A few years ago, when I visited a battery company with a few
colleagues, I saw data from the company that was pretty impressive. Slide 1 showed the rate capability of the
battery, which was better than the state-of-the-art; Slide 2 was a calculation
of the energy density, which was better than the baseline; slide 3 was cycle
life and this too looked impressive; slide 4 was…
You get the drill.
Suitably impressed, I came out wondering what I needed to
polish in my resume to land a job at the company before they went public… when
my travelling companion wondered aloud if each slide was from a different
battery!
My colleague had a
point. Most (not all) battery
chemistries can be made to perform well for a particular metric. The trick is getting all the metrics to work
out for the same battery.
Make the electrodes thin to get power; make them thick to increase
energy (but at the loss of power).
Increase the voltage to increase the energy, but at the loss of cycle
life. The endless games one can
play. This dependence of battery design,
cycling conditions, voltage of operation, etc. on performance is the reason
battery companies have been getting away with obfuscation.
But is it really obfuscation? A proof-of-concept can be a useful learning
tool. If going to high voltages yields
more energy but kills the cycle life, while we know that the voltages being
accessed should be possible, then it gives us hope that the problem is not
fundamental and that a solution exists. Given
time, maybe we will find it.
Then again, we have been looking for a cure for baldness for
ages. There is proof that baldness is
not fundamental (after all, some are oh so lucky), but that does not mean we
will find the answer to that problem either.
But there is merit in learning about what the best possible
system is and understanding why it is the best.
To this end, I thought I would list out the best-known (at least to me) battery
chemistry for each of four metrics of importance: energy, charge time, life, and cost. Each would be a “Hero” battery; a term
borrowed from other technology areas to denote a proof-on-concept that
something amazing is possible for that metric.
While each metric has a different “Hero” battery there are probably
lessons we can learn from them. These
lessons, I summarize in the end.
The energy-density Hero: All seven readers of my blog know that Li-ion
batteries are the highest energy density secondary batteries one can buy, with
energy density in the range of 250 Wh/kg.
But the Hero is actually the Li-thionyl chloride battery, which has an
energy density of 550 Wh/kg and is, more importantly, commercially available. The catch is that it is a primary battery
(i.e., not rechargeable).
What gives?
Typical Li-ion cells have a graphite anode. Moving from graphite to Li metal (which holds
ten times the charge and results in a slightly higher voltage) bumps the energy
by 50% without changing anything. On top
of that, the thionly chloride cathode has a capacity of 450 mAh/g compared to
180 mAh/g for typical Li-ion cathodes.
Combine the two and you get something much better than Li-ion.
Imagine a battery with 2x the energy density. Maybe we double the range of a Nissan Leaf,
making it a car that is actually useful (joking, joking, all you Leaf lovers)
for the same cost. Or cut the cost of
the Tesla battery by half without sacrificing range, bringing it tantalizing closer
to the point where everyone can continue to not be able to afford it.
Unfortunately, all these will not come to pass because the Li
anode does not recharge gracefully while the thionly chloride cathode is not at
all rechargeable. If you want to know
why, you have to read my blog post titled “A
Brief History of Batteries- Part 1” and “A
Brief History of Batteries- Part 2”.
Frankly, everything you need to know about batteries is probably hidden
somewhere in these pages.
To make it rechargeable, you just need to change the anode,
the cathode, and the electrolyte (i.e., all the three components that make a
battery). When you do that, the battery
now cycles a lot better, but at the loss of capacity.
So is 550 Wh/kg the ceiling?
No. There is a lab demonstration
of a 750 Wh/kg Li-air primary battery.
This would be a record for energy density. But as I have alluded to in the past, a one-off
lab demonstration does not a product make.
So, for now, we shall call 550 Wh/kg the Hero for energy density. As an aside, the Li-air
battery also does not cycle.
Reversibility restricts us to certain materials; a
constraint when removed, allows high energy density batteries to be made.
An interesting question to ponder: Is it possible to get
batteries that are rechargeable and at least as high in energy as these Hero’s?
The fast-charge Hero:
One of my funnier blog post was titled
“I’ll
be back…in 8 hours”. That post had
nothing to do with charging times (then again, this blog is like Seinfeld; its
about nothing, as far as I can tell) but the title articulates the
problem: We tend to want to charge our
batteries very slowly.
Charge them too fast and we have unwanted side reactions
(lithium plating and electrolyte breakdown) that can degrade the battery. 1h charge is doable, 30 mins makes it degrade
a bit; 10 mins a lot more; 1 min would basically kill the battery (and kill you
from the fire that is creates).
This is true for most batteries, but it is not fundamental. Meaning, there is no law that says that we
cannot charge a battery fast. One can
design the battery for fast charge. But
the compromise is loss of energy.
How fast do we really need to charge? For an electric car, a really smart person (who
shall not be named) told me that we needed to charge within the time frame of a
restroom break. Another smart person
told me that we needed the battery to charge and discharge fully within the
time frame of clouds covering a solar panel.
After a few experiments timing myself on restroom breaks and watching
clouds move (I plan to watch grass grow next) we can approximate the charging
time needs as 5 minutes. What can I say:
I was having an Austin-Powers-just-got-out-of-hibernation moment.
The question of the grid actually handling this kind of
electricity load is a whole other area of debate, but let us focus on the
battery for a second.
Electrochemical capacitors can easily charge this fast. But they have no energy. Question is: Is there a battery chemistry
that can mimic a capacitor’s charge rate?
There was one system that was kind-of-sort of commercialized
that I would consider the Hero in this regard.
This was the Toshiba Super Charge battery, which is rated to charge to 80%
capacity in 6 minutes and more than 95% in 10 mins!
Here the anode (lithium titanate) operates at a higher
voltage than the typically used graphite anode. This helps because the
potential of the anode is far away from the lithium plating potential. This makes it much easier to charge fast and
not worry about plating lithium, shorting, and the ensuing degradation and
possible fires.
But the downside is that the higher anode voltage decreases
the overall cell voltage, which in-turn deceases the energy. The battery has a third of the energy density
of a typical Li-ion cell (so a third the driving range). At 90 Wh/kg and 177 Wh/l at the cell level, it
is far, far lower than most Li-ion batteries.
Cost of these devices scales with the energy: this battery will probably cost three times a
typical Li-ion cell!
So… an ideal EV battery for the
super-rich-with-overactive-bladder demographic?
Question is: can we get both high energy and fast charge?
If we want to get there I believe we cannot use thick porous
electrodes. While they are great to
spread the current, it seems impossible to get away from the electrolyte losses
of these highly-resistive organic electrolytes.
Which means that we cannot have thick bulky current collectors and separators. But then how do we collect the current
(especially if the currents are high, which seems likely with fast charge
batteries)?
Should we move to electrodes that are not porous? This limits the useable energy, unless we use
electrodes that undergo deposition. One can continue to deposit the metal on
top of itself and so “build” capacity, without the added losses from the porous
structure. This may be an avenue.
My suspicion is that even if we find ways for the electrodes
to accept the charge at that rate, the electrolytes in lithium-based batteries
will not have the ability to move ions from one side to the other. Unless we move toward much thinner
separators. This topic requires some careful thinking.
But let us revisit the question: how fast do we really need
to charge?
If we can ensure we have a 400-mile range battery, this
should translate to an approximately 5-6 hour driving time (at 70-80 mph). Then we may be willing to wait a half hour to
charge the battery as we make a beeline to our favorite artery-clogging fast
food joint.
For the grid, if we can use the battery to not just take
care of the intermittency, but also to time-shift from peak to off-peak, we can
size the battery for the time shift and use the (big) battery for handling the
small 5-min intermittency. Each 5-min
charge and discharge would only require the battery to swing by a few percent:
easily possible with most systems.
The catch: both of these would require us to pay for the
bigger battery! But hey, batteries
are getting so cheap, and companies are going to give us money when they
hand us the battery anyway.
The cycle/calendar-life
Hero: I know what you are thinking:
there is no such thing as a cycle-life Hero!
After all, every battery we own seems to last all of 1-2 years before
they crap out. You must be thinking
that our Hero must be a 3-year life battery.
What if I told you there are batteries that last 20, even
30+ years and they cycle 20,000 times (no error there, really meant to have
four zero’s)? And what if I told you
that these batteries are not the hybrid car batteries that cycle 3-5% per cycle
but are cycled deep, greater than 50% of the capacity per cycle? And that they are (at least they were) being
used day in and day out?
Imagine batteries that last as long as a solar panel. Imagine being able to cycle them once a day
and make them last those full 20 years with no maintenance.
Intrigued? Come back
next week and you shall learn more.
Venkat
So do you see an improved battery on the horizon? With Dyson purchasing Sakti3 and Bosch acquiring Seeo it seems as though there may be some hope for improved battery capacity through solid state electrolyte batteries.
ReplyDeleteI see a LOT of hope for improvements in batteries. I probably should blog about the battery roadmap sometime soon.
ReplyDeleteSolid state, sadly, is still, in my opinion many years away. A decade away in any large application. Will probably hit niche applications in the next few years.
"The endless games one can play. This dependence of battery design, cycling conditions, voltage of operation, etc. on performance is the reason battery companies have been getting away with obfuscation. Most (not all) battery chemistries can be made to perform well for a particular metric. The trick is getting all the metrics to work out for the same battery."
ReplyDeleteDefinitely one of my biggest gripes and something that certainly cause the somewhat questionable reputation of battery startups (even if it is not truly deliberate and even if it got them a lot of funding along the way).
If nothing else, batteries are a complicated optimization problem, where the devil is in the details.
And it is not just companies. The ability to "hide" (maybe from oneself) the real issues is a pain and slows progress. What we need is a well established certification program (i.e, what NREL did for solar). Has been talked about for a decade, but it is hard to implement. So the games continue. When I first started writing this blog, I wanted to get at the heart of this issue: examine, critically, all the claims and provide context. Realized very soon that it was hard. Lack of info.
ReplyDelete