Slashdot is powered by your submissions, so send in your scoop

 


Forgot your password?
Close
typodupeerror
×
Power Science

Researchers Unveil Paper On New Battery That Could Last 100 Years (electrek.co) 50

Posted by BeauHD from the breaking-new-ground dept.
An anonymous reader quotes a report from Electrek: Tesla's advanced battery research group in Canada in partnership with Dalhousie University has released a new paper on a new nickel-based battery that could last 100 years while still favorably comparing to LFP cells on charging and energy density. [...] The paper describes a nickel-based battery chemistry meant to compete with LFP battery cells on longevity while retaining the properties that people like in nickel-based batteries, like higher energy density, which enables longer range with fewer batteries for electric vehicles.

The group wrote in the paper's abstract: "Single crystal Li[Ni0.5Mn0.3Co0.2]O2//graphite (NMC532) pouch cells with only sufficient graphite for operation to 3.80 V (rather than [greater than or equal to] 4.2 V) were cycled with charging to either 3.65 V or 3.80 V to facilitate comparison with LiFePO4//graphite (LFP) pouch cells on the grounds of similar maximum charging potential and similar negative electrode utilization. The NMC532 cells, when constructed with only sufficient graphite to be charged to 3.80 V, have an energy density that exceeds that of the LFP cells and a cycle-life that greatly exceeds that of the LFP cells at 40C, 55C and 70C. Excellent lifetime at high temperature is demonstrated with electrolytes that contain lithium bis(fluorosulfonyl)imide (LiFSI) salt, well beyond those provided by conventional LiPF6 electrolytes." The cells showed an impressive capacity retention over a high number of cycles.

The research group even noted that the new cell described in the paper could last a 100 years if the temperature is controlled at 25C: "Ultra-high precision coulometry and electrochemical impedance spectroscopy are used to complement cycling results and investigate the reasons for the improved performance of the NMC cells. NMC cells, particularly those balanced and charged to 3.8 V, show better coulombic efficiency, less capacity fade and higher energy density compared to LFP cells and are projected to yield lifetimes approaching a century at 25C." One of the keys appears to be using an electrolyte with LiFSI lithium salts, and the paper notes that the benefits could also apply to other nickel-based chemistries, including those with no or low cobalt. The paper has been published in the Journal of the Electrochemical Society.
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

Researchers Unveil Paper On New Battery That Could Last 100 Years More

Researchers Unveil Paper On New Battery That Could Last 100 Years

Comments Filter:

  • Sounds reasonable.

  • The things that need to be addressed with new battery tech, in order of importance:
    1. Capacity (Watt-hours per weight (and ideally volume too))
    2. Flammability
    3. Longevity

    • #3 is easily solved, as long as you tightly control the temperature (like stated in the summary.)

      #2 is just as easily solved, just don't expose it to oxygen, ever.

    • No, captivity and longevity are still far more important. I don't know why you think flammability is important given that the alternatives to these are extremely flammable.

      • The solid-state batteries currently in development are not flammable. Unlike a lithium ion battery which burns extremely hot if the battery is punctured.

        • Yes but they were developed because of their longevity and hire capacity per gram. The fact that they don't burn when punctured is merely a side-effect of the design and is far less important than anything else.

          So again, capacity and longevity are far more important than flammability.

          • So again, capacity and longevity are far more important than flammability.

            This is just me, but my priorities for any battery are:

            1. Flammability
            2. Flammability
            3. Flammability
            4. Flammability
            5. Flammability
            6. Flammability
            7. Flammability
            8. Capacity
            9. Longevity.

            I can do with smaller capacity and shorter longevity in exchange for the knowledge that the battery won't burn down my house or roast my family at 70 mph.

            Safety is, by FAR, the most important factor.

          • capacity and longevity are far more important than flammability.

            The question is whether those other factors are important enough to consider, not whether they're the most important. Hate to be syllogistic, but all important factors are important, and flammability is definitely one of those. Having a battery not be flammable means not having to design for that problem when considering occupant safety. It might not matter to you, because you may hope for a fiery death, but it matters to pretty much everyone else.

            • The question is whether those other factors are important enough to consider, not whether they're the most important.

              Incorrect. Look at the original post "The things that need to be addressed with new battery tech, in order of importance:" which lists flammability as the second most important factor. Is flammability important? Of course. Is it more important than battery longevity? No and it is not even close.

              • Is flammability important? Of course. Is it more important than battery longevity? No and it is not even close.

                Reducing flammability is an important step in increasing acceptability of EV solutions. Maybe you don't see that as important, but it is. LiFePo4 batteries address that (but don't solve it) plus several of the other battery problems, like toxicity and problematic materials. In order to be better than LiFePo4 a battery has to be more ecologically friendly and less combustible. Remember, EV ranges are already good enough for almost everyone today, so only cost reduction is necessary for existing designs to be

                • I always shake my head about the FUD around flammability of electric car batteries.

                  Don't people realize that what powers most cars now is extremely flammable? Or do they think that "pouring gasoline on a fire" is a metaphor for de-escalation?

                  • I always shake my head about the FUD around flammability of electric car batteries.

                    I did not spread any FUD, period.

                    Don't people realize that what powers most cars now is extremely flammable?

                    Nothing I said in my comment even suggests otherwise. I didn't even mention ICEVs. That was you, not me. You're trying to make my comment about something it isn't, in order to make your jerking knee appropriate.

                    The fact that EVs combust less than ICEVs doesn't mean that battery flammability is not a real issue. The fact that an EV battery can reignite any time until its charge dissipates is a serious problem, and pretending otherwise is disingenuous.

                    If a new battery chemistr

                    • You're trying to make my comment about something it isn't, in order to make your jerking knee appropriate.

                      LOL! Project much?

                      I was replying directly to you, but I was making a general observation about the state of this entire conversation. More specifically, I was actually thinking of a conversation that I had with my cousin-in-law. I forget all of the conversation, but I remember at one point I mentioned something about electric cars. His FIRST reaction to the idea of electric cars was to express concerns about them bursting into fire, as if this is a major issue intrinsic to the technology.

                      Of course

                • Reducing flammability is an important step in increasing acceptability of EV solutions.

                  This is a FUD argument. EV battery fires occur less often than ICE car fires. The fire risk is perfectly acceptable any only the FUD pushers say otherwise.

    • You forgot, in no particular order
      4. Toxicity
      5. Flammability
      6. Sustainability including recyclability
      7. Pollution in production
      8. Human rights issues

      Some current battery designs fail at some or all of these criteria. Cobalt is a total non-starter for example, no battery should even be permitted to contain it. Nickel itself is highly problematic so batteries which use more nickel than current designs should be considered problematic. LiFePo4 is actually pretty good in general; no cobalt, lithium is currently

  • I keep reading about allegedly grand solar panel and battery inventions or discoveries over the decades, but they never come to fruition, or at least are not the breakthroughs claimed, merely incremental.

    • Re:Headlines from Mar-a-Lago? (Score:5, Informative)

      by hey! ( 33014 ) on Wednesday May 25, 2022 @07:35PM (#62566514) Homepage Journal

      Well, I remember when mobile stuff had *NiCad* batteries. LiFePO4 is a *huge* improvement over NiCad or lead/acid, or even over lithium cobalt oxide. The price is low enough to be used economically for vehicles or grid storage.

      Battery technology *is* moving pretty quickly, there just haven't been any upward *discontinuities* in progress. You don't wake up in the morning and suddenly things are cheaper and more practical than yesterday. It's a year to year thing.

      The same with solar. Solar arrays are common sights now, but they weren't ten years ago. That's because we're decades ahead of projections from ten years ago on photovoltaic cost/kw. It seems a bit much to be dissatisfied because we did that *incrementally* rather than in one overnight technological coup.

      • Agreed, we have a lot of house rooftop solar installations here in Australia and our panel densities have doubled in about 5 - 6 years.

        5 - 6 years ago panels were 190 - 230w, now they're 440w. That's some pretty significant improvement.

      • Hell, I remember when the panels themselves were the lion's share of any install. I remember when I looked at a self-install and the panels only came up to around 50% of the material cost.

      • I remember when the hot add-on for notebooks was a lithium battery instead of NiCad. Expensive, but also much longer disconnected life. Sales and executives loved it.

        For solar, efficiency has gone up and cost has gone down. We're bumping up against the physical limits of conversion efficiency, and while there are some new tricks here and there to boost efficiency similar to how gas power plants scavenge heat to boost overall efficiency, we're not likely to ever see a doubling like we have in the past. But f

  • 100 years? Can't happen. What do they want, to go out of business?
    • 100 years still won't be long enough for the naysayers.

      • Re: (Score:2)

        by sfcat ( 872532 )

        100 years still won't be long enough for the naysayers.

        Especially since nobody complains about battery life unless it is less than a year. The most important issue with a battery is efficiency which only Li-ion really meets for most use cases today. The 2nd issue with batteries is scalability (as in can you make grid scale storage) and if you solved that then safety (as in would they be a good choice to power cars and trucks). After that come issues with ability to recycle them and how much pollution do they create. But the first 2 issues are the important

        • Re: (Score:1)

          by vivian ( 156520 )

          Speak for yourself. I despise the way manufacturers have moved to built in only batteries for nearly every device now. It was bad enough when manufacturers moved away from standardised cells and batteries to custom removable rechargeable batteries, but now nearly every gadget uses a non-user replaceable built in battery, it all but guarantees obsolescence.
          I still have a walkman CD player from 1995 and walkman tape player from 1985 I can put rechargeable (or non rechargeable) AA batteries in, yet an mp3 play

    • There's a simple solution to that problem. Just incorporate DRM into it so you have to pay a monthly fee to use it. If you think about it, that would be ideal for the company. They only have to manufacture a certain number of batteries and then collect rent on their use for 100 years. I'd buy that IPO.

  • So it'll undercut the entire battery manufacturing, mining, transportation, and replacement industry? You know how much money car companies of tomorrow are going to make on battery swaps, then send them over to China for little kids to break them down and remanufacture them? Efficiency would be throwing away literally hundreds of trillions of dollars in circulating revenue!

    Batteries have to be more efficient than current tech, but not too efficient.

  • Yawn, another battery announcement... (Score:4, Interesting)

    by TomGreenhaw ( 929233 ) on Wednesday May 25, 2022 @08:23PM (#62566588)
    Seems like every few months for the last ten years, there is a new breakthrough on battery technology, and yet we use still use good old lithium ion.

    Whatever happened to the glass battery> https://spectrum.ieee.org/does... [ieee.org]
    • Well, the LFP battery mentioned in article summary is *lighter* than your "good old lithium ion" battery, but also bigger. Therefore, it is good for car battery where one care the weight, but useless for mobile devices where one care the size. Not all breakthroughs are useful to our smartphones.

      • Great for home energy storage though. Bulkier? Who cares. Ultra long lifespan under controlled temperatures? Perfect.

  • The link in the summary is to the journal issue that features the paper. The actual paper about "Long-Lived Low Voltage Li-Ion Cells" appears to be in this link [iop.org] (last part is truncated in the summary).

    • Thanks for the link.
      It explanes a LOT and from what i understand of it (i'm only a interrested guy) this (./) artikel is a part of artikel what is a prt of the origional artikel (your link).
      And in every (summery) step there is info lost, up to the point where the reader get a complete wrong impression of what is going on :(

  • That's a pretty clickbait headline. I don't know where you'd park a car to keep it at 25C. For comparison, the narrowest temperature rating for electronic components in cars is grade 3: -40C to +85C, for use in the passenger compartment.

    Even using them for grid regulation likely exposes them to significant temperature variation. Unless you're spending significant energy on cooling, charge/discharge itself will self-heat most batteries.

  • ...another "stunning breakthrough" in battery tech.

    Yawn.

  • These people are going to end up in the deepest (remaining) part of Lake Meade in barrels next to the "Engine that runs on tap water" guy aren't they?

    • Nickel iron batteries already last roughly this long. They're bigger but great for off-grid.

      These guys want to make those smaller, not magical. Almost all the wins in technology are incremental.

  • Simply means Tesla LiON batterypacks never come back to Tesla. Enables No upgrade paths, No swaps and No replacements. Tesla achieves the “one and done” system. It provides Tesla the longest tail for a startup.

    Salvage, cannibalization and reuse of extant surviving batterypacks will create an entire layer of a 2nd Lithium industry. Redwood recycling Li is EOL in 20 yrs.

  • In the 1700's, Newcomen engines were built which ran for more than a hundred years. The last one was shut down in 1900.

    We have had the know how to build things which last for a very long time, but Evolutionary Capitalism has eliminated almost every company that built things to last. It would not surprise me that we could build a battery which lasts 100 years. What would surprise me is that any company would expend an effort to bringing it to market.

Slashdot Top Deals

Some people manage by the book, even though they don't know who wrote the book or even what book.

Close