4.8 Article

Performance of microporous carbon electrodes for supercapacitors: Comparing graphene with disordered materials

期刊

ENERGY STORAGE MATERIALS
卷 17, 期 -, 页码 88-92

出版社

ELSEVIER
DOI: 10.1016/j.ensm.2018.11.022

关键词

Supercapacitor; Adsorption; Nanoporous carbon; Electrode; Ionic liquid

资金

  1. French National Research Agency (Labex STORE-EX) [ANR-10-LABX-0076]
  2. French National Research Agency (ANR SELFIE) [ANR-17-ERC2-0028]
  3. Defi CNRS INPHYNITI 2015-2016 (SIMELEC)
  4. Ville de Paris (Emergences, project Blue Energy)
  5. European Research Council (ERC) under the European Union [771294]
  6. EoCoE - European Union [H2020-EINFRA-2015-1-676629]
  7. DSM-energie programme of CEA
  8. Eurotalent programme

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Over the past decades, the specific surface area and the pore size distribution have been identified as the main structural features that govern the performance of carbon-based supercapacitors. As a consequence, graphene nanostructures have been identified as strong candidates for maximizing their capacitance. However, this hypothesis could not be thoroughly tested so far due to the difficulty of synthesizing perfect materials with high pore accessibility and a sufficiently large density. Here we perform molecular simulations of a series of perforated graphene electrodes with single pore sizes ranging from 7 to 10 angstrom in contact with an adsorbed ionic liquid, and compare the capacitances (using various metrics) to the one obtained with a typical disordered nanoporous carbon. The latter displays better performances, an observation that we explain by analyzing the structure of the liquid inside the pores. It appears that although the smaller pores are responsible for the largest surface charges, larger ones are also necessary to store the co-ions and avoid the formation of detrimental opposite charges on the carbon. These results rationalize the need for disordered or activated carbon materials to design efficient supercapacitors.

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