Talk:Solid oxide fuel cell

Untitled

A diagram of the balance of plant is requested. Mion (talk) 01:25, 29 October 2009 (UTC)

SOFC or solid oxide fuel cells are made in two distinct designs, tubular and planar. ITSOFC

This should mention BloomEnergy!! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.67.248.185 (talk) 08:02, 22 February 2010 (UTC)

in the anode section it says

The four minerals that make up a SOFC are BSCF (barium, strontium, cobalt, iron). Crystal Structure of Yttria-doped Barium Zirconate was shown.

This was done after just explaining that the anode was Ni with YSZ? I think this must be a mistake.

Jim Mikulak (talk) 01:12, 5 October 2008 (UTC)

Out of the references given, 8/9 were from one individual, by the same username. Consequently, the article is extremely biased. The technology evovles at thousands of labs worldwide, not just one in Europe. Wikipedia is not an advertisement portal for personal gains, or to get higher "referenced by" quotes. Open for discussion. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Am b5538 (talk • contribs) 17:35, 21 October 2009 (UTC)

In the article 3 similar sources are mentioned, if you are aware of similar or better sources feel free to add them. If there is an update from 2 references [1] to 13 references, situations like this happen, usually references are improved on over time. Thanks for noting it. Cheers Mion (talk) 11:48, 29 October 2009 (UTC)

Neutral point of view/Noticeboard

So that editors can better watch over this concern I have placed links at Wikipedia:Neutral point of view/Noticeboard to both this talk page and to Talk:Fuel cell. -84user (talk) 18:13, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

How efficient?

To compare this fuel cell with an internal combustion engine or other motive device, one needs efficiency values. How much energy is lost in reformating the fuel? What is the energy conversion efficiency of the fuel cell? What is the overall energy conversion efficiency. This article doesn't say so, but the carbon in natural gas or other fossil fuel must still be converted to CO2 so the reduction in CO2 emissions must come as result of higher relative energy conversion efficiency. —Preceding unsigned comment added by R Stillwater (talk • contribs) 07:56, 22 March 2010 (UTC)

Possible temperature conversion mistake?

Under the Electrolyte section, it mentions the lower temperature limit of 873K. Wondering if this should be 773K, based on the earlier reports that SOFC's operate between 500°C to 1,000°C. If this is the case, then the 273 degree difference factor between °C and K would produce 773K.

...unless the fact really is 873K. (130.134.235.94 (talk) 17:40, 22 September 2010 (UTC))

Layout

I felt the layout was a little off. I think the target section could be in operation. The intro had a lot of different random facts in it. I felt it could be distributed through operation, research, and the intro above and below the picture. I also believe there could be a new section titled Components to take some clutter out of the operation section. Lastly, the power of plant part I felt didn’t need it’s own title. That part also was 1 sentence consisting of broken links. SRMcGarvey (talk) 15:40, 18 December 2020 (UTC)

One day

One Day yall come here but i was first, im high asf now! 2A02:A420:4:732D:2:1:9470:F32C (talk) 21:19, 9 December 2021 (UTC)

Incorrect description of the redox chemistry

The oxide ions cannot be responsible for the oxidation reaction as they are already reduced. Further, if the oxide ions oxidized the fuel, then no useful work could be extracted from the fuel cells. The fuel is oxidized at the anode. The cationic products from the anode reaction combine with oxide ions in the electrolyte in an acid base reaction. More oxide ions are generated at the cathode, replenishing the electrolyte. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2600:6C52:7D7F:EFA7:A47D:A757:2799:A6C2 (talk) 06:33, 24 July 2022 (UTC)