314
Gel and lithium-ion tech could enable 1000-mile EV range on one charge
(interestingengineering.com)
this post was submitted on 10 Feb 2024
314 points (90.5% liked)
Technology
59427 readers
2850 users here now
This is a most excellent place for technology news and articles.
Our Rules
- Follow the lemmy.world rules.
- Only tech related content.
- Be excellent to each another!
- Mod approved content bots can post up to 10 articles per day.
- Threads asking for personal tech support may be deleted.
- Politics threads may be removed.
- No memes allowed as posts, OK to post as comments.
- Only approved bots from the list below, to ask if your bot can be added please contact us.
- Check for duplicates before posting, duplicates may be removed
Approved Bots
founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
If anyone cares, I think this is the research paper. https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/advs.202305298
Thanks for the source. I wish I understood it better
This research was focused on the lithium battery anode. Ideally we could just put a chunk of lithium in there but the stripping and deposition chemistry doesn't work well long term. Modern batteries use graphite instead. But of course you waste a significant amount of cell volume and weight with all of that carbon, and the potential is lower than Li metal. Alloying Li with silicon gets you properties more similar to Li.
So this paper talks about their efforts to make LiSi more viable as an anode. They gave it a coating to protect it from electrolyte side reactions and created a new gel electrolyte formation reaction. The capacity they report isn't remarkably higher than what's out there now since the cathode is the heaviest part of the cell.
As to the results I do have to say 60% capacity retention after 200 cycles is not nearly good enough for real world use. And I have no clue where they got the "1000 mile range" headline from.
Thanks.
I figure the 100km range is firstly km, not miles, but then an ignorant editor “trying to be helpful” by multiplying sone number from the article by something they consider a standard EV