Single Crystal Lithium-Ion Batteries Last 8x Longer, Researchers Show (techxplore.com) 50
Researchers used Canada's national synchrotron light source facility "to analyze a new type of lithium-ion battery material — called a single-crystal electrode — that's been charging and discharging non-stop in a Halifax lab for more than six years," reports Tech Xplore.
The results? The battery material "lasted more than 20,000 cycles before it hit the 80% capacity cutoff," which they say is equivalent to driving 8 million kms (nearly 5 million miles). That's more than eight times the life of a regular lithium-ion battery that lasted 2,400 cycles before reaching the 80% cutoff — and "When the researchers looked at the single crystal electrode battery, they saw next to no evidence of this mechanical stress." (One says the material "looked very much like a brand-new cell." Toby Bond [a senior scientist at the CLS, who conducted the research for his Ph.D.] attributes the near absence of degradation in the new style battery to the difference in the shape and behavior of the particles that make up the battery electrodes... The single crystal is, as its name implies, one big crystal: it's more like an ice cube. "If you have a snowball in one hand, and an ice cube in the other, it's a lot easier to crush the snowball," says Bond. "The ice cube is much more resistant to mechanical stress and strain." While researchers have for some time known that this new battery type resists the micro cracking that lithium-ion batteries are so susceptible to, this is the first time anyone has studied a cell that's been cycled for so long...
Bond says what's most exciting about the research is that it suggests we may be near the point where the battery is no longer the limiting component in an EV — as it may outlast the other parts of the car. The new batteries are already being produced commercially, says Bond, and their use should ramp up significantly within the next couple of years. "I think work like this just helps underscore how reliable they are, and it should help companies that are manufacturing and using these batteries to plan for the long term."
Thanks to long-time Slashdot reader schwit1 for sharing the news.
The results? The battery material "lasted more than 20,000 cycles before it hit the 80% capacity cutoff," which they say is equivalent to driving 8 million kms (nearly 5 million miles). That's more than eight times the life of a regular lithium-ion battery that lasted 2,400 cycles before reaching the 80% cutoff — and "When the researchers looked at the single crystal electrode battery, they saw next to no evidence of this mechanical stress." (One says the material "looked very much like a brand-new cell." Toby Bond [a senior scientist at the CLS, who conducted the research for his Ph.D.] attributes the near absence of degradation in the new style battery to the difference in the shape and behavior of the particles that make up the battery electrodes... The single crystal is, as its name implies, one big crystal: it's more like an ice cube. "If you have a snowball in one hand, and an ice cube in the other, it's a lot easier to crush the snowball," says Bond. "The ice cube is much more resistant to mechanical stress and strain." While researchers have for some time known that this new battery type resists the micro cracking that lithium-ion batteries are so susceptible to, this is the first time anyone has studied a cell that's been cycled for so long...
Bond says what's most exciting about the research is that it suggests we may be near the point where the battery is no longer the limiting component in an EV — as it may outlast the other parts of the car. The new batteries are already being produced commercially, says Bond, and their use should ramp up significantly within the next couple of years. "I think work like this just helps underscore how reliable they are, and it should help companies that are manufacturing and using these batteries to plan for the long term."
Thanks to long-time Slashdot reader schwit1 for sharing the news.
Electrode? (Score:2)
Parts of a battery: anode, cathode, electrolyte.
What electrode?
Re: Electrode? (Score:2)
But can it work in a smartphone? (Score:2)
Pretty weak FP. So you didn't like the labeling?
Par for FP these days? I am interested in the topic, but mostly for smartphone applications. Thinking about composing an AskSlashdot about smartphone selection criteria, and batteries are certainly on the list. If I cycle the phone once a day, then 20,000 cycles should be long enough. But I sure don't believe that 2,400 number for "regular" batteries. My current phone sure feels way less than 80% after a little over a year. Call it 400 cycles?
Re: (Score:2)
Anodes and cathodes are electrodes.
Which electrode? (Score:2)
The cathode. They replaced the polycrystal lithium NMC material with a monocrystal. This addresses a common problem with crack formation in the cathode.
Re: (Score:2)
That makes no sense in light of primary degradation method of lithium battery, which is gradual loss of lithium inventory and claims being made. Cathode cracking is a fatal but relatively rare occurrence last I checked in comparison, whereas loss of lithium inventory affects all relevant batteries.
Or did something change?
Re: (Score:2)
... You probably shouldn't comment on this particular topic.
Nah, it'll never fly (Score:3)
Manufacturers *don't want* a car that lasts a really long time. Where's the profit in that?
Re: Nah, it'll never fly (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
This was my thought as well, it may not be an issue for the next decade or so due to the endless demand for new batteries intended for new construction rather than replacement, but if Li-Ion batteries are still around in a decade or so, there will be a lot of incentive to form a Phoebus Cartel for batteries.
Re:Nah, it'll never fly (Score:5, Interesting)
>"Manufacturers *don't want* a car that lasts a really long time. Where's the profit in that?"
* Car manufacturers sell cars, not batteries.
* Cars with longer-lasting batteries will sell better and demand higher prices.
* ICE cars already last a very long time, if taken care of. And that was improving for many decades.
* ICE cars don't have some built-in/designed-in, expected, very expensive timebomb waiting to go off like EV's do.
* EV cars that eliminate the timebomb will better compete with ICE cars.
* Electric manufacturers can then be free to work on other features that will entice current and future buyers.
Generally, with an elastic, competitive market, *nobody* loses with improvements in technology... everyone wins.
Re: Nah, it'll never fly (Score:2)
Ice vehicles had many years of bad gas tank designs. It took decades to correct ice vehicles to make it so they hardly catch on fire at random any more.
That said I know several personal antetodes where an ice engines randomly caught fire and burned to the ground. The best one was on Halloween 2022 when my mother in law pulled in to my driveway on the flames of hell. Her voltage regulator randomly fried and caught a bunch of dry leaves on fire. By the time the fire dept got there the whole car was engulfed.
Re: (Score:2)
That said I know several personal antetodes where an ice engines randomly caught fire and burned to the ground.
Yeah, I have one myself, one of my earliest memories is of my father's Toronado burning in our driveway. It lit itself on fire while not being driven.
But anecdotes aren't that valuable, data is what we like, and gas cars are more likely to combust [kbb.com].
The sad part is, it's pretty easy to make this not happen. You build an inline engine with a hot side and a cool side, keep fuel lines away from hot components, use heat/fuel spray shields where necessary, and use fuel injectors with metal bodies. This would make
Re: (Score:2)
For those who don't know where this pundit's lie is, it's a lie of omission of details of the study. Report being cited is not a general report on EV safety that it's being presented as. Instead it's data on Tesla fires from four nations that mandate yearly checks of the battery by a state sanctioned expert. I live in one of them, and whining about their Teslas getting "unsafe to stay on the road, banned from driving" marker in their inspection from having a dent in the battery armor is endless. Because the
Re: (Score:2)
For those who don't know where this pundit's lie is, it's a lie of omission of details of the study.
You forgot to provide the citation. Maybe you messed up the link? That happens.
Re: (Score:2)
You seem to not have noticed that I agreed to your citation, and went to read it. And then simply explained what it actually said, and how it's completely different from what you claimed it said.
Or are you incapable of checking the fact if yearly roadworthiness inspections in our nations are real?
https://www.traficom.fi/en/tra... [traficom.fi]
Re: (Score:2)
Oh, you don't actually have a citation that disagrees, you just decided that their findings didn't apply to anywhere else. Thanks for making that clear.
Re: (Score:2)
Bitch, you lied that you cited a study about general status of car fires. I read your citation and noted that you did in fact lie, as you didn't have that.
To reiterate: your citation does not support your claim. Your claim is a lie.
Re: (Score:1)
I had a 1976 celica burst into flames in 1990 when I pulled over to the side of a country road for my mate who needed a pit stop. Foot high Long dry grass touched the hot manifold and caught fire, which lit grease and oil from my old leaky engine.
Luckily sand and a stinky contribution from my mate with the full bladder got the situation under control.
Re: (Score:3)
The best one was on Halloween 2022 when my mother in law pulled in to my driveway on the flames of hell. Her voltage regulator randomly fried and caught a bunch of dry leaves on fire.
She should have used her broom. Especially on that day!
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Manufacturers *don't want* a car that lasts a really long time. Where's the profit in that?
The software subscription they'll require to you to maintain, lest your car turn into a brick.
different environments / temperatures (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
It is not, because if what they claim is true, it's that you can massively increase the manufacturing cost of one of the battery parts (cathode), to mitigate against a very rare type of failure.
Reminder: primary problems in NMC batteries are lithium inventory loss and dendrite growth. Their monocrystal cathode changes nothing for those two problems.
Re: (Score:2)
Lithium battery density has been steadily improving over the past 15 years. https://www.energy.gov/eere/ve... [energy.gov]
Re: (Score:2)
For those wondering where the lie of this pundit is, it's in the fact that he claims this to be a "battery density improvement".
Page he links talks about "battery PACK density improvement". What is being talked about is minituarization of support systems such as cooling systems and control logic.
Science remains unbeaten by pundits in that no, chemistry hasn't suddenly being able to grow beyond its theoretical limits (which current lithium batteries are pretty close to).
Re:Battery Miracle of the Week (Score:5, Insightful)
so we can go on frivolously traveling from place-to-place in two-ton un-aerodynamic brick--powered by a 1,020 horsepower electric motor
Why single out electric motors? How is it different from going frivolously traveling etc. if the un-aerodynamic brick is powered by an internal combustion engine? The IC engine just adds extra stink. And it's not like there's a shortage of idiots buying large pick-up trucks to drive them to the grocery store and back. It would still be better for everybody if those idiots would buy electric trucks instead.
without thinking of where the power to charge the batteries is going to come from, or a consideration for the future of those who follow.
I'd think the opposite is true. From all of those points of view BEVs are superior to internal combustion vehicles - in some cases crushingly so. BEVs are much more flexible regarding the source of power they use: a good percent of the energy used by BEVs can come from renewable sources like solar or wind. For the rest, BEVs can use energy from a large variety of sources, like nuclear, gas plants or even coal plants. This kind of flexibility doesn't appear to exist for ICVs; the main alternative fuel I'm aware of is LPG, who shares a lot of the same problems of extraction, refining and transportation. I don't see any comparable progress in renewable fuels like ethanol or maybe hydrogen.
Consideration for future generations should make the switch to BEV even more important. First, the amount of pollution from ICVs is significantly higher than the pollution from BEVs, even if the BEV is powered from dirty sources, like coal plants. Second, the vast majority of the fuel used by combustion engines comes from oil, whose extraction, refining and transportation are themselves highly polluting and very energy-intensive. By comparison, transportation of electricity from producer to consumer is much cheaper and more efficient.
Re:Battery Miracle of the Week (Score:5, Interesting)
All that you said is true, but trying to stick with having so many cars when we have more efficient alternatives which don't run on pneumatic tires which wear away and wind up in waterways and the ocean and our food and our bodies is definitely still insane. EVs are a big improvement over ICEVs, but electric trains (light rail, PRT, whatever) are an even bigger improvement.
In the USA there was actually a conspiracy which bought up and shut down profitable private rail lines in order to sell more cars, buses, tires, and fuel [wikipedia.org]. The principals were each fined five dollars, because yay rah capitalism. And this kind of thing also never stopped. For a popular recent example, see Elon lying about hyperloop in order to help try to kill CA HSR. He wants us to believe he can transport thousands of people thousands of miles in a couple of hours when he can't even transport people from one end of the Vegas Strip to the other faster than they can walk off the strip, get to the monorail, and get there on it instead.
EVs > ICEVs, but rail > either for medium to long trips.
Re: (Score:3)
I agree wholeheartedly that we should do everything possible to prioritize mass transit, walkability, and biking, and minimize car use.
We need better zoning laws that promote mixed use and multifamily housing. Eliminate parking requirements that turn our cities and towns into a sea of parking lots and asphalt. And more.
But.
In the US we've spend the last century designing our cites around urban sprawl. Like it or not, that's where many of our homes are and where people live.
You're simply NOT going to solve s
Re: (Score:2)
You don't need to "solve" sprawl to make big improvements using public transport. You could still serve a much larger portion of the population using it than we are doing now without changing anything about where people live or work.
Self-driving vehicles can actually be a useful part of this, if instead of taking them all the way to work, we put in public transport and then use them to solve the last mile problem between transit stations and homes or work.
weekly space filler posts.. (Score:1)
The editors give zero fucks and the sooner they're sent back to the Warp the better. Their deliberate fecalization of Slashdot is knowing, premeditated and ensures this site will never be as influential as it was. They should work for TMZ or something else more their speed.
They did manage a comfy job where they don't have actual work (copypasta is hardly labor) but aggressive indifference to quality is obvious.
Working on the wrong problem (Score:1)
How about working ion the biggest problem? Battery capacity?
Re: (Score:3)
It’s actively being worked on and steadily improving. https://www.energy.gov/eere/ve... [energy.gov]
Re: (Score:2)
Since he keeps spamming this specific lie, I will continue to spam the obvious debunk of this lie.
The false claim is that this link's charts talk about "battery capacity". It does not. It talks about battery PACK capacity. Specifically, everything from packing batteries more densely into the pack, to minituarizing logic boards and cooling systems.
Re: (Score:2)
You're full of shit.
Fuck off, troll.
Re: (Score:3)
>"How about working ion the biggest problem? Battery capacity?"
* There are many problems.
* There is value in working on all problems.
* Battery capacity is actually not the largest problem for many people- it is not having a place to charge it at home.
* One could argue that battery capacity *is* what they have been working on the most.
Re: (Score:2)
All the time. We are neat theoretical limits of chemistries we widely deploy, so there's nothing to be gained there. Which is why we're constantly trying to look into chemistries that have theoretical maximums that are much better than current tech.
Problem is, we have not a faintest clue what to use for lithium air. It's the holy grail of battery tech the same way fusion is for energy generation. And just like fusion is perpetually 50 years away, lithium air remains perpetually 20 years away.
Re:Working on the wrong problem (Score:4, Interesting)
One of the advances underway is using Niobium (Nb) to reduce charging time down to 7-10 minutes. And that's for a 0-100% charge, not 10-80%.
If charging times are dramatically reduced, then there's less need for 300-400-500 ranges, since if you get low you just make a quick stop to "top off".
And if you don't need super-sized batteries, that makes cars lighter, less expensive, and more efficient.
Seasonal temperatures? (Score:1)
Have these new batteries been studied operating in extreme temperatures? Do they last longer in such less-than-ideal conditions as well? I'm mostly interested in the implications for winter driving range.
625k miles is already great (Score:2)
The article notes that this new battery material is goood for 8m miles, which it notes is 8x a standard Li ion battery. That’s 625k miles! That’s already the equivalent of 40 years of driving the US daily average of 40 miles a day. More than good enough to outlast the rest of a typical car.