## 3 Results and Discussion
Figure 7e,f shows the CV curve at 10 mVs\({}^{-1}\), which reflects the charge storage originating from the diffusion-controlled process and capacitive control process for CCS-EG and CCS-glycerol, respectively. To assess the long-term feasibility of both electrodes, charge-discharge kinetics were measured up to 10,000 cycles at a current density of 60 mA/cm\({}^{2}\). Figure 8a reflects the capacitance retention and coulombic efficiency of CCS-EG and CCS-glycerol. When comparing the capacitance of the first cycle to the 10,000 th cycle, the CCS-EG electrode shows a dominating capability, giving 87.8% capacitance over a huge number of cycles. In this case, the CCS-glycerol electrode can retain 83.3% of its capacitance, that noted for the first cycle. Interestingly, the coulombic efficiency remains over 100%, even after a large number of charge-discharge cycles on both electrodes. These features reflect that CCS-EG and CCS-glycerol are capable of use over a longer duration. Architecture collapse is the main reason why the CCS-glycerol is unable to retain capacitance in the manner of CCS-EG. To look over this, the FE-SEM was carried out after measurement of the GCD over 10,000 cycles. Figure 8b,c reflects the FE-SEM images after cyclic stability for CCS-EG and CCS-glycerol, respectively. As observed, CCS-EG retains the same morphology as before the stability, i.e., snowflakes with very slight changes. On the other hand, CCS-glycerol is able to retain the spongy mud-like bricks; however, the rectangular prisms disappear over the longer cycling stability. This erosion of architecture mainly arises due to the faster reversible redox (reduction-oxidation) reactions taking place on the surface of the electrode material and leading to a worsening performance. To obtain insight into the details of intrinsic resistance (R\({}_{\text{s}}\)) and charge transfer resistance (R\({}_{\text{ct}}\)), electrochemical impedance spectroscopy (EIS) of both electrodes was studied at a fixed amplitude of 10 mV and with a frequency ranging from 0.1 Hz to 10\({}^{5}\) Hz. Figure 9a,b shows the EIS spectrum (Nyquist plots) for the CCS-EG and CCS-glycerol electrodes, respectively. CCS-glycerol has a lower intrinsic resistance (R\({}_{\text{s}}\)) of 0.3 \(\Omega\), which is 0.65 in the case of the CCS-EG electrode. Lower values of intrinsic resistance indicate a good balance between the active material and the current collector. Further, the charge transfer resistance (R\({}_{\text{ct}}\)) is also lower for the CCS-glycerol electrode, which is 36.32 \(\Omega\), whereas for CCS-EG, it is 53.25 \(\Omega\). This confirms the prominent electrochemical features associated with the CCS-glycerol electrode [30]. The values of R\({}_{\text{s}}\) and R\({}_{\text{ct}}\) after the stability measurement for the CCS-EG electrode are 0.25 \(\Omega\) and 80.27 \(\Omega\), while for the CCS-glycerol electrode, they are 0.23 \(\Omega\) and 65.79 \(\Omega\), respectively. Figure 8: (**a**) Stability and coulombic efficiency up to 10,000 GCD cycles of CCS-EG and CCS-glycerol; (**b**) FE-SEM image of CCS-EG after stability; and (**c**) FE-SEM image of CCS-glycerol after stability. Figure 9: EIS spectrum before and after stability: (**a**) CCS-EG; and (**b**) CCS-glycerol.