4.5 Article

Comparative Study of Kilowatt-Scale Vanadium Redox Flow Battery Stacks Designed with Serpentine Flow Fields and Split Manifolds

期刊

BATTERIES-BASEL
卷 7, 期 2, 页码 -

出版社

MDPI
DOI: 10.3390/batteries7020030

关键词

redox flow battery stack; serpentine flow field; cell size; operating flow rate; discharge capacity; system efficiency

资金

  1. MHRD, Government of India [41-2/2015-T.S.-I (Pt.)]
  2. DST-Solar Energy Harnessing Centre, Government of India [DST/TMD/SERI/HUB/1(C)]

向作者/读者索取更多资源

A low-pressure drop stack design for vanadium redox flow batteries was explored, showing that stacks of different cell sizes have different optimal flow rate conditions. Stacks with larger cell sizes can be operated at lower stoichiometric factors and fixed flow rates for power variations without significant changes in performance.
A low-pressure drop stack design with minimal shunt losses was explored for vanadium redox flow batteries, which, due to their low energy density, are used invariably in stationary applications. Three kilowatt-scale stacks, having cell sizes in the range of 400 to 1500 cm(2), were built with thick graphite plates grooved with serpentine flow fields and external split manifolds for electrolyte circulation, and they were tested over a range of current densities and flow rates. The results show that stacks of different cell sizes have different optimal flow rate conditions, but under their individual optimal flow conditions, all three cell sizes exhibit similar electrochemical performance including stack resistivity. Stacks having larger cell sizes can be operated at lower stoichiometric factors, resulting in lower parasitic pumping losses. Further, these can be operated at a fixed flow rate for power variations of +/- 25% without any significant changes in discharge capacity and efficiency; this is attributed to the use of serpentine flow fields, which ensure uniform distribution of the electrolyte over a range of flow rates and cell sizes.

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

4.5
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