Talk:Lithium-ion battery

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to navigation Jump to search

Longer-term historical perspective, and projected futures[edit]

The article seems to have a lot of snapshot/current material, but the Historical section doesn't have good info on the energy density and power density of lithium-ion batteries over time. It seems to me that we would have a better article if this were improved.

Same breadth is missing on future projections of where this technology is, or can be, going. This article in Nature Energy is a good summary overview of the future work areas: Foundations for the future: Challenges remain in understanding battery processes that govern operation and limit performance,

Includes this, which might be helpful for improving the historical progress part of the problem:

Batteries store electricity in the form of chemical energy. Portable electronic devices, electrified transportation, and grid-scale applications require batteries that are environmentally benign, safe, possess high energy density and long cycle life, and consist of low-cost materials. The commercialization of rechargeable lithium-ion batteries in the early 1990s is regarded as the most significant milestone in the revival of battery technologies since their invention by Alessandro Volta at the end of the 18th century. Despite remarkable achievements in the development of lithium-ion batteries in recent decades, the speed of battery development remains rather incremental: over the past 25 years the energy density of commercial lithium-ion batteries has increased fairly linearly by just under a factor of four. State-of-the-art commercial lithium-ion batteries have an energy density of less than 300 Wh/kg, which falls short of the US Department of Energy's target of 400 Wh/kg by 2017.

N2e (talk) 12:23, 6 October 2016 (UTC)

Future Developments[edit]

What's the policy for handling 'news' vs. 'main' issues? LIB is such a broad and active area, that there is always 'news' that could fall into many sections, or sometimes one event might be mentioned in many sections. It looks like this article is primarily for main, well established content and that 'news' should be handled separately.

I pushed the yasunaga Nov-2016 announcement to research.

I'm going to add text under 'Terminology' that redirects news to the main research article.

If there's a better/preferred way, let me know. I see a lot of activity in history, but not much chatter under talk, re news vs main stream policy. LarryLACa (talk) 21:47, 19 March 2017 (UTC)

batteryuniversity.com[edit]

May I please ask for a source for discrediting batteryuniversity.com website? When and why and by whom has this been done?

I know of the other appearance of this reverted tag, and in no way I want to fight against this opinion, I just want to know, and a single revert appears to me as a cheap means to get to know. -Purgy (talk) 07:27, 24 November 2016 (UTC)

@Purgy Purgatorio: batteryuniversity.com is been generally discredited in most parts of the industry almost since its appearance (and there is no such organisation anyway). The web site certainly gives the appearance of being authoritative and unless you are in the know, most observers will believe it (and some equipment suppliers have erroneously included features to offset a non existent 'feature' claimed by the book and/or web site).
The website was created by one Isidor Buchmann with the sole intention of promoting his equally discredited book. Neither the web site nor the book have any backing from a recognised authority on lithium-ion batteries (Cadex International does not count as Buchmann is its CEO). They are both self published sources so they, and any derived source, is unacceptable to Wikipedia standards anyway. If you try to use batteryuniversity as a reference for a claim in an article you will find it is black listed. Buchmann wrote his book at a time when the battery manufacturers were very reluctant to give out any information about their batteries. Whenever there is an informational vacuum, charlatans spring up to fill the void. Buchmann did this by hoovering up every unproven 'fact' he could find on blogs, usenet and chat rooms and putting it in what appeared to be the only authoritative book at the time.
The how to rebuild a Li-ion battery pack document contains many pieces of information that were originally documented at batteryuniversity.com as did many other papers at the time. The nonsense about batteries lasting longer if kept at 40% charge rather than full charge came entirely from Buchmann, and has been denied by the battery manufacturers (and is demonstrably untrue). Indeed if Buchmann (and How to rebuild a Li-on battery pack) were to be believed, no lithium-ion battery pack could possibly last longer than two years. Buchmann came up with his unfounded 'facts' to explain why many laptop users required a new battery after about two years. The reality was that using them on battery every day meant that the charge/discharge life was used up in around two years (and that life was only 500-800 cycles in early batteries - there are 730 days in two years). There are no shortage of examples of much less used batteries that are well over twenty years old - something impossible according to Buchmann.
Buchmann was also responsible for the nonsense about laptop batteries' lives being shortened when left in a laptop running from AC. His claim was that the batteries were being overcharged (because AC was connected). If this was true then there would have been a lot of battery fires (because overcharging 'always' results in a battery fire). The reality was that the batteries were being heated up by the laptop's internal components (processor, hard drive, graphics processor etc.). Lithium-ion batteries do not like temperatures much above 25 Celcius (not the 45 Celcius Buchmann claims). Some laptops did not suffer this problem but only because the heat producing parts were away from the battery (not usually deliberately, but by the luck of the design)
By the way, I have worked with Lithium-ion battery powered systems for over 25 years and have access to much real information on these batteries, though much of it is under non-disclosure agreements for reasons that are unlikely to become clear. --Elektrik Fanne 13:55, 24 November 2016 (UTC)
Thank you for your ample and plausible explanation of your reasons to hold it as discredited. -Purgy (talk) 07:11, 25 November 2016 (UTC)
@Purgy Purgatorio: There was an exhaustive discussion on the subject at the time batteryuniversity was blacklisted. It is probably in an archive somewhere. May we restore the unreliable source tag? --Elektrik Fanne 13:49, 25 November 2016 (UTC)
Of course, please do to your preferences. I thought it were evident from my question that I do not object. Reverting my own edit is, according to my taste, not sufficiently sourced by explicit refs. :D Cheers! -Purgy (talk) 10:25, 26 November 2016 (UTC)
Older reference: /Archive_1#batteryuniversity.com. Ugog Nizdast (talk) 07:18, 3 February 2017 (UTC)

Conditioning[edit]

I came to the Wikipedia LIB page trying to find the truth about LIB DoD and SOC storage impacts on battery life (defined either as number of full discharge/charge cycles or lifetime A-h capacity). The page is extremely opaque on this. Given where we've been (see /Archive_1#batteryuniversity.com above), I've updated the conditioning section to note conditioning as unfounded. I know it needs a citation, but I'm erring on the side of being useful instead of formality. Sorry, but I think this is one of the points users want to see. LarryLACa (talk) 06:36, 21 March 2017 (UTC)

Well, thing is, conditioning with regards to batteries happens in the industry. Solid electrolyte interface formation and hence loss of Li-ions from the electrolyte would be detrimental to the cells, so this happens before the final cell is closed & filled with the electrolyte that is in the finished electrolyte. You are completely right that conditioning as in especially NiMH is not necessary.--Ischariot ucl (talk) 07:52, 5 April 2017 (UTC)

Anodes[edit]

--Hi, would it be worth adding a new article on anode materials & development thereof. The section is not up to either scientific standard nor does it include the reasons for why we don't just use alloying materials like lithium. Ischariot ucl (talk) 02:02, 10 March 2017 (UTC) An article on anode materials for Li-ion batteries split into intercalation, conversion and alloying materials might make sense.

@Ischariot - I have partially addressed the issue of 'new development' by referencing Research in lithium-ion batteries in the main article, see also Future Developments. I think the Researc article is a reasonable place to focus news. From my limited exposure there is an unsurveyable wealth of variation of LIB design. Just last years articles on LIB nano tech alone exceeds the available effort to surface them in Wikipedia. Perhaps the Research section would be a good place to expand on variety. LarryLACa (talk) 06:02, 21 March 2017 (UTC)
@LarryLACa - Very valid points. It just feels fairly arbitrary what is included and what isn't as research, which I can live with in the research article, because as you rightly say there is an insurmountable wealth of it, but why pick out certain developments in the main article? Maybe just shift everything over to the research article. --Ischariot ucl (talk) 07:47, 5 April 2017 (UTC)

Specific Power[edit]

The specific power is currently listed as ~250-~340 W/kg, according to a 7-year old reference to panasonic's website. This: https://na.industrial.panasonic.com/sites/default/pidsa/files/ur18650rx.pdf spec sheet from panasonic indicates a specific power up to 800 W/kg, based on a 46-gram battery providing 10 amps at 3.7 volts. Higher drain batteries exist, but I can't find a spec sheet as detailed or credible to indicate that.

Theoretical maximum voltage from the chemistry[edit]

Like for article Alkaline battery it would be nice to have included the theoretical maximum voltage from the chemistry. --Mortense (talk) 09:33, 7 June 2017 (UTC)

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on Lithium-ion battery. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

As of February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required on behalf of editors regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification, as with any edit, using the archive tools per instructions below. This message updated dynamically through the template {{sourcecheck}} (last update: 1 May 2018).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.


Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 05:21, 3 September 2017 (UTC)

So called "low discharge," NiMH batteries[edit]

In this section; Lithium-ion_battery#Self-discharge, so called "low discharge," NiMH batteries are described as if they were the hot, new, rare technology, when in fact they are now the default type, and the older now obsolete high discharge NiMH batteries are not easy to find, —not the default as implied. As the reference to this old, now outdated impression of NiMH, a 13 year old cite is given. (There is a new NiMH chemistry on the market every six months.) The problem is; it is unfair, widespread, (and I suspect partly industry-motivated) to compare new Li-ion chemistry with obsolete NiMH chemistry. In context of the section and paragraph, one wonders why the older crap was even mentioned (as I suggested in my comment.).

Some manufacturers now brag of 1-year charge holding capacity and are attempting to encroach on the alkaline market. "Rayovac Rechargeable LD715-8OPA AA 1350mAh"..."Replaces Alkaline AA Cell."

The only old chemistry NiMH AA Batteries I cold find online were for original equipment replacement and for "solar [garden] lights." Inferior in every way, including price.


I corrected the article, immediately it was reverted. (Same-same in the NiMH article...hmmmmm)

Original Wiki said:

"For comparison, the self-discharge rate is over 30% per month for common nickel metal hydride (NiMH) batteries,[1] dropping to about 1.25% per month for low self-discharge NiMH batteries, and 10% per month in nickel-cadmium batteries."

I changed to:

For comparison, the self-discharge rate is over 30% per month for older obsolete chemistry nickel metal hydride (NiMH) batteries,[1] dropping to about 1.25% per month for common modern low self-discharge NiMH batteries, and 10% per month in nickel-cadmium batteries.

But I should have changed to:

For comparison, the self-discharge rate is  about 1.25% per month for common modern incorrect link: low self-discharge NiMH batteries, and 10% per month in nickel-cadmium batteries.


So called "low discharge," AA batteries are now to be expected; this site: https://www.gamut.com/p/duracell-battery-nimh-aa-battery-size-2400-mah-capacity-NzgwNjE=?utm_source=google&utm_medium=cpc&adpos=1o4&scid=scplp174K882&sc_intid=174K882&gclid=EAIaIQobChMIhNanrfzO1gIVhWp-Ch0T7w3iEAQYBCABEgJX9vD_BwE&gclsrc=aw.ds&dclid=CIz2mJP9ztYCFch9AQodYOUA6g does not even bother to mention they are "low discharge," however, they are: https://www.duracell.com/en-us/product/rechargeable-battery Soon, "low discharge," will be as dated as "talking" motion pictures, "color" TV, and "electric" toaster.

I intend to undue the revert. --2602:306:CFCE:1EE0:119B:90AC:21F7:9541 (talk) 12:09, 1 October 2017 (UTC)Doug Bashford

Wikipedia does not predict the future. You should not edit war, but find an article that reports the current position, then use that as a reference. I find that my NiMH cells discharge themselves. Some, but not all of them are cheap or old. Dbfirs 12:22, 1 October 2017 (UTC)


You may need a new charger: "An ideal charge rate is probably around 4-6 hours (for empty to full)." ...for AA.
I've been carrying three pairs of AA NiMH since 2003, one pair for my current camera, two as backup. If your batteries are 3-5 years old, yes that's discard time.
Welcome to the future: https://michaelbluejay.com/batteries/nimh-brands.html . Do you disagree with any of those specs? Some hold up to 85% charge after a year, 75% after three? Or this: "There's not much reason to get the normal NiMH's, since they're not any cheaper, and their capacity is only a little higher (2700 mAh for a normal NiMH vs. 2400 for a similarly-priced LSD NiMH)." (That's why the high-discharge are hard to find; simple economics.) ...Or dispute the 28 listed "good" brands that sell the modern NiMH's?
You write: "You should not edit war, but find an article that reports the current position." Edit war? I have yet to find anybody who disagrees with my proposed edits. The article itself agrees with my proposed edits. I cite that! ;) My problem, as I stated, is with the wording and what in modern, changed times looks like the opinion/insinuation/logic that Model T Fords are gutless, unreliable, and obsolete, and Model T Fords are the "common" kind, therefore Fords are crap. IE: Model T Fords should not be "compared" to Corvettes. IOW, what the hell do Model T Fords have to do with a modern article about cutting edge new cars? Put more politely for the gentle souls; the wording within the context of the modern marketplace is muddled and illogical and the paragraph seems self-contradictory.
If someone can can please explain exactly what the objection to my proposed edits are, I will try to reword or find a citation or six. If nobody can do that, I will improve the article as suggested for the reasons given.
--2602:306:CFCE:1EE0:119B:90AC:21F7:9541 (talk) 11:47, 3 October 2017 (UTC)Doug Bashford
You twice removed a reference without replacing it with a better one. That's why I advised you not to edit war. Sorry, I misread the edit -- you didn't remove the ref the first time. I agree that things have changed and my newer batteries don't self-discharge at the same rate as my older ones. I'm happy with the article as it now stands, except that we need an independent research reference, rather than manufacturers' claims. Dbfirs 06:48, 14 October 2017 (UTC)

References

  1. ^ a b Winter & Brodd 2004, p. 4259

Current Production[edit]

It would be good to see some kind of breakdown as to current production of Li-ion batteries. Numbers made of various types / chemical technology, to get a feel for the way the market is going. Obviously there are varied applications - "horses for courses", but it would be useful to understand who is making what, especially those used in high density energy storage for power applications (rather than for powering portable electronic devices such as phones and toys, which are hobbled by fad physical size/design constraints). — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.156.183.176 (talkcontribs) 29 okt 2017 10:30 (UTC)

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 4 external links on Lithium-ion battery. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

As of February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required on behalf of editors regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification, as with any edit, using the archive tools per instructions below. This message updated dynamically through the template {{sourcecheck}} (last update: 1 May 2018).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.


Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 17:11, 3 January 2018 (UTC)