“…However, hydrogen (H 2 ) poses an attractive CO 2 emission-free alternative if it is not obtained from steam methane reforming (SMR) or fossil-fuel-powered electrolysis. Water-splitting technologies offer multiple pathways to meet this demand if they can be scaled up and made more efficient to reduce the cost of produced hydrogen and compete with SMR ($1.25-3.50 kg −1 ), [2,3] with an ultimate levelized cost target of $2 kg −1 for H 2 set by the U.S. Department of Energy (DOE). [4,5] Photoelectrochemical (PEC) water splitting is one of those pathways with the potential to produce low-cost hydrogen efficiently from water, using sunlight as the only other input.…”
Photoelectrochemical (PEC) water splitting provides a pathway to generate sustainable clean fuels using the two most abundant resources on Earth: sunlight and water. Currently, most of the successful models of PEC cells are still fabricated on small scales near 1 cm2, which largely limits the mass deployment of solar‐fuel production. Here, the scale‐up to 8 cm2 of an integrated PEC (IPEC) device is demonstrated and its performance compared to a 1 cm2 IPEC cell, using state‐of‐the‐art iridium and platinum catalysts with III–V photoabsorbers. The initial photocurrents at 1 sun are 8 and 7 mA cm−2 with degradation rates of 0.60 and 0.47 mA cm−2 day−1, during unbiased operation for the 1 and 8 cm2 devices, respectively. Evaluating under outdoor and indoor conditions at two U.S. National Laboratories reveals similar results, evidencing the reproducibility of this design's performance. Furthermore, the emerging degradation mechanisms during scale‐up are investigated and the knowledge gained from this work will provide feedback to the broader community, since PEC device durability is a limiting factor in its potential future deployment.
“…However, hydrogen (H 2 ) poses an attractive CO 2 emission-free alternative if it is not obtained from steam methane reforming (SMR) or fossil-fuel-powered electrolysis. Water-splitting technologies offer multiple pathways to meet this demand if they can be scaled up and made more efficient to reduce the cost of produced hydrogen and compete with SMR ($1.25-3.50 kg −1 ), [2,3] with an ultimate levelized cost target of $2 kg −1 for H 2 set by the U.S. Department of Energy (DOE). [4,5] Photoelectrochemical (PEC) water splitting is one of those pathways with the potential to produce low-cost hydrogen efficiently from water, using sunlight as the only other input.…”
Photoelectrochemical (PEC) water splitting provides a pathway to generate sustainable clean fuels using the two most abundant resources on Earth: sunlight and water. Currently, most of the successful models of PEC cells are still fabricated on small scales near 1 cm2, which largely limits the mass deployment of solar‐fuel production. Here, the scale‐up to 8 cm2 of an integrated PEC (IPEC) device is demonstrated and its performance compared to a 1 cm2 IPEC cell, using state‐of‐the‐art iridium and platinum catalysts with III–V photoabsorbers. The initial photocurrents at 1 sun are 8 and 7 mA cm−2 with degradation rates of 0.60 and 0.47 mA cm−2 day−1, during unbiased operation for the 1 and 8 cm2 devices, respectively. Evaluating under outdoor and indoor conditions at two U.S. National Laboratories reveals similar results, evidencing the reproducibility of this design's performance. Furthermore, the emerging degradation mechanisms during scale‐up are investigated and the knowledge gained from this work will provide feedback to the broader community, since PEC device durability is a limiting factor in its potential future deployment.
“…The key distinction between SOFCs and low-temperature fuel cells is that aside from pure hydrogen the former can operate with alternative fuels, including bio-hythane [4,5], ethanol [6][7][8], kerosene [9], propane [10][11][12], ammonia [13,14], syngas [15], methane [16][17][18][19][20], and biogas [14,[21][22][23][24][25][26], where CO also serves as a reactant in the electrochemical reactions [14,19,[27][28][29]. This ability is a remarkable advantage given the high cost of pure hydrogen required in low-temperature fuel cells although when hydrogen produced from renewable energy [30,31]. Furthermore, methane (natural gas) distribution infrastructure already exists whereas the hydrogen distribution network will need to be built from scratch.…”
Link to publication on Research at Birmingham portal General rights Unless a licence is specified above, all rights (including copyright and moral rights) in this document are retained by the authors and/or the copyright holders. The express permission of the copyright holder must be obtained for any use of this material other than for purposes permitted by law. • Users may freely distribute the URL that is used to identify this publication. • Users may download and/or print one copy of the publication from the University of Birmingham research portal for the purpose of private study or non-commercial research. • User may use extracts from the document in line with the concept of 'fair dealing' under the Copyright, Designs and Patents Act 1988 (?) • Users may not further distribute the material nor use it for the purposes of commercial gain. Where a licence is displayed above, please note the terms and conditions of the licence govern your use of this document. When citing, please reference the published version. Take down policy While the University of Birmingham exercises care and attention in making items available there are rare occasions when an item has been uploaded in error or has been deemed to be commercially or otherwise sensitive.
“…3), are reviewed in comparison to the production cost of hydrogen from steam methane reforming (1.9-2.6 $/kg H 2 ) and the 2020 U.S. Department of Energy (DOE) target (2 $/kg H 2 ). 13,14 For a more in-depth analysis, El-Emam and Ozcan published a comprehensive review on the technological, economic, and environmental aspects of renewable hydrogen production. 15…”
Section: Technologies For Renewable Hydrogen Productionmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…3 ), are reviewed in comparison to the production cost of hydrogen from steam methane reforming (1.9–2.6 $/kg H 2 ) and the 2020 U.S. Department of Energy (DOE) target (2 $/kg H 2 ). 13 , 14 Figure 3. Average hydrogen production cost from various methods.…”
Section: Technologies For Renewable Hydrogen Productionmentioning
confidence: 99%
“… 50 The gasification process using fluidized bed reactors have demonstrated high biomass conversion with H 2 content in gas ~55 vol.% and H 2 production of ~6.9 wt%. 20 , 51 The cost of H 2 production by gasification from biomass is estimated to be ~1.77–2.05 $/kg H 2 , 14 and the process can be generalized in the following equation: 52 Table 2. Hydrogen production strategies from pyrolysis and the gasification process.…”
Section: Technologies For Renewable Hydrogen Productionmentioning
scite is a Brooklyn-based organization that helps researchers better discover and understand research articles through Smart Citations–citations that display the context of the citation and describe whether the article provides supporting or contrasting evidence. scite is used by students and researchers from around the world and is funded in part by the National Science Foundation and the National Institute on Drug Abuse of the National Institutes of Health.
