business briefi ng graphene - for all : institute of physics · business briefi ng graphene...

Business Briefi ng

Graphene

February 2014 | www.iop.org/business

Applications and future uses

The Institute of Physics is a leading scientific society. We are a charitable organisation with a worldwide membership of more than 50,000, working together to advance physics education, research and application. We engage with policymakers and the general public to develop awareness and understanding of the value of physics and, through IOP Publishing, we are world leaders in professional scientific communications.

AcknowledgmentsThanks to Gemma Lavender for writing this report.

I O P I n s t I t u t e O f P h y s I c s G r a P h e n e : a P P l I c a t I O n s a n d f u t u r e u s e s f e b r u a r y 2 014 3

Foreword

Since its isolation in Manchester 10 years ago, graphene has moved rapidly from scientific curiosity to genuine advanced material. It is one of many areas of physics research that may yield revolutionary technological advances and significant opportunities for businesses in the UK. The question now is how to make this happen.

There is already significant activity in the graphene market in the UK. There is a growing and diversifying research landscape with numerous institutions undertaking research and development on the material. In addition to the fundamental research being pursued, there is significant interest in the commercial applications of graphene and the impact that this could have on our everyday lives.

However, there is still a lot of confusion and hype surrounding graphene and other graphene-like advanced materials. There remain some barriers to large-scale production, including technical challenges such as finding a suitable transfer process for mass production, but there are also commercial challenges including needing graphene or another 2D material to make its way onto the mass market.

This report, the first in a series of IOP Business Briefings, describes the current state of the graphene industry in the UK from the points of view of experts in research, development and investment, including case studies from companies that have adopted graphene technology and those that are holding out. This is followed by a summary of discussions and recommendations from meetings of stakeholders held at the Institute of Physics, specifically looking at how to navigate the graphene supply chain to ensure that this technology is given the greatest chance of success in the UK.

I O P I n s t I t u t e O f P h y s I c s4 G r a P h e n e : a P P l I c a t I O n s a n d f u t u r e u s e s f e b r u a r y 2 014

Recommendations from the IOP graphene commercialisation programme

12

3

45

There should be greater communication of real possibilities of graphene and 2D materials – cutting through the media hype of a “wonder material” to explain the realistic potential applications to show government and business that there are reasons to invest in graphene.

There is a need for industry standards and standardisation of nomenclature to ensure that everyone knows exactly what material they are getting and what the properties associated with the specific materials are. This will increase consumer confidence when it comes to purchasing this material because they will know what it is and what it is expected to do.

Continue funding blue-sky research to ensure that the UK continues to excel at research and allows for new, potentially game-changing, discoveries to spring from the country, upholding it as a global leader in science research.

Have a long-term plan including continued investment by government and formation of a strategy that will support the industry and not remove financial support while the technological development is still in its infancy so that the graphene industry can reach its potential.

There is a need for greater evidence on what the most successful ways to connect ideas and commercialisation in the UK are, and how these could be created.


Contents

1. Introduction 6

2. Who are the leaders in graphene innovation? 8

3. Case study: HEAD 10

4. Case study: electronics 13

5. Who could benefit from graphene? 16

6. The graphene industry in the UK 18

7. Other 2D materials 23

8. Summary 25

9. References 26

Appendix: Discussion notes 27


1Introduction

Dubbed the “miracle material”, graphene is a form of carbon that has the potential to revolutionise material science, from tennis racquets to touchscreen electronics. Its properties are varied, from its efficiency as an electrical conductor a million times better than copper to its incredible tensile strength. Indeed, experiments by Lee et al. (2008) [1] have shown that graphene, with a breaking strength of 42 N m–1, is intrinsically harder than diamond and stronger than steel, assuming a steel sheet the same thickness as graphene – around 3.35 Ångstroms or one atom thick (hence it is often referred to as 2D technology). Its high breaking strength, which results from the strong bonds between its carbon atoms, means that it can be stretched and bent, and this flexibility coupled with its electrical and thermal properties makes it a powerful material for the 21st century.

Yet graphene is not a rare substance. In fact, many of us have made it. Graphite, like that found in a pencil, is comprised of layers of carbon atoms joined up by bonds. The carbon atoms within the graphite are arranged

in sheets with a honeycomb structure, stacked layer upon layer. When we write with a pencil, we are peeling away these layers as they transfer onto paper;

among the graphite we may have made some flakes of graphene. At the atomic level, graphene holds some resemblance to chicken wire with its regular hexagonal pattern of carbon atoms and the flexibility that brings.

However, isolating graphene into single stable layers one atom thick was not thought possible until October 2004, when graphene “monolayers” were produced in the laboratory by University of Manchester scientists Prof. Sir Andre Geim and Prof. Sir Konstantin Novoselov. The pair won the Nobel Prize in Physics in 2010 for their experiments involving graphene.

Thanks to its versatility, graphene is now being integrated into existing and future technology, and as a result this material has been thrown into

“Graphene is now being integrated into existing and future technology, and as a result this material has been thrown into the public eye


the public eye. The UK government, through the Engineering and Physical Sciences Research Council (EPSRC), is investing £50 m in research to boost the commercialisation of graphene manufacturing and applications. Whether graphene meets the high levels of hyperbole that surround it depends greatly on the maximisation of its properties in industrial applications and convincing the public of its benefits.

Scientists have already made plans for its potential uses, piecing together a roadmap for possible applications that could perhaps see it replace some of the currently used materials and lead to new markets. The beauty is that some businesses and industries really have nothing to lose in investing in it – if it doesn’t quite tick all of the boxes in one aspect, it will still prove useful in several others. However, this versatility can also be graphene’s downfall in the eyes of the consumer. Unlike other new technologies, graphene does not have one single tag line, so the consumer may find it difficult to understand exactly what graphene does and how it can be used. “We see that the wide field of possible applications can sometimes create confusion on the side of normal customers,” reports Ralf Schwenger of sports manufacturer HEAD, which now integrates graphene into the structure of its racquets.

1: Introduction

“Unlike other new technologies, graphene does not have one single tag line, so the consumer may find it difficult to understand exactly what graphene does and how it can be used


2Who are the leaders in graphene innovation?

Numerous companies in the UK are now active in their use of graphene, according to Prof. Peter Dobson OBE of the University of Warwick, who specialises in facilitating the rapid transfer of new technology and knowledge from research to commercial interests. He acknowledges that there could also be many more businesses at an early stage of applying graphene to their products.

Patent applicationsYet despite having been the nation in which the graphene industry began, but perhaps as a result of the relatively small number of active graphene companies in the country, the UK lags a long way behind the rest of the world in terms of graphene patents, numbering a mere 57. Compare this with China (2200), the US (1700) and South Korea (1200), which are then followed by Japan and Germany before the UK. The UK government’s Intellectual Property Office reports that in July 2011 there were 3018 published patent applications around the world involving graphene [2]. By February 2013 this had increased to 8416, making the UK’s 57 patents look paltry indeed. South Korean company Samsung leads the way for individual companies, with 210 inventions using graphene from 405 published patent applications. Meanwhile, much of the boost to the number of patents between July 2011 and February 2013 has come from Chinese-based applications, which have seen their numbers soaring. Many of the top inventors applying for patents are academic institutions, mostly in China and South Korea.

Relative Specialisation IndexPatent applications do not automatically correspond to actual inventions and products. However, a “weighted” list of patents, taking into account the usual level of invention in a country, makes even worse reading for the UK. The Intellectual Property Office reveals that the Relative Specialisation Index (RSI) shows the UK down in 10th, with Singapore top, showing their high propensity to turn patents into products led by their two patent leaders Nanyang Technological University and the


National University of Singapore. Yet Singapore is only 13th in the list of top patent appliers. Either way, both lists illustrate clearly the size of the challenge for the UK industry to embrace graphene with more conviction and to take on an “applied research ethos” that will see research into the material applied to commercial products.

Financial support for grapheneAndre Geim has suggested that global expenditure on graphene research must be in the region of US $1 bn (£600 m) given the amount of published papers on the subject (10,000 papers in 2012 alone) [3]. The European Union has matched that by injecting 71 bn (£800 m) into graphene research and the UK government has promised £60 m, while a £61 m National Graphene Institute is being opened at the University of Manchester in the first half of 2015. Meanwhile, the University of Cambridge will also open the £30 m Cambridge Graphene Centre. It is hoped that the money and expertise being invested will enable UK companies to begin to bridge the gap with the US and South-East Asia.

2: Who are the leaders in graphene innovation?

“It is hoped that the money and expertise being invested will enable UK companies to begin to bridge the gap with the US and South-East Asia

A graphene industry in the UK?

Peter Dobson wonders if there is such a thing as a “graphene industry”, at least in the UK, saying, “it might be part of a more general carbon or advanced materials industry”. This leaves companies in a quandary: should they simply be

manufacturers of graphene, providing the “raw materials” for use by other companies in their applications? Or should they involve themselves in also integrating graphene into technology, providing “complete solutions” that can be bought off the shelf?


3The sports equipment company HEAD has been using graphene-reinforced tennis racquets since filing a patent application towards the end of 2008. At a Graphene Application Summit in London in June 2013 Ralf Schwenger, who is head of racquet research and development at HEAD, suggested that the 2010 Nobel prize award and the hype that has accompanied graphene from the start has been a definite boon to investment in graphene. Nevertheless, he is keen to stress a point that all companies manufacturing with graphene should take heed of: that the end user is rarely interested in technology for the sake of technology and that it is the overall benefits that graphene brings to the consumer that ultimately matter. HEAD has been focusing its R&D to utilise graphene because it is the best material for the job, rather than because it is currently desirable in material sciences to use graphene.

The weight distribution in modern tennis racquets is crucial for players to have the right swing, and to hit the ball firmly and as intended without incurring stress injuries. At HEAD, the graphene-reinforced racquets were the culmination of a decade-long search for a new, more-balanced racquet that exhibits a reduction of weight in the middle area thanks to the addition of graphene, shifting the weight to the ends of

the racquet instead. For the tennis player, this increases the racquet’s swing weight and recoil weight, improving their overall swing. According to Schwenger, “The graphene alone does not make the racquet play better. The key was for us to use the material improvements by graphene in the right way so that in the end the player has a benefit.”

Why graphene?The main issues from the consumer’s point of view, as HEAD sees it, are the following. Is a racquet containing graphene better than one without? Does a graphene racquet offer a clear consumer benefit? Is the 10% impact strength that the carbon fibre/graphene composite alloy produces enough of a wow factor to entice consumers to bite? If the answers to these questions were no, then there would be no clear consumer benefit and using graphene would simply be jumping on the hype bandwagon, which in the long run is not viable. Schwenger suggests that by and large consumers are not

Case study: HEAD

“The graphene alone does not make the racquet play better. The key was for us to use the material improvements by graphene in the right way so that in the end the player has a benefit


3: Case study: HEAD

technology addicted; rather, they are keen only for noticeable benefi ts and if new technology can bring those benefi ts then they will accept that technology. If it is just technology for the sake of technology – graphene for the sake of using graphene because there is lots of hype surrounding it – then Schwenger suggests that consumers will not be interested. At the end of the day, tennis players are judging HEAD’s new racquets based on how they shape their overall tennis play, not on what they are made of.

For HEAD, the answers to the above points – improved performance, consumer benefi ts and wow factor – were all yes and so it made sense to use graphene even though it is an expensive product for the company. The improvement that it brought to the racquets outweighed the costs. As Schwenger says, “Graphene is expensive for us but we are happy because it has enabled us to improve our racquets signifi cantly.”

User feedbackNevertheless, despite the improvements that graphene brings in real terms, HEAD is still capitalising on the hype surrounding the material and using the technology to help sell racquets. When Andy Murray walks out on Centre Court at Wimbledon with his “HEAD Graphene Radical” racquet, in a case emblazoned with a stylish, angular capital “G”, it is clear that

HEAD is using the hyperbole surrounding graphene as a means by which to promote the racquets, getting top tennis players to endorse them. Advertisements feature Novak Djokovic and his “new secret weapon” – the graphene racquet [4]. And how about this for a quotable soundbite: “The new HEAD Graphene Radical really suits my game. It gives me the power I need without compromising on my creativity on court,” it says on Andy Murray’s website [5].

CollaborationThe R&D process embarked on by HEAD also illustrates some of the wide possibilities open to businesses when developing graphene-involved products. Because it is not a specialist in material science, HEAD invited four different suppliers of graphene – XG Sciences, Graphene Supermarket, Cheap Tubes and the Industrial Technology Research Institute (ITRI) in Taiwan – to show what they could do with regards to manufacturing and resin modifi cation, whereby the graphene is integrated into the carbon-fi bre structure of the racquets (when graphene powder is applied to

Cred

it: H

EAD

Spor

t


3: Case study: HEAD

a polymer it is termed “dispersion”). Requesting tests on several levels, from single-layer graphene to multiple layers, HEAD ultimately selected ITRI to be its partner and do the majority of the material development work. However, it is just an

example of the variety of suppliers out there should a company wish to invest in graphene for their products.

Graphene has not yet been taken up by everyone, but non-users are nevertheless keeping watch, adding to the feeling that graphene exploitation is going to play a larger role in industry in the future, rather than the present.“Graphene is expensive for us but we

are happy because it has enabled us to improve our racquets significantly


4Case study: electronics

One such industry where graphene is still seen as an immature technology – albeit a new technology with the potential for making a great impact – is in electronics. Dr Cliff Weatherup, strategic technology manager at e2v in Chelmsford, Essex, which produces semiconductors, lists graphene as one to watch in the sense that it can be a “potentially disruptive technology” – disruptive in the positive sense because it can be a game changer. However, that time is still a few years away. Having attended a workshop organised by the UK’s Knowledge Transfer Network for Electronics, Sensors and Photonics (ESP KTN), where graphene was discussed with regards to its role in electronics, Weatherup came away with the feeling that it will be another 10 or 20 years before the technology matures sufficiently to be of use in semiconductor manufacturing, which is currently mostly silicon-based. This opinion is echoed by Peter Dobson and Dr Keith Strickland, chief technology officer for Plessey Semiconductors, which is based in Swindon and Plymouth.

Like e2v, Plessey Semiconductors is keeping a “low-level watching brief” on graphene-related technologies of interest to electronic applications and is not planning, as of the time this report was compiled, to invest any time, effort or

monetary resources in pursuing graphene development within electronics until the technology has matured. Even at that point, Strickland is not convinced that graphene will usurp silicon in electronics, at least not in the next decade or two. Instead, he believes that graphene and silicon will operate in complementary fashion, but that there are still obstacles to overcome before graphene can reach the same performance levels as silicon. The main challenge in

“The main challenge in using graphene for electronics is being able to make electrical contacts in the graphene, and integrating the substance into standard integrating circuits

Tunnelling transistor based on vertical graphene heterostructures. Tunnelling current between two graphene layers can be controlled by gating Image courtesy: University of Manchester.


4: Case study: electronics

using graphene for electronics is being able to make electrical contacts in the graphene, and integrating the substance into standard integrating circuits. This could require some changes to the design of electronics, although Strickland believes that large-area or printed electronics could use graphene in a more straightforward and crucially affordable fashion without any significant design alterations. Similarly, LED lighting could also be an early adoptor of graphene, given that applying graphene coatings would not be as complicated as involving it in circuitry.

Graphene Industries in Manchester is more optimistic about the use of graphene in electronics. While it acknowledges that many applications are still some years away, it points out that graphene can make excellent transistors because graphene is so thin it is easy to control whether it electrically conducts or not. Such control cannot be wielded over metal transistors because it is not possible to make metal films sufficiently thin like graphene to affect their conductivity in any meaningful way. Furthermore, suggests Graphene Industries, graphene-based transistors have the ability to operate at higher

frequencies and with more efficiency than silicon, contrasting with Keith Strickland’s opinion that graphene is complementary to silicon electronics, rather than a direct threat to the silicon industry. However, there is agreement that integrated circuits using graphene transistors are still problematic, limited as they are by the size of the graphene layers that can currently be produced.

Touchscreens and sensorsThe enhancements that graphene can provide any given application are, performance-wise, superior to many traditional materials. This means that there is a clamour for its integration into many products but, as the example of electronics has shown us, not all markets have matured to the point where they can start utilising graphene to full effect.

An example of this is one of the first commercial uses of graphene – touchscreens. Even to this day most touchscreen panels are made from indium tin oxide, despite graphene having more functionality, because indium tin oxide can be manufactured and integrated into the product at a lower price point – the benefits of graphene in touchscreens do not as yet outweigh the costs.

Other uses that hold promise include sensors. For example, graphene-based sensors are ultrasensitive – if even one

“Integrated circuits using graphene transistors are still problematic, limited as they are by the size of the graphene layers that can currently be produced


4: Case study: electronics

gas molecule lands on a graphene sensor it can register detection. But like the touchscreens, graphene sensors have to break into a market dominated by cheaper and well established alternatives based on carbon black.

Endless potentialMany future applications of graphene may not have been invented yet as a lot of people are still to cotton onto its potential. Peter Dobson suggests that many customers still have a “so what?” attitude to graphene, but an analogy can be drawn with the invention of the optical laser by Charles Townes in 1960. Back then many people – scientists included – had a nonchalant attitude to the invention, particularly as the first lasers were fairly weak devices. Few people envisioned the

way that lasers would integrate themselves into our everyday lives, or become so powerful that they could fuse atoms. A technology can only be considered miraculous in the commercial sense when there are practical and efficient uses for it. Give graphene time like the laser and it will become a cost-effective solution to many engineering and material problems.


5Who could benefit from graphene?

Part of any current hesitation in using graphene is the lack of education. With any new technology or material there is going to be a steep learning curve as people ask, “what is this?” and then proceed to find out. Only at the peak of the learning curve does one find widespread market acceptance.

Educating potential customers and innovatorsThe level of education that companies have about graphene can vary depending on their expertise. Whereas some companies possess staff

with research experience of graphene, who can simply order a quantity of it and then have the skills and equipment to get on with things and do as they

wish with it, others know nothing at all about the material other than the hype that they have read in the media. The quicker a company gets on that learning curve, the sooner it can reap the rewards and beat its competitors.

“It is important generically to have the fastest uptake to any new technology and to minimise the innovation timescale,” according to Peter Dobson. Certainly the level of education can accelerate or hamper this uptake, but it also takes time to innovate – new commercial solutions do not simply appear overnight, as engineers need to become familiar with graphene’s properties and have the insight into how to do something novel with it. Then more time is needed for the patent application to go through and the technology to filter its way down to the consumer. As we have seen with electronics, this entire process can take a decade or more in some cases. Simply dropping a new technology such as graphene in to replace an existing technology can, however, speed the process up. HEAD’s tennis racquets are an example of this.

“The quicker a company gets on that learning curve, the sooner it can reap the rewards and beat its competitors


Opportunities in ManchesterThe University of Manchester is seeking to capitalise on the discovery of graphene by two of its researchers by encouraging commercialisation of graphene applications. The aforementioned National Graphene Institute, which opens in 2015, should provide a large boost to both researchers and industry specialists in graphene, while a new annual award seeks to inspire students and alumni of the University of Manchester to develop new enterprises in graphene. The Eli and Britt Harari Graphene Enterprise Award is co-funded by the North American Foundation for the University of Manchester through the support of Dr Eli Harari, who graduated from Manchester in 1969, and his wife Britt, with additional support from the UK government’s Higher Education Innovation Fund. The judging panel is to be chaired by Andre Geim and the award of £50,000 will go to the individual or team (up to six members, of which at least three must have graduated from Manchester in 2012 or 2013) with the best business plan for a graphene-related business that is both innovative and commercially viable, with the award acting as seed money from which to grow the new idea. To assist applicants, workshops and seminars will be held up to the closing date of 10 April 2014. While the winner(s) is free to locate their business anywhere, given that the University of Manchester is the “home of graphene” as described by Ivan Buckley, project manager at the upcoming National Graphene Institute, it is expected that the winning team will want to base itself near Manchester to make the most of the links with the university.

“The National Graphene Institute, which opens in 2015, should provide a large boost to both researchers and industry specialists in graphene

5: Who could benefit from graphene?


The graphene industry in the UK

The key word that describes the nascent graphene industry in the UK is “co-operation”. It is an understanding that this new technology can only prosper if all interested parties come together in coalitions. The UK government has been at the heart of encouraging the new graphene movement – its £60 m stimulus package is evidence of that – motivating the industry and helping to push for more of what Peter Dobson calls an “applied research ethos” that bridges the gap between research and commercialisation, the result being a sharp increase in collaboration between science and business. So we have a scenario wherein researchers are being encouraged to identify potential practical applications for graphene, which business can then turn into a commercial product.

Dr Yu-Ming Lin, the co-founder and vice president of technology at Bluestone Global Tech, the UK’s largest manufacturer of graphene, describes the real-world benefits of such co-operation, including

“the economic strengthening that such co-operation brings – job formation, trickle-down consumer spending, etc”. In the

long term, he says, it is much less expensive for everyone, especially the government, to operate in this collaborative manner and he cites the European Union’s Graphene Flagship programme – which is channelling 71 bn into the industry – as something that will ultimately prove this ethos.

Industrial/academic partnershipsSuch collaboration can be witnessed in the industrial partnerships that are now beginning to blossom as part of the various graphene networks that are being developed. The government feeds money into the research centres – Manchester’s National Graphene Institute and Cambridge’s Graphene Centre being the two most prominent examples – and then these academic hubs attract business partners to collaborate with

6

“The UK government has been at the heart of encouraging the new graphene movement


6: The graphene industry in the UK

the university researchers and find new avenues for the application of graphene. Bluestone, for example, is closely allied with the University of Manchester and is one of 18 industrial partners, also including Sharp and Samsung, which, as we saw earlier, is the world’s graphene patent leader. Meanwhile Cambridge has ties with multinationals such as DuPont, Dyson, Philips, Nokia and BAE Systems. Nor is there necessarily competition between the two academic hubs – Manchester and Cambridge also collaborate when the need arises. Yu-Ming Lin describes the UK graphene landscape as having an “open-source feel” about it, where a multitude of interested parties are invited to come in and develop their own uses for graphene, and this freedom helps accelerate the development of innovative products – “many hands make for lighter work”, as Yu-Ming Lin says.

The Bluestone vice president thinks that this is the UK’s secret weapon in the race to come out on top in the competitive global graphene market, where the winners will be those nations and companies that can deliver applications to the market the fastest. A fractured industry where neighbouring companies are fighting their own little turf wars hampers, rather than helps, the development of the industry, according to Yu-Ming Lin.

Where is the UK’s graphene industry?Yet there is evidently a disconnect here. If the UK graphene industry is so efficient and innovative, with a smooth relationship between research and commercialisation, why is the UK lagging so far behind in the number of patents and therefore the number of novel applications of graphene? According to Peter Dobson the issue is a lack of ready-made markets. Yu-Ming Lin takes a slightly different tack, suggesting that the biggest challenge for the UK graphene industry to overcome has been the lack of an “industrial backbone”. Dobson echoes this statement, recognising

“Yu-Ming Lin describes the UK graphene landscape as having an “open-source feel” about it, where a multitude of interested parties are invited to come in and develop their own uses for graphene and this freedom helps accelerate the development of innovative products



that the UK’s manufacturing industry is rather limited, lacking large-scale electronics fabrication capabilities, for example.

Certainly both Dobson and Lin’s concerns sound plausible, but additionally we can see the beginnings of a roadmap that is going to overcome these obstacles. As we have seen, the electronics industry, for

example, still needs to develop the integration of graphene, but a timescale of sometime in the next decade has been suggested

by numerous people within that industry. For companies such as HEAD, the market is already there. New innovations may also find ready-made markets that were not at first realised. Meanwhile the co-operative networks forming in the UK are helping to build the industry from the ground up. The arrangement of academic hubs and close partners, which often organically grow out from the universities as start-ups, helps to create the market as they go along. It is up to the companies, whatever their size, to make judgements on the market readiness and, while businesses may be adept at judging this and getting the timing right in order to make profits (hence the reluctance of companies such as e2v and Plessey Semiconductors to delve into the graphene electronics market just yet), Dobson worries that this instinctive know-how is not always fully understood by researchers or politicians, which could potentially place strain on academic–commercial partnerships as the government pushes for investment in graphene. As a result, businesses must be brave enough to take the lead on market readiness.

Applied Graphene MaterialsManchester and Cambridge are not the only academic institutions with an active interest in graphene. In the north-east, Applied Graphene Materials (formerly Durham Graphene Science Ltd), based in Redcar, was spun out from Durham University in 2010 after developing a novel sustainable process for manufacturing high-spec graphene for batteries, capacitors, advanced composite materials, electronic displays, inks and paints, and 3D printing materials. This process is protected by patent and will

“Businesses must be brave enough to take the lead on market readiness



be used at its new production facility, which is designed to produce tonnes of graphene per year. Its launch on the stock exchange in the form of an Initial Public Offering in November 2013 was highly over-subscribed, with potential revenues of up to £26 m raised from the public flotation, more than twice that expected. The money will be used to fund the company’s graphene plant, which will be able to increase production from one tonne of graphene per year to eight tonnes [6]. Clearly launching a graphene-based business can yield a huge return on profits as the interest and demand continue to grow in unison.

Commercial players in UK grapheneSo who are the current commercial players in the graphene market? Bluestone Global Tech is currently the largest graphene producer in the UK, with its production line going into full operation by 2015. It is also the only large-scale manufacturer in the US, while in China its graphene facility, which supports the Asian graphene market, is about to ramp up production to 100 km2 per day. Yu-Ming Lin explains that Bluestone strategically chose the UK for its first European facility, partly because of its proximity to the bulk of its customers.

A brief run-down of some of the UK’s other graphene-based companies reveals similar innovation. Haydale in Ammonford is a subsidiary of the larger company Innovative Carbon Ltd and has developed an environmentally friendly process of producing graphene known as the “split plasma” method, which it finds to be quicker and more cost-effective than other methods. Like Applied Graphene Materials’ process, the split plasma method is also protected by patent, but it is clear that being sustainable and environmentally friendly are important requirements for the conscientious consumer.


Graphene hub in ManchesterOver in Manchester, two leading companies are Graphene Industries and 2-DTech, both spun out of the university – the “home of graphene”. Graphene Industries was the world’s first supplier of the quantity and type of graphene required by industry for electronics and research purposes. Meanwhile 2-DTech is owned by the University of Manchester, and is aligned with the institution’s Condensed Matter Research group, although neither Andre Geim nor Konstantin Novoselov are involved in the venture. It supplies graphene for “bendable” electronics such as touchscreens, as well as transistors, photodetectors, composite materials, inks, paints, batteries and capacitors, and bioapplications – the same sectors as Applied Graphene Materials.

The importance of Manchester in the graphene world cannot be overstated. The new companies spinning out of this academic hub are reminiscent of the Stanford-sponsored technology companies in the 1940s, 1950s and 1960s that emerged in what is now known all across the world as Silicon Valley. As graphene’s influence in the manufacturing and electronics world increases, and companies ally themselves with the academic hub, it is feasible that we could be seeing the beginnings of equivalent “graphene valleys” around their academic hubs. Taking Manchester as an example, the Harari Graphene Enterprise Award intends to encourage companies to set up close ties with Manchester. Graphene Industries considers being close to Manchester as a boost to its business given the acclaim that the Condensed Matter Research Group has in the graphene world. Bluestone located in Manchester for similar reasons, citing the presence of customers that are beginning to emerge in the graphene community. The National Graphene Institute has appointed a business development and strategy director, Nathan Hill, to oversee strategic industrial partnerships with the Institute and to further strengthen the ties between the academic hub and the commercial companies.



Other 2D materials

It would seem that novel 2D materials are like buses – wait ages for one and then many come along at the same time. Only six years after the development of graphene, along came the silicon equivalent – silicene. This is a 2D version of silicon, with a honeycomb distribution of silicon atoms similar to the way that carbon atoms are arranged in graphene.

SiliceneSilicene was created in 2010 by Patrick Vogt of Berlin’s Technical University and Guy Le Lay at Aix-Marseille University by condensing silicon vapour onto a silver plate to form a single layer of atoms. The hope for silicene is that it will be easier to integrate into silicon-based electronics than graphene, but the reality is that silicene is proving to be an awkward material to work with.

Of great concern is silicene’s tendency to stick to things, which is a consequence of its structure; while graphene lies perfectly flat, silicene is wrinkly, with rough ridges brought about by the way the single layer of silicon atoms bond together. This uneven surface makes it easier to stick to things. Silicene is also exceptionally reactive, oxidising in the air and bonding chemically to materials, whereas graphene is comparatively chemically inert. Silicene’s reactivity and stickiness make it much harder to produce than graphene and to date it has only been “grown” on top of a material, such as silver, zirconium diboride and a crystalline form of iridium. The problem is that these materials conduct electricity, which can mask silicene’s electrical properties. Early research had suggested that silicene shared graphene’s electronic properties, but this has since been disputed [7]. Graphene has a head start in terms of development, and is

7

Heterostructures based on 2D atomic crystals for photovoltaic applications. Image courtesy: University of Manchester.


easier to produce and to work with, but do the two materials necessarily have to be in competition with each other? For example, if silicene was sandwiched between two layers of graphene it could stabilise the silicene and prevent it from reacting, while making use of silicene’s properties and ease of integration into silicon chips [8].

Boron nitrideGraphene can also be used in unison with another material, known as boron nitride. It is a synthetic chemical compound of equal numbers of boron and nitrogen atoms, and is capable of remaining stable in temperatures up to 1000 °C in air. Structurally, nanotubes and lattices of boron nitride are very similar to carbon nanotubes and graphene, but boron nitride is an electrical insulator unlike graphene. It is also atomically very smooth, making it an ideal substrate (surface) on which to

place graphene [9], insulating any electrical current running through the graphene and aiding graphene’s employment within electronics.

Ultimately, which material wins out, or whether they can be complementary, goes back to the question asked by HEAD’s Ralf Schwenger: what provides the greatest benefit to consumers?

It is also worth remembering that graphene is just one part of a wider research area into graphene-like advanced materials (GLAMs) and to put graphene into context then this needs to be borne in mind.

7: Other 2D materials

“Ultimately, which material wins out, or whether they can be complementary, goes back to the question asked by HEAD’s Ralf Schwenger: what provides the greatest benefit to consumers?


Summary

Graphene is clearly an important technology with potential that is only now becoming clear. From these opportunities a nascent industry is growing, identifying niches in electronics and composite materials where effort can be focused. However, despite the hype, graphene is not going to be an overnight success; the industry must remain patient and watchful, and pick its time. The main challenge facing the industry is to learn how to utilise graphene in a manner that leads to clear benefits, not just for the manufacturer but also for the consumer. However, by fostering the spirit of co-operation that has typified the UK graphene industry so far, picking the right time for a business to jump onboard the graphene bandwagon is not a decision that has to be made in isolation, thereby reducing the risk for individual businesses. Bearing in mind the learning curve and the timeline for various graphene-related technologies to mature, now is the right time for companies to take an interest in graphene – the miracle material.

8


9References

[1] Measurement of the Elastic Properties and Intrinsic Strength of Monolayer Graphene, Lee et al. (2008) www.sciencemag.org/content/321/5887/385

[2] Graphene: The Worldwide Patent Landscape in 2013 www.ipo.gov.uk/informatics-graphene-2013.pdf

[3] www.ft.com/cms/s/0/6f4717b6-66f9-11e2-a83f-00144feab49a.html#axzz2jV9Qpqm7

[4] www.tennisexpress.com/head-racquets-blog/head-graphene-novaks-secret-weapon-is-here

[5] www.andymurray.com/news-and-blog/andy-introduces-the-new-head-graphene-radical/

[6] www.ft.com/cms/s/0/3f94ac34-4f94-11e3-b06e-00144feabdc0.html#axzz2lZ6C9mpt

[7] www.newscientist.com/article/mg21428625.400-move-over-graphene-silicene-is-the-new-star-material.html#.UoAcDxwU5LE

[8] www.nature.com/news/sticky-problem-snares-wonder-material-1.12586 Nature 495 152 doi:10.1038/495152a

[9] www.nature.com/nnano/journal/v5/n10/full/nnano.2010.172.html

[10] www.iop.org/news/13/nov/page_62017.html

[11] www.icsu.org/publications/icsu-position-statements/value-scientific-research


Discussion notes

Following an initial invitational meeting at the Institute of Physics (IOP), chaired by Dr Frances Saunders with attendees representing academia, industry, policy and funding bodies, the Institute initiated discussions on the current state of graphene research and development in the UK, and how this compares with other countries. Recommendations from this meeting were for clearer communication of graphene and related technologies particularly “cutting through the hype”, and the development of coherent strategies for graphene applied research and the role of UK businesses in the graphene supply chain.

The Institute worked in partnership with the National Physical Laboratory (NPL) to bring together more people – including those who do not yet work in the graphene industry but could benefit from graphene and other 2D materials – for a larger discussion. The event on Monday 18 November 2013 was split into two parts. The first was driven by NPL, introduced graphene and other 2D materials, and then discussed five questions: what will be the first “real life” applications of graphene? When will these applications come to market? What are the longer-term applications? How can metrology accelerate the development of graphene?

What are the UK’s strengths in this area? How will these be realised?

The second part of the event was hosted by IOP. This was a dinner discussion, chaired by the Institute’s vice president for business and innovation, Prof. Alison McMillan, who introduced talks from Dr Nathan Hill from the National Graphene Institute in Manchester and Dr Mike Worboys from BAE Systems’ Advance Technologies Centre.

The meeting on 18 November was part of a series of events at IOP, including a lecture from Nobel Laureate Prof. Sir Konstantin Novoselov [10] and hosting the Nanotechnology Knowledge Transfer Network’s meeting on the graphene supply chain in the electronics industry.

The discussions covered a wide range of topics and the following points are a summary of the conversations held across the two sessions.

Discussions about where graphene could make a true impact on the market focused on not just where it could replace a current material but where it will make a significant performance increase and financial impact on current and new technologies. It was also discussed how this impact may not arise from graphene itself but may instead


Appendix: Discussion notes

come from the use of other 2D materials that have been developed following the isolation of graphene.

It was considered that graphene is likely to thrive where its properties can be used to improve more than one issue, i.e. utilising its strength and conductivity. For example, HEAD NV cites the strength and weight of graphene as reasons behind its inclusion in tennis racquets. However, many agreed that we need to harvest the “low-hanging fruit” to penetrate the market. The UK currently has a strong aerospace industry and the discussion groups thought that this area would have some of the first usage of new high-capability materials.

• Recommendation 1: There should be greater communication of real possibilities of graphene and 2D materials – cutting through the media hype of a “wonder material” to explain the realistic potential applications to show government and business that there are reasons to invest in graphene.

Another area discussed was the need to introduce standards and benchmarks for graphene as well as making the nomenclature used more uniform in the industry. This would build the confidence of would-be commercial users of graphene.

Further to these early requirements for standardisation is the need for careful metrology to understand the behaviour and durability of graphene in real applications in real environments. Exactly which property needs to be measured will vary depending on application, for example, electrical resistance or mechanical strength.

The need for quality assurance and batch-to-batch uniformity was raised, as well as the control with manufacturing. The discussion groups suggested that large-scale, high-throughput methods for non-contact characterisation will be needed; this will be particularly important to enable the realisation of the potential for electrical applications. They also thought that industry would need assurance of large-scale product uniformity in future production methods.

• Recommendation 2: There is a need for industry standards and standardisation of nomenclature to ensure that everyone knows exactly what material they are getting and what the properties associated with the specific materials are. This will increase consumer confidence when it comes to purchasing this material as they will know what it is and what it is expected to do.


The current UK government’s enthusiasm for graphene (and other 2D materials) is a core strength in the UK, with funding for the National Graphene Institute as an example, as well as the strong applied science research base supported by government funding. Within this, research clustering to develop multidisciplinary teams from academic and industry backgrounds was seen as important. Alongside this the discussion cited the UK strengths in fundamental research as key. This is supported by the international council for science funding, which states that major innovation is rarely possible without new knowledge generated from fundamental research [11].

• Recommendation 3: Continue funding blue-sky research to ensure that the UK continues to excel at research and allows for new, potentially game-changing, discoveries to spring from the country, upholding it as a global leader in science research.

The UK is seen as being good at initial research, but often unsuccessful at getting initial products to market. This may be due to either a lack of desire to invest in the necessary development by UK businesses or financial backers, or the lack of appropriate skills in the UK. Members from the business community commented on how there is a skills shortage throughout

the manufacturing pipeline. One suggestion for the shortage of graduates entering science and engineering jobs is the uncompetitive salaries and benefits offered in comparison with other sectors, in particular the financial-services sector. Furthermore, the lack of process engineers in the UK hinders the scale-up of technology on home soil, which may be one of the reasons that the UK has yet to fully realise its potential regarding graphene and other 2D materials.

The long timescales often associated with the commercialisation of scientific- and engineering-based innovations would benefit from a long-term cross-party commitment from government ministers and Members of Parliament to ensure that funding commitments continue. The UK must continue pursuing blue-sky research to maintain its position as a global leader in this area but must also look to funding further along the technology readiness levels. Furthermore, the role of government in investment could increase with the development of a two-tier investment bank considering different levels to reflect industry risk and perspective. Alternatively, anchor companies – bigger companies supporting SMEs – could be invited to share risk that may not otherwise be considered due to financial implications or restrictions.




• Recommendation 4: Have a long-term plan including continued investment by government and formation of a strategy that will support the industry and not remove financial support while the technological development is still in its infancy so that the graphene industry can reach its potential.

A further area of discussion was the framework currently in place to drive innovation in the UK, looking specifically at product lifecycles and the length of time between funding and scale-up. One suggestion for bridging the gap between different sectors and bringing together people with the relevant skills was the introduction of frameworks that would triangulate between “idea generators”, funders and engineers. These frameworks should be more than networks and ideally would be physical places to help facilitate collaboration. There are some of these facilities in the UK with the Institute of Making based in London and MAKlab in Glasgow, which both provide a physical space where potential collaborators have a place to meet and a facility to house

some equipment. These centres allow for a non-linear approach to innovation, which might facilitate new and profitable collaborations. The developing Catapult centres have the potential to play similar roles in different sectors, many of which could involve graphene and other 2D materials.

• Recommendation 5: There is a need for greater evidence on what are the most successful ways to connect ideas and commercialisation in the UK, and how these could be created.

Useful websiteshttp://graphene-flagship.eu

www.silicene.com

www.graphene.manchester.ac.uk

www.appliedgraphenematerials.com

http://2-dtech.com

http://grapheneindustries.com

http://bluestonegt.com

www.graphene.cam.ac.uk

www.haydale.com

www.manchester.ac.uk/aboutus/news/display/?id=11019

For further information contact:Dr Fiona Jamieson MInstP

76 Portland Place, London W1B 1NT Tel +44 (0)20 7470 4922E-mail [email protected]

Charity registration number 293851 Scottish Charity Register number SC040092

The report is available to download from our website and if you require an alternative format please contact us to discuss your requirements.

The Kitemark is a symbol of certification by BSI and has been awarded to the Institute of Physics for exceptional practice in environmental management systems.

Certificate number: EMS 573735

business briefi ng graphene - for all : institute of physics · business briefi ng graphene...

Documents