Update on nanoparticle materials

Enable IPC's subsidiary, SolRayo, Inc., is wrapping up its National Science Foundation Phase II grant research on commercializing the application of its nanoparticle solution to lithium-ion battery cathodes. 

The company has had some remarkable results. Applying the nanoparticle solution to lithium-ion battery cathodes decreases the degradation of the cathode materials allowing less expensive cathode materials to be used - previously these materials would degenerate too quickly for efficient use. These materials have particular benefits when used in high temperature or high power applications where the increased stress and degradation would normally be more apparent.

The company is completing tests on full cells with materials currently used in commercial batteries.  Although the program is officially ending, work still continues as SolRayo, together with three other entities, aim to make pouch cells which can be cycled at lower rates. The Company’s goal is to optimize the technology for licensing to larger battery manufacturers (i.e., maximizing the nanoparticles' effect on the companies existing cathode chemistries) as well as provide more standard nanoparticle-enhanced lithium manganese oxide materials to a cathode supplier for resale to other commercial battery manufacturers.

On another note, earlier this year SolRayo submitted a patent application regarding certain aspects of the preparation and deposition of the nanoparticle technology.  

Note:

This material is based upon work supported by the National Science Foundation under Grant Number IIP-1156229. Any opinions, findings, and conclusions or recommendations expressed in this material are those of the author(s) and do not necessarily reflect the views of the National Science Foundation.

A short update for 2014 . . .

S/Cap RFID Tag Developments

While sales for S/Cap RFID tag products were disappointing for calendar year 2013, Enable IPC announced it is in discussions with overseas partners to produce combined GPS and RFID tags. A growing trend for the RFID industry, combining complementary tracking technologies such as RFID and GPS can provide a company unprecedented levels of supply chain efficiency. A combined GPS and RFID system can add the global tracking benefits of GPS to the locally accurate and detailed tracking provided by RFID. For more information on the benefits of combining RFID and GPS please visit check out our two-part series on combining the two technologies.

Great Results from Nanotech Coated Li-Ion Batteries

Enable IPC subsidiary, SolRayo, Inc., continues its National Science Foundation Phase II grant research on commercializing the application of its nanoparticle solution to lithium-ion battery cathodes. The company has found remarkable results. Applying the nanoparticle solution to lithium-ion battery cathodes decreases the degradation of the cathode materials allowing more powerful cathode materials to be used - previously these materials would degenerate too quickly for efficient use. These materials have particular benefits when used in high temperature or high power applications where the increased stress and degradation would normally be more apparent.

A C-rate (also called a charge rate) is the rate at which a battery discharges/charges. A C-rate of 1C means, theoretically, that the battery charges in 1 hour while 2C means 30 minutes. The company has also found that using its nanoparticle solution to provide superior materials for lithium-ion cathodes also yields longer life at higher C rates.

The company tested commercial cathode materials (i.e., cathode materials -- supplied by a company specializing in battery material supply -- which are currently used in commercial batteries) at 1C and 2C rates at elevated temperatures.  While the material failed quickly at a 2C rate without our nanoparticle coating, it remained fairly steady with our coating.  The figure below shows (in half cell configurations) an average of cells with and without the coating at 50 degrees C at a 2C rate.   These are harsh conditions where many batteries will fail.  Yet, our nanoparticle coating allows the use of a safer cathode in harsh conditions.  Higher C rates and varying temperature continue to be evaluated and characterized, as are configurations with high powered anodes currently used commercially.

2014 . . .

We expect 2014 to be the year we begin selling our nanotech product on a commercial level -- under a license agreement or as a service to cathode suppliers, or both.  We believe this will open the door to some major applications in the energy storage industry.

Commercializing Our Nanoparticle Solution for Li-Ion Batteries

The most popular rechargeable batteries in the world today are lithium ion.  In 2007, the independent market research company Frost & Sullivan predicted revenues from these batteries would amount to $10.4 billion worldwide by 2012.  A new report released in 2013 from the same company stated that the actual number was even higher: $11.7 billion.  In addition, this report predicts that sales of lithium ion batteries will double by 2016.[i]

The primary cathode material used in lithium ion batteries is lithium cobalt oxide (LiCoO₂ – to make this easier, we’ll call these “cobalt”), which is popular because of its high energy density (i.e., the amount of energy stored) by both weight and volume.  However, this material has some safety concerns, and is expensive. 

Other cathode materials are available, most notably lithium manganese oxide (LiMn₂O₄ – again, to make it easy, let’s call this “manganese”).  Although cell voltages and energy performance is slightly less than the cobalt cathodes, the manganese version has a similarly low recharge time and favorably compares to cobalt in terms of specific energy and cost.




Comparing LiCoO2 with LiMn2O4 cathodes
without our nanoparticle coating; adding
our coating improves cycle life.

In fact, in terms of material costs, reports have stated that the cobalt based cathode material costs an average of about $30 to $35/kg, while the manganese version was significantly less, at anywhere between $2 to $15/kg, depending on what study one believes.[ii]  And, major thermal stability studies have shown that the manganese cathode is much less prone to thermal runaway issues suffered by the cobalt cathode, which makes cobalt cathodes less safe.[iii]  

So, manganese cathodes are a much safer and less expensive alternative to cobalt.

The main reason manganese cathodes are not more widely used has to do with more pronounced “capacity fade” (especially at higher temperatures) than cobalt.  This is a decrease in the energy content of the battery, especially after repeated charging and discharging (capacity fade is seen by the consumer when a battery can no longer power a laptop on an entire cross country flight or when a cell phone battery drains more quickly than it used to).

Were it not for capacity fade, the manganese cathode might well be the chemistry of choice for lithium ion cells.  Consider what others have stated about manganese (LiMn₂O₄):

·         In a white paper, General Electronics Battery Co., Ltd., stated: “The chemistry of lithium manganese oxide LiMn₂O₄ is not a good option . . . because of its poor cycle life, especially at elevated temperature.”[iv] 

·         S.C. Park, et al, stated: “In order to use LiMn₂O₄ [i.e., what we called “manganese”] as a cathode material of lithium-secondary battery for an electric vehicle (EV), its rate capability should be improved.”[v]

·         And, Schwartz summed up the main reason LiMn₂O₄ is not widely used as a cathode, despite greater safety and lower cost: “LiMn₂O₄ that has been investigated extensively over the years has been plagued by severe capacity fade, particularly at elevated temperatures.”[vi]

Our subsidiary, SolRayo, has found a solution to the capacity fade issue.  Using nanoparticles, deposited onto manganese cathodes in specific ways, we have seen a significant improvement in cycle life.  

Scanning electron microscope (SEM) images of LiMn2O4 material
without and without our nanoparticle coating.  For perspective,
consider that the actual width of the material in each picture
is about 13/1000th the width of an average human hair. 



The above tests were conducted at elevated
temperatures (55C / 131F).  With our nanoparticle coating,
the "manganese"
batteries last longer.

We submitted a proposal to the National Science Foundation (NSF), under their STTR program, to commercialize this process.  The program has two phases (called, appropriately enough, Phase I and Phase II).  We completed a proof of concept under Phase I and, out of over 1000 initial proposals -- all of which were subject to extensive peer reviews by experts in both industry and academia -- SolRayo's was one of only 3% chosen by the NSF to be awarded a Phase II grant.   

Now, the pathway to continued, full commercialization of this concept is not as straight-forward as one might think.  Some chemistries and some nanoparticles don't always behave the same way when stepped-up into larger packages.  So, during meetings with cathode manufacturers, as well as some consultation with experts from a local national lab and our partners at the University of Wisconsin, we concluded that the best path to full commercialization will include stepping up our process to prove its performance and reliability in increasingly larger cells.

We have started by using coin-sized cells: CR2032-sized packages (i.e., about the diameter of a nickel and the thickness of, say, 20 or 30 sheets of paper).  The research involves varying the concentrations of the nanoparticles, cathodes materials, method of coating, firing processes, cathode preparation processes – initially in half cells, then in full cells – and many, many other steps to determine the steps that give us the best and most reliable performance, as well as the most economical process.  The process needs to be repeated until desirable results are consistent over a couple hundred cells.  Only when this is achieved can we say that the "nanoparticle recipe" – for that particular size and chemistry composition – is well-established.
  

One of our coin cells, next to a nickel for size comparison.



Our Phase II work has gained the attention of potential commercial partners and may open up certain markets to us sooner rather than later.  The results to date have culminated in meetings with Global 75 companies, and some anticipate new patent filings.  The Phase II effort is scheduled to be completed in March 2014.  

The next step is to prepare larger cells (not to say that there isn't a market for coin-sized cells utilizing our nanoparticle solution); in our case, 1Ah cells which would be assembled in pouches.  Following this, the process would be stepped-up further to 3Ah cells, and eventually 20Ah cells.  Once this is done, we would consider the process fully commercialized, and we would better understand the specific fields of use in which the process would apply.

This is not as easy as it sounds and requires a level of expertise that isn't easily found.  In our case, it requires certain commercial, academic and/or gov't-funded laboratory partners with experience in this area and a depth of knowledge that is really rather unique.

And, yes, these resources are available to us.

We may find that our nanoparticle process might work out well for smaller consumer applications or for larger industrial uses.  The process may end up as renewable energy storage for residential or utility scale applications, or it might end up being used in the battery bank of an electric or hybrid vehicle.

Or, it may apply to all these, in one way or another. 

---

[i] Frost & Sullivan, World Secondary Lithium-Ion Battery Markets, 2007, p 2-7 and “Despite Recent Issues, Global Lithium-Ion Battery Market To Double”, RenewGrid, 22 Feb 2013, retrieved from http://www.renewgridmag.com/e107_plugins/content/content.php?content.9612#.Uef6vfPn-Uk

[ii] J. Amirault, et. al. The Electric Vehicle Landscape: Opportunities and Challenges,2009, p 12;  Dr. Wolfgang Bernhart, Power Train 2020: The Li-Ion Battery Value Chain – Trends and Implications, Roland Berger Strategy Consultants, Aug 2011 (presentation), slide 11; and Comparison of Different Battery Technologies, Trade Korea, 26 May 2006, retrieved from http://www.tradekorea.com/product/file/download.mvc?prodId=P00233231&fileSysNm=/upload_file2/product/231/P00233231/cbe9caa6_bc17a819_5d6e_4664_b546_3e4384d1c8a6.pdf

[iii] J. Dahn, et. al., Thermal Stability of LixCoO2, LixNiO2 and LiMnO2 and Consequences for the Safety of Li-ion Cells. Solid State Ionics, Vol 69, 1994, p. 265

[iv] Comparison of Different Battery Technologies, General Electronics Battery Co., white paper, 2006, p.4, retrieved from http://www.tradevv.com/chinasuppliers/angelgeb/pdf/LiFePO4-battery-75ee.pdf

[v] S.C. Park, et. al., Improvement of the rate capability of LiMn2O4 by surface coating with LiCoO2, Journal of Power Sources, 103:86, 2001

[vi] Mel Schwartz, Smart Materials, CRC Press, 2009, p. 8-5

Solar Energy - Coming Soon To a Utility Near You

Forbes recently published an article online about Google’s investment in renewable energy.  The article states that the reasons Google is investing in solar, wind and other renewable energy opportunities have little or nothing to do with their wish to do good in the world.   

Rather, Google is investing in renewable energy because they believe that renewable energy will reap rewards, from a financial perspective.

This is a big thing.

For someone like me, who’s been involved in the renewable energy area for well something like 20 years now, this is very welcome news indeed.  For a long time we had heard that was just impossible to get solar to a point where it was financially viable without financial incentives (usually from the government).   However, in the near future, incentives may not be necessary.

The Forbes article (which you can find here:  http://bit.ly/Y2LQOR) provides a lot of interesting data.  For instance, the article states that "Solar panels have dropped in price by 80% over the last five years." And that "49% of the new capacity commissioned in the in U.S. in 2012 was renewable.”

 

I also happen to have some contacts in major utilities.  From these contacts I have learned that there is a tremendous expectation that solar will drop in price to the point where it will be price competitive with fossil fuels by the end of this decade (due to a combination of decreases in solar costs and expected increases in the costs of traditional fuels).

When I first heard that a few months ago, that seemed to be to be a very startling statement.

But, apparently, a combination of Clinton/Bush/Obama money, research and time have conspired (in a good way) to result in a major shift in the economics of the technology. 

 

I decided to check out this data and found some interesting information.  There are a number of ways you can cook the books (so to speak) and a number of ways to consider data reflecting the cost of solar (e.g., installed costs of residential and/or industrial at various energy levels, levelized cost of electricity, etc.).  In checking out these facts, though, I discovered that, overall, the message appears to be right -- solar costs are dropping dramatically and the use of solar in the US is rising.  Check out the charts I prepared, using data from Arizona State University and the US Department of Energy:

 

 

This is great news -- but there are still issues associated with adopting renewables, in particular solar and wind. 

Probably the biggest hurdle is the fact that the sun doesn't always shine and the wind doesn't always blow.  During those times, electricity will need to be obtained in some other way, probably generated by some form of fossil fuels. 

That is, unless an economical method of energy storage can be found so that excess energy created by solar and wind can be stored for use at night and/or during calm weather.

This is where we come in. 

Battery technologies are over hundred years old.  While some technologies (computer data storage for example) have improved hundreds of times just in the past couple of decades, energy storage in batteries has improved only 8 to 10 times in nearly a century.

And, an often quoted benchmark of $250/kWh still seems unattainable considering what’s currently available, even with the tremendous advances in lithium ion and other battery technologies.

We are gaining on it, though. 

The advances we've (i.e., Enable IPC and our subsidiary, SolRayo) seen in our research have been both encouraging and tremendously exciting.  The use of inexpensive nanoparticles, combined with some very innovative ways to access and combine the best features of ultracapacitors and advanced batteries are showing that they could very well be a large part of the answer we've all been looking for. 

We've been at this for over 8 years, and things seem to be coming together in an exciting way.

Stay tuned -- we are very excited about what the next few months will bring.

Could Our Technology Have Helped the 787 Dreamliner Avoid the Battery Issues?

Li-Ion battery from the 787 Dreamliner that had an electrical
fire at Boston's Logan International Airport. Photo released
by the National Transportation Safety Board.

We’ve been asked an interesting question: could our nanoparticle technology have prevented the recent battery problems on the Boeing 787 Dreamliner? 

In case you’ve haven't heard, Boeing 787 Dreamliner passenger jets were grounded in the US by the FAA Wednesday, and now they are grounded globally over some battery problems linked to a fire in Boston and resulting in an emergency landing in Japan. The batteries in question were lithium-ion (Li-Ion) – and it appears as though the company that supplied the battery used a LiCoO2 cathode (this according to an article in MIT Technology Review). 

Now, stay with me here . . . Li-Ion batteries can be made from different cathode materials. LiCoO2 is used more than others because it can store a lot of energy. 

But, there are safety concerns with LiCoO2; it’s relatively unstable and overcharging could result in a fire.  You might have heard about laptop batteries catching fire in the past.

Is this what happened on the 787s? We don’t know yet. You wouldn’t think so because LiCoO2 has been used for a long time and, usually, there are some safety devices built-in to prevent overcharging.

Still, there are alternatives to LiCoO2. One is LiMn2O4; it is safer and less expensive. But, it isn’t widely used because it tends to quickly lose energy after repeated charges and discharges, especially when it’s in hotter environments.

Our nanoparticle coatings are aimed at solving this issue and allowing the use of LiMn2O4 instead of the less safe, and more expensive, LiCoO2.

This is important stuff – the National Science Foundation (NSF) has given us two grants to develop this technology, and we’ve had multiple meetings with battery manufacturers about it. There’s a ton of interest in the industry regarding our solution.

The success we’ve had with these nanoparticle coatings, and the fact that they could open the door to the widespread use of safer, less expensive Li-Ion battery materials, may be a game-changer in this area.

An abstract on our technology can be found here: http://www.enableipc.com/nano_li_ion.htm

Enable IPC Introduces the S/Cap RFID Tag

This morning, we were excited to announce the launch of a new product: the S/Cap RFID Tag. 

RFID stands for Radio Frequency Identification.  Whether they realize it or not, most people encounter RFID everyday; when they use the EZPass tollway, when the use their "SpeedPass" device at Mobil stations, when they have the chip placed in their pets in case they get lost . . . there are many examples of RFID in use right now and many more are sure to follow.

(Check out our blog posting on RFID basics to learn more)

Our tag is geared toward asset tracking.  Companies might use it to keep track of expensive equipment.  Protecting assets means more than just ensuring no one walks away with a piece of equipment. An oft-cited 2007 report published by McAfee and Datamonitor estimates that an average laptop, which might cost $1,000, holds data worth $972,000, and could store as much as $8.8 million in commercially sensitive information and intellectual property.

Also, the internal costs – in time, productivity and cash – of physically trying to track a misplaced asset or locating and purchasing a needed replacement due to loss or theft can be enormous.

What makes our tag truly unique, however, is its power source.  Most tags do not use a power source, and those that do typically will use a small battery that will last maybe a year or two.  We don't use a battery; we combined an ultracapacitor with a small light panel instead.

The result is a read range of up to 75 feet (other tags in this class will read anywhere from 3 to 40 feet or so).  In addition, because ultracapacitors can outlast batteries by as much as 1000x, our tag could last longer than many of the assets it tracks.

So, while most tags we compete with offer 90 day to 1 year limited warranties, we offer a 7 year limited warranty.

We are excited about this new product.  We think it will enhance and expand the use of RFID, especially in outdoor and harsh environments.

The press release on our new product can be found here:  http://dld.bz/aedzC

More information on the tag, including a link to download or view a data sheet, can be found at http://rfid.enableipc.com

The 311th birthday of Ewald van Kleist

311 years ago yesterday, Ewald Georg van Kliest was born.  He invented the Leyden Jar (i.e., the first capacitor). 

 

Of course, capacitors have come a long way since then.  Today's ultracapacitors (also known as "supercapacitors" or "electric double layer" [EDL] capacitors) can have 1,000,000+ times the capacitance of traditional capacitors.

 

Also, ultracapacitors can have 10 to 100 times the power and 1000 times the cycle life of batteries.  They tend to fall short, however, when one compares the energy density of ultracapacitors to batteries.

 

If you have a minute, check out our video titled "What is an ultracapacitor?" on our YouTube channel (it only lasts 60 seconds).  Here's a link: http://www.youtube.com/enableipc 

 

If you want to know more about ultracapacitors and Enable IPC's technology, check out our website's write up: http://www.enableipc.com/ultracapacitors.htm

 

And, we have some papers and presentations available for more in-depth information: http://www.enableipc.com/papers_ultracapacitors.htm