Monday, March 7th 2022

Game-Changing Material Lets Lithium-ion Batteries Keep Almost Full Charge-Capacity for up to 5 years

A game-changing new material promises to keep your "battery health" meter stuck at a 100% for up to 5 years. Lihium-ion rechargeable batteries that power most of today's digital civilization, come with two limitations—one that they can only be recharged a finite number of times; and two, that their capacity reduces over time. On some smartphones, such as the iPhone, this is reported to end-users as "battery health."

Japan Advanced Institute of Science and Technology (JAIST) discovered a new material called [wait for it] bis-imino-acenaphthenequinone-paraphenylene (BP) co-polymer. This serves as a binder material on the anode (positive electrode). A binder is a substance used to coat an electrode to prevent the material of the electrode from falling apart or getting destroyed by the electrolyte. Li-ion cells use graphite anodes that are delicate, and were being coated by poly-vinylidene fluoride (PVDF), but this material had a durability of 500 recharge cycles at full (rated) capacity, and yielding only 65% of capacity the battery is "capable" of (with bare electrodes). Beyond 500 cycles, the PVDF binder wears, taking the electrode with it, which the capacity. JAIST's research has found its material to be capable of sustaining 1,700 recharge cycles while maintaining the battery's recharge capacity at 95 percent. For a smartphone that gets recharged once a day, that's nearly 5 years of full "battery health." The JAIST paper can be accessed here.
Sources: EurekaAlert, PC Magazine
Add your own comment

32 Comments on Game-Changing Material Lets Lithium-ion Batteries Keep Almost Full Charge-Capacity for up to 5 years

#1
Dammeron
Battery tech is one of the slowest in terms of progress - for how many years we've been fed with all those news about revolutionary solutions, that gonna raise the runtime [insert number here]-fold compared to current li-ion ones... Same here - ok, it does raise their lifespan, but ultimately it barely changes anything around electronics. And smartphones still can't last more, than 3 days without recharging...
Posted on Reply
#2
CallandorWoT
Let's hope advances like this and others really start to move forward faster, good news is better than no news.
Posted on Reply
#3
GoldenX
bis-imouto....ap.
Yes.
Posted on Reply
#4
AnarchoPrimitiv
DammeronBattery tech is one of the slowest in terms of progress - for how many years we've been fed with all those news about revolutionary solutions, that gonna raise the runtime [insert number here]-fold compared to current li-ion ones... Same here - ok, it does raise their lifespan, but ultimately it barely changes anything around electronics. And smartphones still can't last more, than 3 days without recharging...
Here is the REAL limitation of lithium, there's literally not enough lithium on the entire planet to convert all the vehicles ALREADY in existence to battery power, let alone the additional vehicles and gadgets that are being produced every day. Also, lithium mining, like all mining is one of the most environmentally destructive processes we engage in, so even if we could extract all that lithium, it would exact a heavy price.
Posted on Reply
#5
Wirko
DammeronBattery tech is one of the slowest in terms of progress - for how many years we've been fed with all those news about revolutionary solutions, that gonna raise the runtime [insert number here]-fold compared to current li-ion ones... Same here - ok, it does raise their lifespan, but ultimately it barely changes anything around electronics. And smartphones still can't last more, than 3 days without recharging...
The Goodenough curse. He gave the world a technology that's good enough but can't be improved much.
Posted on Reply
#6
CallandorWoT
AnarchoPrimitivHere is the REAL limitation of lithium, there's literally not enough lithium on the entire planet to convert all the vehicles ALREADY in existence to battery power, let alone the additional vehicles and gadgets that are being produced every day. Also, lithium mining, like all mining is one of the most environmentally destructive processes we engage in, so even if we could extract all that lithium, it would exact a heavy price.
Elon will mine Lithium for us with SpaceX rocket missions, don't worry. He will lasso a big ol lithium asteroid and bring it back here, wait and see, he is unstoppable
Posted on Reply
#7
Crackong
We need these kind of batteries...ASAP

Posted on Reply
#8
bug
So not actually game changing, just holding charge for 3-4 times longer.

Like someone above said, we're not short of lab innovations. Wake me up when any of these make their way into consumer products.
Posted on Reply
#9
Denver
Almost every day someone announces something like this in the battery sector, it seems revolutionary and all, but it never becomes a real product...

Lithium-Sulfur and Aluminum Ion batteries look like the most impressive of the list of batteries that never arrive anyway.
Posted on Reply
#10
DeathtoGnomes
bugSo not actually game changing, just holding charge for 3-4 times longer.

Like someone above said, we're not short of lab innovations. Wake me up when any of these make their way into consumer products.
I read it to say the max charge capacity drop off is extended, longevity, which could equate to, as it says 5 years of charge.

The title is goofy, maybe a tad misleading.
Posted on Reply
#11
bug
DeathtoGnomesI read it to say the max charge capacity drop off is extended, longevity, which could equate to, as it says 5 years of charge.

The title is goofy, maybe a tad misleading.
I meant, where the max capacity (charge) was being preserved for 500 recharges, this new tech can do it for almost 2,000 charges. There's no relation with time here.
Posted on Reply
#12
DeathtoGnomes
bugThere's no relation with time here.
time needed to charge doesnt count?
Posted on Reply
#13
bug
DenverAlmost every day someone announces something like this in the battery sector, it seems revolutionary and all, but it never becomes a real product...

Lithium-Sulfur and Aluminum Ion batteries look like the most impressive of the list of batteries that never arrive anyway.
It's a side effect of throwing money indiscriminately at the problem: it becomes easier to obtain a grant for battery tech, no matter how impractical the research really is. It's not necessarily bad. We do have a problem and we don't know how to solve it, so we're just taking the brute force approach. But it does mean that probably 90% of the money thrown at the problem are wasted and that there's no point in following published results, unless you work in battery tech somehow.
DeathtoGnomestime needed to charge doesnt count?
No, why would it?
Posted on Reply
#14
BiggusDiskus
AnarchoPrimitivthere's literally not enough lithium on the entire planet to convert all the vehicles ALREADY in existence to battery power
Bollocks:
WikipediaThe total lithium content of seawater is very large and is estimated as 230 billion tonnes
The environmental costs to mine lithium are bad. But they're known, up-front, and can be improved. There's been very little progress on cleaner mining because companies just move to the 3rd world and keep doing things the same old way.

As opposed to carbon fuels, where the environmental costs come after we use it and can't be improved or gotten rid of. The idea that mining can't be done cleaner, but someday soon we'll have magic to remove all the CO2 from the atmosphere, is dumb.
Posted on Reply
#15
Makaveli
DammeronBattery tech is one of the slowest in terms of progress - for how many years we've been fed with all those news about revolutionary solutions, that gonna raise the runtime [insert number here]-fold compared to current li-ion ones... Same here - ok, it does raise their lifespan, but ultimately it barely changes anything around electronics. And smartphones still can't last more, than 3 days without recharging...
This!

We always see announcements like this I will pay attention when they actually have something on the market that we can buy.
Posted on Reply
#16
CrAsHnBuRnXp
Still a tech that we wont get to see/use any time soon. Id file this next to the cure for cancer.
Posted on Reply
#17
bug
CrAsHnBuRnXpStill a tech that we wont get to see/use any time soon. Id file this next to the cure for cancer.
Cancer treatment has made great strides, compared to battery tech. Through careful screening and early diagnostics, cancer has ~80% survival rate (depending on its type), if you happen to be living in a civilized country.

Batteries generally continue to suck for everyone.
Posted on Reply
#18
Jism
bugSo not actually game changing, just holding charge for 3-4 times longer.

Like someone above said, we're not short of lab innovations. Wake me up when any of these make their way into consumer products.
We're still stuck at over-provisioning, meaning the battery has often a far larger capacity then that it's rated for. Just to extends its life at the given rating. Nothing different compared to a SSD.
Posted on Reply
#19
BArms
Battery innovation is the politics of the tech world: lots of promises but mostly hopium and even outright lies.
Posted on Reply
#20
Tigger
I'm the only one
bugCancer treatment has made great strides
There will never be a cure for cancer. too many jobs and too much money in the cancer "cure" industry. in 50 years and billions in money, all they have still is bombarding it with radiation.

Maybe a similar reason is why batteries are still using old tech. How much money is there in the lithium industry i wonder as so many companies are using it now for their batteries.
Posted on Reply
#21
Cutechri
TiggerThere will never be a cure for cancer. too many jobs and too much money in the cancer "cure" industry. in 50 years and billions in money, all they have still is bombarding it with radiation.
Love how pieces of paper are more important than people's lives, yet people still defend this system.
Posted on Reply
#22
DeathtoGnomes
bugNo, why would it?
It was implied it did, or I read it differently than you.
Posted on Reply
#23
CrAsHnBuRnXp
bugCancer treatment has made great strides, compared to battery tech. Through careful screening and early diagnostics, cancer has ~80% survival rate (depending on its type), if you happen to be living in a civilized country.

Batteries generally continue to suck for everyone.
Agreed. However the reason I compared it to cancer is because big pharma will never want to fully cure it. There is too much money to be made. The same can be said for batteries. "Big Battery" ( :laugh: ) arent going to want batteries (especially rechargeable) to last for years without replacement. Thats why I compared the two. Theres not enough money to be made there.
Posted on Reply
#24
ThrashZone
Hi,
Nope pharma loves it when people can takes pills for the rest of their lives look at hiv.

As far as batteries go, wish they would shit or get off the pot batteries are crap.
Posted on Reply
#25
bug
CrAsHnBuRnXpAgreed. However the reason I compared it to cancer is because big pharma will never want to fully cure it. There is too much money to be made. The same can be said for batteries. "Big Battery" ( :laugh: ) arent going to want batteries (especially rechargeable) to last for years without replacement. Thats why I compared the two. Theres not enough money to be made there.
Still a poor comparison. There isn't one cancer to cure, cancer in each organ is like a disease on its own. That's what makes it hard to cure (among other things).
Batteries... we simply don't control electricity as well as we'd like. We don't know how. The way we store energy today may very well look to someone 200 years in the future like surgeons 200 years ago that amputated limbs because they couldn't address the infection at source.
Posted on Reply
Add your own comment
Jul 3rd, 2022 05:04 EDT change timezone

New Forum Posts

Popular Reviews

Controversial News Posts