4.6 Article

Selecting the Best Graphite for Long-Life, High-Energy Li-Ion Batteries

期刊

JOURNAL OF THE ELECTROCHEMICAL SOCIETY
卷 165, 期 9, 页码 A1837-A1845

出版社

ELECTROCHEMICAL SOC INC
DOI: 10.1149/2.1111809jes

关键词

-

资金

  1. U.S. Department of Energy (DOE) [DE-AC05-00OR22725]
  2. Office of Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy (EERE) Vehicle Technologies Office (VTO)
  3. Assistant Secretary for Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy, Office of Vehicle Technologies, of the U.S. Department of Energy (DOE)

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Most lithium-ion batteries still rely on intercalation-type graphite materials for anodes, so it is important to consider their role in full cells for applications in electric vehicles. Here, we systematically evaluate the chemical and physical properties of six commercially available natural and synthetic graphites to establish which factors have the greatest impact on the cycling stability of full cells with nickel-rich LiNi0.8Mn0.1CoO.1O2 (NMC811) cathodes. Electrochemical data and post-mortem characterization explain the origin of capacity fade. The NMC811 cathode shows large irreversible capacity loss and impedance growth, accounting for much of full cell degradation. However, six graphite anodes demonstrate significant differences with respect to structural change, surface area, impedance growth, and SEI chemistry, which impact overall capacity retention. We found long cycle life correlated most strongly with stable graphite crystallite size. In addition, graphites with lower surface area generally had higher coulombic efficiencies during formation cycles, which led to more stable long-term cycling. The best graphite screened here enables a capacity retention around 90% in full pouch cells over extensive long-term cycling compared to only 82% for cells with the lowest performing graphite. The results show that optimal graphite selection improves cycling stability of high energy lithium-ion cells. (C) The Author(s) 2018. Published by ECS.

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