4.8 Article

High-power nitrided TiO2 carbon felt as the negative electrode for all-vanadium redox flow batteries

期刊

CARBON
卷 148, 期 -, 页码 91-104

出版社

PERGAMON-ELSEVIER SCIENCE LTD
DOI: 10.1016/j.carbon.2019.01.067

关键词

Energy storage; Titanium nitride; VRFB; High-power density; Nitrided TiO2 decorated carbon electrodes; Negative electrodes for VRFB

资金

  1. Fundacion Ramon Areces from BatLimet project
  2. CERCA Program [2017SGR1246]
  3. XaRMAE network
  4. European Regional Development Funds (ERDF, FEDER)
  5. MINECO coordinated projects [MAT2014-59961, ENE2017-85087]
  6. QEERI [NPRP9-158-1-029]

向作者/读者索取更多资源

This work describes the design of an electrode with enhanced performance applied to all-vanadium redox flow batteries (VRFBs). This new electrode consists of a structural porous carbon felt decorated with TiO2 rutile nanoparticles, which has been nitrided using ammonolysis at 900 degrees C. An outstanding charge and mass transfer over the electrode-electrolyte interface was observed as a consequence of the synergetic effect of N- and O-functionalization over carbon felt (CF) and the partial formation of TiN (metallic conductor) phase. Moreover, this material has not only improved in terms of catalysis towards the V3+/V2+ redox reaction (k(0) = 1.6 x 10(-3) cm s(-1)), but also inhibited the hydrogen evolution reaction (HER), which is one of the main causes of imbalances that lead to battery failure. This led to an impressive high-power peak output value up to 700 mW cm(-2), as well as work at high current density in galvanostatic conditions (i.e. 150 mA cm(-2)), exhibiting low ohmic losses (overpotential) and great redox single cell reversibility, with a superior energy efficiency of 71%. An inexpensive, earth abundant and scalable synthesis method to boost VREBs technology based on nitrided CF@TiO2 is presented, being able to overcome certain constrains, and therefore to achieve high energy and power densities. (C) 2019 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.8
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据