Abstract
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.
Highlights
The MIT Faculty has made this article openly available
Redox flow batteries (RFBs) are promising electrochemical devices for grid-scale energy storage, but their capital costs must be reduced for ubiquitous adoption
Recent reports have investigated new active species for RFBs geared toward lower cost or improved performance
Summary
0.07596 0.05599 0.30100 transferred (equivalent weight (g mole-−1)) specifies the mass of active material that must be purchased to store a certain amount of charge. We consider a future-state estimate of unit cost less materials, assuming that RFB annual production achieves the volume to store ≈ 1% of the world’s energy consumption in 2013 for 5 h (2 GW, 10 GWh).[25,102] The presentday estimate of unit cost less materials is taken to be $1550 kW−1, which was originally computed by engaging a gap analysis between present-day costs of RFB materials and costs of energy storage systems in the field.[23] For the future-state estimate, we assume values calculated by Ha and Gallagher, which are listed in Table VI for convenience.[25].
Sign-in/Register to view highlights & summary Sign-in/Register to access full text options 
Free) 
Talk to us
Join us for a 30 min session where you can share your feedback and ask us any queries you have
Schedule a call
