4.8 Article

Lithium-ion capacitors: Electrochemical performance and thermal behavior

Journal

JOURNAL OF POWER SOURCES
Volume 243, Issue -, Pages 982-992

Publisher

ELSEVIER
DOI: 10.1016/j.jpowsour.2013.06.012

Keywords

Lithium-ion capacitor; Asymmetric capacitor; Electrochemical double-layer capacitor; Accelerating rate calorimetry; Differential scanning calorimetry

Funding

  1. Department of Energy (Office of Vehicle Technologies)
  2. Office of Naval Research (Code 30)

Ask authors/readers for more resources

We report on the electrochemical performance of 500 F, 1100 F, and 2200 F lithium-ion capacitors containing carbonate-based electrolytes. First and second generation lithium-ion capacitors were cycled at temperatures ranging from -30 degrees C to 65 degrees C, with rates from 5 degrees C to 200 degrees C. Unlike acetonitrile-based electric double-layer capacitors, whose performance has been reported to be relatively insensitive to temperatures between -30 degrees C and 40 degrees C, lithium-ion capacitor performance degrades at low temperatures and displays characteristics typical of a lithium-ion battery. Three-electrode lithium-ion capacitor cycling tests revealed that reduced capacity at low temperatures is due to the polarization of the lithiated, negative electrode. The self-discharge of cells at the various temperatures was studied and compared to an electric double-layer capacitor and a lithium-ion battery cell. Lithium-ion capacitors and batteries were observed to have significantly lower self-discharge rates than electric double-layer capacitors. Accelerating rate calorimetry and differential scanning calorimetry were used to assess the thermal runaway behavior of full cells along with the thermal properties of the cell components. Our study showed that the thermal behavior of the lithium-ion capacitor is in between those of an electric double-layer capacitor and a lithium-ion battery. Published by Elsevier B.V.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.8
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available