IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/eee/appene/v360y2024ics0306261924001211.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Techno-economic analysis of Aqueous Organic Redox Flow Batteries: Stochastic investigation of capital cost and levelized cost of storage

Author

Listed:
  • Cremoncini, Diana
  • Di Lorenzo, Giuseppina
  • Frate, Guido Francesco
  • Bischi, Aldo
  • Baccioli, Andrea
  • Ferrari, Lorenzo

Abstract

Redox Flow Batteries (RFBs) are a versatile and durable type of electrochemical storage and a promising option for large-scale stationary energy storage. Aqueous Organic Redox Flow Batteries (AORFBs) are an innovative category of RFBs that utilize organic species as active molecules in aqueous electrolytes. These species allow for customization of their properties to achieve high technical performance and reduce battery cost. This study presents a comprehensive techno-economic analysis of AORFBs, evaluating their cost metrics and their associated uncertainties. The work modeled both capital cost and Levelized Cost of Storage (LCOS) for RFBs. The model was validated on the Vanadium Redox Flow Battery (VRFB), and it was employed to evaluate the costs for a generic AORFB, using a Monte Carlo technique to incorporate the uncertainty related to the value of critical parameters. Through stochastic analysis, AORFBs are estimated to have an average specific capital cost of 674 €/kWh for 4 h, and 398 €/kWh for 8 h batteries, and probabilities between 16.9% and 29.6% of having lower capital costs compared to VRFBs. AORFBs are estimated to have a current levelized cost, calculated including only the cost of energy lost in the storage due to irreversibility, of about 530 €/MWh for 4 h, and 411 €/MWh for 8 h batteries. The levelized costs of storage, calculated including the total cost of energy charged into the storage, have average values of 663 €/MWh for 4 h, and 543 €/MWh for 8 h batteries. AORFBs have less than 1% probability of having lower LCOS than VRFBs. Current AORFB systems have higher costs compared to state-of-the-art VRFBs, even assuming a low fabrication cost for available organic molecules. This is caused primarily by the AORFBs’ low energy and power densities and high degradation rates. To ensure cost competitiveness with VRFBs, it is essential to identify better-performing organic redox pairs, which should exhibit high open circuit voltage (≥ 1.1 V), should maintain reasonable round-trip efficiency (≥ 71%) while operating at a high current density (≥55mA/cm2). Furthermore, new organic species should have low degradation rates (≤ 0.4 %/day).

Suggested Citation

  • Cremoncini, Diana & Di Lorenzo, Giuseppina & Frate, Guido Francesco & Bischi, Aldo & Baccioli, Andrea & Ferrari, Lorenzo, 2024. "Techno-economic analysis of Aqueous Organic Redox Flow Batteries: Stochastic investigation of capital cost and levelized cost of storage," Applied Energy, Elsevier, vol. 360(C).
    • Handle: RePEc:eee:appene:v:360:y:2024:i:c:s0306261924001211
    DOI: 10.1016/j.apenergy.2024.122738
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0306261924001211
    Download Restriction: Full text for ScienceDirect subscribers only
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1016/j.apenergy.2024.122738?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    As the access to this document is restricted, you may want to search for a different version of it.

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Zakeri, Behnam & Syri, Sanna, 2015. "Electrical energy storage systems: A comparative life cycle cost analysis," Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews, Elsevier, vol. 42(C), pages 569-596.
    2. Dominik Emmel & Simon Kunz & Nick Blume & Yongchai Kwon & Thomas Turek & Christine Minke & Daniel Schröder, 2023. "Benchmarking organic active materials for aqueous redox flow batteries in terms of lifetime and cost," Nature Communications, Nature, vol. 14(1), pages 1-9, December.
    3. Jens Noack & Lars Wietschel & Nataliya Roznyatovskaya & Karsten Pinkwart & Jens Tübke, 2016. "Techno-Economic Modeling and Analysis of Redox Flow Battery Systems," Energies, MDPI, vol. 9(8), pages 1-15, August.
    4. Di Lorenzo, Giuseppina & Pilidis, Pericles & Witton, John & Probert, Douglas, 2012. "Monte-Carlo simulation of investment integrity and value for power-plants with carbon-capture," Applied Energy, Elsevier, vol. 98(C), pages 467-478.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Linda Barelli & Gianni Bidini & Paolo Cherubini & Andrea Micangeli & Dario Pelosi & Carlo Tacconelli, 2019. "How Hybridization of Energy Storage Technologies Can Provide Additional Flexibility and Competitiveness to Microgrids in the Context of Developing Countries," Energies, MDPI, vol. 12(16), pages 1-22, August.
    2. Kendall Mongird & Vilayanur Viswanathan & Patrick Balducci & Jan Alam & Vanshika Fotedar & Vladimir Koritarov & Boualem Hadjerioua, 2020. "An Evaluation of Energy Storage Cost and Performance Characteristics," Energies, MDPI, vol. 13(13), pages 1-53, June.
    3. Chen, Long Xiang & Xie, Mei Na & Zhao, Pan Pan & Wang, Feng Xiang & Hu, Peng & Wang, Dong Xiang, 2018. "A novel isobaric adiabatic compressed air energy storage (IA-CAES) system on the base of volatile fluid," Applied Energy, Elsevier, vol. 210(C), pages 198-210.
    4. Koecklin, Manuel Tong & Longoria, Genaro & Fitiwi, Desta Z. & DeCarolis, Joseph F. & Curtis, John, 2021. "Public acceptance of renewable electricity generation and transmission network developments: Insights from Ireland," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 151(C).
    5. Huang, Qisheng & Xu, Yunjian & Courcoubetis, Costas, 2020. "Stackelberg competition between merchant and regulated storage investment in wholesale electricity markets," Applied Energy, Elsevier, vol. 264(C).
    6. Burton, N.A. & Padilla, R.V. & Rose, A. & Habibullah, H., 2021. "Increasing the efficiency of hydrogen production from solar powered water electrolysis," Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews, Elsevier, vol. 135(C).
    7. Terlouw, Tom & AlSkaif, Tarek & Bauer, Christian & van Sark, Wilfried, 2019. "Optimal energy management in all-electric residential energy systems with heat and electricity storage," Applied Energy, Elsevier, vol. 254(C).
    8. Masebinu, S.O. & Akinlabi, E.T. & Muzenda, E. & Aboyade, A.O., 2017. "Techno-economics and environmental analysis of energy storage for a student residence under a South African time-of-use tariff rate," Energy, Elsevier, vol. 135(C), pages 413-429.
    9. Tong Koecklin, Manuel & Fitiwi, Desta & de Carolis, Joseph F. & Curtis, John, 2020. "Renewable electricity generation and transmission network developments in light of public opposition: Insights from Ireland," Papers WP653, Economic and Social Research Institute (ESRI).
    10. Vassilis M. Charitopoulos & Mathilde Fajardy & Chi Kong Chyong & David M. Reiner, 2022. "The case of 100% electrification of domestic heat in Great Britain," Working Papers EPRG2206, Energy Policy Research Group, Cambridge Judge Business School, University of Cambridge.
    11. Behnam Zakeri & Samuli Rinne & Sanna Syri, 2015. "Wind Integration into Energy Systems with a High Share of Nuclear Power—What Are the Compromises?," Energies, MDPI, vol. 8(4), pages 1-35, March.
    12. Lan, Hai & Wen, Shuli & Hong, Ying-Yi & Yu, David C. & Zhang, Lijun, 2015. "Optimal sizing of hybrid PV/diesel/battery in ship power system," Applied Energy, Elsevier, vol. 158(C), pages 26-34.
    13. Tozzi, Peter & Jo, Jin Ho, 2017. "A comparative analysis of renewable energy simulation tools: Performance simulation model vs. system optimization," Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews, Elsevier, vol. 80(C), pages 390-398.
    14. Sina Atari & Yassine Bakkar & Eunice Omolola Olaniyi & Gunnar Prause, 2019. "Real options analysis of abatement investments for sulphur emission control compliance," Entrepreneurship and Sustainability Issues, VsI Entrepreneurship and Sustainability Center, vol. 6(3), pages 1062-1087, March.
    15. Yang, Jibin & Xu, Xiaohui & Peng, Yiqiang & Zhang, Jiye & Song, Pengyun, 2019. "Modeling and optimal energy management strategy for a catenary-battery-ultracapacitor based hybrid tramway," Energy, Elsevier, vol. 183(C), pages 1123-1135.
    16. Esmaeili Aliabadi, Danial & Kaya, Murat & Sahin, Guvenc, 2017. "Competition, risk and learning in electricity markets: An agent-based simulation study," Applied Energy, Elsevier, vol. 195(C), pages 1000-1011.
    17. Muhammad Khalid, 2019. "A Review on the Selected Applications of Battery-Supercapacitor Hybrid Energy Storage Systems for Microgrids," Energies, MDPI, vol. 12(23), pages 1-34, November.
    18. Pejman Bahramian, 2021. "Integration of wind power into an electricity system using pumped-storage: Economic challenges and stakeholder impacts," Working Paper 1480, Economics Department, Queen's University.
    19. Dusonchet, L. & Favuzza, S. & Massaro, F. & Telaretti, E. & Zizzo, G., 2019. "Technological and legislative status point of stationary energy storages in the EU," Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews, Elsevier, vol. 101(C), pages 158-167.
    20. Àlex Alonso & Jordi de la Hoz & Helena Martín & Sergio Coronas & Pep Salas & José Matas, 2020. "A Comprehensive Model for the Design of a Microgrid under Regulatory Constraints Using Synthetical Data Generation and Stochastic Optimization," Energies, MDPI, vol. 13(21), pages 1-26, October.

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:eee:appene:v:360:y:2024:i:c:s0306261924001211. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: Catherine Liu (email available below). General contact details of provider: http://www.elsevier.com/wps/find/journaldescription.cws_home/405891/description#description .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.