4.8 Review

Reducing cobalt from lithium-ion batteries for the electric vehicle era

期刊

ENERGY & ENVIRONMENTAL SCIENCE
卷 14, 期 2, 页码 844-852

出版社

ROYAL SOC CHEMISTRY
DOI: 10.1039/d0ee03581e

关键词

-

资金

  1. National Research Foundation of Korea (NRF) - Korea government Ministry of Education and Science Technology (MEST) [NRF-2018R1A2B3008794]
  2. Human Resources Development program of the Korea Institute of Energy Technology Evaluation and Planning - Ministry of Trade, Industry and Energy of the Korean government [20184010201720]

向作者/读者索取更多资源

The increase in global sales of electric vehicles is attributed to high energy-density lithium-ion batteries, with a focus on reducing the use of cobalt in cathodes. A comparison of different cathode types in terms of performance and cost efficiency is made to evaluate their commercial viability for future electric vehicles, highlighting the challenges and strategies for developing advanced cathodes.
The steady increase in global sales of electric vehicles (EVs) owes much to high-energy-density lithium-ion batteries, whose energy density and cost are largely dictated by the cathodes. Although Ni-rich, layer-structured cathodes have been adequate for application in the existing fleet of EVs, there are compelling reasons to eliminate Co from the current family of layered oxide cathodes. However, the realization of Co-free cathodes poses significant technical challenges. In this perspective, we compare the performances and cost efficiencies of Co-free Li[NixMn1-x]O-2 (NM), Co-poor Li[NixCoyMn1-x-y]O-2 (NCM), with x > 0.9, and LiFePO4 (LFP) cathodes, to evaluate their commercial viability for future EVs. We then systematically outline the intrinsic challenges and possible strategies for the development of advanced Co-free/Co-poor layered and LFP cathodes. As battery requirements vary depending on their application, a range of distinct Co-free/Co-poor cathodes will be required to address diverse commercial needs.

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