4.6 Article

Cycling Performance of NMC811 Anode-Free Pouch Cells with 65 Different Electrolyte Formulations

期刊

出版社

ELECTROCHEMICAL SOC INC
DOI: 10.1149/1945-7111/ac39e3

关键词

-

资金

  1. NSERC/Tesla Canada IRC
  2. NSERC Post Graduate Scholarship
  3. Vanier CGS program
  4. Killam Foundation
  5. Nova Scotia Graduate Scholarship

向作者/读者索取更多资源

This study investigated the cycle life of 65 electrolyte mixtures for anode-free Li metal batteries, revealing that only a few electrolytes showed slight improvement in cycle life while others were uncompetitive. This data set serves as a guide for researchers in the field and highlights the challenges associated with liquid electrolytes.
Liquid electrolytes for anode-free Li metal batteries (LMBs) provide a cost-effective path to high energy density. However, liquid electrolytes are challenging due to the reactivity of Li-0 with the electrolyte and the resulting Li loss, as well as mossy Li deposits leading to inactive Li and dendrite formation. Thus, more research is needed to develop electrolytes capable of 80 % capacity retention after 800 cycles to meet electric vehicle (EV) demands. Here, we report cycle life results from 65 electrolyte mixtures consisting of various additives or co-solvents added to a dual-salt base electrolyte previously reported by our group. We tested these electrolyte systems using a practical anode-free pouch cell design with a high-loading (16 mg cm(-2), or 3.47 mAh cm(-2)) LiNi0.8Mn0.1Co0.1O2 (NMC811) cathode, with a bare Cu foil as the counter electrode. All cells in this work were cycled at 40 degrees C with 0.2C/0.5C charge/discharge rates between 3.55-4.40 V. Based on the total energy delivered over 140 cycles, only four electrolytes showed marginal improvement over the baseline, while the other electrolytes were uncompetitive. This data set can serve as a guide for LMB researchers investigating electrolyte systems and highlights the challenges associated with liquid electrolytes.

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