4.8 Article

Prospects for reducing the processing cost of lithium ion batteries

期刊

JOURNAL OF POWER SOURCES
卷 275, 期 -, 页码 234-242

出版社

ELSEVIER
DOI: 10.1016/j.jpowsour.2014.11.019

关键词

Lithium-ion battery; Cost reduction study; Electrode processing; Aqueous colloidal chemistry; Thick electrodes; Formation cycle

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) (Program Manager: David Howell) Applied Battery Research subprogram (Program Manager: Peter Faguy)

向作者/读者索取更多资源

A detailed processing cost breakdown is given for lithium-ion battery (LIB) electrodes, which focuses on: 1) elimination of toxic, costly N-methylpyrrolidone (NMP) dispersion chemistry; 2) doubling the thicknesses of the anode and cathode to raise energy density; and 3) reduction of the anode electrolyte wetting and SEI-layer formation time. These processing cost reduction technologies generically adaptable to any anode or cathode cell chemistry and are being implemented at ORNL This paper shows step by step how these cost savings can be realized in existing or new LIB manufacturing plants using a baseline case of thin (power) electrodes produced with NMP processing and a standard 10-14-day wetting and formation process. In particular, it is shown that aqueous electrode processing can cut the electrode processing cost and energy consumption by an order of magnitude. Doubling the thickness of the electrodes allows for using half of the inactive current collectors and separators, contributing even further to the processing cost savings. Finally wetting and RI-layer formation cost savings are discussed in the context of a protocol with significantly reduced time. These three benefits collectively offer the possibility of reducing LIB pack cost from $502.8 kW h(-1)-usable to $370.3 kW h(-1)-usable, a savings of $132.5/kWh (or 26.4%). (C) 2014 The Authors. Published by Elsevier B.V.

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