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

Scientists use nanotubes to kill breast cancer cells

We've all been touched, in one way or another, by cancer -- with relatives, people we've known or even our own struggles with the disease. 

One of the worst forms is breast cancer.  According to breastcancer.org, "about 1 in 8 U.S. women (just under 12%) will develop invasive breast cancer over the course of her lifetime." 

Yesterday, however, we received a little bit of good news: Science Daily published an article showing that inserting a special kind of nanotube into a breast cancer cell and applying heat can kill the cell.  The article can be found here: http://dld.bz/aQa55

Nanotubes are extremely small -- on the order of 1/1000th the width of a human hair; on the scale of molecules.  They are usually made using nanopore templates, similar to the kind we can make using our patent pending technology.  If you picture blades of grass, you get an idea of what these things generally look like -- tiny poles standing on end.

They can be made out of a variety of materials.  So, if a way can be found to attract them to cancer cells, attach them to the cells, then apply heat or a current or whatever is necessary to kill the cell, we'd have an effective cancer fighting tool.

The research here was funded by the National Institutes of Health and the Department of Defense Breast Cancer Research Program (yes, that's right -- the DoD has a breast cancer research program).   Programs like these point out the need for certain kinds of government funding (as opposed to bridges that go nowhere and loan guarantees for companies that go bankrupt).

This research is terrific news, of course, but there is a long way to go in this fight.  We strongly encourage donations and support to worthy cancer charities.  There are many of them out there, but we (i.e., Enable IPC personnel, individually) have supported, and continue to strongly support, the Susan G. Komen Foundation (the recent news and ridiculous politics of late notwithstanding).

Nanoparticles Improve Lithium Ion Batteries

We wanted to expand on our press release this morning regarding the completion of our Phase I STTR project, because this is a very exciting development.

The materials used for lithium ion batteries are expensive.  Other, cheaper materials are available, but they are not typically used because they suffer from "capacity fade" -- that is, when you repeatedly cycle (i.e., drain and re-charge) them, they don't last very long, especially in warmer environments.

Comparing battery cells with our nanoparticles (coated)
and cells without (uncoated).  After just 30 cycles in
high temperatures, the uncoated cell capacities have
dropped significantly, while the coated cells still perform
close to where they started.

We worked with the University of Wisconsin to prove that adding certain nanoparticles in a certain way to these less expensive materials deters capacity fade.

This means the less expensive materials can be used -- and this can help tremendously with the cost issues that are preventing the use of lithium ion batteries in some major applications.

We've received a lot of interest in the technology -- from a Fortune 500 company to a small but well-funded start-up.  All of these companies are working in the battery or battery materials area and each of them plan to watch carefully as we bring the technology to full commercialization.  They could very well end up being the technology's first licensees.

We will soon be submitting a Phase II proposal to fund the commercialization effort.  We should have an answer on that proposal toward the end of the year. 

The White House: Supporting the Responsible Realization of Nanotechnology's Full Potential

The White House is interested in the supporting the "realization of nanotechnology's full potential".  The Office of Science and Technology announced the release of a report that concludes that, not only has the National Nanotechnology Initiative's $12 billion investment in nanotech over the past 10 years been extraordinarily successful, but that it should be continued to ensure "continued U.S. dominance" in the area.

The following are some of the areas affected by nanotechnology that are discussed or mentioned in the report:

- water purification

- nano-medicines

- adaptive camouflage

- self-healing armor

- self-decontaminating clothing

- sensors for a myriad of applications

- nanostructured materials for transportation that are stronger and lighter, and therefore energy-saving

- catalyst breakthroughs, leading to huge improvements in clean, sustainable and plentiful energy

and many other examples.

Among other things, the report also states that, in the next 10 years, it expects "nanotechnology-enabled diagnosis, imaging, and therapy [that] will provide superior new methodologies for the management of cancer"; initiatives to address "Nanotechnology Applications for Solar Energy, Sustainable Nanomanufacturing, and Nanoelectronics for 2020 and Beyond"; and "a stronger focus on fundamental issues related to environmental health and safety."

The announcement can be found on the White House's Office of Science and Technology website here: http://dld.bz/acMvp

The report (96 pages long and 5+MB) can be downloaded here: http://1.usa.gov/k5UmpL

New research from NIST: Catching and releasing nanoparticles helps determine if they are safe

Nanoparticle safety has become a major worry in recent years.  In 2007, there was evidence discovered that some nanoparticles could damage DNA and lead to cancer.  This led to a call for studies on the safety of different types of nanoparticles. 

Yesterday, an article we found online at Science Daily's website (here's a link: http://dld.bz/acJmM) discussed some work along these lines by researchers at NIST.  They figured out a way to capture nanoparticles, where they could be exposed to cells to see whether they are pose a hazard, then released. 

"Engines of Creation" - published 25 years ago this month

25 years ago this month, "Engines of Creation" was published.  This classic book by K Eric Drexler introduced nanotechnology into the public discussion.

US government investment in nanotechnology research in 2012: $2.1B

The US government investment in research in nanotechnology, among all the different agencies (e.g., the Department of Energy, the National Science Foundation, Health & Human Services, NIST, etc.) will total $2.1 billion in 2012, according to the National Nanotechnology Initiative (NNI).

That's close to a 15% increase over spending in 2011.  It demonstrates the commitment of the US government to remain in the forefront of nanotechnology research.  Read more here: http://www.nano.gov/

Drinking clean water from sewage: a nanomesh straw

There's a company called Seldon Technologies that is using nanotechnology in ways that certainly help the human condition.  Imagine being able to extract clean water from sewage, or a scummy pond or other bacteria-laden source.  

Think about the implications of that for places like Rwanda and Haiti, where clean water is scarce.

Forbes recently ran an article (here's a link: http://bit.ly/hNMeB4) on Seldon detailing one of its products: a nanomesh filter that could solve a multitude of humanitarian issues, as well as some market potential for things like air, fuel and other filtration.

Another example of nanotechnology making our lives better.

Nano cladding on nuclear rods -- would it have helped in Japan?

Last July, the US Department of Energy made a $900,000 award to a researcher to investigate nano cladding on nuclear rods.

IEEE Spectrum recently issued an article, suggesting that, if the nano cladding had been in place in Japan, perhaps it "might have helped avoid leakage when the rods were temporarily exposed."  You can read the article here: http://bit.ly/h83WWF

Nanotechnology is going to continue to change our lives in ways we can't imagine right now, and it this could be yet another example.