Can We Build a Better Battery Without Lithium?

Could it be that the “killer app” automotive battery carmakers are frantically trying to find will not use lithium technology? One of the country’s most respected battery researchers, Donald Sadoway of MIT’s Department of Materials Science Engineering, is beginning to think so.

The holy grail is a battery that can carry a car 200 miles on a single charge, and do it reliably over eight to 10 years. And it has to do it affordably. “Sure, we can build a lithium-ion battery with 200-mile range,” Sadoway said, “but to be able to manufacture it at the General Motors or Chrysler price point is the problem. The whole system has to be crashworthy, which adds enormous costs to the enterprise.”

There are also problems with worldwide lithium supply, Sadoway said. His solution? “Maybe we need to get out of lithium,” he said. “Instead of looking for the most powerful chemistry, and then secondarily thinking about the cost, I’m turning the problem around and saying, ‘Let’s build a battery based on elements that are earth-abundant and widely available here in the United States.’ The costs will be much lower, and that means batteries could end up so cheap people won’t mind buying new ones every three years.”

These compounds, Sadoway said, do not have to be metals—ceramics are also a possibility. “We got hooked on lithium because it is one of the lightest elements,” he said, “But the number one element is cost. We’re not building batteries for NASA. Unfortunately, lithium is neither earth-abundant or cheap.”

The battery companies are convinced, obviously, that lithium is the way to go, and one prominent battery executive (who asked not to be identified) stoutly defends it as the best material. “We’ll run out of other things before we run out of lithium,” he said.

The source said lithium-ion batteries currently cost approximately $450 a kilowatt, but mass production will reduce that enough to make them affordable. “I see no reason why lithium-ion will not, with economies of scale, cost half of what it does now,” the source said. “It’s totally technologically feasible. The problem with starting with a new material is it could take 20 years to get it to market.”