The Critical Role of Supporting Electrolyte Selection on Flow Battery Cost
© 2017 The Author(s) 2017. Published by ECS. Redox flow batteries (RFBs) are promising devices for grid energy storage, but additional cost reductions are needed to meet the U.S. Department of Energy recommended capital cost of $150 kWh-1 for an installed system. The development of new active specie...
| Main Authors: | , , , , |
|---|---|
| Other Authors: | |
| Format: | Article |
| Language: | English |
| Published: |
The Electrochemical Society
2021
|
| Online Access: | https://hdl.handle.net/1721.1/134873 |
| _version_ | 1811079648123027456 |
|---|---|
| author | Milshtein, Jarrod D Darling, Robert M Drake, Javit Perry, Michael L Brushett, Fikile R |
| author2 | Massachusetts Institute of Technology. Department of Materials Science and Engineering |
| author_facet | Massachusetts Institute of Technology. Department of Materials Science and Engineering Milshtein, Jarrod D Darling, Robert M Drake, Javit Perry, Michael L Brushett, Fikile R |
| author_sort | Milshtein, Jarrod D |
| collection | MIT |
| description | © 2017 The Author(s) 2017. Published by ECS. Redox flow batteries (RFBs) are promising devices for grid energy storage, but additional cost reductions are needed to meet the U.S. Department of Energy recommended capital cost of $150 kWh-1 for an installed system. The development of new active species designed to lower cost or improve performance is a promising approach, but these new materials often require compatible electrolytes that optimize stability, solubility, and reaction kinetics. This work quantifies changes in RFB cost performance for different aqueous supporting electrolytes paired with different types of membranes. A techno-economic model is also used to estimate RFB-system costs for the different membrane and supporting salt options considered herein. Beyond the conventional RFB design incorporating small active species and an ion-exchange membrane (IEM), this work also considers size-selective separators as a cost-effective alternative to IEMs. The size selective separator (SSS) concept utilizes nanoporous separators with no functionalization for ion selectivity, and the active species are large enough that they cannot pass through the separator pores. Our analysis finds that SSS or H+-IEM are most promising to achieve cost targets for aqueous RFBs, and supporting electrolyte selection yields cost differences in the $100's kWh-1. |
| first_indexed | 2024-09-23T11:18:25Z |
| format | Article |
| id | mit-1721.1/134873 |
| institution | Massachusetts Institute of Technology |
| language | English |
| last_indexed | 2024-09-23T11:18:25Z |
| publishDate | 2021 |
| publisher | The Electrochemical Society |
| record_format | dspace |
| spelling | mit-1721.1/1348732023-09-27T19:46:47Z The Critical Role of Supporting Electrolyte Selection on Flow Battery Cost Milshtein, Jarrod D Darling, Robert M Drake, Javit Perry, Michael L Brushett, Fikile R Massachusetts Institute of Technology. Department of Materials Science and Engineering Massachusetts Institute of Technology. Department of Chemical Engineering © 2017 The Author(s) 2017. Published by ECS. Redox flow batteries (RFBs) are promising devices for grid energy storage, but additional cost reductions are needed to meet the U.S. Department of Energy recommended capital cost of $150 kWh-1 for an installed system. The development of new active species designed to lower cost or improve performance is a promising approach, but these new materials often require compatible electrolytes that optimize stability, solubility, and reaction kinetics. This work quantifies changes in RFB cost performance for different aqueous supporting electrolytes paired with different types of membranes. A techno-economic model is also used to estimate RFB-system costs for the different membrane and supporting salt options considered herein. Beyond the conventional RFB design incorporating small active species and an ion-exchange membrane (IEM), this work also considers size-selective separators as a cost-effective alternative to IEMs. The size selective separator (SSS) concept utilizes nanoporous separators with no functionalization for ion selectivity, and the active species are large enough that they cannot pass through the separator pores. Our analysis finds that SSS or H+-IEM are most promising to achieve cost targets for aqueous RFBs, and supporting electrolyte selection yields cost differences in the $100's kWh-1. 2021-10-27T20:09:36Z 2021-10-27T20:09:36Z 2017 2019-08-15T13:36:13Z Article http://purl.org/eprint/type/JournalArticle https://hdl.handle.net/1721.1/134873 en 10.1149/2.1031714JES Journal of The Electrochemical Society Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International license https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/ application/pdf The Electrochemical Society Electrochemical Society (ECS) |
| spellingShingle | Milshtein, Jarrod D Darling, Robert M Drake, Javit Perry, Michael L Brushett, Fikile R The Critical Role of Supporting Electrolyte Selection on Flow Battery Cost |
| title | The Critical Role of Supporting Electrolyte Selection on Flow Battery Cost |
| title_full | The Critical Role of Supporting Electrolyte Selection on Flow Battery Cost |
| title_fullStr | The Critical Role of Supporting Electrolyte Selection on Flow Battery Cost |
| title_full_unstemmed | The Critical Role of Supporting Electrolyte Selection on Flow Battery Cost |
| title_short | The Critical Role of Supporting Electrolyte Selection on Flow Battery Cost |
| title_sort | critical role of supporting electrolyte selection on flow battery cost |
| url | https://hdl.handle.net/1721.1/134873 |
| work_keys_str_mv | AT milshteinjarrodd thecriticalroleofsupportingelectrolyteselectiononflowbatterycost AT darlingrobertm thecriticalroleofsupportingelectrolyteselectiononflowbatterycost AT drakejavit thecriticalroleofsupportingelectrolyteselectiononflowbatterycost AT perrymichaell thecriticalroleofsupportingelectrolyteselectiononflowbatterycost AT brushettfikiler thecriticalroleofsupportingelectrolyteselectiononflowbatterycost AT milshteinjarrodd criticalroleofsupportingelectrolyteselectiononflowbatterycost AT darlingrobertm criticalroleofsupportingelectrolyteselectiononflowbatterycost AT drakejavit criticalroleofsupportingelectrolyteselectiononflowbatterycost AT perrymichaell criticalroleofsupportingelectrolyteselectiononflowbatterycost AT brushettfikiler criticalroleofsupportingelectrolyteselectiononflowbatterycost |