On page A2610, left column, the first sentence after the subheading Lithium-sulfur battery concept.-should be Due to the high specific energy of the sulfur cathode (1675 mAh/g S ), lithium-sulfur batteries have also been considered as promising post-LiB technology with substantial gravimetric energy density and cost advantages over LiBs. On pages A2610, right column, first paragraph, the sentence that continues onto page A2611 and remainder of the paragraph should be The third strategy is to

more »

... silicon based anodes instead of metallic lithium anodes (see Fig. 6c ), with the hope that a more stable SEI on silicon compared to metallic lithium might prevent/suppress several detrimental processes: i) the polysulfide redox-shuttle; ii) the continuous consumption of sulfur via polysulfide reduction and Li 2 S precipitation at the anode; and, iii) the long-term consumption of SEI stabilizing additives like LiNO 3. 66 Other additives which are effective for silicon anodes (e.g., vinylene carbonate 67 ) are typically dissolved in carbonate electrolytes. These carbonate electrolytes are shown to be incompatible with polysulfides. 163 Another possible anode alternative might be tin-based electrodes as shown by Scrosati et al. 68 On page 2614, left column, third paragraph, the first sentence should be Assuming that the cost breakdown of a battery cell with a metallic lithium anode is similar to that of a battery cell with a graphite anode, and considering that the price of sulfur is negligible compared to NMC111, one would project a cost advantage of about 23% for a Li/Li 2 S (or Li/S) battery cell. On page A2622, Reference 163 should be 163. T.