New Lithium–Oxygen Battery Is Scalable, Cheap and Quite Promising

Researchers have developed a new variation of lithium–oxygen battery chemistry that could overcome previous shortcomings for this promising storage technology

Join Our Community of Science Lovers!

This article was published in Scientific American’s former blog network and reflects the views of the author, not necessarily those of Scientific American


A new battery chemistry could improve the efficiency and longevity of lithium-air batteries in a way that is “very scalable, cheap and much safer” than its predecessors, according to a paper published this week in Nature Energy.

Lithium-air batteries have the potential to deliver a high energy output relative to weight. But, previous designs have faced significant challenges including high energy losses, quick degradation, and expensive components that make them incompatible with conventional sealed batteries.

According to MIT Professor Ju Li and his co-authors in their new paper, their new nanolithia cathode battery design can overcome all of these challenges.


On supporting science journalism

If you're enjoying this article, consider supporting our award-winning journalism by subscribing. By purchasing a subscription you are helping to ensure the future of impactful stories about the discoveries and ideas shaping our world today.


The key of this new battery is its ability to overcome the 1.2-volt mismatch between input and output voltages in today’s lithium-air batteries. All told these previous designs waste about 30% of electricity in the charging process as heat, which “can actually burn if you charge it too fast” says Professor Li.

In their new battery, Li and his team have reduced this mismatch to 0.24 volts, meaning that only 8% of the electricity is lost as heat. This reduction means higher efficiency, while also addressing many of the safety concerns related to high levels of heat dissipation (i.e. fires).

The reduction in the voltage mismatch is made possible by nanoparticles called “nanolithia”. These small particles contain both lithium and oxygen – a highly unstable combination on its own, but one that is stabilized when embedded within a cobalt oxide matrix as Li and his team have done.

This nanolithia-embedded matrix allows for oxygen to be kept in solid form throughout the charge/discharge process. This is a significant change from conventional lithium-air batteries, where oxygen is taken from the outside air and is allowed to revert back to a gas.

Li and his team – which includes research scientists Akihiro Kushima and Zongyou Yin of MIT, Lu Qi of Peking University, and Khalil Amine and Jun Lu of Argonne National Laboratory - have already completed successful lab tests of this technology and expect to develop a practical prototype within a year.

It’s Time to Stand Up for Science

If you enjoyed this article, I’d like to ask for your support. Scientific American has served as an advocate for science and industry for 180 years, and right now may be the most critical moment in that two-century history.

I’ve been a Scientific American subscriber since I was 12 years old, and it helped shape the way I look at the world. SciAm always educates and delights me, and inspires a sense of awe for our vast, beautiful universe. I hope it does that for you, too.

If you subscribe to Scientific American, you help ensure that our coverage is centered on meaningful research and discovery; that we have the resources to report on the decisions that threaten labs across the U.S.; and that we support both budding and working scientists at a time when the value of science itself too often goes unrecognized.

In return, you get essential news, captivating podcasts, brilliant infographics, can't-miss newsletters, must-watch videos, challenging games, and the science world's best writing and reporting. You can even gift someone a subscription.

There has never been a more important time for us to stand up and show why science matters. I hope you’ll support us in that mission.

Thank you,

David M. Ewalt, Editor in Chief, Scientific American

Subscribe