PDF Publication Title:
Text from PDF Page: 042
Submodule #3, which replaced #2 in the test stand late in November, proved to be a less-than-optimum performer. Originally run as received from inventory stock under similar conditions, this assembly yielded only 59% usable coulombic and 45% usable energy efficiency averages. Efforts to analyze this weakness and to improve this submodule were made during cycles 11, 13, and 15. Reports on this work are given later in this section. These efforts improved the performance of submodule #3 as modified (#3M) but the efficiency levels of #2 were not attained. Near the end of this program in March, a coordinated program was initiated to test the 45kWh load-leveling battery module and the 8.3kWh submodule at the same time under identical conditions. Cycles 17 through 21 were conducted using submodule #3M with electrolyte from the 45kWh module and under pressures, temperatures, and current densities the same as in the full size battery. These five cycles yielded very consistent results, achieving full charge capacity but operating at an average usable coulombic efficiency of only 61.6%. The average usable energy efficiency of 53.2% is well below the program objective of 65%. It should be noted that these data from cycles 17-21 can be directly compared with the data accumulated during fen parallel test runs of the 45kWh module reported in Part III, Section 20 of this report. Cycles 22-26 were undertaken in an attempt to determine if the operating efficiencies were the same for all parts of the cycle regime. By shortening cycles 22, 23, and 24 so that the charge time is reduced to 50%, 63%, and 70% while holding all other para meters constant, data for the final half of a complete full-cycle regime was obtained. This work yielded nearly a 10% improvement in coulombic efficiency to 70% and in usable energy efficiency to 59.6%. Cycles 25 and 26 were repeated under identical conditions except that a more fundamental electrolyte composition was used. The usable coulombic and energy efficiencies were improved further to 72.4% and 61.4%, respectively. The actual delivered energy taken from the submodules during these specific runs is plotted against charge time in Figure 24-8. Normally the energy delivered would be expected to be directly proportional to time of charge. As can be seen this was only true for charges less than 5-1/2 hours. After 6 hours the energy delivered falls off markedly in proportion to the length of charge. The poorer performance on the longer cycles is presently thought to be caused by current losses brought about by undetectable dendrites. More work is needed to verify this assumption. 24-11PDF Image | Development of the Zinc-Chlorine Battery for Utility
PDF Search Title:
Development of the Zinc-Chlorine Battery for UtilityOriginal File Name Searched:
6302789.pdfDIY PDF Search: Google It | Yahoo | Bing
Salgenx Redox Flow Battery Technology: Power up your energy storage game with Salgenx Salt Water Battery. With its advanced technology, the flow battery provides reliable, scalable, and sustainable energy storage for utility-scale projects. Upgrade to a Salgenx flow battery today and take control of your energy future.
| CONTACT TEL: 608-238-6001 Email: greg@salgenx.com | RSS | AMP |