Benchmarking organic active materials for aqueous redox flow batteries in terms of lifetime and cost

45Citations
Citations of this article
69Readers
Mendeley users who have this article in their library.

This article is free to access.

Abstract

Flow batteries are one option for future, low-cost stationary energy storage. We present a perspective overview of the potential cost of organic active materials for aqueous flow batteries based on a comprehensive mathematical model. The battery capital costs for 38 different organic active materials, as well as the state-of-the-art vanadium system are elucidated. We reveal that only a small number of organic molecules would result in costs close to the vanadium reference system. We identify the most promising candidate as the phenazine 3,3′-(phenazine-1,6-diylbis(azanediyl))dipropionic acid) [1,6-DPAP], suggesting costs even below that of the vanadium reference. Additional cost-saving potential can be expected by mass production of these active materials; major benefits lie in the reduced electrolyte costs as well as power costs, although plant maintenance is a major challenge when applying organic materials. Moreover, this work is designed to be expandable. The developed calculation tool (ReFlowLab) accompanying this publication is open for updates with new data.

Cite

CITATION STYLE

APA

Emmel, D., Kunz, S., Blume, N., Kwon, Y., Turek, T., Minke, C., & Schröder, D. (2023). Benchmarking organic active materials for aqueous redox flow batteries in terms of lifetime and cost. Nature Communications, 14(1). https://doi.org/10.1038/s41467-023-42450-9

Register to see more suggestions

Mendeley helps you to discover research relevant for your work.

Already have an account?

Save time finding and organizing research with Mendeley

Sign up for free