/D2EE00876A10.1039/D2EE00876A ↗
13. 10.1016/j.ijhydene.2015.04.15510.1016/j.ijhydene.2015.04.155 ↗
14. 10.1016/j.jmapro.2020.10.04110.1016/j.jmapro.2020.10.041 ↗
15. L.Kopietz T.Seipp S.Berthold J.Burfeind D.Hintemann H.Wack WO2015007544A1 2015.
16. Kopietz Girschik Schwerdt Burfreind Greve Doetsch https://www.umsicht.fraunhofer.de/de/presse‐medien/pressemitteilungen/2017/groesste‐bipolarplatte.html https://www.umsicht.fraunhofer.de/en/press‐media/press‐releases/2021/redox‐flow‐batteries.html.
17. 10.1002/cite.20210000110.1002/cite.202100001 ↗
18. 10.1002/celc.20230071510.1002/celc.202300715 ↗
19. 10.1039/D3SC04542K10.1039/D3SC04542K ↗
20. Aßmann P. · ScienceDirect · 2020 · 21 · 225
21. Tsotridis G. · 2021
22. 10.1016/j.jpowsour.2022.23256910.1016/j.jpowsour.2022.232569 ↗
23. 10.1016/j.electacta.2021.13774810.1016/j.electacta.2021.137748 ↗
24. 10.1016/j.jpowsour.2016.06.08210.1016/j.jpowsour.2016.06.082 ↗
25. 10.1016/j.elecom.2014.08.02710.1016/j.elecom.2014.08.027 ↗
26. 10.1016/j.ijhydene.2019.07.07510.1016/j.ijhydene.2019.07.075 ↗
27. 10.1016/j.jpowsour.2019.22756310.1016/j.jpowsour.2019.227563 ↗
28. Langemann M. · 2016
29. 10.1149/1945-7111/abf4ae10.1149/1945-7111/abf4ae ↗
30. Malkow T. · 2018