journal article·2014-09

A High Power Density Intermediate‐Temperature Solid Oxide Fuel Cell with Thin (La0.9Sr0.1)0.98(Ga0.8Mg0.2)O3‐δ Electrolyte and Nano‐Scale Anode

Zhan Gao, Elizabeth C. Miller, Scott A. Barnett

Advanced Functional Materials· Volume 24· Issue 36
Publisher page

Abstract

Solid oxide fuel cells (SOFCs) with thin (La0.9Sr0.1)0.98Ga0.8Mg0.2O3‐δ (LSGM) electrolytes are primary candidates for achieving high (> 1 W cm‐2) power density at intermediate (< 650 °C) temperatures. Although high power density LSGM‐electrolyte SOFCs have been reported, it is still necessary to develop a fabrication process suitable for large‐scale manufacturing and to minimize the amount of LSGM used. Here we show that SOFCs made with a novel processing method and a Sr0.8La0.2TiO3‐α (SLT) oxide support can achieve high power density at intermediate temperature. The SLT support is advantageous, especially compared to LSGM supports, because of its low materials cost, electronic conductivity, and good mechanical strength. The novel process is to first co‐fire the ceramic layers – porous SLT support, porous LSGM layer, and dense LSGM layer – followed by infiltration of nano‐scale Ni into the porous layers. Low polarization resistance of 0.188 Ωcm2 was achieved at 650 °C for a cell with an optimized anode functional layer (AFL) and an (La,Sr)(Fe,Co)O3 cathode. Maximum power density reached 1.12 W cm−2 at 650 °C, limited primarily by cathode polarization and ohmic resistances, so there is considerable potential to further improve the power density.
Source: crossref · Quality: baseline

Research context

OpenAlex topics: Advancements in Solid Oxide Fuel Cells · Electronic and Structural Properties of Oxides · Magnetic and transport properties of perovskites and related materials

SciVX discovery tags are terminology-based. OpenAlex topics are source-provided classifications.

Affiliations

Department of Materials Science and Engineering Northwestern University 2220 Campus Drive Evanston IL 60208 United States of America

References (31)

Show source-provided references
1. 10.1126/science.117640410.1126/science.1176404 ↗
2. 10.1039/C0EE00231C10.1039/C0EE00231C ↗
3. 10.1039/c1ra00189b10.1039/c1ra00189b ↗
4. 10.1016/S0925-8388(00)00626-510.1016/S0925-8388(00)00626-5 ↗
5. 10.1149/1.219113210.1149/1.2191132 ↗
6. 10.1016/j.ijhydene.2009.12.17410.1016/j.ijhydene.2009.12.174 ↗
7. 10.1039/c1ee01982a10.1039/c1ee01982a ↗
8. 10.1016/j.jpowsour.2012.08.01910.1016/j.jpowsour.2012.08.019 ↗
9. 10.1039/a604563d10.1039/a604563d ↗
10. 10.1016/S0167-2738(01)00687-710.1016/S0167-2738(01)00687-7 ↗
11. 10.1002/fuce.20130015510.1002/fuce.201300155 ↗
12. The following prices are presented for illustration only: $511 for 1 kg Gallium; $13.6 for 1 kg Titanium sponge metal from U.S. Geological Survey Mineral Commodity Summaries February 2014. Cost comparison between Gallium and Titanium is only presented which is the main economic difference between SLT and LSGM.
13. 10.1149/1.295760210.1149/1.2957602 ↗
14. 10.1007/s10832-006-3490-110.1007/s10832-006-3490-1 ↗
15. 10.1016/j.jallcom.2004.11.06610.1016/j.jallcom.2004.11.066 ↗
16. 10.1007/978-0-387-77708-510.1007/978-0-387-77708-5 ↗
17. 10.1016/S0167-2738(02)00140-610.1016/S0167-2738(02)00140-6 ↗
18. 10.1016/j.jpowsour.2008.07.06310.1016/j.jpowsour.2008.07.063 ↗
19. 10.1149/1.137828910.1149/1.1378289 ↗
20. 10.1016/j.ssi.2012.01.03710.1016/j.ssi.2012.01.037 ↗
21. 10.1039/c2ra20413d10.1039/c2ra20413d ↗
22. 10.1016/j.jpowsour.2012.08.01910.1016/j.jpowsour.2012.08.019 ↗
23. 10.1002/fuce.20100000510.1002/fuce.201000005 ↗
24. 10.1016/j.jpowsour.2010.05.04710.1016/j.jpowsour.2010.05.047 ↗
25. 10.1149/1.271655210.1149/1.2716552 ↗
26. 10.1038/srep0046210.1038/srep00462 ↗
27. 10.1002/adma.20080242810.1002/adma.200802428 ↗
28. 10.1149/1.210083910.1149/1.2100839 ↗
29. 10.1016/j.ssi.2003.12.00910.1016/j.ssi.2003.12.009 ↗
30. 10.1149/1.295907810.1149/1.2959078 ↗
31. 10.1149/2.068202jes10.1149/2.068202jes ↗