Paper detail

Comparative Computational Study of the Energetics of Li, Na, and Mg Storage in Amorphous and Crystalline Silicon

To assess the potential of amorphous Si (a-Si) as an anode for Li, Na, and Mg-ion batteries, the energetics of Li, Na, and Mg atoms in a-Si are computed from first-principles and compared to those in crystalline Si (c-Si). It is shown that Si preamorphization increases the average anode voltage and reduces the volume expansion of the anode during the insertion of the metal atoms. Analysis of computed formation energies of Li, Na, and Mg defects in a-Si and c-Si suggests that the energetics of the single atoms into a-Si are thermodynamically more favorable. For instance, defect formation energies of Li, Na, and Mg defects in a-Si are respectively 0.71, 1.72, and 1.82 eV lower compared to those in c-Si. Moreover, the defect formation energies of Li, Na, and Mg defects (vs. vacuum reference states) in a-Si are comparable with the metal cohesive energies and consequently the insertion of the metal atoms might be possible with appropriate control of charging process. This is in contrast to c-Si, where the storage of Na and Mg atoms is limited due to high energy cost of Na and Mg insertion into c-Si.

preprint2014arXivOpen access

Signal facts

What is known right now

Open access3 authors1 topic

Next steps

Decide what to do with this paper

Use like or dislike for the fast social read. The more specific scholarly feedback stays available below when needed.

Log in to curate

Reading frame

Keep the important context close to the paper

Keep the important signals around this paper in one place: votes, save state, collection context, reviews and the metadata you need before deciding what to do next.

Institutions

Add specific reaction

Move through the context

Research map

Open full explorer

Move through nearby people, institutions, topics and adjacent work without leaving the paper page.

Building this map preview

BZPEER is loading the nearby papers, people, topics and institutions for this page.

Structured reviews

0 review(s)

ContributeLeave structured feedbackUse the review template when you have a concrete strength, concern or method question.Open review form

No structured reviews yet. High-signal critique starts here.

Work discussion

0 comment(s)

DiscussAdd a high-signal commentKeep quick notes, caveats and replication pointers separate from formal reviews.Open comment form

No discussion yet. The first strong comment sets the tone.