Stanford Researchers Make Breakthrough With Aluminum-Ion Battery
Originally published on Planetsave.
A team of Stanford researchers led by chemistry professor Hongjie Dai has developed an aluminum-ion battery that offers many significant advantages over the conventional lithium-ion batteries currently used in most electronic devices and today’s electric cars. Let’s take a look at what makes the Stanford aluminum-ion battery such an important breakthrough.
Not a fire hazard
The aluminum battery won’t burst into flame the way a lithium battery can. “[L]ithium batteries can go off in an unpredictable manner – in the air, the car or in your pocket,” says professor Dai.
That’s important because in automobiles, a lithium-ion battery needs a heavy shield around it to protect the car from damage if the battery ignites. And because of that shielding, a lithium-ion battery needs its own dedicated cooling system, which adds even more weight and cost. Extra pounds mean automobile manufacturers have to specify larger batteries and larger motors to lug around the increased weight. That raises the cost of the car, which raises its price in the marketplace.
Fast charging
The Stanford aluminum battery can be recharged in far less time than a lithium-ion battery — in as little as one minute in some applications. The implications for laptop computers and cell phones are huge, but the impact on electric and hybrid cars could be even bigger.
One of the biggest drawbacks to electric and hybrid cars today, besides high cost, is the number of hours it takes to recharge a depleted battery. If a driver knew recharging the battery would take no longer than the time it takes to pump a tankful of gas, that would break down one of the biggest remaining barriers to the widespread adoption of such environmentally friendly vehicles.
Long life
A typical lithium-ion battery usually lasts for about 1000 discharge cycles before it must be replaced. The Stanford aluminum battery shows no sign of losing performance after 7,500 discharge cycles. Lots of drivers have concerns about having to spend a lot of money to replace the battery in their EV after a few years. That worry could now be a thing of the past. The aluminum-ion battery could actually last longer than the car itself.
Cost
Aluminum is abundant and costs less than lithium. That could drive down the cost of batteries and that would be another factor working in favor of electric cars going mainstream sooner rather than later.
Environmental Advantages
Lithium is toxic and must be disposed of with care. Aluminum is non-toxic and can be recycled repeatedly. Billions of small lithium batteries power our assortment of electronic gadgets that we can’t live without. Replacing them with aluminum batteries would rid the environment of hazards from discarded lithium batteries.
Another advantage of the aluminum battery is it is flexible, so it can be shaped and molded to fit a variety of applications that can’t use a lithium battery encased in a hard protective shell.
Disadvantages
There is no free lunch, of course. For now, the Stanford aluminum battery can only supply about half the voltage of a lithium battery. “But improving the cathode material could eventually increase the voltage and energy density,” professor Dai says.
“Otherwise, our battery has everything else you’d dream that a battery should have: inexpensive electrodes, good safety, high-speed charging, flexibility and long cycle life. I see this as a new battery in its early days. It’s quite exciting.”
“Exciting” is an understatement.
Source: Phys.Org
Reprinted with permission.
Have a tip for CleanTechnica? Want to advertise? Want to suggest a guest for our CleanTech Talk podcast? Contact us here.
CleanTechnica Holiday Wish Book
Our Latest EVObsession Video
CleanTechnica uses affiliate links. See our policy here.
old news from week ago. you forgot to mention very poor energy density 40Wh/kg
Well, it’s early in it’s development, but in a grid application like time shifting solar, the cycle life would be very advantageous.
This Aluminum ion battery is in the initial exploratory/discover phase along ways from development. The Lab findings have to offer enough promise to move on to the long and expensive road of development. The numbers didn’t provide that promise, far below lab bench Lithium sulfur capacities. I believe they where also using some pretty expensive ionic electrolytes. My bet is on Lithium sulfur but we are I think about 5+ years out on that chemistry before the first consumer goods start packing it.
lithium sulfur losses are 15%, so no better than current lithium does nothing to expand applicability. just less of a fire hazard
This is the first rechargeable aluminum ion battery with 7500 cycles, fast charging and added safety. “Old news” or not, it is a significant achievement.
When I hear the word “breakthrough”, I reach for my sceptical pince-nez. We hear of many new battery chemistries and tweaks. This one is valuable work in progress. A “breakthrough” to me would imply that the design is at least as good as the incumbent on every metric (including manufacturing cost) and much better on at least one. Alternatively it would have to be a working device relying on some completely new material or physical principle. This one has not yet beaten lithium-ion on density, so isn’t there yet.
While I agree in general, there can be trade offs and still make the “break through” label. For example, say density was 1/2, but cycles were 10x and cost and reaching time were 1/10. Then in any application where space is not king it would be a “break though”.
Whole article is filled with pure lies 🙁
Normal Li-ion is fire hazard – wrong. It does not ignite without reasons.
Li-ion takes hours to recharge – lie. With the same charger this “breakthrough” takes the same hours. Just use more powerful charger.
1000 cycles and it MUST be replaced – lie. I’ve done more than 1050 cycles with my car and it lost 0,8%.
Lithium costs more than Aluminium – Li-ion battery is not lithium. It contains it.
Lithium is toxic – no it is not. You can eat it and you will not be poisoned.
Li-ion is not flexible – yes it is. Just take your phone battery and bend it.
Aluminium battery disadvantage – half the voltage – this is not a disadvantage. Just take two cells in series and voltage is identical.
As we see 100% of this article is a failure 🙁
Agreed. Mostly unqualified hype. Also, what are the practicalities of charging say a kw battery in 1 minute? The amps are HUGE! Certainly not practical or desirable for home charging.
Should say 50 kw…
Battery capacity is measured in kWh (kiloWatt-Hours). Power is measured in kW. For DC fast chargers, power is Volts x Amps.
So a 50 kWh battery could be charged in a hour from a 50 kW (plus charger losses) source, say 500 V at 100 A. ABB (for example) manufactures a 50 kW CHAdeMO charger for the American market.
To charge a 50 kWh aluminum battery in one minute would 60 times the power, or a 3 MW charger, say 10 kV at 300 A. Atzalotta power!
(In reality, DC fast chargers are typically 80% efficient, so multiply times by roughly 1.25. Batteries also generally charge faster when depleted, so you’ll need some detailed research for more than rough order of magnitude estimates. Hope this helps.)
you are not comparing apples to apples, you are trying to pull a fast one and your statements are not qualified.
Normal Li-ion is fire hazard – wrong. It does not ignite without reasons. (the reason they ignite is inherent)
Li-ion takes hours to recharge – lie. With the same charger this “breakthrough” takes the same hours. Just use more powerful charger.
(it does take hours to recharge)
1000 cycles and it MUST be replaced – lie. I’ve done more than 1050 cycles with my car and it lost 0,8%.
(in a stationary grid application, with many cycles and deep discharge the battery is depleted)
Lithium costs more than Aluminium – Li-ion battery is not lithium. It contains it.
Lithium is toxic – no it is not. You can eat it and you will not be poisoned.
(make a video of yourself eating it and put it on You tube)
Li-ion is not flexible – yes it is. Just take your phone battery and bend it.
(mine would break, LiFePO4, will bend but not lithium ion)
reason for ignition – thermal runaway – lets say we set the battery on fire. Soon it will ignite itself. Or lets charge it indefinitely. Or short circuit for fun. Some do ignite if punctured and some don’t, depends on chemistry. So if you do not disassemble battery nor shoot it with bazooka, nothing happens. BMS won’t allow thermal runaway.
Proof – we have billions of laptops/cellphones on Earth. And only handful ignite. Usually because BMS is bad/cheap/stupid. More people die with coconut falling on their head than Li-ion explosion. Less than 1-per-million does not count as “dangerous” or even “slightly hazardous” technology.
Automotive Li-ion battery can be recharged within 1 hour. In 30 minutes about 2/3 can be charged. Example Nissan Leaf 24kWh with ChaDeMo 40-50kW/h and Tesla 85kWh with Supercharger 120-135kW/h. Those last few percents are not relevant. As with ICEV you do not have to restart refuelling after overfill protection triggered. Those drops do not really help. Wasting time.
In stationary grid application cycles are shallow (not deep). This will extend cycle count multiple time.
I do not have Bipolar Disorder so I do not have the prescription for Lithium. But you can read more:
https://www.google.ee/search?q=eating+lithium&ie=utf-8&oe=utf-8&gws_rd=cr&ei=wwk4VebTIIHRsgHPvYLoCg#safe=off&q=taking+lithium&spell=1
Li-ion vs LiFePO4
Cathode-electrolyte-anode can bend. If you make a case that is hard (like 18650) then it will not bend. Just take Nissan Leaf battery. It is based on Li-ion technology. Cells inside are bendable. Not important for automotive/stationary segment so no need to talk about that at all.
You are both wrong:
1. “Normal Li-ion is fire hazard – wrong. It does not ignite without reasons. (the reason they ignite is inherent)”
Some Li-ion chemistries are flammable and some are not
http://www.autoblog.com/2014/03/02/nissan-leaf-battery-cell-torture-test-fire/
“Li-ion takes hours to recharge – lie. With the same charger this “breakthrough” takes the same hours. Just use more powerful charger. (it does take hours to recharge)”
Bink is correct on this one, although some can reach 70% or 80% charge in 15 or 20 minutes. Tesla battery, I think.
Both wrong, it’s in-between your extremes.
“1000 cycles and it MUST be replaced – lie. I’ve done more than 1050 cycles with my car and it lost 0,8%.
(in a stationary grid application, with many cycles and deep discharge the battery is depleted)”
Boy do I get sick of the over use of the 1,000 cycles comment on Lithium batteries, FUD. It is true that some Lithium batteries can only handle a few hundred cycles. However, several manufactures of LiFePO4 batteries are good for 3,000 deep-cycles (down to 70% or 80% depletion) and still retain something like 80% of initial full capacity. Toshiba’s LiTiO2 battery (called SCiB) can handle 10,000 cycles. Yes, the use of titanium makes it more expensive. Altair makes similar claims for their LiTiO2 battery.
Bink, your added comment clarifies nothing on cycle-life attributes of Lithium batteries or any other batteries.
“Lithium costs more than Aluminium – Li-ion battery is not lithium. It contains it.
Lithium is toxic – no it is not. You can eat it and you will not be poisoned.
(make a video of yourself eating it and put it on You tube)”
Right about lithium being only part of the ingredients to a Li-ion battery. The aluminum in the battery referred to in this article could still make it cheaper. At 7,500 cycles it only has to be cheaper than LiTiO2. It already beats LiFeO4 batteries.
Arnis is right about Lithium being relatively non-toxic. The idea it is toxic is FUD. It is used in medicine. That doesn’t mean you can eat huge quantities of it. Just like common table salt, that could cause harm.
“Li-ion is not flexible – yes it is. Just take your phone battery and bend it.
(mine would break, LiFePO4, will bend but not lithium ion)”
Seriously guys. Some incarnations of lithium battery are flexible and some are not, but really who cares? …sheesh!
Figure it out and be clear.
More or less… But still. EV owners, like me, know that at rapid charging station 1 hour is really that maximum. ChaDeMo is even time-limited (60 minutes).SuperChargers are not time limited but they still taper off when pack voltage limit has been achieved. After 1h of charging there is not a lot of room left for juice. It is more or less 95% full. In real life people usually rapid charge 15-30 minutes. We are always talking about Level3 charging.
I agree, charging time for EVs remains greater than fueling for ICEVs. I don’t think this is a show stopper when you consider most driving is short distance where the charge at home EV saves more time over the ICEV.
Then there are EREVs which charge at home for short distances and still allow you to use regular fuel for longer trips. Best of both worlds if you’re worried about a 20 minute charge time.
Initial cost is the only thing holding holding EVs/EREVs back from wiping ICEVs out. Roughly three years till this changes forever. On the cusp now.
File this headline under “clickbait”.
this is probably the biggest news for last 20 years in battery research. This is the holy grail – non-toxic, fast recharging, 25 years durable, cheap, recyclable. Oh yes, energy density of 50wh/kg is very good too. I do not care how much it weighs at the basement of my autonomous home.
Actually, there are several possibilities out there for your autonomous home now: Aquion, EOS, AMBRI, Alevo, and…. Aquion battery is already being sold. The others are coming to the market soon.
I am surprised that Green Tech Media did not write an article about this. Even Mr Elon Musk tweeted about it.
Elon pointed out the low density of this battery. But density is a non-issue for grid storage.
Densitiy is an issue for every stationary stuff. If this battery is 5x less dense in energy and costs 2x less then it’s a lose-lose technology. If it gets better and costs 4x less it is still lose-lose situation. Even if it costs as much as Li-ion per Wh but is less dense then it is still worse. Imagine stationary battery capable of storing 85kWh of energy and weights 2 tons. What a waste. To mine more. To transport more. To make bigger casings. Even if it is made of sand and glue 2 tons per 85kWh is a problem. Compared to Tesla-s 85kWh battery.
You can’t make a cell as big as water bucket. How the hell would the core be cooled?
No, you’re speculating wildly. You are right that low energy density could be a problem. Low density does add to size for housing it and it will add to cost for delivery/installation, but that’s a relative problem for stationary use. We’re not talking about that low of an energy density here.
Lead-acid batteries with roughly 30-40 Wh/kg are already in wide use. Big problem with them is low-cycle life. This battery tech could potentially solve that problem. The energy density is not that low.
Aluminum is a good conductor of heat. In this case, I don’t think you’re going to see a heat problem either.
Sir can we use this in electric Vehicles
First they have to figure out how to make it work well enough to be useful.
” For now, the Stanford aluminum battery can only supply about half the voltage of a lithium battery.”