4 ms·

I noticed in the beginning of the article they claim greater capacity than Li-Ion and then contradict that statement in your quote. Curious to see how that get

• TylerE 7y ago
  Iron is considerably denser than lithium, so it would have a higher capacity for a given volume.
  • taneq 7y ago
    It's interesting how this tradeoff works. Lighter elements have a higher ratio of electrons to total mass, so they can store more chemical energy per kilogram, but are also less dense so they store less chemical energy per volume. Of course, chemistry being what it is, it's not that straightforward. Here's a chart of atomic mass and specific gravity against atomic number: http://mrtitanium.com/images/density.gif?lbisphpreq=1 http://mrtitanium.com/images/density.gif?lbisphpreq=1 If you look for elements with a high ratio of density to atomic weight, you'll find most of the elements that we typically use in batteries (eg. Lithium, Magnesium, Aluminium, Manganese, Iron, Nickel, Cobalt, Silver). Edit: Changed 'atomic number' to 'atomic weight' in the last paragraph.
  • Gibbon1 7y ago
    Also metallic iron anode. I think an issue with alkali ion batteries is you need zeolite electrodes which adds bulk weight. Thus doing a number on your energy to weight ratio.