It’s hard to write about battery research around these parts without hearing certain comments echo before they’re even posted: It’ll never see the market. Cold fusion is eternally 20 years away, and new battery technology is eternally five years away.

That skepticism is understandable when a new battery design promises a revolution, but it risks missing the fact that batteries have gotten better. Lithium-ion batteries have reigned for a while now—that’s true. But “lithium-ion” is a category of batteries that includes a wide variety of technologies, both in terms of batteries in service today and the ones we've used previously. A lot can be done—and a lot has been done—to make a better lithium-ion battery. In fact, gains in the amount of energy they can store have been on the order of five percent per year. That means that the capacity of your current batteries is over 1.5 times what they would have held a decade ago. //

Energy density has a prominent trend. The original commercial lithium-ion battery, produced by Sony in the early 1990s, had an energy density of under 100 watt-hours per kilogram. That number has climbed over time, with the familiar cylindrical 18650 cells on the market hitting 200 watt-hours per kilogram by 2010. According to BloombergNEF, batteries used in electric vehicles have gotten as high as 300 watt-hours per kilogram in the last couple of years. //

The cost of lithium-ion batteries has fallen dramatically—with huge effects on electric vehicles. A recent study noted that “the real price of lithium-ion cells, scaled by their energy capacity, has declined by about 97 percent since their commercial introduction in 1991.” The early lithium-ion cells in the 1990s were around $3,000 per kilowatt-hour. By the early 2000s, that was nearer to $500 per kilowatt-hour.

In terms of electric vehicles, BloombergNEF estimates that the average price of a complete battery pack was about $1,180 per kilowatt-hour in 2010. By 2020, it was down to around $130 per kilowatt-hour. Ultimately, this is what makes it possible to produce a car with 300-mile range that someone not named “Jeff Bezos” can plausibly afford.

With all due respect to Planet Money, batteries don’t “suck”, you just don’t know why/how they work. Inherent to all batteries is a mix of (super duper) interesting and competing tradeoffs that are exceptionally sensitive to the application at hand. It is a testament to 150 years of careful research and engineering that they work at all. //

But there are at least two major factors in batteries not addressed by this plot, and one is hidden in plain sight. We’ll start with that.
The Ragone plot shows energy vs. power; dimensional analysis shows that the diagonal lines must in the units of time, specifically charge or discharge duration. Point 3 tells us that for a given application duration at a given power drain we need a certain size of battery. In a perfect world we multiply power by time to figure out what the battery size should be, in an imperfect world Ragone corrects for this.

So hidden in the Ragone plot is the tradeoff of Safety vs. Power, or at least part of it. We want a battery with a near unlimited power density, but this must be tempered against the mediocrity of the bomb we’d like to carry around.

“Low-cost storage is the key to enabling renewable electricity to compete with fossil fuel generated electricity on a cost basis,” says Yet-Ming Chiang, a materials science and engineering professor at MIT.

But exactly how low? Chiang, professor of energy studies Jessika Trancik, and others have determined that energy storage would have to cost roughly US $20 per kilowatt-hour (kWh) for the grid to be 100 percent powered by a wind-solar mix. Their analysis is published in Joule.

That’s an intimidating stretch for lithium-ion batteries, which dipped to $175/kWh in 2018. But things look up if you loosen the constraints on renewable energy, the researchers say. Then, storage technologies that meet the cost target are within reach.

The team picked four locations—Arizona, Iowa, Massachusetts, and Texas—and gathered 20 years of data on those solar and wind resources there. Such resources can change considerably with the seasons and over the years, and their longer-term analysis—while previous studies had used data from just a year or two—captures the variations that may occur over the lifetime of a power plant, the researchers say. They modeled the costs of wind-solar-plus-storage systems that would reliably meet various grid demands, such as providing baseload energy 24/7 and meeting peak-hour spikes in demand for a few hours.

Energy storage would have to cost $10 to $20/kWh for a wind-solar mix with storage to be competitive with a nuclear power plant providing baseload electricity. And competing with a natural gas peaker plant would require energy storage costs to fall to $5/kWh.

But those figures are only for scenarios in which solar and wind meet power demand 100 percent of the time. If other sources meet demand just 5 percent of the time, storage could work at a price tag of $150/kWh. Which technologies could hit that target?

Solar and wind power provide carbon-free electricity. But their generation is tied to the vagaries of nature. That is why, to achieve a zero-carbon electric grid, technologies that can store that energy for when it’s needed will have to play a big role.

While lithium-ion batteries have started to meet some of the need for storage, the metals needed to make them are not plentiful enough for large-scale energy hoarding. So entrepreneurs around the world have been looking for alternatives.

At Quartz, we’ve written about companies working on reversible sulfur power-plants, injecting water underground, running “refrigerators on steroids,” and using stacked concrete blocks—all with the purpose of storing excess renewable energy. Add to that list Hydrostor, a Canadian startup that’s storing energy by injecting compressed air into deep underground caverns.

Last year, Tesla CEO Elon Musk mentioned that he believes the energy density of iron phosphate (LFP) batteries have improved enough that it now makes sense to use the cheaper and cobalt-free batteries in its lower-end vehicles.

Furthermore, the CEO indicated that the use of LFP batteries also frees up more battery supply of lithium-ion chemistry cells using nickel cathode for Tesla’s other vehicle programs. //

Nickel is our biggest concern for scaling lithium-ion cell production. That’s why we are shifting standard range cars to an iron cathode. Plenty of iron (and lithium)! //

Battery cells with nickel cathodes have more energy and power density than cells using iron phosphate, hence that’s why Tesla is only using the latter in shorter-range electric vehicles.

Much of the potential of the battolyser has been hiding in plain sight, ever since Thomas Edison first began experimenting with his nickel-iron battery at the turn of the 20th Century. He may have been wrong in believing his battery would supplant the other vehicles on the road. But the nickel-iron battery may yet play a role in replacing fossil fuels more broadly, by helping hasten the transition to renewables.

As a whole, the US's utility-scale battery power is set to grow from 1.2 gigawatts in 2020 to nearly 7.5 gigawatts in 2025, according to Wood MacKenzie, a natural resources research and consulting firm. //

Globally, Gatti projects rapid growth in energy storage, reaching 1.2 terawatts (1,200 gigawatts) in the next decade. ///

We need ~ 100GW per year to combat climate change -- but this is only energy storage. Where does the energy come from?

Lithium metal (non-rechargeable) cells and batteries and lithium-ion (rechargeable) cells and batteries are mailable in limited quantities internationally or to and from APO, FPO, or DPO locations only when they are properly installed in the equipment they operate. //

Mailability

• Lithium metal and lithium-ion cells and batteries installed in the equipment they are intended to operate (UN3091 and UN3481) are mailable. //

Required Packaging
Lithium Metal and Lithium-ion Batteries

• The equipment must be cushioned to prevent movement or damage, and must be contained in rigid outer packaging, sealed and strong enough to prevent crushing of the package or exposure of the contents during normal handling in the mail.
• All outer packages must have a complete delivery and return address. //

Markings

• Lithium-ion batteries properly installed in the equipment they are intended to operate:
  1. Mailable internationally when permitted by country, including to and from APO, FPO, and DPO locations.
  2. No lithium battery markings permitted. Quantities must be within the limits of 622.5 and as outlined below. //

Researchers are developing a new battery powered by lab-grown gems made from reformed nuclear waste. If it works, it will last thousands of years.

A rapid-charging and non-flammable battery developed in part by 2019 Nobel Prize winner John Goodenough has been licensed for development by the Canadian electric utility Hydro-Québec. The utility says it hopes to have the technology ready for one or more commercial partners in two years.

Hydro-Québec, according to Karim Zaghib, general director of the utility’s Center of Excellence in Transportation Electrification and Energy Storage, has been commercializing patents with Goodenough’s parent institution, the University of Texas at Austin, for the past 25 years. //

The utility’s first-generation lithium battery dates back, Zaghib said, to more than 40 years ago. “Hydro-Québec was the first company to work on true lithium batteries in 1979,” he said.

If such claims came from almost any other lab, they might be ignored and shunned by the broader community of battery researchers, the same way physicists turn their noses up at anything that smacks of a perpetual motion machine.

But this lab belongs to one of the most celebrated battery pioneers today—and one of the inventors of the lithium-ion battery itself. John Goodenough, who at 96 continues to research and publish like scientists one-third his age, last year joined with three co-authors in publishing a paper that grabbed headlines. (Spectrum had profiled him and his battery technology the year before, following an initial announcement about his group’s new glass battery.) //

Goodenough and collaborators claimed they’d developed a non-flammable lithium battery (whose electrolyte was based on a glass powder) that had twice the energy density of traditional lithium-ion batteries. They also published a graph that showed an increase in capacity over more than 300 charge-discharge cycles. (This increase, however, pales in comparison to the cell's at least 23,000-cycle lifespan.) //

She says their glass electrolyte is a ferroelectric material—a material whose polarization switches back and forth in the presence of an outside field. So charge-discharge cycles are effectively jiggling the electrolyte back and forth and perhaps, over time, finding the ideal configuration of each electromagnetic dipole.

“This is what happens as you are charging and discharging,” Braga says. “You are aligning the ferroelectric dipoles.”

Tesla has been hinting at some revolutionary new battery technology for a few months now, and a Reuters story today revealed that the goals are to create a “million mile” battery design that can finally make EVs on par with the cost of building ICE vehicles. There are lots of elements to what will make this possible, but for the moment I’d like to focus on the one that doesn’t seem to require an advanced degree in chemistry: the switch to “cell-to-pack” batteries.

It is no secret that Tesla is pursuing a million-mile battery. This battery will be so advanced, it would be able to stand the most stressful conditions for electric vehicles without compromising its quality and longevity; and when used for energy storage devices, it could last decades with regular use. If recent reports are any …

Tesla is working on a bid to deploy one of the biggest battery systems in the world with 244 Megapacks, Tesla’s latest giant battery system, on an island in Hawaii. After a lot of rumors and anticipation, Tesla launched its “Megapack” last year. It’s the company’s latest energy storage product, after the Powerpack and the …

A battery charger combusted on a United Airlines flight, alarming passengers and resulting in an emergency landing on Wednesday.

Putting solar panels on your roof is probably a good investment, no matter where you live. But adding a home battery may do more harm than good. //

The energy produced over the lifetime of rooftop solar panels more than makes up for the energy it takes to make, mount, and eventually recycle them. But adding a home battery can lower those dividends, new research finds. //

Previous studies estimated the energy output at about nine times the energy invested in solar panels. The new study, which appears in Sustainable Energy & Fuels, however, examined the output from a typical rooftop system installed in five diverse American states. Researchers found that the energy payout ratio ranges from a low of 14 in Alaska to a high of 27 in sunny Arizona—but only when homeowners are able to send surplus power to the grid.

When homeowners install a battery and charge it with excess electricity before sending leftovers to the grid, however, the energy return on investment for the entire system is 21 percent less than solar panels alone, researchers found.

When homeowners have no battery and no grid outlet, it just wastes extra electricity. Then, the system’s return on invested energy falls to seven in Alaska and a high of 14 in Florida—on par with earlier studies. Because homeowners in that scenario need to purchase electricity during the evening, adding a standard lithium-ion home battery improves the energy payback. //

Adding batteries to a home photovoltaic system reduces the energy payback of the entire system by 21 percent on average due to two factors. First, adding batteries means more energy in the form of fossil fuels invested in making the entire system. Second, a battery discharges 8 percent less electricity than the amount of electricity required to charge it—a loss compared to sending electricity directly to a larger electricity system with customers who can use the power immediately.

The current study acknowledges the dilemma. “As rooftop solar and large, photovoltaic power stations grow, electricity grids will not be able to accept more afternoon power, unless new uses of cheap afternoon electrons grow,” Benson says.

A vanadium/mining industry PR firm has visited the site of an in development 200MW/800MWh vanadium flow battery in Dalian, China and noted that site work is ongoing. They also stated that most of the product that will fill the site – the vanadium batteries – is already built in the manufacturer’s nearby factory.

This battery is currently the largest planned chemical battery in the world, and part of a Chinese government investment to spur the technology.

The 200MW/800MWh vanadium flow battery (VFB) is manufactured by Rongke Power. Note in the featured image, which is the manufacturer’s facility, there are many solar panels, and a car port – probably has electric car charging spots under there as well.

The battery’s purpose is to provide power during peak hours of demand, to enhance grid stability and deliver juice during black-start conditions in case of emergency. The system is expected to peak-shave about 8% of Dalian’s expected load when it comes online in 2020. //

Right now [2017], it seems tech savvy people always bring up flow batteries when talking about large-scale grid applications. No degradation over 20 years is a pretty impressive feat from the perspective of an electricity utility or a financial analyst. 15,000 cycles – one per day – would be 41 years of usage. And from what I’ve read, you can repair the pieces that break.

I’ve also read that vanadium flow batteries already cost well below $500/kWh – and that some hope to see $150/kWh by 2020. That’s a competitive product. And if utilities like it better because it scales easier and has a longer lifetime, renewables will benefit.

The contributions of a number of scientists and innovators created our understanding of the forces of electricity, but Alessandro Volta is credited with the invention of the first battery in 1800. On its most basic level, a battery is a device consisting of one or more electrochemical cells that convert stored chemical energy into electrical energy. Each cell contains a positive terminal, or cathode, and a negative terminal, or anode. Electrolytes allow ions to move between the electrodes and terminals, which allows current to flow out of the battery to perform work.

Advances in technology and materials have greatly increased the reliability, output, and density of modern battery systems, and economies of scale have dramatically reduced the associated cost. Continued innovation has created new technologies like electrochemical capacitors that can be charged and discharged simultaneously and instantly and provide an almost unlimited operational lifespan. The following pages offer greater insight into these technologies and the many applications that they are utilized for in creating a more robust and adaptable energy grid.
Lithium Ion (Li-Ion) Batteries

After Exxon chemist Stanley Whittingham developed the concept of lithium-ion batteries in the 1970s, Sony and Asahi Kasei created the first commercial product in 1991.
Redox Flow Batteries

Redox flow batteries (RFB) represent one class of electrochemical energy storage devices. The name “redox” refers to chemical reduction and oxidation reactions employed in the RFB to store energy in liquid electrolyte solutions which flow through a battery of electrochemical cells during charge and discharge. //

The separation of power and energy is a key distinction of RFBs, compared to other electrochemical storage systems. As described above, the system energy is stored in the volume of electrolyte, which can easily and economically be in the range of kilowatt-hours to tens of megawatt-hours, depending on the size of the storage tanks. The power capability of the system is determined by the size of the stack of electrochemical cells. The amount of electrolyte flowing in the electrochemical stack at any moment is rarely more than a few percent of the total amount of electrolyte present (for energy ratings corresponding to discharge at rated power for two to eight hours). Flow can easily be stopped during a fault condition. As a result, system vulnerability to uncontrolled energy release in the case of RFBs is limited by system architecture to a few percent of the total energy stored. This feature is in contrast with packaged, integrated cell storage architectures (lead-acid, NAS, Li Ion), where the full energy of the system is connected at all times and available for discharge.

Sandy Munro, a teardown specialist and auto industry veteran, is releasing the results of a study he conducted with battery expert Mark Ellis comparing the motors inside four electric vehicles, one of which was a Tesla Model 3. Despite analyzing the vehicle for a long time, the auto expert states that there are still mysteries that he is yet to uncover on the electric sedan.

“The Tesla has a lot of stuff hidden. The Tesla is a big mystery. It’s not obvious sometimes what clever things they’ve done, ” he commented about the California-based car maker’s motor in a recent interview summarized by Industry Week. “There’s mysteries every day. We thought we were clever, but we’re not that clever.” //

While the study Sandy Munro and Mark Ellis have conducted has not yet been released, from the sounds of it, crow seems to have still been on the menu for Tesla’s inner workings while old criticisms still stand about its outer packaging.