% IMPORTANT: The following is UTF-8 encoded. This means that in the presence
% of non-ASCII characters, it will not work with BibTeX 0.99 or older.
% Instead, you should use an up-to-date BibTeX implementation like “bibtex8” or
% “biber”.
@ARTICLE{Bender:852504,
author = {Bender, Guido and Carmo, Marcelo and Smolinka, Tom and
Gago, Aldo and Danilovic, Nemanja and Müller, Martin and
Ganci, Fabrizio and Fallisch, Arne and Lettenmeier, Philipp
and Friedrich, Andreas and Ayer, Kathy and Pivovar, Brian
and Mergel, Jürgen and Stolten, Detlef},
title = {{I}nitial {A}pproaches in {B}enchmarking and {R}ound
{R}obin {T}esting for {P}roton {E}xchange {M}embrane {W}ater
{E}lectrolyzers},
journal = {International journal of hydrogen energy},
volume = {44},
number = {18},
issn = {0360-3199},
address = {New York, NY [u.a.]},
publisher = {Elsevier},
reportid = {FZJ-2018-05432},
pages = {9174 - 9187},
year = {2019},
abstract = {As ever-increasing amounts of renewable electricity enter
the energy supply mix on a regional, national and
international basis, greater emphasis is being placed on
energy conversion and storage technologies to deal with the
oscillations, excess and lack of electricity. Hydrogen
generation via proton exchange membrane water electrolysis
(PEMWE) is one technology that offers a pathway to store
large amounts of electricity in the form of hydrogen. The
challenges to widespread adoption of PEM water electrolyzers
lie in their high capital and operating costs which both
need to be reduced through $R\&D.$ An evaluation of reported
PEMWE performance data in the literature reveals that there
are excessive variations of in situ performance results that
make it difficult to draw conclusions on the pathway forward
to performance optimization and future $R\&D$ directions. To
enable the meaningful comparison of in situ performance
evaluation across laboratories there is an obvious need for
standardization of materials and testing protocols. Herein,
we address this need by reporting the results of a round
robin test effort conducted at the laboratories of five
contributors to the IEA Electrolysis Annex 30. For this
effort a method and equipment framework were first developed
and then verified with respect to its feasibility for
measuring water electrolysis performance accurately across
the various laboratories. The effort utilized identical sets
of test articles, materials, and test cells, and employed a
set of shared test protocols. It further defined a minimum
skeleton of requirements for the test station equipment. The
maximum observed deviation between laboratories at 1 A
cm−2 at cell temperatures of 60 °C and 80 °C was 27 and
20 mV, respectively. The deviation of the results from
laboratory to laboratory was 2–3 times higher than the
lowest deviation observed at one single lab and test
station. However, the highest deviations observed were
one-tenth of those extracted by a literature survey on
similar material sets. The work endorses the urgent need to
identify one or more reference sets of materials in addition
to the method and equipment framework introduced here, to
enable accurate comparison of results across the entire
community. The results further imply that cell temperature
control appears to be the most significant source of
deviation between results, and that care must be taken with
respect to break-in conditions and cell electrical
connections for meaningful performance data.},
cin = {IEK-3 / IEK-14},
ddc = {660},
cid = {I:(DE-Juel1)IEK-3-20101013 / I:(DE-Juel1)IEK-14-20191129},
pnm = {134 - Electrolysis and Hydrogen (POF3-134)},
pid = {G:(DE-HGF)POF3-134},
typ = {PUB:(DE-HGF)16},
UT = {WOS:000464296600004},
doi = {10.1016/j.ijhydene.2019.02.074},
url = {https://juser.fz-juelich.de/record/852504},
}