4.8 Review

Approaching Practically Accessible Solid-State Batteries: Stability Issues Related to Solid Electrolytes and Interfaces

期刊

CHEMICAL REVIEWS
卷 120, 期 14, 页码 6820-6877

出版社

AMER CHEMICAL SOC
DOI: 10.1021/acs.chemrev.9b00268

关键词

-

资金

  1. National Key R&D Program of China [2016YFB0100100]
  2. National Natural Science Foundation of China [51822211, U1932220]
  3. Foundation for Innovative Research Groups of the National Natural Science Foundation of China [51421002]

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Solid-state batteries have been attracting wide attention for next generation energy storage devices due to the probability to realize higher energy density and superior safety performance compared with the state-of-the-art lithium ion batteries. However, there are still intimidating challenges for developing low cost and industrially scalable solid-state batteries with high energy density and stable cycling life for large-scale energy storage and electric vehicle applications. This review presents an overview on the scientific challenges, fundamental mechanisms, and design strategies for solid-state batteries, specifically focusing on the stability issues of solid-state electrolytes and the associated interfaces with both cathode and anode electrodes. First, we give a brief overview on the history of solid-state battery technologies, followed by introduction and discussion on different types of solid-state electrolytes. Then, the associated stability issues, from phenomena to fundamental understandings, are intensively discussed, including chemical, electrochemical, mechanical, and thermal stability issues; effective optimization strategies are also summarized. State-of-the-art characterization techniques and in situ and operando measurement methods deployed and developed to study the aforementioned issues are summarized as well. Following the obtained insights, perspectives are given in the end on how to design practically accessible solid-state batteries in the future.

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

4.8
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