4.6 Article

An ultrahigh power Li-O2 battery

期刊

MATERIALS TODAY COMMUNICATIONS
卷 27, 期 -, 页码 -

出版社

ELSEVIER
DOI: 10.1016/j.mtcomm.2021.102412

关键词

Lithium-oxygen battery; High power; Electrochemistry

资金

  1. Basic Science Research Program through the National Research Foundation of Korea (NRF) - Ministry of Education [2016R1A6A3A04013238]
  2. National Research Foundation of Korea [2016R1A6A3A04013238] Funding Source: Korea Institute of Science & Technology Information (KISTI), National Science & Technology Information Service (NTIS)

向作者/读者索取更多资源

The nonaqueous Li-O-2 battery offers the highest energy density among various systems, but faces challenges such as high charging overpotential, low rate capabilities, and cycle stabilities. Further research is needed to improve high-power performance and cycle stability. This study demonstrates an improved nonaqueous Li-O-2 battery using a new electrolyte and cathode material to enhance its cycle stability and energy density.
The nonaqueous Li-O-2 battery has the highest energy density among various systems so far, often reported as comparable to that of gasoline; this exceptional energy potentiality has elicited worldwide interest as a superior energy storage system. Major challenges have limited the performance of Li-O-2 batteries regarding high charging overpotential, low rate capabilities, and cycle stabilities. Many approaches to reducing the charging overpotential and resulting enhanced cycling performance have been suggested, whereas only a few studies have focused on high-power performance. For successful electric propulsion applications, it is required that high-power technologies are developed for advanced Li-O-2 batteries. We show the operating possibility of the nonaqueous primary Li-O-2 cell at the A/g level and cycle stability of the nonaqueous rechargeable Li-O-2 cell using the electrolyte bis(trifluoromethane)sulfonimide lithium salt melted in dimethylglycol and single-walled carbon nanotube cathodes.

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