Posted on 10/06/2022 1:18:00 PM PDT by Red Badger
An electrode was manufactured by coating an ion conductive layer composed of polyethyleneimine polymer, silver, lithium salt, and carbon black on the surface of a copper current collector. The ion conductive substrate fabricated this way can operate the battery by effectively receiving and releasing lithium ions during charging and discharging. Credit: POSTECH
=========================================================================================
The number of newly registered electric vehicles (EVs) in Korea surpassed 100,000 units last year alone. Norway is the only other country to match such numbers. The core materials that determine the battery life and charging speed of now commonly seen EVs are anode materials. Korea's domestic battery industry has been committed to finding revolutionary ways to increase the battery capacity by introducing new technologies or other anode materials. But what if we get rid of anode materials altogether?
A POSTECH research team led by Professor Soojin Park and Ph.D. candidate Sungjin Cho (Department of Chemistry) in collaboration with Professor Dong-Hwa Seo and Dr. Dong Yeon Kim (School of Energy and Chemical Engineering) at Ulsan Institute of Science and Technology (UNIST) have developed anode-free lithium batteries with performance of long battery life on a single charge.
The newly developed anode-free battery has a volumetric energy density of 977 Wh/L which is 40% higher than the conventional batteries (700 Wh/L). This means that the battery can run for 630 km on a single charge.
Batteries usually change the structure of anode materials as lithium ions flow to and from the electrode during repetitive charging and discharging. This is why the battery capacity decreases over time.
It was thought that if it was possible to charge and discharge only with a bare anode current collector without anode materials, the energy density—which determines the battery capacity—would increase. However, this method had a critical weakness which causes significant swelling of the anode volume and reduces the battery lifecycle. It swelled because there was no stable storage for lithium in the anode.
To overcome this issue, the research team succeeded in developing an anode-free battery in a commonly-used carbonate-based liquid electrolyte by adding an ion conductive substrate. The substrate not only forms an anode protective layer but also helps minimize the bulk expansion of the anode.
The study shows that the battery maintained high capacity of 4.2 mAh cm-2 and high current density of 2.1 mA cm-2 for a long period in the carbonate-based liquid electrolyte. It was also proven both in theory and through experiments that substrates can store lithium.
Further, what's drawing even more attention is that the team successfully demonstrated the solid- state half-cells by using Argyrodite-based sulfide-based solid electrolyte. It is anticipated that this battery will accelerate the commercialization of non-explosive batteries since it maintains high capacity for longer periods.
The study was recently published in Advanced Functional Materials.
Explore further
Reactive electrolyte additives improve lithium metal battery performance More information: Sungjin Cho et al, Highly Reversible Lithium Host Materials for High‐Energy‐Density Anode‐Free Lithium Metal Batteries, Advanced Functional Materials (2022). DOI: 10.1002/adfm.202208629 Journal information: Advanced Functional Materials Provided by Pohang University of Science & Technology (POSTECH)
This from someone who confidently stated: 10^11 is certainly base 10.
LOL! But keep digging, by all means.
“A thread has only one OP.”
So that’s an OPINION Piece, not a reporting of a technical advance? Just somebody’s opinion?
“So that’s an OPINION Piece, not a reporting of a technical advance? Just somebody’s opinion?”
ORIGINAL POST
“This is early in the article and gave the basics.”
I see, so early in the article while explaining the basic it’s OK to present nonsense.
I’m sure that will go a long ways making the more complicated stuff later on more understandable.
You really should stop digging.
Will they force their windmills to turn faster to generate the needed increase in electricity?
Here’s a suggestion that will help you be clearer in the future. When you use an acronym that could refer to different things, spell it out.
Pretty hard to steal the extra 1000 pound of battery.
“Here’s a suggestion that will help you be clearer in the future. When you use an acronym that could refer to different things, spell it out.”
Nobody spells out OP on online threads ...
>>Going from benchtop or laboratory success to high-volume<<
This phase requires lots of energy. This is the phase that won us WWII. This is the phase that Japan and Germany lacked i WWII. Hopefully we have it again in WWIII. Good ole fossil fuels.
Less than 400 miles I can get better than that on a tank of ...
gas ...
…630 km…
What is that in real distances? < /sarc >
10 km = 6.2 mi x 63 = 390.6 mi.
Quite good, if not the usual lie.
“Most of that is lost as waste heat.”
Yep, and ICE power STILL kicks EV ass.
Battery tech has gotta at least double, yet again, before it’ll get really interesting, and it has to do it at a price point on par with gasoline, and it has to do it at a WEIGHT that is on par — driveline to driveline — with internal combustion.
I’d throw in the cooling system, too; it’ll become likely that a battery that triples the power-to-weight of what you can actually buy today is likely going to incorporate some internal cooling. I shepherd electrons around, and the electromagnet coil conductors are hollow for active cooling.
It’s also not lost on me that the “units” used are Wh/L; it gets worse if comparison is made using Wh/kg. Gasoline is .775kg/L cold; a lot less mass/volume than a battery.
We’ll see how it goes, though; there’s no shortage of climate zealots who bug-eyed believe this is the only way to save the world.
And, to be clear, I’m not against EV development; I simply object to these apples/oranges comparisons. It’s like some 100lb Freshman asking to play Center on the Varsity squad. they laugh and say no, so he goes away, pumps a little iron and comes back as a 120lb Sophomore with the same question. More hilarity ensues, and he goes and plays JV, works out and asks again as a 140lb Junior. This time he gets on the squad, but there’s STILL no way Coach is putting him in the middle of the Offensive Line.
EV needs to go be quiet and grow.
And not be all “are we there yet?” every time there’s a fractional increase in performance seen in a laboratory.
Get at least HALFWAY to ICE power/weight/range figures AND put it on the street at a competitive price.
THEN we can BEGIN to have this conversation for REAL.
Apparently the case is the anode................🤷♂️
250+ mph, 0-60 1.9 sec Quarter mile 8.2 sec
Respectable.
Let’s talk some more after they win the 24hrs at LeMans.
Look.
I’m not anti-EV.
Tesla makes bitchin’ cars.
And I’m not hating on Musk; I respect him greatly, in fact.
AND I do sincerely hope battery tech makes a quantum leap, at some point to really bring it up to par with internal combustion in long-range driving.
At this point, though, I’m not picking an EV for any sort of long-range trip. More than a one day, out and back 100 to 125 miles each way is the most I’d push it. Other than that, EV says “commuter car” and until it can be had for the price of something like a Corolla, it’s not THE practical choice.
If you’ve got the cabbage, you’re geeked out by the tech, and in love with the looks, go get one and enjoy it; that market needs buyers to fund the ongoing development.
Just don’t represent that it’s ready now in 2022 to replace our ICE fleet. EV is rockin’ it’s market space, but still has a long way to go. NOT that EV is bad; it’s just not yet good enough.
Family sedan versus strip-prepped muscle car.
“Let’s talk some more after they win the 24hrs at LeMans.”
It’s a street car. Street cars don’t run at Le Mans.
“Street cars don’t run at Le Mans.”
Serious performance brands run at LeMans.
Figure out how to swap the whole battery during a pit stop...
That’d make for interesting racing.
A Model S Plaid logged a 7:30.909 lap at Nordschleife, so it’s not a matter of speed, breaking, acceleration, or handling.
That’d be the 16th fastest lap of the legendary track; just behind a cadre of Porsches, Mercedes, Lamborghinis, McLarens, Audis, a modified Subaru WRX STi, and a Ferrari 488. That’s fast company in anyone’s book.
Still... here we are, waiting for when Tesla fields a Formula E team. With the kind of high-flung things Musk is into, you’d think he’d have his brand out on the track already.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.