Abstract
Due to its high current densities and fast system response proton exchange membrane water electrolysis (PEMWE) is an ideal system for green hydrogen production from renewable energies. However, its widespread use is still hindered by the high costs rendering the produced green hydrogen not competitive. Therefore, a cost reduction is highly needed. The bipolar plates (BPPs) are causing a colossal factor in material costs. They are usually produced from titanium and coated with even more expensive materials such as gold or platinum. A possible, cheaper alternative is stainless steel. However, it is suspected to suffer from corrosion leading to the leaching of cations that can poison the catalyst or membrane.[1] Thus, we investigated the stability of BPP materials, the currently used titanium, and its cheaper alternative stainless steel (316L).[2] Therefore, we use a modified scanning flow cell setup coupled to an inductively coupled plasma mass spectrometer for investigating the stability of both materials on-line, as well as with scanning electron microscopy. To mimic the conditions at the BPP under operation, deionized (DI) water and highly diluted (0.5 mM) H2SO4 are chosen as electrolytes combined with a sample temperature of 60 °C.For Ti, we show that the dissolution is negligible, whereas 316L corrodes. For 316L, in DI water mainly Cr dissolves, while in the H2SO4 solution, the dissolution is more pronounced, and all alloy components are detected. Besides the pH value, the applied potentials play a crucial for its stability. However, our findings suggest that the contamination for a typical full cell architecture remains below 1 ppm, even for the highest measured dissolution rate of SS 316L.These capabilities of on-line high-throughput stability tests for BPP materials are, furthermore, used to investigate the influence of contaminations, such as F- or Cl-, and of the temperature-dependence on the stability of 316L. These results give further insights into 316L stability as BPP material and therefore contribute to the development towards cost-effective PEMWE.[1] a) N. Rojas, M. Sánchez-Molina, G. Sevilla, E. Amores, E. Almandoz, J. Esparza, M. R. Cruz Vivas, C. Colominas, Int. J. Hydrogen Energy 2021, 46, 25929-25943; b) H. Becker, J. Murawski, D. V. Shinde, I. E. L. Stephens, G. Hinds, G. Smith, Sustain. Energy Fuels 2023, 7, 1565-1603.[2] L. Fiedler, T. C. Ma, B. Fritsch, J. H. Risse, M. Lechner, D. Dworschak, M. Merklein, K. J. J. Mayrhofer, A. Hutzler, ChemElectroChem 2023, e202300373. Figure 1
Talk to us
Join us for a 30 min session where you can share your feedback and ask us any queries you have
Disclaimer: All third-party content on this website/platform is and will remain the property of their respective owners and is provided on "as is" basis without any warranties, express or implied. Use of third-party content does not indicate any affiliation, sponsorship with or endorsement by them. Any references to third-party content is to identify the corresponding services and shall be considered fair use under The CopyrightLaw.