Monday, March 7th 2022
Game-Changing Material Lets Lithium-ion Batteries Keep Almost Full Charge-Capacity for up to 5 years
A game-changing new material promises to keep your "battery health" meter stuck at a 100% for up to 5 years. Lihium-ion rechargeable batteries that power most of today's digital civilization, come with two limitations—one that they can only be recharged a finite number of times; and two, that their capacity reduces over time. On some smartphones, such as the iPhone, this is reported to end-users as "battery health."
Japan Advanced Institute of Science and Technology (JAIST) discovered a new material called [wait for it] bis-imino-acenaphthenequinone-paraphenylene (BP) co-polymer. This serves as a binder material on the anode (positive electrode). A binder is a substance used to coat an electrode to prevent the material of the electrode from falling apart or getting destroyed by the electrolyte. Li-ion cells use graphite anodes that are delicate, and were being coated by poly-vinylidene fluoride (PVDF), but this material had a durability of 500 recharge cycles at full (rated) capacity, and yielding only 65% of capacity the battery is "capable" of (with bare electrodes). Beyond 500 cycles, the PVDF binder wears, taking the electrode with it, which the capacity. JAIST's research has found its material to be capable of sustaining 1,700 recharge cycles while maintaining the battery's recharge capacity at 95 percent. For a smartphone that gets recharged once a day, that's nearly 5 years of full "battery health." The JAIST paper can be accessed here.
Sources:
EurekaAlert, PC Magazine
Japan Advanced Institute of Science and Technology (JAIST) discovered a new material called [wait for it] bis-imino-acenaphthenequinone-paraphenylene (BP) co-polymer. This serves as a binder material on the anode (positive electrode). A binder is a substance used to coat an electrode to prevent the material of the electrode from falling apart or getting destroyed by the electrolyte. Li-ion cells use graphite anodes that are delicate, and were being coated by poly-vinylidene fluoride (PVDF), but this material had a durability of 500 recharge cycles at full (rated) capacity, and yielding only 65% of capacity the battery is "capable" of (with bare electrodes). Beyond 500 cycles, the PVDF binder wears, taking the electrode with it, which the capacity. JAIST's research has found its material to be capable of sustaining 1,700 recharge cycles while maintaining the battery's recharge capacity at 95 percent. For a smartphone that gets recharged once a day, that's nearly 5 years of full "battery health." The JAIST paper can be accessed here.
32 Comments on Game-Changing Material Lets Lithium-ion Batteries Keep Almost Full Charge-Capacity for up to 5 years
Yes.
Like someone above said, we're not short of lab innovations. Wake me up when any of these make their way into consumer products.
Lithium-Sulfur and Aluminum Ion batteries look like the most impressive of the list of batteries that never arrive anyway.
The title is goofy, maybe a tad misleading.
As opposed to carbon fuels, where the environmental costs come after we use it and can't be improved or gotten rid of. The idea that mining can't be done cleaner, but someday soon we'll have magic to remove all the CO2 from the atmosphere, is dumb.
We always see announcements like this I will pay attention when they actually have something on the market that we can buy.
Batteries generally continue to suck for everyone.
Maybe a similar reason is why batteries are still using old tech. How much money is there in the lithium industry i wonder as so many companies are using it now for their batteries.
Nope pharma loves it when people can takes pills for the rest of their lives look at hiv.
As far as batteries go, wish they would shit or get off the pot batteries are crap.
Batteries... we simply don't control electricity as well as we'd like. We don't know how. The way we store energy today may very well look to someone 200 years in the future like surgeons 200 years ago that amputated limbs because they couldn't address the infection at source.