backtop


Print 44 comment(s) - last by Captain Orgazm.. on Nov 16 at 8:15 PM

Graphene and silicon anode yields 10 times faster charge and can hold a charge 10 times greater

Researchers at Northwestern University had made a breakthrough that could lead to a new battery with much more run time and a faster recharge time. The researchers created a new electrode for lithium-ion batteries that allows the battery to hold a 10x greater charge. At the same time, the battery is also able to recharge ten times faster than current designs.
 
The researchers say that the technology they have developed will be on the market in the next three to five years. The team has published a research paper on the discovery in the Advanced Energy Materials journal.
 
"We have found a way to extend a new lithium-ion battery's charge life by 10 times," said Harold H. Kung, lead author of the paper. "Even after 150 charges, which would be one year or more of operation, the battery is still five times more effective than lithium-ion batteries on the market today."
 
Current batteries are limited by their charge density, which is how many lithium ions can be packed into the anode or cathode and by their charge rate. Experiments before used silicon to replace the carbon normally used in a battery, but normal silicon didn’t work. The team's breakthrough stabilizes the silicon to maximize the charge capacity and sandwiched that silicon between layers of graphene to accommodate volume changes during the battery use.
 
"Now we almost have the best of both worlds," Kung said. "We have much higher energy density because of the silicon, and the sandwiching reduces the capacity loss caused by the silicon expanding and contracting. Even if the silicon clusters break up, the silicon won't be lost."
 
The team will next look at the cathode after focusing their research previously on the anode.
 
However promising this new technology seems, we’ve all seen this before time and time again. Researchers develop new battery technologies, and we sit around and wait for it to hit the market. The last breakthrough we reported on was a fluoride battery that promises ten times the storage density of a comparable lithium-ion battery.

Source: Eurekalert



Comments     Threshold


This article is over a month old, voting and posting comments is disabled

That decay rate is horrible.
By quiksilvr on 11/15/2011 2:18:25 PM , Rating: 2
It loses 1/2 of its charge capacity after just 150 cycles.




RE: That decay rate is horrible.
By FITCamaro on 11/15/11, Rating: -1
By EddyKilowatt on 11/15/2011 2:44:39 PM , Rating: 2
Yeah, but compared to other silicon anodes that lose 90% after 10 cycles (forget the exact numbers, they are pretty bad), this is significant progress.

Silicon holds lithium ions like a sponge holds water... it'll be more than revolutionary if they can figure out how to use it. Right now that capacity to absorb is also its downfall... it absorbs so well that it swells and then cracks apart. There are dozens of labs trying to figure out how to deal with that. It'll be interesting to see what they come up with over the next few years.


RE: That decay rate is horrible.
By gvaley on 11/15/2011 4:27:09 PM , Rating: 4
No. If you charge your current-day EV every day, you would be charging your future-day EV once every 10 days because the new battery would last 10 times more. 10 days x 150 charges give you 1500 days of operation before the capacity drops twice, which is over 4 years. Still not enough, but you are missing another point here--current EVs use the battery between its 20% and 80% charge to maximize its lifespan and quicken charging. Otherwise even the current Li batteries won't hold for more than 4 years.


RE: That decay rate is horrible.
By jimbojimbo on 11/15/2011 4:54:05 PM , Rating: 2
Sort of true but really they'll put in 1/10 of the battery to reduce the overall weight, and price, so you're still going to have to charge that sucker every night.


RE: That decay rate is horrible.
By SPOOFE on 11/15/2011 5:52:14 PM , Rating: 2
Good point. However, 1/10 the battery would be cheaper, and more economically feasible to replace.


RE: That decay rate is horrible.
By SPOOFE on 11/15/2011 5:52:59 PM , Rating: 2
Correction: All else being equal (which I know it's not since this is brand-new tech) 1/10 the battery would be cheaper.


RE: That decay rate is horrible.
By Qapa on 11/15/2011 6:51:35 PM , Rating: 2
Well, for EVs they'd probably go with something in the middle, like, 5x more energy = 5x more range, and half price on batteries which also mean half the weight of the batteries.

That would mean something like a Leaf with 500 miles and 5000€/$ cheaper. I'd like to see people still complaining... because some people still would say it is crap, just because it does not suit their specific needs.

For laptops/pads they'd probably go closer to 2x more energy and 5x lighter/cheaper for most of them.

For mobile phones they'd simply go with every possible combination as there are phones for all tastes


RE: That decay rate is horrible.
By tng on 11/16/2011 7:54:30 AM , Rating: 2
quote:
I'd like to see people still complaining... because some people still would say it is crap, just because it does not suit their specific needs.
And for some people it wouldn't. If there were a EV that went 500 miles on a charge, I would still need a petrol vehicle when I travel the see family.....

That being said, I could then use that vehicle to commute and that would be good.


RE: That decay rate is horrible.
By TSS on 11/15/2011 5:33:05 PM , Rating: 2
The article said that after 150 charges it'll still be 5x more effective then a normal battery.

That means my PSP would ship with a 50 hour battery life instead of a 5 hour battery life. And after 150 recharges, that would've been reduced to 25 hours.

After those 150 charges though you've gone through roughly 5600 hours of game time. Considering the weight of the PSP if i play for the full 5 hours my arms are seriously tired and i've got a neck cramp so i'm unlikely to play again until the next day. So after 1125 days or roughly 3 years of use (or 401 days of *continuous* use) my new PSP battery will only be 5 times as good as the current battery.

Sounds too good to be true really. But if it isn't i'd take that over lithium-ion any day.

BTW if the chevy volt had this it would run for 45,000 miles before you'd only get 200 miles instead of 40 on 1 charge.


RE: That decay rate is horrible.
By SPOOFE on 11/15/2011 5:54:53 PM , Rating: 3
quote:
Sounds too good to be true really.

One thing they never really bring up is mass production. There's some seriously awesome tech out there that we just plain don't have because nobody's figured out how to produce it in quantity.


By SublimeSimplicity on 11/15/2011 3:11:57 PM , Rating: 5
There's a curve to battery life vs depth of discharge. When an electric car is spec'd to have a range of 100 miles, the battery pack is usually capable of 150-200 miles. The manufacturers reduce the depth of discharge to extend the life of the pack, both in total capacity and ability to offer the quoted capacity.
So 150 full discharge cycles, is probably equivalent to 600 75% discharge cycles or 1200 50% discharge cycles.


RE: That decay rate is horrible.
By bigdawg1988 on 11/15/2011 3:27:34 PM , Rating: 5
Well, he did say it would still be 5 times more effective than current Tech.

Let's just see if it really comes to market though.

Dang, funded by the US DOE? Well, take that, Mr Perry!


RE: That decay rate is horrible.
By BansheeX on 11/15/2011 4:14:41 PM , Rating: 2
The success rate of government "investment" is much, much lower than private investment, because those in government aren't putting their money on the line. Without that fear of loss, it goes to places like Solyndra more often than not. Of course stolen money is occasionally going to go to a good idea. That's no argument for subsidies because it presumes that more and better investments wouldn't be made had the money stayed in the hands of those who earned it.


By geddarkstorm on 11/15/2011 4:19:04 PM , Rating: 5
But one of the advantages of government funding is the ability to fund research with no, immediately clear, return on investment. I.e. basic research in general. That's not something companies are necessarily going to risk on. But it's from that type of research that the foundations for incredible breakthroughs come--and plenty of scientific surprises that give us a launching pad for the next, basic science, step.

There really is a role for government funding of -research-. Rather than government funding, subsidizing, of manufacturing industries like with Solyndra.


RE: That decay rate is horrible.
By bug77 on 11/15/2011 5:44:12 PM , Rating: 1
Government spending on research has different goals then private spending. But throwing money around is still a bad idea.


RE: That decay rate is horrible.
By ppardee on 11/15/2011 7:22:50 PM , Rating: 3
Correct. Government spending has the goal of padding the politicians' pockets, facilitating re-election, and helping out friends in the industry.

/cynical


RE: That decay rate is horrible.
By Samus on 11/16/2011 1:04:43 AM , Rating: 1
This will be the "oil-change" equivilent for the electric car. Every 6 months, change the battery pack for $500 bucks. lolz


Combine
By deltaend on 11/15/2011 2:58:54 PM , Rating: 3
Combine the fluoride tech: http://www.dailytech.com/Researchers+Create+Fluori... with this technology for 100x larger battery density. I look forward to charging my phone 3x a year.




RE: Combine
By geddarkstorm on 11/15/2011 4:06:19 PM , Rating: 2
I had the same though. Only problem is that lithium is positively charged, and fluoride is negatively charged. So while this is happening at the anode for lithium (they developed this for the anode), it's the cathode that is the site where this process should occur for fluoride. Doesn't mean it can't be adapted for cathodes though! And that is where they said they'll be looking next. Assuming the fluoride battery is even working the same way design wise as the lithium ion.


RE: Combine
By tng on 11/16/2011 8:03:06 AM , Rating: 2
quote:
Doesn't mean it can't be adapted for cathodes though!
Well, just on the face of it, I don't think that this specific technology can be adapted for fluoride.
quote:
Current batteries are limited by their charge density, which is how many lithium ions can be packed into the anode or cathode and by their charge rate. Experiments before used silicon to replace the carbon normally used in a battery, but normal silicon didn’t work.
It seems that this is specifically developed for lithium.


RE: Combine
By ppardee on 11/15/2011 7:20:22 PM , Rating: 2
You're not going to be able to get away with charging your phone 3x per year. Mainly because a 2 weeks would be acceptable to most users, so you'll get a smaller/lighter battery.

But also, even if the size of the battery wasn't reduce and you did get a battery capable of sustaining your current phone for 4 months, phones would become more powerful (read: energy intensive) meaning you'll still need to charge them every week or so. The technology expands to fit the means.


RE: Combine
By Captain Orgazmo on 11/15/2011 8:50:39 PM , Rating: 4
If they could actually make batteries with 100X the energy density of current Li-ion tech, who cares about phones, I want my laser pistol!


RE: Combine
By UnauthorisedAccess on 11/16/2011 5:34:18 AM , Rating: 3
orgazmo-ray?


RE: Combine
By tng on 11/16/2011 8:03:56 AM , Rating: 2
Point of View Gun....


RE: Combine
By Captain Orgazmo on 11/16/2011 8:15:54 PM , Rating: 2
This should be a weekly column
By Tapuziel on 11/15/2011 2:51:32 PM , Rating: 2
This week on DailyTech!

Researchers discover <futuristic adjective> battery tech that promises <really exciting improvements> as well as <some other neat stuff>.

... Wake me up when the headlines include the words "mass produce" and "cheap".




RE: This should be a weekly column
By EddyKilowatt on 11/15/2011 3:09:37 PM , Rating: 4
You're right. Nothing ever comes of this egghead research bullshiat.

Take a look at this knee-slapper from 1959... "Semiconductor device-and-lead structure":

http://www.computerhistory.org/semiconductor/timel...


RE: This should be a weekly column
By senecarr on 11/15/2011 3:22:41 PM , Rating: 2
Note the 1959 there.
And in that time, they've made huge progress. Since 1991 (first commercial Li-Ion battery) to 2011, I've went from Windows 3.0 on big beige box to more power in smartphone in my hand.


RE: This should be a weekly column
By mattclary on 11/15/2011 3:48:13 PM , Rating: 2
Geeeeez! What a pipe-dream! Did he go on to write Star Trek episodes?


RE: This should be a weekly column
By Stuka on 11/16/2011 2:06:53 PM , Rating: 3
Unfortunately, as I type this, Haliburton is forming a shell company called Marvin Investments LLC which will eventually purchase the entire IP from the researchers for $400 million. They will then box it up and put it in the warehouse next to the 200mpg car and the Ark of the Covenant.

</sarcasm>


Confused...
By Kurz on 11/15/2011 1:43:36 PM , Rating: 2
Charge Cycles, or is it Power Density?




RE: Confused...
By Kurz on 11/15/2011 1:49:16 PM , Rating: 2
I first see this:
times faster charge and ten times more power storage

Then this:

"We have found a way to extend a new lithium-ion battery's charge life by 10 times," said Harold H. Kung, lead author of the paper. "Even after 150 charges, which would be one year or more of operation, the battery is still five times more effective than lithium-ion batteries on the market today."


RE: Confused...
By Spuke on 11/15/2011 1:55:02 PM , Rating: 2
Looks like the author doesn't understand the terminology.


RE: Confused...
By theArchMichael on 11/15/2011 2:20:54 PM , Rating: 2
No, when you read the source article it says this technique improves:
- charge rate
- charge density
- charge capacity after many charge cycles

But yeah both articles were a little confusing on that and the quote they got from the lead researcher didn't even reference the first two points. I hope this isn't just a mistake because it does sound pretty badass (if you're thinking cellphones and tablets and stuff).


RE: Confused...
By Dr of crap on 11/15/2011 2:53:41 PM , Rating: 2
SSDD - another "it could....blah, blah."


RE: Confused...
By retrospooty on 11/15/2011 2:56:36 PM , Rating: 2
""it could....blah, blah." "


Exactly.... Show me real specs in a real product that isn't ridiculously priced and you'll impress me.


10x charge speed = 10x current draw
By mattclary on 11/15/2011 2:09:06 PM , Rating: 2
Better have a heavy duty circuit breaker




RE: 10x charge speed = 10x current draw
By semiconshawn on 11/15/2011 5:18:41 PM , Rating: 2
I cant even begin to tell you how wrong that is.


By teldar on 11/15/2011 7:17:09 PM , Rating: 2
How? Do not electric cars need 240v circuits to charge because 120v can't supply enough power?


RE: 10x charge speed = 10x current draw
By ppardee on 11/15/2011 7:32:16 PM , Rating: 2
I wish you would try because now I'm sitting here trying to figure out what I'm missing.

Charging a 10Ah battery in 60 minutes should draw 10A for 60 minutes.
Charging a 10Ah battery in 6 minutes should draw 100A for 6 minutes.

Right?


By semiconshawn on 11/16/2011 1:54:54 AM , Rating: 2
Well if you simply say were to use a 220v outlet instead of a 110 you could use less current from the wall. That is the simplest reason battery chemistry and the charge circuit are others.


Report from 2005?
By Shadowmaster625 on 11/16/2011 11:32:05 AM , Rating: 2
I swear I read this exact same article 6 or 7 years ago.
wtf?




RE: Report from 2005?
By graynote on 11/16/2011 4:43:09 PM , Rating: 3
Hiro?
Hiro Nakamura?


"Death Is Very Likely The Single Best Invention Of Life" -- Steve Jobs














botimage
Copyright 2014 DailyTech LLC. - RSS Feed | Advertise | About Us | Ethics | FAQ | Terms, Conditions & Privacy Information | Kristopher Kubicki