Battery technology breakthrough

[ursaminortaur]

Scitechdaily has reported on a breakthrough in Lithium-Sulfur batteries which provides stable recharging with three times the charging capacity of current Li-ion batteries. The much more earth-abundant sulfur used in the cathode can replace rarer elements such as cobalt, nickel and manganese and also opens the possibility of in the future replacing the lithium anode with other more abundant elements such as sodium.


https://scitechdaily.com/breakthrough-in-cathode-chemistry-clears-path-for-more-sustainable-lithium-sulfur-batteries/

Their discovery is a new way of producing and stabilizing a rare form of sulfur that functions in carbonate electrolyte — the energy-transport liquid used in commercial Li-ion batteries. This development would not only make sulfur batteries commercially viable, but they would have three times the capacity of Li-ion batteries and last more than 4,000 recharges – the equivalent of 10 years of use, which is also a substantial improvement.

“Sulfur has been highly desirable for use in batteries for a number of years because it is earth-abundant and can be collected in a way that is safe and environmentally friendly, and as we have now demonstrated, it also has the potential to improve the performance of batteries in electric vehicles and mobile devices in a commercially viable way,” said Drexel’s Vibha Kalra, PhD, George B. Francis Chair professor in the College’s Department of Chemical and Biological Engineering, who led the research.
.
.
.
Replacing the cathode in Li-ion batteries with a sulfur one would alleviate the need for sourcing cobalt, nickel and manganese. Supplies of these raw materials are limited and not easily extracted without causing health and environmental hazards. Sulfur, on the other hand is found everywhere in the world, and exists in vast quanties in the United States because it is a waste product of petroleum production.

Kalra suggests that having a stable sulfur cathode, that functions in carbonate electrolyte, will also allow researchers to move forward in examining replacements for the lithium anode – which could include more earth-abundant options, like sodium.

“Getting away from a dependence on lithium and other materials that are expensive and difficult to extract from the earth is a vital step for the development of batteries and expanding our ability to use renewable energy sources,” Kalra said. “Developing a viable Li-S battery opens a number of pathways to replacing these materials.”

Note. Until recently in British publications and common use the preferred spelling for element 16 was Sulphur rather than Sulfur (which was generally regarded in Britain as an Americanism). However in 1990 the International Union of Pure and Applied Chemistry (IUPAC) adopted Sulfur as the correct spelling and the Royal Society of Chemistry Nomenclature Committee followed suit in 1992.

https://chronicleflask.com/2013/11/26/so-how-do-you-spell-element-16/

f the Online Etymology Dictionary is to be believed, the ph/f thing has gone backwards and forwards a few times. It was apparently sulphur in Latin, and sulfur in Late Latin. There was an Old English word ‘swefl’ meaning sulfur or brimstone (same thing really, just with more religious connotations), and an Old French one: ‘soufre‘. Actually, according to Google Translate, that’s the modern French spelling as well. I am pretty clueless when it comes to French, so feel free to correct me.

The UK started spelling the word with a ph in around the 14th century, along with several other words that have since fallen out of use, such as phantastic and turph. The ph makes some sense in words with a Greek origin, such as philosophy and orphan, since the Greek alphabet actually has the letter phi, but little sense otherwise. However the scribes of the time believed that the more letters there were in a word the more impressive it would look, so they made everything as long and complicated as possible. Why use f when you can use ph? Why spell it ‘tho’ when you can write ‘though’? And you also have them to blame for all those annoyingly unnecessary double consonants that turn up far from occasionally (I absolutely never get that one right first time).
.
.
.
So back to element 16. Chuck in a few more centuries and we come, more or less, full circle. IUPAC adopted the spelling sulfur in 1990, and the Royal Society of Chemistry Nomenclature Committee followed suit in 1992. The Qualifications and Curriculum Authority for England and Wales switched in 2000, and it’s now the spelling you will see in both GCSE and A-level examinations and, consequently, the one in any text book published within the last decade. For those that complain it’s an American spelling, even The Oxford Dictionaries admit that “In chemistry… the -f- spelling is now the standard form in all related words in the field in both British and US contexts.”

So it’s sulfur. With an f. It’s not “the American spelling”. Well, ok, it IS, but it’s also the British spelling. And the rest of the world’s spelling. So add sulfur to your spell checker’s dictionary and let’s move along.

[mc2fool]

Note. Until recently in British publications and common use the preferred spelling for element 16 was Sulphur rather than Sulfur (which was generally regarded in Britain as an Americanism). However in 1990 the International Union of Pure and Applied Chemistry (IUPAC) adopted Sulfur as the correct spelling and the Royal Society of Chemistry Nomenclature Committee followed suit in 1992.

So it’s sulfur. With an f. It’s not “the American spelling”. Well, ok, it IS, but it’s also the British spelling. And the rest of the world’s spelling. So add sulfur to your spell checker’s dictionary and let’s move along.

Filistines!

[Mike4]

Surely this is, finally, a benefit of Brexit. We can spell 'sulphur' correctly and to hell with the rest of the World!!

[ursaminortaur]

Surely this is, finally, a benefit of Brexit. We can spell 'sulphur' correctly and to hell with the rest of the World!!

You missed off the smiley.

But just in case there are some brexiteers who truly think that. Neither the Royal Society of Chemistry or International Union of Pure and Applied Chemistry seem to have much to do with the EU. So as with many claimed benefits from Brexit we could diverge from what happens in the EU but would then find we were also diverging from the standards agreed internationally (and of course in this case we would also need to get the British Royal Society of Chemistry to reverse its decision).

https://www.rsc.org/about-us/our-history/our-origins/

https://iupac.org/who-we-are/our-history/

[stewamax]

We need an English Academie Phrancaise

[9873210]

What you'd get would be an English Conseil supérieur de la langue française.

[jfgw]

So it’s sulfur. With an f. It’s not “the American spelling”. Well, ok, it IS, but it’s also the British spelling. And the rest of the world’s spelling. So add sulfur to your spell checker’s dictionary and let’s move along.

Fair's fair. We got "aluminium", they got "sulfur".


Julian F. G. W.

[DrFfybes]

I guess that's why Aluminum Sulphate is known as Alum

[gryffron]

That's Tesla stuffed then. Musk did well to sell a few Billion dollars of shares at the peak of the bubble.

[tsr2]

That's Tesla stuffed then.

I'm struggling to see why a battery chemistry improvement would eb a problem for Tesla?