4.5 Article

Spruce Hard Carbon Anodes for Lithium-Ion Batteries

期刊

CHEMELECTROCHEM
卷 8, 期 24, 页码 4750-4761

出版社

WILEY-V C H VERLAG GMBH
DOI: 10.1002/celc.202101174

关键词

biomass; carbon; full-cell; lithium-ion battery; pre-lithiation

资金

  1. Deutsche Forschungsgemeinschaft (DFG, German Research Foundation) under Germany's Excellence Strategy [EXC - 2193/1390951807]
  2. Projekt DEAL

向作者/读者索取更多资源

This study presented lithium-ion battery full-cells based on spruce-derived hard carbon anodes and an electrochemical pre-lithiation method, with a detailed analysis of full-cell operation and lithiation state. Despite the similarities in physical and electrochemical properties with previous biomass-derived hard carbon anodes, the low initial coulombic efficiencies remain a major challenge. In-situ electrochemical pre-lithiation improved performance significantly, leading to increased capacities, cycle life, and first cycle coulombic efficiency.
In this work, lithium-ion battery full-cells based on spruce-derived hard carbon anodes and an electrochemical pre-lithiation method are presented in combination with a detailed analysis of full-cell operation and the lithiation state. The physical and electrochemical properties agree well with those of previous biomass-derived hard carbon anodes. However, low initial coulombic efficiencies of 65 % represent one of the major challenges of the developed anodes with respect to full-cell operation. To counteract the initial lithium loss, in-situ electrochemical pre-lithiation was conducted, allowing battery operation in the same cell setup without reassembly. Consequently, significantly increased capacities, cycle life, and first cycle coulombic efficiency were obtained in comparison to untreated anodes (195 mAh/g versus 150 mAh/g, state of health (SOH) 80 after 150 cycles versus 70 cycles, and 90 % versus 65 %). In summary, spruce-based hard carbon has the potential to be an environmentally friendly alternative to standard graphite.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.5
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据