4.8 Article

Peanut shell hybrid sodium ion capacitor with extreme energy-power rivals lithium ion capacitors

期刊

ENERGY & ENVIRONMENTAL SCIENCE
卷 8, 期 3, 页码 941-955

出版社

ROYAL SOC CHEMISTRY
DOI: 10.1039/c4ee02986k

关键词

-

资金

  1. NSERC

向作者/读者索取更多资源

This is the first report of a hybrid sodium ion capacitor (NIC) with the active materials in both the anode and the cathode being derived entirely from a single precursor: peanut shells, which are a green and highly economical waste globally generated at over 6 million tons per year. The electrodes push the envelope of performance, delivering among the most promising sodiation capacity-rate capability-cycling retention combinations reported in the literature for each materials class. Hence the resultant NIC also offers a state-of-the-art cyclically stable combination of energy and power, not only in respect to previously but also as compared to Li ion capacitors (LICs). The ion adsorption cathode based on Peanut Shell Nanosheet Carbon (PSNC) displays a hierarchically porous architecture, a sheet-like morphology down to 15 nm in thickness, a surface area on par with graphene materials (up to 2396 m(2) g(-1)) and high levels of oxygen doping (up to 13.51 wt%). Scanned from 1.5-4.2 V vs. Na/Na+ PSNC delivers a specific capacity of 161 mA h g(-1) at 0.1 A g(-1) and 73 mA h g(-1) at 25.6 A g(-1). A low surface area Peanut Shell Ordered Carbon (PSOC) is employed as an ion intercalation anode. PSOC delivers a total capacity of 315 mA h g(-1) with a flat plateau of 181 mA h g(-1) occurring below 0.1 V (tested at 0.1 A g(-1)), and is stable at 10 000 cycles (tested at 3.2 A g(-1)). The assembled NIC operates within a wide temperature range (0-65 degrees C), yielding at room temperature (by active mass) 201, 76 and 50 W h kg(-1) at 285, 8500 and 16 500 W kg(-1), respectively. At 1.5-3.5 V, the hybrid device achieved 72% capacity retention after 10 000 cycles tested at 6.4 A g(-1), and 88% after 100 000 cycles at 51.2 A g(-1).

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