MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort
Record W6891645552 · doi:10.4224/40002765

A review of all‐vanadium redox flow battery durability: degradation mechanisms and mitigation strategies

2018· report· en· W6891645552 on OpenAlexaffvenue

Bibliographic record

VenueNPARC · 2018
Typereport
Languageen
Field
Topic
Canadian institutionsNational Research Council CanadaGDG Environnement
Fundersnot available
KeywordsDegradation (telecommunications)DurabilityBattery (electricity)Component (thermodynamics)Flow batteryEnergy storage

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The all-vanadium redox flow battery (VRFB) is emerging as a promising technology for large scale energy storage systems due to its scalability and flexibility, high round-trip efficiency, long durability, and little environmental impact. As the degradation rate of the VRFB components is relatively low, less attention has been paid in terms of VRFB durability in comparison with studies on performance improvement and cost reduction. This paper reviews publications on performance degradation mechanisms and mitigation strategies for VRFBs in an attempt to achieve a systematic understanding of VRFB durability. Durability studies of individual VRFB components, including electrolyte, membrane, electrode, and bipolar plate are introduced. Various degradation mechanisms at both cell and component levels are examined. Following these, applicable strategies for mitigating degradation of each component are compiled. In addition, this paper summarizes various diagnostic tools to evaluate component degradation, followed by accelerated stress tests and models for aging prediction that can help reduce the duration and cost associated with real lifetime tests. Finally, future research areas on the degradation and accelerated lifetime testing for VRFBs are proposed.

Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.

How this classification was reachedexpand

Full frame machine prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.003
Threshold uncertainty score0.007

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0030.003
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.002
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.001

Machine scores (provisional)

The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.

Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.

Opus teacher head0.039
GPT teacher head0.304
Teacher spread0.265 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designNot applicable
Domainnot available
GenreReview

How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".

Quick stats

Citations0
Published2018
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueNPARC→French-language works237,207→