The State of Solid-State Batteries

The State of Solid-State Batteries

Loading
Loading Social Plug-ins...
Language: English
Save to myLibrary Download PDF
Go to Page # Page of 60

Description: Why Li-Ion Batteries?:- Advantages: High specific energy (Li is very light), High open circuit voltage (more power at low current), Less memory effect (observed in Ni-Cd batteries), Slow self-discharge (longer shelf life). Disadvantages: Flammable liquids, Limited Cell/cycle Life (SEI degradation), Battery life decreases with increasing temperature. Liquid vs Solid-state Li-Ion Battery: Liquid solvent and polymer separator (not shown) Replaced by a solid electrolyte.

 
Author: Kevin S. Jones PhD  | Visits: 309 | Page Views: 756
Domain:  Green Tech Category: Battery & Fuel Cell 
Upload Date:
Link Back:
Short URL: https://www.wesrch.com/energy/pdfTR1YL6000SUPK
Loading
Loading...



px *        px *

* Default width and height in pixels. Change it to your required dimensions.

 
Contents:
State of Solid-State Batteries
Prof. Kevin S. Jones
Department of Materials Science
and Engineering
University of Florida

Software and Analysis of Advanced Materials Processing Center

(kjones@eng.ufl.edu)

Acknowledgments
•  Dave Danielson Program Director at
ARPA-E
•  Scott Faris, Richard Fox, Roland Pitts and
Isaiah Oladeji at Planar Energy

Software and Analysis of Advanced Materials Processing Center

(kjones@eng.ufl.edu)

Outline
•  Introduction
•  Liquid vs. Solid-State Batteries
•  Solid-state Li Ion Batteries
–  Companies
•  Battery Needs for Electric Vehicles
–  BEEST Program
•  Planar Energy
•  Conclusions

Software and Analysis of Advanced Materials Processing Center

(kjones@eng.ufl.edu)

Typical Li Ion Battery
During use
(discharge)
ions move
from anode to
cathode

Figure courtesy C. Daniel JOM Vol. 60, No.9 pp. 43-48, 2008

Software and Analysis of Advanced Materials Processing Center

(kjones@eng.ufl.edu)

Battery Basics
•  Basic terminology
•  Type I vs. Type II Battery:

Type II (secondary) is rechargeable

•  Li Metal vs. Li Ion Battery: Based on anode used; Li vs. a compound
•  Capacity: Measure of Li that moves between the anode and cathode (Ah)
•  Cycle Life: Number of recharge cycles before x% of the capacity is lost
•  Energy Density: Energy the battery can deliver per volume (Wh/l)
•  Specific Energy: Energy the battery can deliver per mass (Wh/kg)
•  Specific Power: A measure of the Watts the battery can deliver (W/kg)

Software and Analysis of Advanced Materials Processing Center

(kjones@eng.ufl.edu)

Existing Battery Types
•  Ragone Plot
•  Higher power and
energy are driving
the Li Ion battery
growth

Specific energy is the total energy a battery can deliver in watt-hours per kilogram (Wh/kg)
Specific power is the battery’s ability to deliver power in watts per kilogram (W/kg).

Software and Analysis of Advanced Materials Processing Center

(kjones@eng.ufl.edu)

Type II Battery Market
25000

20000

Li Polymer

$M

15000

Li Ion

10000

5000

NiMH
NiCd

today

2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020

Li Ion
dominating
the $10B
rechargeable
battery market
Li Ion sales
forecast to
more than
double in the
next 10 years

Source:http://seekingalpha.com/instablog/495621-jrbrown/44054

Software and Analysis of Advanced Materials Processing Center

(kjones@eng.ufl.edu)

Why Li Ion Batteries?
•  Advantages
•  High specific energy (Li is very light)
•  High open circuit voltage (more power at low current)
•  Less memory effect (observed in Ni Cd batteries)
•  Slow self discharge (longer shelf life)
•  Disadvantages
•  Flammable liquids
•  Limited Cell/cycle Life (SEI degradation)
•  Battery life decreases with increasing temperature

Software and Analysis of Advanced Materials Processing Center

(kjones@eng.ufl.edu)

Outline
•  Introduction
•  Liquid vs. Solid-State Batteries
•  Solid-state Li Ion Batteries
–  Companies
•  Battery Needs for Electric Vehicles
–  BEEST Program
•  Planar Energy
•  Conclusions

Software and Analysis of Advanced Materials Processing Center

(kjones@eng.ufl.edu)

Types of Li Ion Batteries
•  Liquid Electrolyte
–  LiPF6 in organic carbonates
–  Li Ion conductivity 10-2-10-3S/cm

•  Gel/polymer electrolyte
–  Not covered in this talk

•  Solid-state Ceramic Electrolyte
–  Focus of this talk

Software and Analysis of Advanced Materials Processing Center

(kjones@eng.ufl.edu)

Type II Battery Market
25000

20000

Li Polymer

$M

15000

Li Ion

10000

5000

NiMH
NiCd

Estimated
current
solid-state
battery
sales 1000 at 100% discharge
Flexible

Source:
www.frontedgetechnology.com

NanoEnergy® powering a blue LED

Software and Analysis of Advanced Materials Processing Center

(kjones@eng.ufl.edu)

Infinite Power Solutions
•  Location:
•  Status:
•  Product:

Colorado Based
VC funded, Shipping product
World leader in Microbatteries (Micro energy cell)
wireless sensor, active RFID, powered smart
card, medical device, consumer electronic
•  Electrolyte: LiPON
•  Capacity: 0.0001Ah to 0.0025 Ah
•  Additional features: Cycle life >10,000

Source: www.infinitepowersolutions.com/
Software and Analysis of Advanced Materials Processing Center

(kjones@eng.ufl.edu)

SAKTI3
•  Location: Michigan Based
•  Status:
VC funded, R&D
•  Product:
solid-state batteries
•  Electrolyte: LiPON?
•  Capacity: aimed at automotive market
•  Additional features:
Novel mechanical engineering of vacuum deposition process
Not many technical details

Source: www.sakti3.com/
Software and Analysis of Advanced Materials Processing Center

(kjones@eng.ufl.edu)

SEEO Batteries
•  Location: California Based
•  Status:
VC funded, R&D
•  Product:
solid-state batteries
•  Electrolyte: Solid Polymer
•  Capacity: Goal: grid scale energy storage
•  Additional features:
Electrolyte developed at LBL
Received DOE ARRA funding from Grid program

Source: www.seeo.com

Software and Analysis of Advanced Materials Processing Center

(kjones@eng.ufl.edu)

Toyota/AIST solid-state Battery
•  Location: Japan
•  Status:
Collaboration, R&D
•  Product:
solid-state Battery
•  Electrolyte: Li Oxide material (LIPON?)
•  Capacity: 0.0001Ah?
•  Additional features:
Using Aerosol deposition (low temperature)
Electrolyte conductivity at 3-5 x 10-6 S/cm

Source: http://www.aist.go.jp/aist_e/latest
_research/2010/20101224/20101224.html

Software and Analysis of Advanced Materials Processing Center

(kjones@eng.ufl.edu)

Solid-state Battery Companies
Company

Electrolyte

Cathode

Anode

Size

Status

Cymbet

LiPON

unknown

unknown

microbatteries

VC:
Commercial

Excellatron

LiPON

LiCoO2,
LiMn2O4

Li metal or
Sn3N4

microbatteries

Private:
Pilot

Front Edge

LiPON

LiCoO2

Li Metal

microbatteries

VC:
Commercial

Infinite
Power

LiPON

LiCoO2

Li metal

microbatteries

VC:
Commercial

Sakti3

LiPON?

unknown

unknown

Automotive?

VC:
R&D or Pilot

SEEO

Solid
Polymer

unknown

unknown

Grid Scale?

VC:
R&D

Toyota/AIST

Oxide
(LiPON?)

LiCoO2
LiMn2O4

Graphite
Li4Ti5O12

microbatteries

Toyota:
R&D

Source: Company websites
Software and Analysis of Advanced Materials Processing Center

(kjones@eng.ufl.edu)

Solid-state Battery Companies
Company

Electrolyte

Cathode

Anode

Size

Status

Cymbet

LiPON

unknown

unknown

microbatteries

VC:
Commercial

Excellatron

LiPON

LiCoO2,
LiMn2O4

Li metal or
Sn3N4

microbatteries

Private:
Pilot

Front Edge

LiPON

LiCoO2

Li Metal

microbatteries

VC:
Commercial

Infinite
Power

LiPON

LiCoO2

Li metal

microbatteries

VC:
Commercial

Sakti3

LiPON?

unknown

unknown

Automotive?

VC:
R&D or Pilot

SEEO

Solid
Polymer

unknown

unknown

Grid Scale?

VC:
R&D

Toyota/AIST

Oxide
(LiPON?)

LiCoO2
LiMn2O4

Graphite
Li4Ti5O12

microbatteries

Toyota:
R&D

Planar
Energy

ThioLiSICON

CuS

SnO2

1-20Ah cells
automotive

VC:
Pilot

Source: Company websites
Software and Analysis of Advanced Materials Processing Center

(kjones@eng.ufl.edu)

Why the interest on larger Solid-state Batteries?

BEV: Battery
Electric Vehicles

Significant growth opportunity and need in automotive applications

Software and Analysis of Advanced Materials Processing Center

(kjones@eng.ufl.edu)

Outline
•  Battery History
•  Liquid vs. Solid-State Batteries
•  Solid-state Li Ion Batteries
–  Companies
•  Battery Needs for Electric Vehicles
–  BEEST Program
•  Planar Energy
•  Conclusions

Software and Analysis of Advanced Materials Processing Center

(kjones@eng.ufl.edu)

BEEST Program
(Batteries for Electrical Energy Storage in Transportation)
•  ARPA-E was created in response to National Academies
report “Rising above the gathering storm
•  2009 $400M in funding from Recovery Act
•  Modeled after DARPA
•  BEEST Program was one of the ARPA-E focus areas
•  10 proposals funded from ~1000 submissions
•  Average funding $3-5M for 3 years
•  The Goal of the BEEST program “Developing batteries for
PHEVs and EVs that can make a 300- to 500-mile-range
electric car a reality”
Courtesy: ARPA –E Website
Software and Analysis of Advanced Materials Processing Center

(kjones@eng.ufl.edu)

Why do we care about the Electric Car?
THE OPPORTUNITY:
•  Reduced Oil Imports
•  Reduced Energy Related Emissions
•  Lower & More Stable Fuel Cost
(< $1.00/gallon of gasoline equivalent @ 10¢/kWh)
THE CHALLENGE:
•  Batteries…
–  Low Energy Density (Short Range)
–  High Cost
–  Safety
Courtesy: Dave Danielson ARPA -E
Software and Analysis of Advanced Materials Processing Center

(kjones@eng.ufl.edu)

Do batteries have the potential to rival the energy density
of gasoline powered vehicles on a system level?

Courtesy: Dave Danielson
ARPA -E

Specific Energy (Wh/kg)
Software and Analysis of Advanced Materials Processing Center

(kjones@eng.ufl.edu)

Do batteries have the potential to rival the energy
density of gasoline powered vehicles on a system level?

Theoretical Max

Courtesy: Dave Danielson
ARPA -E

Specific Energy (Wh/kg)
Software and Analysis of Advanced Materials Processing Center

(kjones@eng.ufl.edu)

Do batteries have the potential to rival the energy density
of gasoline powered vehicles on a system level?
Cell level

Courtesy: Dave Danielson
ARPA -E

Specific Energy (Wh/kg)
Software and Analysis of Advanced Materials Processing Center

(kjones@eng.ufl.edu)

Do batteries have the potential to rival the energy density
of gasoline powered vehicles on a system level?
Cell Pack Level

Courtesy: Dave Danielson
ARPA -E

Specific Energy (Wh/kg)
Software and Analysis of Advanced Materials Processing Center

(kjones@eng.ufl.edu)

Do batteries have the potential to rival the energy density of
gasoline powered vehicles on a system level?
System level including
electric motors

Courtesy: Dave Danielson
ARPA -E

Specific Energy (Wh/kg)
Software and Analysis of Advanced Materials Processing Center

(kjones@eng.ufl.edu)

Do batteries have the potential to rival the energy density of
gasoline powered vehicles on a system level? Yes
Factor engine
and gas weight
and Carnot efficiency

Courtesy: Dave Danielson
ARPA -E

Specific Energy (Wh/kg)
Software and Analysis of Advanced Materials Processing Center

(kjones@eng.ufl.edu)

FACT: Batteries have the potential to rival the energy density
of gasoline powered vehicles on a system level

Courtesy: Dave Danielson
ARPA -E

Specific Energy (Wh/kg)
Software and Analysis of Advanced Materials Processing Center

(kjones@eng.ufl.edu)

Widespread Adoption of EV’s Requires RANGE and COST
Parity with Internal Combustion Engine (ICE) Vehicles

COST: ICE Cost Benchmark ~ 24¢/mile
RANGE: 250+ mile range needed to eliminate
“range anxiety”
In Battery terms the critical factors are:
•  The battery pack price ($/kWh) (cost)
•  The battery pack energy (kWh) (range)
•  The battery pack specific energy (Wh/kg) (weight)
Courtesy: Dave Danielson ARPA -E

Software and Analysis of Advanced Materials Processing Center

(kjones@eng.ufl.edu)

Widespread Adoption of EV’s Requires RANGE and COST
Parity with Internal Combustion Engine Vehicles

COST: ICE Cost Benchmark ~ 24¢/mile
RANGE: 250+ mile range needed to eliminate
“range anxiety”
Ba#ery Pack Cost 
($/kWh) 

Discounted Vehicle Cost per Mile 

       (0.22) 
       (0.27) 
           (0.32) 
      (0.37) 
       (0.42) 
       (0.47) 
       (0.52) 
600 
       (0.21) 
       (0.25) 
           (0.29) 
      (0.34) 
       (0.38) 
       (0.42) 
       (0.46) 
500 
       (0.20) 
       (0.24) 
           (0.27) 
      (0.30) 
       (0.34) 
       (0.37) 
       (0.40) 
400 
       (0.19) 
       (0.22) 
           (0.24) 
      (0.27) 
       (0.29) 
       (0.32) 
       (0.34) 
300 
       (0.19) 
       (0.21) 
           (0.23) 
      (0.25) 
       (0.27) 
       (0.29) 
       (0.32) 
250 
       (0.19) 
       (0.20) 
           (0.22) 
      (0.24) 
       (0.25) 
       (0.27) 
       (0.29) 
200 
       (0.18) 
       (0.19) 
           (0.21) 
      (0.22) 
       (0.23) 
       (0.24) 
       (0.26) 
150 
Vehicle Range (mi)            50          100              150         200         250         300        350 

Pack Energy (kWh)             13              25                 38             50             63              75              88  

Courtesy: Dave Danielson ARPA -E
Software and Analysis of Advanced Materials Processing Center

(kjones@eng.ufl.edu)

Widespread Adoption of EV’s Requires RANGE and COST
Parity with Internal Combustion Engine Vehicles

COST: ICE Cost Benchmark ~ 24¢/mile
RANGE: 250+ mile range needed to eliminate
“range anxiety”
Ba#ery Pack Cost 
($/kWh) 

Discounted Vehicle Cost per Mile 

Now

       (0.22) 
       (0.27) 
           (0.32) 
      (0.37) 
       (0.42) 
       (0.47) 
       (0.52) 
600 
       (0.21) 
       (0.25) 
           (0.29) 
      (0.34) 
       (0.38) 
       (0.42) 
       (0.46) 
500 
       (0.20) 
       (0.24) 
           (0.27) 
      (0.30) 
       (0.34) 
       (0.37) 
       (0.40) 
400 
       (0.19) 
       (0.22) 
           (0.24) 
      (0.27) 
       (0.29) 
       (0.32) 
       (0.34) 
300 
       (0.19) 
       (0.21) 
           (0.23) 
      (0.25) 
       (0.27) 
       (0.29) 
       (0.32) 
250 
       (0.19) 
       (0.20) 
           (0.22) 
      (0.24) 
       (0.25) 
       (0.27) 
       (0.29) 
200 
       (0.18) 
       (0.19) 
           (0.21) 
      (0.22) 
       (0.23) 
       (0.24) 
       (0.26) 
150 
Vehicle Range (mi)            50          100              150         200         250         300        350 

Pack Energy (kWh)             13              25                 38             50             63              75              88  

Courtesy: Dave Danielson ARPA -E
Software and Analysis of Advanced Materials Processing Center

(kjones@eng.ufl.edu)

Widespread Adoption of EV’s Requires RANGE and COST
Parity with Internal Combustion Engine Vehicles

COST: ICE Cost Benchmark ~ 24¢/mile
RANGE: 250+ mile range needed to eliminate
“range anxiety”
Ba#ery Pack Cost 
($/kWh) 

Discounted Vehicle Cost per Mile 

Now

       (0.22) 
       (0.27) 
           (0.32) 
      (0.37) 
       (0.42) 
       (0.47) 
       (0.52) 
600 
       (0.21) 
       (0.25) 
           (0.29) 
      (0.34) 
       (0.38) 
       (0.42) 
       (0.46) 
500 
       (0.20) 
       (0.24) 
           (0.27) 
      (0.30) 
       (0.34) 
       (0.37) 
       (0.40) 
400 
       (0.19) 
       (0.22) 
           (0.24) 
      (0.27) 
       (0.29) 
       (0.32) 
       (0.34) 
Large EV Penetration
300 
       (0.19) 
       (0.21) 
           (0.23) 
      (0.25) 
       (0.27) 
       (0.29) 
       (0.32) 
250 
       (0.19) 
       (0.20) 
           (0.22) 
      (0.24) 
       (0.25) 
       (0.27) 
       (0.29) 
200 
       (0.18) 
       (0.19) 
           (0.21) 
      (0.22) 
       (0.23) 
       (0.24) 
       (0.26) 
150 
Vehicle Range (mi)            50          100              150         200         250         300        350 

Pack Energy (kWh)             13              25                 38             50             63              75              88  

Courtesy: Dave Danielson ARPA -E
Software and Analysis of Advanced Materials Processing Center

(kjones@eng.ufl.edu)

Widespread Adoption of EV’s Requires RANGE and COST
Parity with Internal Combustion Engine Vehicles

COST: ICE Cost Benchmark ~ 24¢/mile
RANGE: 250+ mile range needed to eliminate
“range anxiety”
Ba#ery Pack Cost 
($/kWh) 

Now

Discounted Vehicle Cost per Mile 

       (0.22) 
       (0.27) 
           (0.32) 
      (0.37) 
       (0.42) 
       (0.47) 
       (0.52) 
600 
       (0.21) 
       (0.25) 
           (0.29) 
      (0.34) 
       (0.38) 
       (0.42) 
       (0.46) 
500 
       (0.20) 
       (0.24) 
           (0.27) 
      (0.30) 
       (0.34) 
400 
Large EV       (0.37)         (0.40) 
Penetration
       (0.19) 
       (0.22) 
           (0.24) 
      (0.27) 
       (0.29) 
       (0.32) 
       (0.34) 
300 
       (0.19) 
       (0.21) 
           (0.23) 
      (0.25) 
       (0.32) 
       (0.27)         (0.29) 
250 
       (0.19) 
       (0.20) 
           (0.22) 
      (0.24) 
       (0.25)         (0.27)         (0.29) 
200 
       (0.18) 
       (0.19) 
           (0.21) 
      (0.22) 
       (0.23)         (0.24)         (0.26) 
150 
Vehicle Range (mi)            50          100              150         200         250         300        350 

Pack Energy (kWh)             13              25                 38             50             63              75              88  

Courtesy: Dave Danielson ARPA -E
Software and Analysis of Advanced Materials Processing Center

(kjones@eng.ufl.edu)

Widespread Adoption of EV’s Requires RANGE and COST
Parity with Internal Combustion Engine Vehicles

COST: ICE Cost Benchmark ~ 24¢/mile
RANGE: 250+ mile range needed to eliminate
“range anxiety”
Ba#ery Pack Cost 
($/kWh) 

Discounted Vehicle Cost per Mile 

Now
       (0.27) 

           (0.32) 
      (0.37) 
       (0.42) 
       (0.47) 
       (0.52) 
600 
       (0.21) 
       (0.25) 
           (0.29) 
      (0.34) 
       (0.38) 
       (0.42) 
       (0.46) 
500 
       (0.20) 
       (0.24) 
           (0.27) 
      (0.30) 
       (0.34) 
       (0.37) 
       (0.40) 
400 
Large       (0.32) Penetration
EV        (0.34) 
       (0.19) 
       (0.22) 
           (0.24) 
      (0.27) 
       (0.29) 
300 
       (0.19) 
       (0.21) 
           (0.23) 
      (0.25) 
       (0.32) 
       (0.27)         (0.29) 
250 
       (0.19) 
       (0.20) 
           (0.22) 
      (0.24) 
       (0.25)         (0.27)         (0.29) 
200 
       (0.18) 
       (0.19) 
           (0.21) 
      (0.22) 
       (0.23)         (0.24)         (0.26) 
150 
Vehicle Range (mi)            50          100              150         200         250         300        350 
       (0.22) 

Pack Energy (kWh)             13              25                 38             50             63              75              88  
Pack Specific Energy (Wh/kg)             42              83               125           167           208           250           292  
Courtesy: Dave Danielson ARPA -E
Software and Analysis of Advanced Materials Processing Center

(kjones@eng.ufl.edu)

BEEST Program Targets
COST
BEEST

RANGE

200

4x
Current

$1,000
System Cost
(/kWh)

2x

100

•  Cost needs
to drop by 4X
•  Specific
Energy needs
to double

System Energy
(Wh/kg)

Courtesy: Dave Danielson ARPA -E
Software and Analysis of Advanced Materials Processing Center

(kjones@eng.ufl.edu)

Outline
•  Battery History
•  Liquid vs. Solid-State Batteries
•  solid-state Li Ion Batteries
–  Companies
•  Battery Needs for Electric Vehicles
–  BEEST Program
•  Planar Energy
•  Conclusions

Software and Analysis of Advanced Materials Processing Center

(kjones@eng.ufl.edu)

Solid-state Batteries and Cars
•  Clearly there is a need for high energy, high power, low mass,
high cycle number batteries for automotive applications.
•  Solid-state batteries offer the potential for
–  High Energy (higher voltage cathodes possible)
–  High Power (large discharge rates possible)
–  Low Mass (less inert material)
–  High cycle number (10X cycle life of typical Liquid)
•  So why are they not being considered?

–  COST
Software and Analysis of Advanced Materials Processing Center

(kjones@eng.ufl.edu)

SOLID-STATE IS PROVEN - BUT DOES NOT SCALE

$25 for a 0.001Ah battery that
meets specific needs is
acceptable
$25

0.001Ah


Courtesy: Scott Faris Planar Energy
Software and Analysis of Advanced Materials Processing Center

(kjones@eng.ufl.edu)

SOLID-STATE IS PROVEN - BUT DOES NOT SCALE

Using current thin film
technology the cost of
a single 1.1Ah battery
would be ~$15,000
One very expensive
cell phone
$25

0.001Ah


1.1 Ah


Courtesy: Scott Faris Planar Energy
Software and Analysis of Advanced Materials Processing Center

(kjones@eng.ufl.edu)

SOLID-STATE IS PROVEN - BUT DOES NOT SCALE
Using current
thin film
technology the
cost of a single
20Ah battery
would be
$100,000

$25

0.001Ah


1.1 Ah


20 Ah


A high range EV
will require
800-1000 20Ah
cells

Courtesy: Scott Faris Planar Energy
Software and Analysis of Advanced Materials Processing Center

(kjones@eng.ufl.edu)

The Cost Challenge
UNDERLYING PROBLEM – MANUFACTURING & MATERIALS
Traditional solid-state Battery Methodology

Electronic Grade
Material

Complex
Equipment

Simple
Integrated
Device

THIN FILM SOLID-STATE APPROACH

Courtesy: Scott Faris Planar Energy
Software and Analysis of Advanced Materials Processing Center

(kjones@eng.ufl.edu)

Cost Reduction
•  Avoid semiconductor grade chemicals
–  Develop process around inexpensive
chemicals
•  Avoid Vacuum technologies
–  Slows Manufacturing
–  High Capital expense
•  Develop high throughput process
–  e.g. roll to roll
Software and Analysis of Advanced Materials Processing Center

(kjones@eng.ufl.edu)

Planar Energy
•  Location: Florida Based
•  Status:
VC funded, early Prototype development
•  Product:
solid-state battery
•  Electrolyte: LiAlGaSPO4
•  Capacity: 0.1Ah to 20 Ah cells
•  Additional features:
•  Recipient of one of the 10 ARPA E BEEST grants
•  Unique deposition process (SPEED)
•  High conductivity solid-state electrolyte
•  Aggressively pursuing thick cathodes for high capacity
batteries
Source: Scott Faris, Planar Energy
Software and Analysis of Advanced Materials Processing Center

(kjones@eng.ufl.edu)

Planar Energy Deposition Approach

Software and Analysis of Advanced Materials Processing Center

(kjones@eng.ufl.edu)

In Line
Scalable Batch Pilot
Growth Medium:
deionized water
Water soluble reagents
and complexing agents
prevent homogeneous
nucleation in solution
Heated substrate
promotes growth only
on hydrophilic surface
Result: dense
nanoscale grains
VP SPEED Gen 3
Courtesy Planar Energy
Software and Analysis of Advanced Materials Processing Center

(kjones@eng.ufl.edu)

SSE

•  SPEED produces self assembled
coating
•  New Composition
•  Li Ion Conductivity 1 x 10-4S/cm
vs. 10-6-10-7S/cm for LiPON

TiN
Si

7 orders of
magnitude
difference in
ionic and
electronic
conductivity

Rapid switching response
of electrolyte

High Ionic Conductivity

Courtesy Planar Energy
Software and Analysis of Advanced Materials Processing Center

(kjones@eng.ufl.edu)

Key Challenges
•  Interfaces are always a challenge for solid-state systems
–  Accommodation of current flow across solid-solid interfaces

•  Thick cathodes essential for high energy cells
–  Must reduce impedance of thick cathode materials

•  New Deposition method and chemistries
–  Further optimization of the SPEED process
–  Further optimization of the new thio-LiSICON

Software and Analysis of Advanced Materials Processing Center

(kjones@eng.ufl.edu)

Markets
Products
Mfg Scale
Goal is shipping 1-20Ah cells by 2014
Courtesy Planar Energy
Software and Analysis of Advanced Materials Processing Center

(kjones@eng.ufl.edu)

SOLID-STATE IS PROVEN - BUT DOES NOT SCALE

“SPEED” greatly
reduces the cost
of manufacturing
solid-state cells.
$25

0.001Ah


Forecast price using
SPEED
$5-10
1.1 Ah


Forecast price using
SPEED
$25-50
20 Ah


Courtesy Planar Energy
Software and Analysis of Advanced Materials Processing Center

(kjones@eng.ufl.edu)

BEEST Program Targets
Planar solid-state Batteries
$250/kWh
400Wh/kg
COST
BEEST

RANGE

200

4x
Current

$1,000
System Cost
(/kWh)

2x

100

With new
Electrolyte and
SPEED
process Planar
believes it can
meet the
BEEST Targets
with a solidstate battery

System Energy
(Wh/kg)

Courtesy: Scott Faris Planar Energy
Software and Analysis of Advanced Materials Processing Center

(kjones@eng.ufl.edu)

Conclusions
•  Liquid based Li Ion Batteries dominate the current market
•  Solid-state batteries offer intriguing opportunities for
greatly increased cycle life, safety, and energy density
•  To date solid-state batteries have found application
primarily in small milliamp hour batteries
•  With recent advances in electrolytes and processing
technology, solid-state batteries are poised to
contribute to the energy storage challenges on a
much larger scale including transportation.
Software and Analysis of Advanced Materials Processing Center

(kjones@eng.ufl.edu)