Scholarlink

Purpose <p>Redox flow batteries (RFBs) are advantageous for large-scale renewable energy storage owing to their scalability, extended lifespans, and recyclability; nevertheless, their environmental and economic feasibility is still debated. Current life cycle assessment (LCA) studies are disjointed and frequently omit cost factors. This review rigorously assesses methodological strategies and comparative findings to elucidate environmental hotspots, economic impediments, and prospects for sustainable implementation.</p> Methods <p>A systematic analysis of peer-reviewed life cycle assessment studies (2015–2023) was performed, encompassing vanadium (VRFB), zinc–bromine (Zn–Br), iron–chromium (Fe–Cr), acid–base (AB-FB), and soluble-lead (SL-RFB) chemistries. Research was examined for system boundaries, functional units, life cycle impact assessment (LCIA) methodologies, and techno-economic indicators including capital expenditure and levelized cost of energy (LCOE). Cross-study synthesis revealed hotspots and chemistry-specific compromises.</p> Results and discussion <p>Vanadium redox flow batteries (VRFBs) prevail in the literature, exhibiting global warming potentials of around 85–140&#xa0;kg CO₂-equivalent per kilowatt-hour, whereas vanadium extraction accounts for up to 95% of mineral resource depletion. Nafion membranes contribute to 76–90% of ozone depletion. Assumptions on recycling significantly influence results, with vanadium recovery rates of 50–95% reducing global warming potential by as much as 40%. Economically, VRFBs demonstrate capital costs ranging from $1173 to $3846 per kW and a levelized cost of electricity (LCOE) between $0.37 and $0.60 per kWh, while Zn–Br systems have lower initial costs of $819 to $2953 per kW but possess reduced cycle longevity. Fe–Cr chemistries are advantageous because to inexpensive raw material expenses but are hindered by low efficiency (&lt; 65%). The integration of life cycle assessment and techno-economic analysis is seldom, constraining comprehensive decision-making.</p> Conclusion <p>RFBs can function as sustainable grid-scale storage solutions if methodological consistency and design enhancements are implemented. Standardising 1 kWh of provided energy as the functional unit, harmonising life cycle impact assessment methods, and incorporating uncertainty analysis will enhance comparability. Priorities include the environmental substitution of Nafion and the reduction of vanadium intensity, while economic considerations focus on scaling up and implementing circularity, such as electrolyte reuse, to decrease costs and impacts. The review’s uniqueness is in integrating quantitative hotspot studies and suggesting a unified framework that connects environmental and economic assessments, establishing VRFBs as the standard while delineating the specific niches for Zn–Br, Fe–Cr, and AB-FB systems.</p> Graphical Abstract <p></p>

错误：搜索内容不能为空，请输入英文关键词
错误：关键词超出字数限制，请精简
高级检索

Uncovering the environmental and economic viability of redox flow batteries: insights from life cycle assessment methodologies and emerging technologies

  • 期刊论文

  • 发表日期：

    2026年3月20日

查看全文
  • Zishan Shaikh,
  • Shabbah Begum,
  • Ahmed Said Al-busaidi,
  • Ahmad Fazlizan,
  • Heebaah Khan,
  • Umair Khan,
  • Dalia H. Elkamchouchi

摘要

Purpose

Redox flow batteries (RFBs) are advantageous for large-scale renewable energy storage owing to their scalability, extended lifespans, and recyclability; nevertheless, their environmental and economic feasibility is still debated. Current life cycle assessment (LCA) studies are disjointed and frequently omit cost factors. This review rigorously assesses methodological strategies and comparative findings to elucidate environmental hotspots, economic impediments, and prospects for sustainable implementation.

Methods

A systematic analysis of peer-reviewed life cycle assessment studies (2015–2023) was performed, encompassing vanadium (VRFB), zinc–bromine (Zn–Br), iron–chromium (Fe–Cr), acid–base (AB-FB), and soluble-lead (SL-RFB) chemistries. Research was examined for system boundaries, functional units, life cycle impact assessment (LCIA) methodologies, and techno-economic indicators including capital expenditure and levelized cost of energy (LCOE). Cross-study synthesis revealed hotspots and chemistry-specific compromises.

Results and discussion

Vanadium redox flow batteries (VRFBs) prevail in the literature, exhibiting global warming potentials of around 85–140 kg CO₂-equivalent per kilowatt-hour, whereas vanadium extraction accounts for up to 95% of mineral resource depletion. Nafion membranes contribute to 76–90% of ozone depletion. Assumptions on recycling significantly influence results, with vanadium recovery rates of 50–95% reducing global warming potential by as much as 40%. Economically, VRFBs demonstrate capital costs ranging from $1173 to $3846 per kW and a levelized cost of electricity (LCOE) between $0.37 and $0.60 per kWh, while Zn–Br systems have lower initial costs of $819 to $2953 per kW but possess reduced cycle longevity. Fe–Cr chemistries are advantageous because to inexpensive raw material expenses but are hindered by low efficiency (< 65%). The integration of life cycle assessment and techno-economic analysis is seldom, constraining comprehensive decision-making.

Conclusion

RFBs can function as sustainable grid-scale storage solutions if methodological consistency and design enhancements are implemented. Standardising 1 kWh of provided energy as the functional unit, harmonising life cycle impact assessment methods, and incorporating uncertainty analysis will enhance comparability. Priorities include the environmental substitution of Nafion and the reduction of vanadium intensity, while economic considerations focus on scaling up and implementing circularity, such as electrolyte reuse, to decrease costs and impacts. The review’s uniqueness is in integrating quantitative hotspot studies and suggesting a unified framework that connects environmental and economic assessments, establishing VRFBs as the standard while delineating the specific niches for Zn–Br, Fe–Cr, and AB-FB systems.

Graphical Abstract