Talk:Lithium-ion battery

Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment

This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 14 January 2021 and 11 April 2021. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Babak98.

Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 02:44, 17 January 2022 (UTC)

Specific Power

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.

Current Production

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 (talk • contribs) 29 okt 2017 10:30 (UTC)

Lede polymer

"Handheld electronics mostly use lithium polymer batteries (with a polymer gel as electrolyte)"

There is nothing in the source cited to support this. This whole article and the one on Lithium Polymer spread the myth that "lithium ion in a pouch is lithium polymer". See the introduction of this article for discussion about the widespread myth that commercially used pouch cells are lithium polymer:

http://iaassconference2013.space-safety.org/wp-content/uploads/sites/24/2014/06/JSSE-VOL.-1-NO.-1-JUNE-2014-PERFORMANCE-AND-SAFETY-OF-LITHIUM-ION-POLYMER-POUCH-CELLS.pdf

These polymer electrolyte cells were a specialized thing that never really caught on. Gigs (talk) 23:25, 25 October 2019 (UTC)

Charge/Discharge

All electrode combinations have a usual voltage at 3.something V. How does it make sense to top up any battery as high as at 4.05 V when all of them have a nominal voltage UNDER that level? Can anyone find a source for this information? "Top charging is recommended to be initiated when voltage goes below 4.05 V/cell"

From the Article:

---

Periodic topping charge about once per 500 hours. Top charging is recommended to be initiated when voltage goes below 4.05 V/cell.

---

In a lithium-ion battery the lithium ions are transported to and from the positive or negative electrodes by oxidizing the transition metal, cobalt (Co), in Li1-xCoO2 from Co3+ to Co4+ during charge, and reducing from Co4+ to Co3+ during discharge. The cobalt electrode reaction is only reversible for x < 0.5 (x in mole units), limiting the depth of discharge allowable.

---

In the discharged cell x=0, that is the material is LiCoO2. Not the depth of discharge is limited by (x<0.5) but the depth of charge. Overcharge means x>0.5 . The discharge limit would be an inequation like x>0 . — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2003:C9:8F1D:3C86:CEE0:8DEF:59EE:EC46 (talk) 07:54, 14 November 2019 (UTC)

I agree and marked the item as dubious. Constant314 (talk) 04:00, 9 February 2022 (UTC)

Charge/discharge efficiency in infobox

It strikes me as a bit pointless to list the charge/discharge efficiency (coulombic efficiency) in the infobox. The CE is usually very close to 100% (otherwise the battery wouldn't be viable). Yes, under certain conditions like certain specific cutoff voltages, like some of those used in the quoted source, it can be lower, but the CE is generally used to evaluate individual cells or battery packs to spot potential problems, or when trying to improve performance in R&D - it's not used to compare one type of battery chemistry to another. Listing a CE range for all lithium-ion batteries seems like a not very useful figure. (Now that I think about it, it seems a bit pointless to list the CE for any battery, really, since as far as I know that value is always supposed to hew as close to 100% as possible.) Thoughts? --Tserton (talk) 22:51, 30 November 2020 (UTC)

Are you confusing energy efficiency with something else? Constant314 (talk) 22:57, 30 November 2020 (UTC)

Possibly - I know charge/discharge efficiency as the discharge capacity divided by the immediately preceding charge capacity. That's how it's used in battery-related materials science papers. In that field it's often used synonymously with coulombic efficiency, although I know that word has a more narrow meaning in electrochemistry. I'm not familiar with the term energy efficiency - does that mean something different? --Tserton (talk) 23:04, 30 November 2020 (UTC)

I did a quick read of the cited source. It discussed both coulombic efficiency and energy efficiency. I presume that the 80-90% indicated in the article is energy efficiency. Maybe not.Constant314 (talk) 23:10, 30 November 2020 (UTC)

After more reading, it seems that the coulombic efficiency of viable batteries can be significantly less than 100%, so the item should probably remain in the info box. But there is still the question of what it means. I opened a discussion at Template talk:Infobox battery. We should probably continue the discussion there since it applies to all batteries. Constant314 (talk) 23:27, 30 November 2020 (UTC)

Price fixing cartel info

I can’t find any mention on Wikipedia of this massive price-fixing cartel story! That was widely covered in the news and courts.

https://www.justice.gov › ... › News Panasonic and Its Subsidiary Sanyo Agree to Plead Guilty in Separate Price-Fixing ...

https://www.reuters.com › article EU fines Japanese rechargeable battery makers over cartel | Reuters

Disappeared? Add/restore? 50.201.195.170 (talk) 01:02, 5 April 2021 (UTC)

Added: An antitrust-violating Price-Fixing Cartel among 9 corporate families, including LG Chem, GS Yuasa, Hitachi Maxell, NEC, Panasonic/Sanyo, Samsung, Sony, and Toshiba was found to be rigging battery prices and restricting output between 2000 and 2011. The complaint lays out an overwhelming amount of evidence, e.g. "Defendants took various acts in furtherance of this conspiracy over the course of at least 110 illicit meetings and communications that began in 2000, evolved over time, and lasted until May 2011" Backups at archive.fo.--50.201.195.170 (talk) 03:12, 23 April 2021 (UTC)

References

Samsung batterys - Relocate

I think the part in the intro about the Samsung batteries on planes should be moved to a different section because I feel like the Intro is too bulky and I find it an unnecessary detail to be in its current section. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 207.197.66.2 (talk) 16:58, 23 April 2021 (UTC)

Info about charging stages, "saturation"?

From batteryuniversity.[]com/learn/article/charging_lithium_ion_batteries Why the link is in global filter? Valery Zapolodov (talk) 13:48, 9 May 2021 (UTC)

Some initialisms need to be defined

In the third paragraph the initialisms NMC and LMR are used, but I don't see a preceding definition. 2A01:4C8:1429:8393:98E8:6ED9:7088:4930 (talk) 11:03, 18 July 2021 (UTC) AJF

Meaningless date column in table of cathode chemistries

In the Cathode section there is a table of cathode chemistries. It has a column titled "Date". Date of what? First proposal for use? First prototype? First commercial production? Anticipated commercial production? Anyway, none of the values have references. I'm inclined to entirely remove the column, after waiting a bit for comments here. Leotohill (talk) 21:19, 15 September 2021 (UTC)

Proposal to split out history section

• Support obviously history will get much longer in future Chidgk1 (talk) 15:46, 18 October 2021 (UTC)

  There is an article History of the lithium-ion battery, that I contributed to. The History section , that we have here is a condensed version of that article. It does not need to get longer, but it can be improved. As far as you comment "history will get much longer in future" goes... Until about 3-5 years ago most people working on lithium-ion batteries felt, that "Li-ion are batteries are as good as they can ever be, and there is no room for improvement". Actually ONE improvement (superconcentrated electrolyes) happened since, but all other areas have been stagnant indeed. Walter Tau (talk) 21:05, 27 October 2023 (UTC)

specific power of "~250 – ~340 W/kg" is outdated

specific power of "~250 – ~340 W/kg" is outdated and the peak value of newer cells can easly reach 2500w/kg continuous e.g. the US18650VTC5A — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2003:DD:2702:8F00:908D:91E7:DA50:B174 (talk) 19:29, 8 November 2021 (UTC)

Split

Thumperward I think just splitting out the biggest section (design?) would be enough Chidgk1 (talk) 13:38, 18 November 2021 (UTC)

The problem is that splitting only that section would then mean about 80% of the article was about safety. The article as a whole is too long and really should be converted to summary-style. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) (talk) 10:27, 22 November 2021 (UTC)

ok removed split suggestions Chidgk1 (talk) 14:20, 24 November 2021 (UTC)

These sections are prolix and could make their point in a couple of paragraphs. Wikipedia is not a safety handbook. --Wtshymanski (talk) 20:05, 24 November 2021 (UTC)

Requested addition

• Specific text to be added or removed: In the section that begins, "Performance of manufactured batteries has improved over time.":

"Overall, between 1991 and 2018, prices for all types of lithium-ion cells (in dollars per kWh) fell approximately 97%. Over the same time period, energy density more than tripled. Efforts to increase energy density contributed significantly to cost reduction."

• Reason for the change: These details are considerably more up-to-date statistics that describe how the "Performance of manufactured batteries has improved over time." However, they have been reverted by an editor concerned with a potential COI. In order to alleviate any concerns about a conflict of interest, I was thinking someone else could review and implement the changes. I can assure you that I have no stake in proposing these additions. I simply want to improve the article.
• References supporting change: See above.

71.232.19.131 (talk) 14:18, 26 April 2022 (UTC)

Agree

I think this a sensible suggestion and is clearly not WP:REFSPAM. In my opinion, all articles which use the image "Battery-cost-learning-curve.png" (attached) should have the reference to the data on which the graph is based. Unless anyone objects, I will do the edit in a few days time. Regards, Hallucegenia (talk) 15:13, 26 April 2022 (UTC)

Pinging @MrOllie: and @Reywas92: as previously involved editors in case they wish to contribute to this discussion. Hallucegenia (talk) 08:23, 27 April 2022 (UTC)

Thank you @Hallucegenia: for looking into this and reviewing the changes. I just wanted to help improve this and related pages by adding up-to-date information and referencing the sources. I only started adding references to other pages when I noticed that copies of the figure had appeared on multiple pages but without the relevant references, which include both the academic article ([1]) as well as the OurWorldInData article (https://ourworldindata.org/battery-price-decline). In addition, if you could consider restoring the text additions that were reverted on the related history page (History of the lithium-ion battery), I would appreciate it. 71.232.19.131 (talk) 03:24, 28 April 2022 (UTC)

Nobody has objected, so I made the requested edit to this page. If that is allowed to stand, I'll have a go at clearing up the damage on the related pages. Hallucegenia (talk) 10:56, 29 April 2022 (UTC)

SI Units

Perhaps SI units could be used. Eg for specific energy — Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.73.134.121 (talk) 08:34, 14 May 2022 (UTC)

"LiOn" listed at Redirects for discussion

An editor has identified a potential problem with the redirect LiOn and has thus listed it for discussion. This discussion will occur at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2022 August 31#LiOn until a consensus is reached, and readers of this page are welcome to contribute to the discussion. Shhhnotsoloud (talk) 09:45, 31 August 2022 (UTC)

"LiON" listed at Redirects for discussion

An editor has identified a potential problem with the redirect LiON and has thus listed it for discussion. This discussion will occur at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2022 August 31#LiON until a consensus is reached, and readers of this page are welcome to contribute to the discussion. Shhhnotsoloud (talk) 09:46, 31 August 2022 (UTC)

asking for help with formatting figure placing and other minor adjustiments

I added a lot of new infor and a figure to https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lithium-ion_battery#Lifespan, but I do not have enough experience to place the figure properly within the section. Walter Tau (talk) 13:48, 13 October 2022 (UTC)

Anode and Cathode

Umm... guys, anodes are positive and cathodes are negative! Both the term anode and cathode, and the terms positive and negative, are all scrambled up in this article. Can somebody please fix this? 68.4.194.66 (talk) 18:17, 23 February 2023 (UTC)

What exactly do you mean by this? ― Blaze Wolf^Talk_{Blaze Wolf#6545} 18:32, 23 February 2023 (UTC)

Here is the correct definition: anode = electrode, where the oxidation occurs. cathode = electrode, where the reduction occures:

https://study.com/learn/lesson/cathode-anode-half-cell-reactions.html . Of course, in a rechargeable battery anode and cathode flip, when going from discharge to charge. However, the battery community adopted since the 1800's the convention, that only discharge matters. Thus in ALL batteries anode is negative and cathode is positive.

Not everyone likes this defitions, therefore International Society of Electrochemistry now recommends negode for negative electrode and posode for positive electrode. It makes sense to use this defition in wikipedia, but we also need to explain, that many old publication use the old cathode/anode dichotomy. Walter Tau (talk) 21:14, 27 October 2023 (UTC)

Semiconductor

This needs to be added: https://cleantechnica.com/2023/10/03/a-new-twist-on-rechargeable-battery-performance/ Lfstevens (talk) 01:41, 9 October 2023 (UTC)

693Wh/L claims: wrong by a factor of 4x

the source by which the page takes that value is false: source:https://cdn.shopify.com/s/files/1/0674/3651/files/panasonic-ncr18650-ga-spec-sheet.pdf at the cited cell dimensions (R=18.3mm H=65.1mm) and rated capacity (3.3Ah at 3.6V), we get a 11.88Wh cell for 68ml of volume, making this volumetric energy density 173Wh/L, just under a quarter of the given value. This is without taking in the packing efficiency of about 91%, making it closer to 160Wh/L 2001:861:4640:1C80:868:D88:D10D:E7CD (talk) 09:27, 29 December 2023 (UTC)

Li-ion batt improvement over time

The article speaks of the improvement in Li-ion batteries during the 1990s, in life, energy density, power density, etc.

But it seems to skip the subject entirely for 2000 and beyond.

What are the best sources for tracking comparative Li-ion performance over the years? The article would be improved if we would explicate the changes from 2000 thru 2023. Better yet would be to find those forecasting per year changes based on R&D plus recent industry trends on operationalizing new technology into new lines. N2e (talk) 11:53, 29 December 2023 (UTC)

Yes, the "final piece of the puzzle leading to the modern lithium-ion battery" quote seems to imply nothing has happened since 1990. Similar "final piece of the puzzle in the invention of commercial Li-ion battery" language appears in the Jeff Dahn article. I can't find any other references to this 'puzzle'. Navathehut (talk) 15:56, 16 June 2024 (UTC)