MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2282120275 · doi:10.1149/ma2014-02/5/439

A Long-Life 3-Stack 12 V Dry Polymer Battery Using LiNi<sub>1/3</sub>Mn<sub>1/3</sub>Co<sub>1/3</sub>O<sub>2</sub> and Graphite

2014· article· en· W2282120275 on OpenAlexaff
Yo Kobayashi, Kumi Shono, Takeshi Kobayashi, Masato Tabuchi, Hajime Miyashiro

Bibliographic record

VenueECS Meeting Abstracts · 2014
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicAdvanced Battery Materials and Technologies
Canadian institutionsDiscovery Air (Canada)
Fundersnot available
KeywordsElectrolyteMaterials scienceGraphiteFlammable liquidCathodeAnodeBattery (electricity)PolymerChemical engineeringEnergy storageStack (abstract data type)Lithium (medication)NanotechnologyElectrodeChemistryComputer scienceComposite materialOrganic chemistry

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Introduction Safety is more important than high energy in stationary batteries. In addition, material choices based on the low-cost and easy production of larger batteries is another critical issue for developing large energy storage systems comparable to pumped hydro systems. A solvent-free solid polymer electrolyte (SPE) has the advantages of being safe, inexpensive and barrier-free for large battery production. However, polyether-based SPEs are believed to oxidize at >4 V. Carbon-based anodes are also thought to be incompatible with polyether-based SPEs. Therefore, such SPEs are now in categorized as traditional electrolytes. However, we demonstrated (i) the compatibility of 4 V-5 V cathodes, such as LiCoO2 1) and LiNi0.5Mn1.5O4 2), by modifying the cathode and polyether-based SPE interface and (ii) sufficient graphite reversibility with the SPE using suitably prepared electrodes. Recently, we drastically improved the cycle operation (>1,500 cycles) of LiNi1/3Mn1/3Co1/3O2 (NMC)3) and graphite using an optimized lithium salt and by introducing carboxymethylcellulose (CMC) at the interface. These materials are already mass produced; therefore, the active material cost will be equivalent to conventional lithium-ion batteries. There are no flammable vapors in the electrolyte (a pure polymer rather than a gel); therefore, an intrinsic safety improvement is expected for abused cells. In addition, a simple, multi-cell design using one external package is another advantage of all solid state batteries. Based on these advantages and renovations, we readopted such traditional SPE systems for stationary batteries. Here, we further improved the cycle performance by adding a new lithium salt and demonstrated the long term operation of a [Graphite | SPE | NMC] × 3 stack 12 V single-package multi-cell. Experimental The electrode materials were mixed with CMC, styrene-butadiene rubber (SBR) and conductive additives in a solvent without any SPEs before coating on the current collector. Subsequently, a polyether-based SPE (M=1.5 M, Daiso Co., Ltd.) was overcoated on the electrode using acetonitrile (AN). LiBF4 was used in the overcoat solution for NMC. In contrast, LiTFSI was used in the overcoat solution for graphite and the SPE sheet between the two electrodes. A lithium-ion cell composed of NMC, SPE, and graphite was fabricated using an Al-laminate-type cell. For the multi-cell, three cells (effective surface area 10 ×10 cm) were stacked in series in one package. All cells operated at 50°C. Results and Discussion We added 5 % LiBOB to the NMC overcoat solution. This LiBOB additive remarkably improved the reversibility, as shown in Fig. 1. The LiBOB additive was reported to suppress Al corrosion and/or Mn dissolution. While the detailed mechanism for these improvements is currently being studied, the high retention capacity obtained (70 % at 3,000 cycles) is practical for stationary use. Furthermore, over 1,000 operating cycles were successfully performed using a 10×10 cm three stack 12 V multi-cell, as shown in Fig. 2. The stacked multi-cell was vacuum sealed so no additional pressure was required during operations, which is significant progress for a large format battery design. References Y. Kobayashi et al., Journal of Power Sources, 146, 719 (2005). H. Miyashiro et al., Electrochem. Commun., 7, 1083 (2005). T. Kobayashi et al., ACS Applied Materials & Interfaces, 5, 12387 (2013). H. Xie et al., Electrochem. Solid State Lett., 11, C19 (2008). M. Xu et al., J. Electrochem. Soc., 160, A2005 (2013).

Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.

How this classification was reachedexpand

Full frame machine prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Bench or experimental · Consensus signal: Bench or experimental
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.001
Threshold uncertainty score0.005

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0010.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.001

Machine scores (provisional)

The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.

Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.

Opus teacher head0.013
GPT teacher head0.218
Teacher spread0.205 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designBench or experimental
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".

Quick stats

Citations0
Published2014
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueECS Meeting AbstractsSame topicAdvanced Battery Materials and TechnologiesFrench-language works237,207