Distribution of Relaxation Times of Fuel Electrodes for Reversible Solid Oxide Cells Fabricated Under Various Conditions
Authors: Nagatomo Yohei , Tachikawa Yuya , Lyth Stephen Matthew , Matsuda Junko , Sasaki Kazunari 
Published: February 2024

Introduction

Reversible solid oxide cells (r-SOCs) are electrochemical energy devices that can switch reversibly between power generation as a solid oxide fuel cell (SOFC) and hydrogen production as a solid oxide electrolysis cell (SOEC). It is important to systematically understand the electrode reaction processes and degradation factors in these two modes to tailor high-performance and durable r-SOC electrodes. The dependence of polarization resistance on cell fabrication conditions and operating conditions has been individually investigated for SOFC and SOEC by impedance measurement and distribution of relaxation times (DRT) analysis [1-4], but it is necessary to evaluate r-SOC as a whole [5]. Here in this study, we aim to systematically clarify the similarities and differences in the electrode reaction processes at the fuel electrodes of both SOFC and SOEC modes of r-SOCs, with respect to fuel electrode fabrication conditions.

Experimental

Several types of cells were fabricated with different fuel electrode constituent materials, thicknesses, and sintering temperatures. Three types of fuel electrode materials were used: Ni-GDC cermet, a composite of Ni and mixed ionic-electronic conductor Gd0.9Ce0.1O3 (GDC); Ni-YSZ cermet, a composite of Ni and pure ionic conductor YSZ (8 mol% Y2O3 - stabilized ZrO2); and Ni-GDC co-impregnated electrode with LST-GDC as a backbone support (LST: La0.1Sr0.9TiO3). Scandia-stabilized zirconia (ScSZ) was used as the electrolyte plate, and (La0.6Sr0.4)(Co0.2Fe0.8)O3 (LSCF) was used as the air electrode. GDC buffer layer was prepared between the electrolyte and the air electrode to suppress the formation of interfacial insulting layers.

Electrochemical impedance measurements were performed for the fuel electrode of the fabricated cell under SOFC and SOEC modes by supplying H2-H2O mixture and varying operating temperature, fuel humidification, and current density. The DRT analysis was conducted to separate various polarization resistance components of the fuel electrode with different relaxation times. The area of each DRT peak corresponds to the resistance of each electrode reaction process. In this study, activation energy was derived based on the assumption that the electrical conductance is of an Arrhenius-type thermally activated character. Its dependence on the fuel electrode fabrication conditions was investigated. Furthermore, electrode microstructure was observed by using focused-ion beam scanning electron microscopy (FIB-SEM).

Results and Discussion

Figure 1 shows typical DRT peaks of the Ni-GDC cermet fuel electrode in (a) SOFC and (b) SOEC modes, measured at different temperatures. In the range of 10-1 to 106 Hz where the frequency response was measured, three DRT peaks appeared, P1: 10-1 to 100 Hz, P2: 100 to 102 Hz, and P3: 102 to 103 Hz, all with a DRT peak area decreasing with increasing operating temperature. This indicates that there are at least three electrode reaction processes with different relaxation times, which are thermally active processes. Activation energies of 0.1-0.3 eV (SOFC mode) and 0.2-0.5 eV (SOEC mode) were obtained for P1, and 0.9-1.0 eV (SOFC mode) and 1.1-1.3 eV (SOEC mode) for P2. The activation energies in SOEC mode were higher than those in SOFC mode for both P1 and P2. In the presentation, the dependence of activation energies on the fuel electrode constituent materials and related electrode reaction processes will be discussed.

References

[1] A. Leonide, V. Sonn, A. Weber, and E. Ivers-Tiffée, J. Electrochem. Soc., 155, B36 (2007).

[2] C. Graves, S. D. Ebbesen, and M. Mogensen, Solid State Ionics, 192, 398 (2011).

[3] H. Sumi, T. Yamaguchi, K. Hamamoto, T. Suzuki, Y. Fujishiro, T. Matsui, and K. Eguchi, Electrochim. Acta, 67, 159 (2012).

[4] N. Endo, T. Fukumoto, Y. Tachikawa, S. M. Lyth, J. Matsuda, and K. Sasaki, ECS Trans., 109 (11), 3 (2022).

[5] V. Subotić, B. Königshofer, Ð. Juričić, M. Kusnezoff, H. Schröttner, C. Hochenauer, and P. Boškoski, Energy Convers.
Manag., 226, 113509 (2020).

Acknowledgment

This paper is based on results obtained from a project (Research and Development Program for Promoting Innovative Clean Energy Technologies Through International Collaboration), JPNP20005, commissioned by the New Energy and Industrial Technology Development Organization (NEDO). Collaborative support by Prof. H. L. Tuller and Prof. B. Yildiz at Massachusetts Institute of Technology (MIT) is gratefully acknowledged.

Figure 1