Term paper

ii. Response to the evidence: The strong impact of the market has influenced the production of the lithium ion batteries. Governmental and non-governmental bodied are asking for an increased capacity with lower cost to meet the needs of greenhouse gas reductions.

b. Material availability:

i. Many competitive cathode materials have been developed and still developing (Berckmans, 2017).

ii. Response to the evidence: Materials such as LCO, LMO, LFP, 111 and 532 are highly competitive and each one of these materials has its own advantage and disadvantage depending on its application.

c. Size and weight:

i. Lithium ion batteries are smaller and lighter (Tarascon, 2010).

ii. Response to the evidence: The size and weight of the lithium ion made it demand higher in the market than other batteries. It is considered as an important factor at selling points.

II. Capacity

i. Energy is the life blood of a modern society

i. The energy density of a battery is the what brings out its capacity and its potential, and it is accompanied by the ability of the electrode (Tarascon, 2010).

ii. Response to the evidence: The energy density in a lithium ion battery is higher than other batteries. Such capacity is not overloaded and is good for devices like laptops and smartphones.

ii. Longer lifespan:

i. Lithium ion batteries are durable and efficient (Dahn, 2016)

ii. Response to the evidence: the battery has a longer life because it discharges slowly than other rechargeable batteries. Lithium ion battery can consistently operate hundreds of charge-discharge cycles.

III. Safety

a. Sensitivity to high temperature:

i. Overheating or overcharged Lithium ion batteries can cause fire or explosion (Taylor, 2016).

ii. Response to the evidence: Energy manipulation of lithium ion batteries may lead to a serious safety risk when overheated. There are numerous safety solutions of either to reduce the use of chemical additives to the battery electrolyte interface (SEI) or improved the cell design and electronics.

References

Berckmans, G., Messagie, M., Smekens, J., Omar, N., Vanhaverbeke, L., & Van Mierlo, J. (n.d.).

Cost Projection of State of the Art Lithium-Ion Batteries for Electric Vehicles Up to 2030. ENERGIES, 10(9). Retrieved from: https://0-doi.org.mylibrary.qu.edu.qa/10.3390/en10091314

Gil-Agusti, M., Zubizarreta, L., Fuster, V., & Quijano, A. (n.d.). Batteries of the future:

challenges and projection. DYNA, 92(6), 601–605

Retreived from: http://0-eds.a.ebscohost.com.mylibrary.qu.edu.qa/eds/detail/detail?vid=0&sid=b60c7e5e-1dd7-4e3e-8f22-645a13a45efe%40sdc-sessmgr01&bdata=JnNpdGU9ZWRzLWxpdmUmc2NvcGU9c2l0ZQ%3d%3d#AN=000416992700003&db=edswsc

Pablo Rivera-Barrera, J., Munoz-Galeano, N., & Omar Sarmiento-Maldonado, H. (n.d.). SoC

Estimation for Lithium-ion Batteries: Review and Future Challenges. electronics, 6(4).

Retreived from: http://0-eds.a.ebscohost.com.mylibrary.qu.edu.qa/eds/detail/detail?vid=2&sid=b60c7e5e-1dd7-4e3e-8f22-645a13a45efe%40sdc-v-sessmgr01&bdata=JnNpdGU9ZWRzLWxpdmUmc2NvcGU9c2l0ZQ%3d%3d#AN=000419206400032&db=edswsc

Park, M.-S., Kim, J.-G., Kim, Y.-J., Choi, N.-S., & Kim, J.-S. (2015). Recent Advances in

Rechargeable Magnesium Battery Technology: A Review of the Field’s Current Status and Prospects. Israel Journal of Chemistry, 55(5), 570–585.

Retrieved from: http://0-eds.b.ebscohost.com.mylibrary.qu.edu.qa/eds/detail/detail?vid=0&sid=9caf29f5-a2a0-4eab-96ad-a8b55aaeb467%40pdc-v-sessmgr03&bdata=JnNpdGU9ZWRzLWxpdmUmc2NvcGU9c2l0ZQ%3d%3d#AN=102602756&db=a9h

J.-M. Tarascon. (2010). Key challenges in future Li-battery research. Philosophical

Transactions: Mathematical, Physical and Engineering Sciences, (1923), 3227.

Retrieved from: http://0-search.ebscohost.com.mylibrary.qu.edu.qa/login.aspx?direct=true&db=edsjsr&AN=edsjsr.25699165&site=eds-live&scope=site

Taylor, M. (2016). Powering the Batteries of the Future. (cover story). Laboratory