Hi all, I'm currently writing an article about the benefits of using graphene in supercapacitors, but being an electronics idiot, I am a bit confused as to where to start.
I've been looking for figures relating to how using graphene electrodes compares to using activated carbon lined electrodes (I assume this is correct), but a lot of the data I have found contradicts itself, and finding direct comparisons is nigh-on impossible.
The conclusion I have come to is that while graphene has a high surface area and it has a high potential, it is not currently optimized for use in super-caps, or it has not been proven with statistical data to be an improvement.
Some have suggested that 550 F/g is possible with graphene-based supercaps (the Kaner publication), but also I have read that some commercially available supercaps are already able to hold between 200-400 F/g using activated carbon, which is pretty impressive in itself.
But compared to using batteries, this isn't that great, relatively speaking; it's just the charge/discharge rate that is impressive. But the number of supercaps needed to power a vehicle similar to the Tesla, for example, would be vast, and end up weighing more than currently used batteries. Is that right?
Here is an example:
"Researchers in the US have made a graphene-based supercapacitor that can store as much energy per unit mass as nickel metal hydride batteries – but unlike batteries, it can be charged or discharged in just minutes or even seconds."
It just seems very vague. Is this meant to be comparing specific energy?
Sorry for my ignorance, like I said, I'm a complete novice and am just doing some research for a paper I am writing.
I've been looking for figures relating to how using graphene electrodes compares to using activated carbon lined electrodes (I assume this is correct), but a lot of the data I have found contradicts itself, and finding direct comparisons is nigh-on impossible.
The conclusion I have come to is that while graphene has a high surface area and it has a high potential, it is not currently optimized for use in super-caps, or it has not been proven with statistical data to be an improvement.
Some have suggested that 550 F/g is possible with graphene-based supercaps (the Kaner publication), but also I have read that some commercially available supercaps are already able to hold between 200-400 F/g using activated carbon, which is pretty impressive in itself.
But compared to using batteries, this isn't that great, relatively speaking; it's just the charge/discharge rate that is impressive. But the number of supercaps needed to power a vehicle similar to the Tesla, for example, would be vast, and end up weighing more than currently used batteries. Is that right?
Here is an example:
"Researchers in the US have made a graphene-based supercapacitor that can store as much energy per unit mass as nickel metal hydride batteries – but unlike batteries, it can be charged or discharged in just minutes or even seconds."
It just seems very vague. Is this meant to be comparing specific energy?
Sorry for my ignorance, like I said, I'm a complete novice and am just doing some research for a paper I am writing.
