Lithium-Ion Batteries Win Nobel Prize for Chemistry (scientificamerican.com) 28
"This is a highly charged story," began Olof Ramstrom, a member of the Nobel Committee for Chemistry, announcing that a trio of chemists who spent decades developing the lithium ion battery were today awarded the Nobel Prize in Chemistry for their work. From a report: These batteries, small and powerful compared to older battery technology, made possible pocket-sized mobile phones, laptop computers, electric cars, and renewable energy devices such as solar panels that can help address the problems of climate change, Ramstrom says. The prize will be shared by John B. Goodenough from the University of Texas at Austin, M. Stanley Whittingham from Binghamton University in New York, and Akira Yoshino, who works at Asahi Kasei Corporation and Meijo University in Japan. They will split the roughly $1 million award. Lithium batteries have been touted as Nobel-worthy for years, says Bonnie Charpentier, president of the American Chemical Society. "I think that it's magnificent that Goodenough won this year," she says, noting that at age 97 he is the oldest Nobel laureate. Yoshino is 71, showing that the research stretched across generations.
Indeed, it was in the 1970s that Whittingham began investigating the use of lithium, the smallest and lightest metal in the periodic table of the elements. That size and weight made it possible to pack a lot of lithium into a small space, unlike the large and heavy lead-acid batteries that dominated at the time. Lithium had another advantage: it easily gave up its electrons, and batteries produce electricity when electrons flow from one end, called the anode, to the other end, called the cathode. Whittingham put metallic lithium in one end and a layered material called titanitum disulphide at the other; the titanium had spaces that could capture the flowing electrons. However, this combination of materials also had the unfortunate potential to explode. Slashdot interviewed Goodenough two years ago. You can read the interview here.
Indeed, it was in the 1970s that Whittingham began investigating the use of lithium, the smallest and lightest metal in the periodic table of the elements. That size and weight made it possible to pack a lot of lithium into a small space, unlike the large and heavy lead-acid batteries that dominated at the time. Lithium had another advantage: it easily gave up its electrons, and batteries produce electricity when electrons flow from one end, called the anode, to the other end, called the cathode. Whittingham put metallic lithium in one end and a layered material called titanitum disulphide at the other; the titanium had spaces that could capture the flowing electrons. However, this combination of materials also had the unfortunate potential to explode. Slashdot interviewed Goodenough two years ago. You can read the interview here.
"Lithium batteries" != "Lithium ion batteries". (Score:4, Informative)
Two different, common technologies.
Lithium battery [wikipedia.org] - a type of primary (non-rechargeable) battery, typically found in the form of "button cells"
Lithium-ion battery [wikipedia.org] - a type of secondary (rechargeable) battery, found in consumer electronics and EVs.
Re: (Score:2)
Also:
"the titanium had spaces that could capture the flowing electrons"
Electrons do not work that way. They're meaning to describe the intercalation of lithium ions into the cathode during discharge.
Fun With Prizes Department (Score:4, Funny)
first time the peaceful Nobel Prize committee has awarded a prize for a salt and batteries.
I'll see myself out....
Re:Fun With Prizes Department (Score:5, Interesting)
Li-ion batteries really are amazingly simple devices. It's all about the nuances, however. I like Jack Rickard's description of them as "magic rocks". The cathode is a mixture of common, relatively nonspecific metal oxides...e.g., a rock... while the cathode is usually natural graphite or amorphous carbon and sometimes some silicon....e.g., another rock. Two rocks, each touching a piece of foil, sitting in some (relatively nonspecific) salty organic liquids and separated by a thin strip of plastic. A small amount of intercalated lithium just moves from one side to the other and back - no chemical bonding. And yet it's a way better battery technology than anything that came before it.
Finding the optimal specifics, however, has been a massive endeavour. The degradation mechanisms are complicated and hard to observe as they occur. And there's a lot of luck that they even work at all. For example, as you charge a cell, the anode swells, and this tends to break it up. And if something loses an electrical connection to the current collector, then it's no longer contributing as part of a battery. Meanwhile, you *also* have the problem that the charged anode becomes very reactive and tends to react with the electrolyte, consuming both, and leaving degradation products that slow the flow of lithium ions. But in a stroke of luck, the two problems cancel each other out: degradation forms an SEI (Solid-Electrolyte Interphase) that not only dramatically slows down any further degradation, but also effectively "shrinkwraps" the anode together and to the current collector.
Re:Fun With Prizes Department (Score:5, Informative)
People have been trying to move on to any of a variety of "next gen" systems for a while, but its really tough. Your intercalation frameworks act as a scaffolding that control where the lithium goes on each side and how, greatly simplifying things. They're hard to get rid of.
For example, as per Goodenough's first (unreliable) cell, there's a strong desire to use pure metallic lithium (with no "wasted" graphite mass) as the anode. But if, during the discharge, even just 1% of the lithium breaks off, it gets surrounded by an (insulative) SEI, and then it's wasted, just floating there. It'll never contribute again. After just 50 cycles you'll be down to only 60% of your lithium left - not even close to acceptable. Vs. with graphite where if you left 1% of your lithium behind, well... no problem, it's still there for the next cycle.
Same sort of problems on the cathode end, where people either want to use lithium oxide / superoxide / hydroxide (Li-air), or lithium sulphide (Li-S). The problem with li-air is that (among many other things) it's poorly reversible, while with Li-S, you create a bunch of really soluble intermediary lithium polysulphides, which tend to just bugger off over to the anode side. You can reduce this to relatively acceptable levels with a mesoporous carbon sponge as a scaffold to try to trap them in little pockets, but then you've added so much weight that you're not really gaining much if anything.
There's always neat work going on and the drumbeat of advancements keeps on continuing, however. :)
Re: (Score:2)
The cathode is a mixture of common, relatively nonspecific metal oxides...e.g., a rock... while the cathode is usually natural graphite or amorphous carbon and sometimes some silicon....e.g., another rock.
So what about the anode?
Re: (Score:2)
Sorry, the latter was supposed to read "anode".
Re: (Score:2)
Gawd, that was a bad joke! I thank you, sir, for making my morning....
Re: (Score:2)
Obligatory moaning in protest to pretend I didn't enjoy that.
Re: (Score:2)
I'm shocked! SHOCKED, I tell you!
Lithium-ion batteries (Score:4, Funny)
Just not Goodenough anymore.
Re: (Score:2)
Not good enough, dammit! Not good enough! [youtube.com]
And the next nobel prize goes to... (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Yeah, it is pretty odd that they're giving a Nobel Prize for what is thirty year old technology at this point.
It makes you wonder who's going to get one next year... the inventor of Velcro?
Re:And the next nobel prize goes to... (Score:5, Informative)
Nobel prizes are never about the bleeding edge. It's for research that has proven to be a breakthrough, and is awarded after the breakthrough has happened.
Re: (Score:1)
Of course, Nobel's will pretty explicitly stated that each year's prize was to go to "those who, during the preceding year, have conferred the greatest benefit to humankind" which is really tricky when it comes to the sciences, since discoveries that confer a great benefit to humankind right away are pretty few and far between.
Re: (Score:2)
In rod we trust!
Li-Ion did not make solar possible (Score:4, Informative)
"These batteries, small and powerful compared to older battery technology, made possible pocket-sized mobile phones, laptop computers, electric cars, and renewable energy devices such as solar panels"
Lithium Ion did not make solar panels possible. Solar panels existed well before Lithium Ion batteries, and many solar installations still prefer lead acid for the sheer current delivery potential.
Re: (Score:2)
One explainer on NPR pointed out, by storing electricity, it enables solar panels as useful for large-scale generation. Sounds like the author is a proudly unscientific journalist. Or just poor editing.
Re: (Score:2)
Lead-acid outperforms Lithium in colder climates. Also, Lead-acid can be on-site refurbished. Li-ion cannot, it must be recycled.
Try again when your medication actually works.
Re: (Score:2)
"These batteries, small and powerful compared to older battery technology, made possible pocket-sized mobile phones, laptop computers, electric cars, and renewable energy devices such as solar panels"
Lithium Ion did not make solar panels possible. Solar panels existed well before Lithium Ion batteries, and many solar installations still prefer lead acid for the sheer current delivery potential.
Not to mention that laptops and electric cars [wikipedia.org] also existed before, not as popular and useful - true, but not "made possible" - however it is worth the Nobel prize, that's I'd agree.
Re: (Score:2)
Nor pocket-sized mobile phones. I had several generations of phones that ran on Ni-MH batteries, all of which fit comfortably in a pocket.
And all of which got longer standby time than my current slab of lithium.
Hello, inflation calling (Score:1)
Re: (Score:2)
Well, you do also receive a medal made of solid gold [nobelprize.org]. (quibble: it's 18k, so not pure gold, but still nothing to sneeze at.)
Fitting.. (Score:1)