PDF Publication Title:
Text from PDF Page: 050
requirements, and cost of chemistry-specific separation processes are unknown and may be prohibitive. Conversely, one could eliminate the need for any separation processes, at least on-site, by replacing the entire electrolyte upon reaching a capacity loss threshold (i.e., caplim), but this requires the exchange of large volumes and potentially sacrifices a significant quantity of valuable material. For the first option, we model only the separate/recover/reuse scenario (1b), as the separate/replace scheme (1a) lies between the lower bound of full reuse and the upper bound of total electrolyte replacement options in terms of resources required. Again, we note that simple addition of more active species or electrolyte without concomitant removal of contaminants or contaminated electrolyte is likely to be an unsustainable solution in most cases, as it will lead to increases in solute concentration or total volume, respectively. These two remediation schemes are modeled differently, though both are fairly simple to represent. Total electrolyte replacement cost is intuitively modeled as the product of the electrolyte cost (Celectrolyte, $ kWh-1) and the nominal capacity rating of the battery, plus an operational servicing fee. In this case, the fee should cover the labor to execute the replacement, the cost to transport electrolyte to and from the battery site, and perhaps the post-processing or disposal of the spent electrolyte. We estimate the costs for the labor and transport are ~4 $ kWh-1, so we use this as a lower bound for the servicing fees used with the finite-lifetime cases (see SI Section S1.3 for details). Conversely, the separate/recover/reuse scenario is difficult to rigorously model, as there is chemistry-specificity regarding the exact methods and, by extension, associated costs needed to separate out decayed and crossed-over contaminants, reverse any decay, and finally reintroduce these species to their original half-cell. Accordingly, we elect to encompass all of these material and energy costs, in addition to the cost of the labor required to execute these actions, in the bulk operational servicing fee term. By varying the magnitude of the service fee (here, we show results using 4 and 20 $ kWh-1), it is possible to estimate what additional servicing costs are allowable if the RFB chemistry is to be cost-competitive with the VRFB, on a LCOS basis. To further facilitate the modeling of these chemistries, we set the rCO (the capacity fade rate that is recoverable upon rebalancing) to 0% per cycle, encompassing all fade in the rED term, as all fade experienced in these asymmetric chemistries must be recovered via servicing (i.e., rebalancing to remediate crossover losses is not an option). Thus, crossover is treated as a mode of electrolyte decay, because it requires the same general remediation mechanisms as active species decay (i.e., options 1 and 2, explained above). We note that crossover complicates the chemistry-specific separations 50PDF Image | Bringing Redox Flow Batteries to the Grid
PDF Search Title:
Bringing Redox Flow Batteries to the GridOriginal File Name Searched:
Rodby-krodby-phd-chemE-2022-thesis.pdfDIY PDF Search: Google It | Yahoo | Bing
Salgenx Redox Flow Battery Technology: Salt water flow battery technology with low cost and great energy density that can be used for power storage and thermal storage. Let us de-risk your production using our license. Our aqueous flow battery is less cost than Tesla Megapack and available faster. Redox flow battery. No membrane needed like with Vanadium, or Bromine. Salgenx flow battery
CONTACT TEL: 608-238-6001 Email: greg@salgenx.com (Standard Web Page)