4.8 Article

Designing Cathodes and Cathode Active Materials for Solid-State Batteries

Journal

ADVANCED ENERGY MATERIALS
Volume 12, Issue 35, Pages -

Publisher

WILEY-V C H VERLAG GMBH
DOI: 10.1002/aenm.202201425

Keywords

chemo-mechanics; electrochemical energy storage; lithium-ion batteries; microstructures; NCM; particle sizes; thiophosphates

Funding

  1. BMBF cluster of competence for solid state batteries (FestBatt, Bundesministerium fur Bildung und Forschung) [03XP0177A/03XP0430A, 03XP0433A, 03XP0180/03XP0431]
  2. Fond der Chemischen Industrie (FCI)
  3. Projekt DEAL

Ask authors/readers for more resources

Solid-state batteries are gaining attention as a potentially safe electrochemical high-energy storage concept. However, there are still challenges in designing cathode active materials that are compatible with superionic solid electrolytes. This perspective provides an overview of the required properties and challenges of inorganic cathode active materials used in solid-state batteries, and proposes guidelines for future development.
Solid-state batteries (SSBs) currently attract great attention as a potentially safe electrochemical high-energy storage concept. However, several issues still prevent SSBs from outperforming today's lithium-ion batteries based on liquid electrolytes. One major challenge is related to the design of cathode active materials (CAMs) that are compatible with the superionic solid electrolytes (SEs) of interest. This perspective, gives a brief overview of the required properties and possible challenges for inorganic CAMs employed in SSBs, and describes state-of-the art solutions. In particular, the issue of tailoring CAMs is structured into challenges arising on the cathode-, particle-, and interface-level, related to microstructural, (chemo-)mechanical, and (electro-)chemical interplay of CAMs with SEs, and finally guidelines for future CAM development for SSBs are proposed.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.8
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available