Polymer electrolyte membrane (PEM) water electrolysis is a key technology to produce clean, high purity hydrogen, which can serve as an alternative to carbon-based fuels. However, PEM electrolyzer uptake has been sluggish due to high catalyst costs, which can contribute to up to 47% of total stack costs [1]. Thus, to lower stack costs, the morphology of the catalyst layer must be optimized towards lower precious metal loadings. However, catalyst layer morphology optimization remains a challenge, as the mechanisms linking catalyst morphology to mass and charge transport remain ambiguous in the literature [2], [3]. While the morphology of porous transport layer (PTL) has been extensively explored via stochastic material generation and pore network modelling techniques [4], such an analysis must also be extended to the catalyst layer to design efficient, low-cost materials.In this work, we introduce a method to replicate the pore structure of commercially available PEM electrolyzer catalyst layers using stochastic generation techniques. Our method employs a custom divider to combine regions of varying pore sizes and effectively replicate the range of catalyst layer pore sizes observed in commercial materials. Moreover, we demonstrate that the pore size distribution of stochastically generated materials is statistically indistinguishable from imaged catalyst samples. Pore network modelling techniques were further applied to stochastically generated morphologies to evaluate electrical and mass transport properties. We not only reveal that the transport properties of our stochastically generated materials fall within experimentally measured ranges, but also reveal how tailoring pore size distributions can enhance these properties. The findings from our analysis can be used to identify desirable catalyst morphology targets for manufacturing and enhance the accuracy of electrolyzer transport models via the estimation of catalyst layer transport properties.[1] A. Mayyas, M. Ruth, et al., Manufacturing Cost Analysis for Proton Exchange Membrane Water Electrolyzers, United States (2019).[2] Z. Taie, X. Peng, et al., ACS Appl. Mater. Interfaces, 12, 47, 52701–52712 (2020).[3] J. Lopata, Z. Kang, et al., J. Electrochem. Soc., 167. 064507 (2020).[4] J. K. Lee, C. H. Lee, and A. Bazylak, J. Power Sources, 437, 226910 (2019).
Read full abstract