A portion of this video is brought to you by Surfshark.
When it comes to grid-scale energy storage, redox flow batteries (RFB) are one of the
big competitors for lithium-ion batteries.
In preliminary tests, RFBs can be manufactured with longer lasting lives, be made more scalable,
and are easier to recycle than other battery technologies.
Yet, after investing millions of US tax dollars into a cutting edge RFB formula, the American
government basically gave it away to China, who is currently the lead producer of RFB.
So, how did this invention flow out of the US?
And why should we even care about redox flow batteries?
Let’s face it.
Installing tons of solar panels and wind turbines is not going to be enough to decarbonise our
energy system.
We desperately need cost-effective batteries to store spare renewables and reuse them when
we need them most.
According to the US Department of Energy (DOE)’s National Renewable Energy Laboratory (NREL),
the American energy storage capacity should experience an over fivefold increase by 2050
to meet the country's zero-carbon electricity demand.
Funny enough, the very same department gave away a promising storage technology to China
a few years back.
Before trying to make sense out of this crazy story, let’s understand what RFBs are all
about.
The key components of this system aretwo electrolytes, which are liquid solutions containing active
elements in a different oxidation state.
Unlike lithium-ion batteries, where a single electrolyte floats inside the cell, in a flow
battery two solutions storing the chemical energy sit inside external tanks.
During the battery operation, these electrolytes flow from the tanks towards a central chamber.
In its simplest design, this chamber, a.k.a.
stack, features two half-cells separated by an ion-selective membrane.
So, what about the “redox” bit?
This term refers to the red-uction and ox-idation reactions the chemicals dissolved in the solutions
are subjected to.
To be more specific, upon discharging, the ions in one of the tank-cell pairs, called
anolyte, increase their oxidation state.
In other words, they lose electrons.
Traveling through an external circuit, these electrons by-pass the membrane and reach the
other side, i.e., the catholyte.
Here, ions take up the electrons and reduce their oxidation state.
To recharge the battery, you just connect it to the grid and use the incoming electrons
flow to reverse the redox process.
Depending on the active elements in the electrolyte, there are various types of RFB.
However, the all-vanadium configuration is currently the most widely commercialized.
So, why vanadium?
Not because it’s the most beautiful element in the world.
Rather, this metal can have multiple oxidation states, which comes in handy when you rely
on the redox mechanism.
By harnessing vanadium’s chemical versatility, you don’t need to introduce any other element
into the electrolytes except sulfur.
Basically, you use a mild sulfuric acid solution to dissolve vanadium sulfates.
After doing that, you’re left with two vanadium redox couples, namely V2+/V3+ in the anolyte
and V4+/V5+ in the catholyte.
This removes the cross-contamination risk implied by other designs.
Which is why vanadium RFB can last up to 4x more than any other comparable device.
Lithium-ion batteries are great for short-term applications but RFB are more apt for long-duration
storage.
RFB’s supply chain is also greener as their components are more recyclable, which reduces
the amount of waste ending up in landfills.
It’s for this reason many believe they’ll play a key role in the future of energy storage.
Yet, this technology is nothing new.
NASA began developing them during the energy crisis in the 70s.
After three decades of lackluster results, 2006 was a breakthrough year.
As several patents expired, it opened up private companies to get their creative electrolytes
flowing.
Also, in that same year, US researchers started working on an improved recipe for an RFB.
After 6 years of efforts funded by over 15 million American taxpayer dollars, scientists
came up with a vanadium-based electrolyte formulation twice as powerful as similar mixtures.
On top of that, their battery could perform well for up to 30 years without showing any
sign of degradation.
So, what was their trick?
They simply swapped the conventional sulfuric acid solution with a blend of hydrochloric
and sulfuric acid.
When using this modified mixture, they increased the solubility of vanadium, which boosted
the electrolyte energy density.
The benefits didn’t stop there though.
The acidic mix could work on a wider range of temperatures compared to the pure sulfuric
acid solution, which reduces heating and cooling costs.
Supercharged by those electrifying findings, in 2012 the research group leader, Gary Yang,
applied to the DOE for a license to commercialize the batteries outside of the lab.
Once he signed the agreement, he launched the startup UniEnergy Technologies.
However, because of the long time needed for his battery to generate returns, Yang claimed
he struggled to persuade US investors to sponsor his creation.
Using that as an excuse, he turned to the Chinese company Dalian Rongke Power Co. Ltd,
and in 2017 granted them an official sub-licence to manufacture some of the batteries in China.
And this is where things went wrong.
But before I get into that, I’d like to thank today’s sponsor, Surfshark.
I always recommend using a VPN when using public Wifi, but VPNs can be very useful even
when you’re home.
A lot of online services use some pretty sophisticated commercial tracking and machine learning to
apply very targeted advertising ... a VPN can protect you from some of that.
SurfShark’s CleanWeb does a great job blocking ads, trackers, and malicious websites making
it safer to use the internet even at home.
And you can even make it look like your IP address is coming from a completely different
country.
This can come in handy if you want to stream a video that’s only available from a specific
location.
One of the best parts of SurfShark is that it’s easy to set up on all your devices,
whether that’s iPhone or Android, Mac or PC.
SurfShark is the only VPN to offer one account to use with an unlimited number of devices.
Use my code to get 83% off plus 3 extra months for free.
SurfShark offers a 30-day money-back guarantee, so there’s no risk to try it out for yourself.
Link is in the description below.
Thanks to Surfshark and to all of you for supporting the channel.
Now back to where things went wrong with this new battery chemistry.
Although the license entailed making most of the batteries in the US, battery production
gradually switched from America to China.
According to people I spoke to that worked at UniEnergy at the time, the key components
of the battery were never built in the US at all, but instead built in China and shipped
to the US for assembly and testing.
To make matters worse, UniEnergy continued its shifting of this US funded tech to outside
the US by transferring its license to the European company, Vandals Power in 2021.
According to Yang, the underlying issue is that, unlike China, the US doesn’t have
the supply chain to meet production demand.
Yet, this infrastructural gap wasn’t created overnight.
Over the last 10 years, China issued a series of national policies that flowed a lot of
cash out of the government coffers to scale up vanadium RFB.
So it shouldn’t be a surprise that after 6 years of development and a 300 million dollars
of investment, last May a 100MW/400MWh demonstration facility was connected to the Dalian grid.
And guess who made that battery?
Yep, Dalian Rongke Power Co. Ltd.
While this facility is already the world’s largest RFB, the final installation will create
twice as much power.
I couldn’t find confirmation that this facility is using the mixed electrolyte, but I did
hear from sources that Dalian is currently manufacturing the new electrolyte in large
quantities.
But the craziness of this story doesn’t stop there.
Remember how the license was transferred to Vanadis Power?
Well, as mentioned on their website[^18], the company is contributing to the Dalian
Rongke Power China-based project.
Nonetheless, EU regulations will force Vanadis to set up a factory in Europe.
You would think that the US government should be as reluctant as Europe when it comes to
moving a US-funded invention overseas, right?
Nevertheless, UniEnergy Technologies magically got away with that twice.
I can hear you already.
How on earth did that happen?
As revealed by an NPR investigation, the DOE failed to enforce its own licensing rules.
When interviewing DOE officials, the Government Accountability Office found they were struggling
to track their licenses because of a limited budget and inadequate IT systems.
What’s even more absurd is that a Washington-based company, like Forever Energy, has been trying
to get a license for this technology for over a year.
Apparently, the DOE has now revoked the Dalian Rongke Power Co. Ltd license.
Although it’s too late to stop Chinese battery expansion, perhaps the US government is still
in time to prevent Forever Energy from changing its name to Forever Waiting.
Awkwardly, the US funded the project with tax dollars, then sent it to China, and now
a domestic manufacturer is blocked from making them.
I actually had a chance to speak to Forever Energy about this whole debacle, as well as
about the technology they’re trying to bring to market.
They have a modular battery design that takes advantage of the mixed electrolytes' increased
energy density.
Single acid RFBs are usually pretty large and relegated to grid scale application, but
Forever Energy has a working design that’s roughly the size of a refrigerator and can
store up to 40 kWh of energy.
The best part is that it should be cost competitive with similar sized lithium ion battery systems,
but last 30-40 years.
It’s a solution meant to take on the residential energy storage market.
If they can secure the license, they’re definitely a company to keep your eye on.
There are some alternatives to UniEnergy’s electrolyte recipe.
For instance, US Vanadium claims to make the most pure electrolyte in the world.
As heralded by the company, their formulation’s ultra-high purity increases the efficiency
of vanadium RFB.
Having bought 580,000 liters of it, the energy storage provider CellCube seems to back their
battery elixir.
Galvanized by this deal, last September US Vanadium invested $2.1 million to expand their
Arkansas-based electrolyte production.
CellCube will use US Vanadium’s solution to fuel an 8MWh system in Illinois.
This system will support a microgrid system and integrate with rooftop solar panels and
a flywheel.
While this is a much lower-scale application compared to the one developed by Rongke Power,
it relies on a 100% US supply chain.
But there are some bigger projects underway as well.
The California non-profit energy supplier Central Coast Community Energy (CCCE) is planning
to have up and running vanadium RFB installations for a total capacity of 226MWh by 2026.
Being able to back up the grid for up to 8 hours, these storage systems will be crucial
to mitigate the effect of climate-induced blackouts that will occur in the state over
the next few years.
Whether being produced in the US, China or elsewhere, RFB could help us make the most
out of our renewables capabilities by providing viable energy storage during times of overgeneration.
Having said that, while vanadium is relatively abundant, its conversion into vanadium pentoxide,
the typical raw material for RFB, is highly localized.
With Chinese and Russian mills accounting for 75% of global production, you can probably
see why diversifying its value chain is fundamental to catalyze the mass adoption of vanadium
RFB.
However, on that note, there are many ways to acquire vanadium, including from fly ash.
The company US Vandium in Hot Springs, Arkansas produces high quality vanadium using that
method.
The recent passage of the Inflation Reduction Act here in the US is also going to have a
major impact on scaling up more local production.
But how do RFB compare against the status quo lithium-ion batteries?
First of all, unlike typical lithium-containing electrolyte, vanadium-based solutions are
not flammable.
This means you won’t have any risk of thermal runaway in case of faults or mishandling.
Besides a greater flammability safety, RFB are also better for the environment.
A recent life cycle assessment compared the eco-impacts of vanadium RFB and lithium-ion
batteries.
Even when using 100% virgin vanadium, RFB were found to be greener than lithium-ion
storage devices in terms of land acidification, particulate matter (PM) release and human
toxicity.
What’s more is that replacing 50% of the feedstock with recycled vanadium would further
reduce its global warming contribution.
And that’s feasible in the real world.
Remember US Vanadium?
Last year the company recovered 97% of their spent electrolyte in a demonstration project.
However, on the lithium ion battery side, there are many startups that have been improving
lithium recovery and their costs.
Another key advantage for RFB is a more flexible design than self-contained systems such as
lithium-ion batteries.
When it comes to RFB, energy and power output are decoupled, or independent if you like.
Increasing the storage capacity would be just down to expanding external tanks holding the
electrolyte.
No need to add more cells to the stack … or add to the stack itself.
For long-duration applications, when you need to deliver many kWh, switching to RFB will
save power waste and costs, which can dispatch electricity for 12 hours or more.
In theory, they could go even higher, but in practice you need to factor in costs.
Same applies to lithium-ion batteries, whose most economical storage duration is capped
at around 6-8 hours.
In addition, thanks to its lower degradation, RFB have a lifespan of up to 30 years (in
some cases it may be longer).
In comparison, typical lithium-ion devices can last for about 10 years or so (depending
on use).
Once again, other designs such as lithium titanate-based cells could run for much longer
but they’re not as financially viable.
On the other hand, RFB’s round trip efficiency (RTE) is around 85% if you’re lucky, while
lithium-ion sits around 95%.
One practical safety issue is the long-term storage of acidic solutions.
While RFB’s are less flammable, their use of hydrochloric acid and sulfuric acid means
these corrosive and toxic chemicals must be stored onsite, perhaps outside your home.
Not just a little bit, either, but many liters of it, depending on your power needs.
When this system is damaged or eventually corrodes, the leak could be hazardous.
With proper engineering and maintenance, that shouldn’t be a major concern, but it’s
still important to keep in mind.
So, what about costs?
A recent simulation compared the economics of lithium-ion and vanadium RFB batteries
when integrated with a 636 kW PV facility in southern California.
Researchers found that the system can achieve a levelized cost of electricity (LCOE) below
$0.22/kWh using either of the storage technologies.
Interestingly, they also mentioned that vanadium RFB would make more sense in hotter climates,
where lithium-ion devices age faster.
When it comes to levelized cost of storage (LCOS), duration is a key factor.
Specifically, at discharging times lower than 4 hours, lithium-ion batteries work out cheaper.
Conversely, for longer durations vanadium RFB become more cost-effective.
On the other hand, when considering transmission systems as use case, RFB are more expensive
than lithium-ion, pumped hydro and compressed air storage technologies.
Just to give you some perspective, the vanadium-based system is the lowest-cost option among RFB,
with an LCOS as low as $314/MWh.
In contrast, relying on compressed air would let you store energy for only $116/MWh.
With more investments in efficiency improvements, in 2030 RFB will be one of the most competitive
storage solutions for discharge times above 4 hours and requiring more than 300 cycles
per year.
For instance, a 1% RTE efficiency increase would make RFB displace lithium-ion for high
frequency applications.
Clearly, giving away our electrolyte recipe to China was a terrible mistake and we will
continue pay for it.
And an American company who is actively trying to bring this technology to market is still
struggling to get the license to do so.
But there’s still time for redemption.
We already have the expertise, so catching up is just down to building out a solid supply
chain.
Being more sustainable, scalable and durable than lithium-ion devices, the US should bet
on this technology without losing its returns this time.
If this long-term energy storage tech pans out, we’ll keep our grid flowing when climate-driven
disruptions hit.
So are you still undecided?
Do you think the US can catch up and that flow batteries can make a difference?
Jump into the comments and let me know and be sure to check out my follow up podcast
Still TBD where we’ll be discussing some of your feedback.
If you liked this video, be sure to check out one of these videos over here.
And thanks to all of my patrons for your continued support, and a big welcome to new Producers
AG Ballew and Crispvash.
And thanks to all of you for watching.
I’ll see you in the next one.