4.6 Article

Unlock the potential of Li4Ti5O12 for high-voltage/long-cycling-life and high-safety batteries: Dual-ion architecture superior to lithium-ion storage

期刊

JOURNAL OF ENERGY CHEMISTRY
卷 44, 期 -, 页码 13-18

出版社

ELSEVIER
DOI: 10.1016/j.jechem.2019.09.015

关键词

Li4Ti5O12; Specific energy; Specific power; Dual-ion batteries; Lithium-ion batteries

资金

  1. National Natural Science Foundation of China [51932003, 51902050, 51872115, 51802110]
  2. Program for the Development of Science and Technology of Jilin Province [20190201309JC]
  3. Open Project Program of Wuhan National Laboratory for Opto-electronics [2018WNLOKF022]
  4. Jilin Province/Jilin University co-Construction Project-Funds for New Materials [SXGJSF2017-3, 2/440050316A36]
  5. Program for JLU Science and Technology Innovative Research Team (JLUSTIRT) [2017TD-09]
  6. Fundamental Research Funds for the Central Universities JLU
  7. Double-First Class Discipline for Materials Science Engineering

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Li4Ti5O12 (LTO) has drawn great attention due to its safety and stability in lithium-ion batteries (LIBs). However, high potential plateau at 1.5 V vs. Li reduces the cell voltage, leading to a limited use of LTO. Dual-ion batteries (DIBs) can achieve high working voltage due to high intercalation potential of cathode. Herein, we propose a DIB configuration in which LTO is used as anode and the working voltage was 3.5 V. This DIB achieves a maximum specific energy of 140 Wh/kg at a specific power of 35 W/kg, and the specific power of 2933 W/kg can be obtained with a remaining specific energy of 11 Wh/kg. Traditional LIB material shows greatly improved properties in the DIB configuration. Thus, reversing its disadvantage leads to upgraded performance of batteries. Our configuration has also widened the horizon of materials for DIBs. (C) 2019 Science Press and Dalian Institute of Chemical Physics, Chinese Academy of Sciences. Published by Elsevier B.V. and Science Press. All rights reserved.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.6
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据