Technology

Strategy
Assessment
Findings from Storage Innovations 2030
Zinc Batteries
July 2023*
*Full content draft pending final editorial and layout review. Please check back for final version.
About Storage Innovations 2030
This technology strategy assessment on zinc batteries, released as part of the Long-Duration
Storage Shot, contains the findings from the Storage Innovations (SI) 2030 strategic initiative. The
objective of SI 2030 is to develop specific and quantifiable research, development, and
deployment (RD&D) pathways to achieve the targets identified in the Long-Duration Storage Shot,
which seeks to achieve 90% cost reductions for technologies that can provide 10 hours or longer
of energy storage within the coming decade. Through SI 2030, the U.S. Department of Energy
(DOE) is aiming to understand, analyze, and enable the innovations required to unlock the
potential for long-duration applications in the following technologies:

• Lithium-ion Batteries
• Lead-acid Batteries
• Flow Batteries
• Zinc Batteries
• Sodium Batteries
• Pumped Storage Hydropower
• Compressed Air Energy Storage
• Thermal Energy Storage
• Supercapacitors
• Hydrogen Storage

The findings in this report primarily come from two pillars of SI 2030—the SI Framework and the
SI Flight Paths. For more information about the methodologies of each pillar, please reference
the SI 2030 Methodology Report, released alongside the ten technology reports.

You can read more about SI 2030 at https://www.energy.gov/oe/storage-innovations-2030.

 Department of Energy | July 2023

Acknowledgments
DOE acknowledges all stakeholders who contributed to the SI 2030 industry input process.
Further information about the stakeholders who participated in the SI Framework and SI Flight
Paths activities can be found in Appendix A.

The authors gratefully acknowledge SI activity coordination by Benjamin Shrager (Office of

Electricity, DOE). The Zinc Battery Flight Paths Listening Session was facilitated by Erik Spoerke
(Sandia National Laboratories) and Esther Takeuchi (Brookhaven National Laboratory; Stony
Brook University) while the Framework Study was conducted by Justin Connell and Sanja
Tepavcevic (Argonne National Laboratory). The authors would also like to thank Kate Faris,
Whitney Bell, and others from ICF Next for their excellent organization of the Zinc Batteries Flight
Paths session and additional support they provided for SI activities. The authors would also like
to acknowledge leadership of and contributions to the Framework Study by Patrick Balducci
(Argonne National Laboratory).

Authors
Erik D. Spoerke, Sandia National Laboratories
Esther Takeuchi, Brookhaven National Laboratory, Stony Brook University
Justin Connell, Argonne National Laboratory
Sanja Tepavcevic, Argonne National Laboratory

Reviewers
Dr. Halle Cheeseman, Advanced Research Projects Agency–Energy (ARPA-E), DOE
Benjamin Shrager, Office of Electricity, DOE
Dr. Amy Marschilok, Brookhaven National Laboratory, Stony Brook University

DOE/OE-0034 - Zinc Batteries Technology Strategy Assessment | Page ii

 Department of Energy | July 2023

Table of Contents
About Storage Innovations 2030 ..................................................................................................i
Acknowledgments ....................................................................................................................... ii
Background................................................................................................................................ 1
High-Level History ........................................................................................................ 1
Chemistries .................................................................................................................. 1
Current Commercial Usage .......................................................................................... 2
Baseline Costs ............................................................................................................. 3
Pathways to $0.05/kWh ............................................................................................................. 4
R&D Opportunities ..................................................................................................................... 7
Additional Opportunities and Discussion .................................................................................... 9
Appendix A: Industry Contributors .............................................................................................13
Appendix B: Innovation Matrix and Definitions ..........................................................................14
Appendix C: Innovation Coefficients..........................................................................................16
Appendix D: Descriptive Statistics for Individual Innovations .....................................................17
References ...............................................................................................................................18

DOE/OE-0034 - Zinc Batteries Technology Strategy Assessment | Page iii

 Department of Energy | July 2023

Background
High-Level History
Zinc (Zn) was used as the negative electrode (anode) of batteries dating to the early 1800s, when
Alessandro Volta formed early voltaic piles from stacks of alternating copper and Zn. The low-cost,
high-energy density, safety, and global availability of Zn have made Zn-based batteries attractive
targets for development for more than 220 years. The Zn-carbon battery, originally developed in the
later 1800s, was manufactured as a popular primary battery until the 1980s [1]. Although still in
limited use today in the United States, Zn-carbon cells were eventually replaced by alkaline Zn-MnO2
batteries introduced as primary dry cells in 1952 and patented by Paul A. Marsal, Karl Kordesch,
and Lewis Urry in 1960 [2-4]. These batteries have become some of the most commercially
successful batteries to date, commonly recognized as AA, AAA, C, D, and 9V batteries in everyday
use. Initially developed in the 1920s, Zn–Ni batteries were explored in the 1970s and 1980s as
rechargeable batteries capable of hundreds (today ~1,000) of deep discharge cycles, potentially
suitable for application in electric vehicles [5-7]. Primary Zn-air batteries, commonly recognized as
“button cells” today, were originally patented in 1933 by G. W. Heise [8] and are still in widespread
use (e.g., in hearing aids and some film cameras) [5]. Collectively, these historical batteries serve
as the inspiration for several of the most commercially advanced batteries for grid-scale storage to
date.

Chemistries
Zn-MnO2 batteries, traditionally primary (not rechargeable) batteries, have been adapted to create
low-cost secondary (rechargeable) batteries. These batteries often use an alkaline aqueous
electrolyte and are considered more environmentally friendly than other types of batteries as
indicated by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency’s certification of these primary batteries for
landfill disposal in the United States. Commercial primary Zn-MnO2 batteries have an energy density
of up to 150 Wh/kg or 400 Wh/L because of the high capacity of the Zn-anode (820 mAh/g) and the
MnO2 cathode (616 mAh/g for “2 electron” or 308 mAh/g for “1 electron” reactions) [4]. As a
secondary battery, these systems have been deployed with energy densities on the order of 100
Wh/L and there are anticipated pathways to production at less than $50/kWh [5, 9]. These batteries
use a Zn anode and specific forms of manganese dioxide (MnO2) as the positive electrode (cathode).
During electrochemical cycling of the secondary battery, the charge is balanced across the cell by
hydroxide ions that move across a porous separator. The expected half-reactions at each electrode
and the overall reaction of the cell during discharge are [5]:
Cathode: MnO2 + H2O + e-  MnOOH + OH- [E0 = +0.30V]
Anode: Zn + 2OH-  ZnO + H2O + 2e- [E0 = +1.28V]
Overall: Zn + 2MnO2 + H2O  ZnO + 2MnOOH [E0cell = +1.58V]

Zn-Ni batteries have a practical energy density of up to 140 Wh/kg or 300 Wh/L and are capable of
approximately 500 charge-discharge cycles [5, 10]. Zn–Ni cells also use an aqueous solution of KOH
as the electrolyte and Zn as the anode material, with the same fundamental anode reaction during
discharge. In this case, the cathode is nickel oxyhydroxide (NiOOH), which converts to nickel
hydroxide [Ni(OH)2] during discharge [5]:
Cathode: NiOOH + H2O + e-  Ni(OH)2 + OH- [E0 = +0.49V]

DOE/OE-0034 - Zinc Batteries Technology Strategy Assessment | Page 1

 Department of Energy | July 2023
Anode: Zn + 2OH-  ZnO + H2O + 2e- [E0 = +1.28V]
Overall: Zn + 2NiOOH + H2O  ZnO + 2Ni(OH)2 [E0cell = +1.77V]

Primary Zn-Air batteries offer potentially high energy density of up to 440 Wh/kg or 1,670 Wh/L and
provide a constant, flat voltage discharge profile [5, 11]. Like Zn–MnO2 and Zn–Ni batteries,
commercial Zn–air batteries have a Zn anode and KOH electrolyte with the same basic anode
reaction. In this case, the reacting species at the cathode are atmospheric oxygen and water from
the electrolyte to form hydroxyl ions that migrate to the anode [5]:
Cathode: O2 + 2H2O + 4e-  MnOOH + OH- [E0 = +0.40V]
Anode: Zn + 2OH-  ZnO + H2O + 2e- [E0 = +1.28V]
Overall: 2Zn + O2  2ZnO [E0cell = +1.68V]

These air-based systems are complicated by the need to “breathe” oxygen (air), and the oxygen
reduction and oxidation reactions at the cathode require catalysts that are either prohibitively
expensive (e.g., Pt, Ag, Ir) or are not yet sufficiently efficient or durable (e.g., transition metal
catalysts), and few catalysts are capable of performing both oxidation and reduction reactions
needed for a rechargeable system. This is an active area of research.

Zn-Br batteries commercially comprise both static and flow battery configurations. Both batteries
typically use an aqueous Zn-halide electrolyte and rely on the reversible plating (reduction) and
stripping (oxidation) of a Zn metal anode. The overall (discharge) electrochemistry for both systems
is represented by the following reactions [12]:
Cathode: Br2 + 2e-  2Br- [E0 = +1.09V]
Anode: Zn  Zn2+ + 2e- [E0 = +0.76V]
Overall: 2Zn + Br2  2Zn2+ + 2Br- [E0cell = +1.85V]

Because of the potentially hazardous nature of the bromine (Br2) used in these batteries, they are
typically assembled in the discharged state. Upon charging, Zn metal deposits on the anode while
Br2 forms at the cathode, complexing with Br- to form soluble Br3- species. This highly reversible
reaction leads to high cycle life (full depth of discharge) with daily cycles for 10 years (flow battery)
and 20 years (static, sealed cells).

There are other promising variations of Zn-based batteries, presently still in development, which use
slightly acidic or neutral pH electrolytes and rely on protons or Zn ions to balance charge during
electrochemical cycling (in some cases, these batteries may be considered Zn-ion batteries).

Current Commercial Usage

Primary alkaline Zn-MnO2 batteries and Zn-air batteries remain widely used today to power smaller
portable consumer electronics. Emerging demonstrations and deployments of grid-scale Zn-MnO2
batteries include backup power (assurance), grid stabilization, and renewable solar integration
(particularly for microgrids) for both residential and commercial applications. Larger deployments are
exemplified by Urban Electric Power’s 1 MWh alkaline battery backup system for the San Diego
Supercomputer Center. Static Zn-Br systems are also finding traction for microgrids, behind-the-
meter applications (e.g., peak shifting), and renewables integration. An EOS Zn-Br system is

DOE/OE-0034 - Zinc Batteries Technology Strategy Assessment | Page 2

 Department of Energy | July 2023
planned to provide 35 MWh of storage, capable of 10 hours of discharge, as part of a 60 MWh solar-
plus-storage microgrid developed by Indian Energy (Southern California). Technology providers also
envision grid applications, including transmission upgrade deferrals, congestion management, and
resiliency. Information about Zn-Br flow batteries (such as those manufactured and deployed by
Australian company RedFlow) can be found in the companion Technology Strategy Assessment:
Flow Batteries, released as part of SI 2030. Companies such as Zinc8 Energy Solutions and e-Zinc
are developing Zn-air batteries for microgrids and both commercial and residential behind-the-meter
applications, including energy cost reduction, renewables integration, and power quality. Although
not yet deployed, these systems, which target up to 24 hours of discharge duration, are beginning
to see demonstrations, such as e-Zinc’s planned 40 kW system supporting a 1 MW solar array in
Camarillo, CA. Zn-ion batteries, which are touted as a potentially more sustainable alternative to Li-
ion batteries, are in development by companies such as Salient Energy (Canada) and Enerpoly
(Sweden). Finally, Zn-Ni systems have identified stationary storage markets that support data
centers and telecom industries, although there may be emerging applications in defense-related
mobility and commercial aerospace as well. ZincFive (Tualatin, OR) markets a series of commercial
Zn-Ni batteries for applications such as non-interruptible power supply, backup power, and starting
batteries. U.S. developer ZAF Energy (also developing Zn-air) is developing Zn-Ni batteries as
potential replacements for lead-acid and even some lithium-ion batteries in industrial, distributed
energy, and mobility applications. AEsir Technologies, a spinoff of ZAF Energy, is building a
600,000-square-foot gigafactory in Rapid City, SD, to meet expected growing demand. Meanwhile,
companies such as EnZinc are working to develop specialized porous Zn anodes that are initially
targeting Zn-Ni battery applications but could ultimately enable a wider-variety of Zn-based batteries,
including Zn-MnO2 or Zn-air.

Baseline Costs
Although there are several Zn-batteries in active commercial development and in the early stages of
deployment, market penetration today remains relatively immature, with significant opportunity for
growth as the technical and economic landscapes for Zn-battery storage evolve. In order to
understand this landscape and identify potentially impactful investment opportunities to advance Zn-
battery development, it is necessary to assess the current research and development (R&D)
trajectory and project performance and cost parameters out to 2030, assuming no marginal increase
in R&D investment over currently planned levels. These values, presented in Table 1, represent the
baseline against which all future impacts can be measured. The cost and performance values are
derived exclusively from the 2022 Grid Energy Storage Technical Cost and Performance
Assessment by Viswanathan et al. [13], as defined for a 100 MW, 10-hour Zn battery system. Note
that capital cost values differ in terms of their unit of measurement, with some (e.g., controls and
communication, power equipment) tied to the power capacity of the system and others (e.g., storage
block capital costs) tied to energy capacity. The 2030 levelized cost of storage (LCOS) estimate from
Viswanathan et al. [14] is $0.17/kWh; however, that estimate includes approximately $0.02/kWh in
energy costs. The 2030 LCOS estimates presented in the next section exclude energy costs, except
those associated with losses, and are based on a slightly different methodology, which results in a
baseline LCOS of $0.15/kWh.
Table 1. Zn battery cost and performance (2030 estimates)
Parameter Value Description
Storage Block Calendar Life 17 Deployment life (in years)
Cycle Life 6,508 Base total number of cycles
Round-trip Efficiency (RTE) 74% Base RTE

DOE/OE-0034 - Zinc Batteries Technology Strategy Assessment | Page 3

 Department of Energy | July 2023
Storage Block Costs 212.58 Base storage block costs ($/kWh)
Balance of Plant Costs 27.90 Base balance of plant costs ($/kWh)
Controls and Communication Costs 5.78 Controls and communication costs ($/kW)
Power Equipment Costs 64.62 Power equipment costs ($/kW)
System Integration Costs 33.02 System integration costs ($/kWh)
Project Development Costs 47.62 Project development costs ($/kWh)
Engineering, Procurement, and Construction 39.69 EPC costs ($/kWh)
(EPC) Costs
Grid Integration Costs 21.05 Grid integration costs ($/kWh)
Fixed Operations and Maintenance (O&M) Costs 10.38 Base fixed O&M costs ($/kW-year)

Pathways to $0.05/kWh
Having established baseline costs for 2030, the Framework Study team worked with industry and
Zn-battery technical experts to assess the gaps in R&D investments that might establish a pathway
to an LCOS of $0.05/kWh for Zn batteries. A group of 29 subject matter experts (SMEs) were
identified and contacted (see Appendix A). These SMEs represented 19 organizations, ranging from
industry groups incorporating various aqueous Zn technologies (from neutral/mildly acidic to alkaline
battery manufacturers) to vendors (additive suppliers), universities, and National Laboratories. All
but two of the identified groups participated in interviews where the Framework Team solicited
information regarding pathways to innovation and associated cost reductions and performance
improvements. For all SMEs, long-duration energy storage (LDES) was defined as 10 hours of
storage. The innovations defined by the SMEs are presented in Table 2. Definitions of each
innovation are presented in Appendix B. The Monte Carlo analysis below is based on feedback from
10 of these groups (including the 2 that were not interviewed).
Table 2. Taxonomy of innovations
Innovation Category Innovation
Raw materials sourcing Mining and metallurgy innovations for battery-grade Zn metal
Supply chain Supply chain analytics for sustainable sourcing
Inactive materials cost reduction
Technology components Separator innovation
Pack/System-level design
Manufacturing Implementation of manufacturing best practices
Developing a manufacturing ecosystem
Advanced materials development Improved Zn metal performance
Cathode materials optimization and new materials discovery
Advanced electrolyte/additive development
Deployment Standardization of testing and safety requirements
Demonstration projects
End of life Enhancing domestic recycling

Input from SMEs was used to define the investment requirements and timelines for investment, the
potential impacts on performance (e.g., RTE, cycle life), and the cost (e.g., storage block, balance
of plant, operations and maintenance) for each innovation. The Monte Carlo simulation tool then
combined each innovation in portfolios containing three to seven other innovations and, based on
the range of impacts estimated by the industry, the tool produced the distribution of achievable
outcomes by 2030 with respect to LCOS (Figure 1). The LCOS range with the highest concentration
of simulated outcomes is in the $0.08/kWh to $0.10/kWh range, with the highest impact portfolios
(greatest LCOS reduction) resulting in an LCOS between $0.079/kWh and $0.085/kWh (the top 10%
are indicated by the marked region). The narrow distribution of outcomes broadly suggests that
almost all interventions identified will result in impactful reductions to the LCOS of Zn battery

DOE/OE-0034 - Zinc Batteries Technology Strategy Assessment | Page 4

 Department of Energy | July 2023
technologies (relative to the $0.17/kWh baseline projected cost), although no subset of the
interventions identified result in an LCOS less than DOE target of $0.05/kWh.

Top 10%

Figure 1. Portfolio frequency distribution across LCOS with the green rectangle indicating the top 10% of the
portfolios
The results of the Monte Carlo simulation for the thousands of portfolios that fall within the top 10%
in terms of LCOS impact are presented in Figure 2. This plot correlates the simulated highest LCOS
impact portfolios with the total investment needed to realize that impact. The dots at the top of the
chart demonstrate that the top 10% of the portfolios reach their lowest level at an LCOS of roughly
$0.08/kWh. The vertical green line demonstrates that the mean investment level required for these
portfolios is $155 million. This value represents the marginal investment over currently planned
levels required to achieve the corresponding LCOS improvements. The highest density of portfolios
in the top 10% are in the $120 million to $150 million range. Not shown on the plot, but indicated in
the simulations, is that the estimated timeline required to achieve these LCOS improvements is 5 to
7 years.

DOE/OE-0034 - Zinc Batteries Technology Strategy Assessment | Page 5

 Department of Energy | July 2023

Figure 2. LCOS and estimated industry expenditures for top 10% of the portfolios. The vertical green line shows
the mean portfolio cost.
Note that the impact of each layered innovation is not additive. The impact of each additional
innovation is weighted to determine the combined impact. Combinations of investments can be in
conflict or relate to alternative sub-chemistries, thus diminishing their combined impact. Working with
SMEs, the research teams established innovation coefficients that are used to measure combined
impact. a Innovation coefficients for each innovation pairing are presented in Appendix C.
SMEs were also asked for their preferences regarding the investment mechanism, choosing among
National Laboratory research, R&D grants, loans, and technical assistance. Table 3 presents the
SME preferences for each mechanism. In most cases, a mixture of R&D grants and National
Laboratory research were supported, with R&D grants slightly preferred in most cases. There were
also indications of support for loans for enhanced domestic recycling, technical assistance funding
to support supply chain analytics for sustainable sourcing, and the development of a manufacturing
ecosystem and the implementation of manufacturing best practices.

Table 3. SME preferences for investment mechanisms. Cells with asterisks (*) represent more preferred
mechanisms. (Technical Assistance includes advice or guidance on issues or goals, tools and maps, and
training provided by government agencies or national labs to support industry.)
National
Technical
Innovation Laboratory R&D Grants Loans
Assistance
Research
Mining and metallurgy innovations for battery-grade Zn metal 30% 40% * 10% 20%
Supply chain analytics for sustainable sourcing 20% 30% 10% 40% *
Inactive materials cost reduction 25% 42% * 8% 25%
Separator innovation 29% 50% * 7% 14%
Pack/System-level design 20% 47% * 20% 13%

a
To demonstrate how innovation coefficients work, the innovation coefficient for the combined investment in mining/metallurgy innovations
for battery-grade Zn metal and enhanced domestic recycling is 0.15, which means that the Monte Carlo simulation tool would only include
15% of the defined impact of the second innovation (e.g., enhanced domestic recycling) when added to the first (e.g., mining/metallurgy
innovations). The reason for the low coefficient for these innovations is that both affect the raw materials that are used in the manufacturing
process (i.e., virgin versus recycled materials). An innovation coefficient of 1.0 indicates that 100% of the impact of the second investment
will be added to the impact of the first, while a coefficient of 0 means that the second investment would add no additional value.

DOE/OE-0034 - Zinc Batteries Technology Strategy Assessment | Page 6

 Department of Energy | July 2023
Implementation of manufacturing best practices 9% 27% 27% 36% *
Developing a manufacturing ecosystem 0% 33% * 33% * 33% *
Improved Zn metal performance 43% 57% * 0% 0%
Cathode materials optimization and new materials discovery 42% 58% * 0% 0%
Advanced electrolyte/additive development 50% * 50% * 0% 0%
Standardization of testing and safety requirements 38% * 23% 8% 31%
Demonstration projects 19% 44% * 19% 19%
Enhancing domestic recycling 19% 25% 31% * 25%

Innovations identified most frequently in the top 10% of the portfolios are presented in Figure 3. As
discussed in the next section of this report, while there are some basic research-focused innovations
that appear to hold great promise for reducing cost and improving performance at modest investment
levels (e.g., cathode materials development and improved Zn metal performance), these
investments alone will not reach the deep reductions in LCOS targeted by the Energy Storage Grand
Challenge.

Figure 3. Innovation representation in the top 10% of the portfolios

R&D Opportunities
Together, the Framework Study and Flight Paths listening session with the Zn-battery industry and
industry-informed experts identified critical R&D needs and opportunities to advance the
commercialization and widespread deployment of Zn-based batteries, particularly for stationary
storage.
The Flight Paths listening session presented guiding questions around Zn-battery challenges and
opportunities to active representatives from the Zn-MnO2, Zn-Air, Zn-Br (flow), Zn-Ni, Zn-ion, and Zn
anode and supply chain industries. Technologies were rated with an average technology readiness
level of 5.7/9 and an average manufacturing readiness level of 4.4/9, suggesting an intermediate
level of commercial development for the field as a whole. These values, however, were a reflection
of both emerging technologies described above, as well as those already in early deployment. These

DOE/OE-0034 - Zinc Batteries Technology Strategy Assessment | Page 7

 Department of Energy | July 2023
values are expected to shift, however, as battery scale, performance, and cycle life (metrics linked
to deployability) grow through continued R&D. As mentioned above, some of these technologies are
sufficiently mature to manufacture and deploy as commercial systems today, although continued
technical advances will also accelerate their future deployability.
When discussing impediments limiting widespread Zn-battery deployment, the most significant
technical hurdle identified was battery cycle life and the material components that affect cycling
efficiency and lifetime. Another concern was effective, safe management of evolving gas, which is
an issue tied to many aqueous batteries.
Interestingly, participants also identified what other technology providers might say were the
limitations of Zn-based batteries, which included technical issues around battery cycling
performance, lifetime were highlighted, and especially energy density. Energy density was identified
as only a minor concern by the industry experts in the field, which reveals a disconnect between
what the battery community and the Zn-battery industry understand about these batteries. This
disconnect highlights an opportunity for education and public relations regarding Zn-based batteries.
Improved awareness and understanding of Zn-batteries, including their virtues and limitations, were
seen as a potentially valuable tool to improve market availability and motivate the development of
more Zn-suitable and effective safety regulations, standards, and deployment policies.
When discussing the “pre-competitive” innovations could advance Zn-based batteries, a mix of both
technical and non-technical opportunities were identified. (Non-technical opportunities will be
described in the next section.) The most desirable technical innovations included electrolytes,
cathodes, and separators, which again correlate with the prioritized impact of the components that
impact cycle life efficiency and lifetime, as mentioned above. Although the specific nature of these
innovations varied by technology, (for example, Zn-Air has different cathode challenges than Zn-
MnO2), common themes arose around these battery material components. These three components
(electrolytes, cathodes, and separators) were further highlighted when the group identified the
components of Zn-batteries that would benefit most from DOE/National Laboratory technical
assistance. Curiously, in the Framework Study, Zn anode performance was recognized as a battery
innovation element with “great promise for reducing cost and improving performance at modest
investment levels” (see Figure 3 and Table 4). This potential impact does not align well with the
Flight Path findings, which indicated that anode development was not an area where DOE/National
Laboratory involvement was prioritized. One interpretation of this apparent inconsistency could be
that this community does not perceive this topic as pre-competitive, or that it is not a particularly
limiting technical component of the battery today (i.e., other, more immediate concerns simply
outweigh the importance of optimizing the anode, despite the potential impact of such innovations).
As important as the anode may be, it is also conceivable that the battery innovators believe that
challenges related to the anode can be handled internally, the technical challenges may have been
addressed already, or the anode challenges may be addressed through complementary innovations
in electrolyte and separators. It is recognized that any electrolyte innovation or advance would be
intimately involved with the function of the Zn anode (and cathode). Thus, while the responses at
the component level are informative, the full function of the battery is the ultimate objective and is
reflected by the collective, potentially collaborative, impact of the component innovations.
These technical innovation elements, which represent the fundamental elements of a battery, reflect
the reality that these companies are pressing forward with technologies as they stand today.
Importantly, there remains a clear NEED to prioritize continued R&D beyond basic engineering and
minor technical optimization. If they are to succeed in industry over the longer term, as markets
change and demands on storage systems evolve, these technologies must be able to evolve and
adapt. Absolutely central to that evolution is a robust technical, scientific foundation continually
generated and updated by high-quality, application-focused fundamental research.

DOE/OE-0034 - Zinc Batteries Technology Strategy Assessment | Page 8

 Department of Energy | July 2023

Additional Opportunities and Discussion

Beyond the specific technical challenges and opportunities, numerous non-technical challenges
concerned the industry team and were raised in both the Framework and Flight Paths engagements.
In the Flight Paths listening session, during the initial discussions around significant impediments
that are limiting Zn-battery deployment, non-technical hurdles, such as funding (particularly around
capital investments), were a priority. In fact, this point was reiterated as a major concern because
the group identified capital investment at a level of $25 million to $100 million as one of the most
significant issues that “keeps the [chief technology officer and chief executive officer] up at night.”
Notably, these values bridge the large-scale investments from Figure 2 above ($120 million to
$150 million) and the activity-specific investments from Table 4 below ($5 million to $20 million).
These agreeable values collectively show that large investments (possibly from multiple sources)
will be essential for advancing Zn-battery commercialization.
Many of the other non-technical issues, such as manufacturing, demonstrations, regulations and
safety, supply chain, and end-of-life considerations, have already been called out in the Framework
discussion; however, these issues were also raised in the Flight Paths listening session, and there
were numerous parallels between the two efforts.
With respect to safety regulations, standards, and policies, many participants noted that these
aspects of battery development are disproportionately designed and implemented with a nearly
exclusive focus on lithium-ion batteries. Because Zn-based batteries present inherently different
chemistries and performance metrics, forcing Zn-based batteries into the Li-ion requirements matrix
was seen as limiting, expensive, and ineffective. Some of the key needs identified included a
standardized set of cycling protocols, performance requirements, and installation guidelines for
different long-duration storage use cases (e.g., few versus tens of hours versus 100-hour storage,
relevant charge/discharge rates, temperature ranges) rather than imposing short-duration standards
and protocols on non-Li-ion, LDES-targeted chemistries. This challenge applied not only to
developed batteries but also material supply chain and associated Toxic Substances Control Act
(TSCA) requirements. In addition to Li-ion incumbency in the industry, another concern over long
interconnect application queues was raised. The current wait time, which is on the order of years, is
recognized as a major limiting factor for implementing all emerging technologies.
The discussions about supply chain extended beyond the Li-ion constraints, although there was a
mixed response from participants as to whether there was a supply chain concern for Zn batteries.
It was recognized that although Zn metal is a globally abundant and inexpensive material, “battery-
grade” Zn is not always seen as readily and domestically available, or current supply chains are
consumed/dominated by other industries (Zn primary batteries or steel) and many of these supply
chains currently are not domestic. There was also some recognition that supply chain and end of life
or recycling should be considered as part of a more comprehensive manufacturing ecosystem that
remains immature today. There was agreement, however, that as markets grow and scale of
manufacturing increases, this ecosystem is likely to mature. Identifying strategies to repurpose or
leverage existing battery manufacturing infrastructure/expertise and to introduce greater automation
to manufacturing as that ecosystem matures would help to increase efficiency, limit waste, and
reduce timelines to large-scale manufacturing and deployment.
Access to crucial workforce capacity, along with manufacturing, were identified as challenges central
to both developed and emerging manufacturing. Many of the workers with expertise in batteries and
related technology production are not located in the United States, even if they were trained in the
United States (e.g., foreign graduate students). For the remaining domestic workforce, there is

DOE/OE-0034 - Zinc Batteries Technology Strategy Assessment | Page 9

 Department of Energy | July 2023
competition for workers from both established (Li-ion, Pb-acid) and emerging battery technologies.
Prioritizing increased training and education for battery storage (on the whole) would help meet Zn-
battery workforce needs.
Beyond engaging DOE or National Laboratories with R&D opportunities, there was significant
interest in cooperation with DOE to enable demonstration projects and validation/testing sites or to
develop cost-modeling tools, analogous to Li-ion resources, such as BatPac. There was additional
desire to form Zn-centric consortia or increase engagement with existing consortia like those in
development by organizations such as NAATBatt. Public investment in Zn battery science and
technology has been modest compared with the scale of the investments in Li-ion batteries. Thus,
even modest incremental investments—ranging from fundamental science, as noted above, to tools
for those interested in moving technologies to products—would be useful. These activities could be
enabled through consortia with multiple companies participating, appropriate academic partners,
and taking advantage of DOE and National Laboratory technical and analytics expertise. A small
minority of the companies could speak to successful DOE relationships; however, the majority of the
respondents were unaware of what DOE resources were available to them, indicating an opportunity
to improve community awareness of existing capabilities and expertise available throughout DOE.
For those who had tried to work with DOE, there was some concern that the processes for
contracting were cumbersome and often prohibitive. Finding pathways to streamline and incentivize
collaboration between industry and DOE/National Laboratories would be desirable.
Regarding Zn potential for LDES applications, most participants indicated that a Zn battery
technology capable of 10+ hours discharge duration would be produced within 3 years. Moreover,
participants indicated that, within the next 3 years, many companies were targeting 4 hours to 12
hours of storage and a few others indicated that they were targeting more than 12 hours of storage.
Other participants indicated that they were working toward applications that would compete with
other current markets, such as 2 hours to 4 hours of storage, currently dominated by Li-ion. These
trends reflected a significant, articulated belief that Zn-based batteries are well suited to LDES,
provided they can meet key long-duration performance metrics, such as cycle life on a large scale.
The 3-year target for LDES deployment is slightly lower than innovation impact timelines indicated
in Table 4. This difference suggests that many of the innovations and improvements proposed may
be aimed at later generations or evolving technologies.
Among the significant challenges to realizing the deployment of LDES goals was a poorly defined,
immature stationary storage market space that is currently dominated by the Li-ion industry. Some
of this market is defined by market policies, which again, are largely geared toward shorter-duration
Li-ion technologies at present. Future revisions to market rules and policies could take full advantage
of the capabilities in new technologies. The degree of renewable energy deployment was also
identified as an expected market driver for larger-scale, longer-duration storage. Integrating
renewables with the storage during this market evolution may help to achieve more efficient and
optimal mating of storage capabilities with market needs. Consideration of “the total system” could
factor in all of the benefits, challenges, lifecycle, manufacturing, and evolving application needs of a
system as priorities and strategies for storage integration are developed. Finally, recognizing that
the markets, storage needs, and demands on technology change, it is once again clear that the
fundamental R&D underpinning anticipated responsive, adaptive technological solutions must
remain a priority.
As presented in Table 4, the Framework Study revealed that separator innovations, cathode
materials optimization, improved Zn metal performance, and pack/system-level design for Zn-
batteries consistently yielded metrics in the top tier, which is designated with asterisks (*). Daggers
(†) represent mid-tier metrics and double daggers (‡) represent the lowest tier. Separator
innovations were the largest contributor to a reduced LCOS for Zn-batteries, and several innovations
demonstrate strength in this metric. The Framework Team recognizes that some estimates are

DOE/OE-0034 - Zinc Batteries Technology Strategy Assessment | Page 10

 Department of Energy | July 2023
aggressive and optimistic yet remain worthy of our attention as they demonstrate a strong directional
cue from the industry that these promising innovations have broad industry support. Enhanced
domestic recycling, supply chain analytics, and mining/metallurgy were not viewed as promising by
the industry. More detailed data, including minimum and maximum values and standard deviations
for each metric, are presented in Appendix D.

Table 4. Impacts of proposed R&D investment levels, investment requirements, and timelines. Cells with
asterisks (*) represent top-tier effects, cells with daggers (†) represent mid-tier metrics, and double daggers (‡)
represent the lowest tier.
Storage Cycle Life Round-trip Mean Investment
Mean Timeline
Innovation Block Cost Improvement Efficiency Impact Requirement (in
(years)
Impact (%) (%) (%) million $)
Mining and metallurgy innovations for
-20.3% ‡ 0.0% ‡ 0.0% ‡ 16.3 ‡ 4.4 †
battery-grade Zn metal
Supply chain analytics for sustainable
-16.3% ‡ 0.0% ‡ 0.0% ‡ 11.4 † 2.6 *
sourcing
Inactive materials cost reduction -27.5% † 50.0% † 0.0% ‡ 7.7 2.7 *
Separator innovation -51.7% * 195.7% * 20.0% † 11.7 † 4.2 †
Pack/System-level design -28.0% * 35.0% † 12.5% † 16.0 † 3.5 *
Implementation of manufacturing best
-21.5% † 110.0% * 2.0% ‡ 24.4 ‡ 3.4 *
practices
Developing a manufacturing ecosystem -24.1% † 50.0% † 0.0% ‡ 64.2 ‡ 5.6 ‡
Improved Zn metal performance -30.0% * 242.1% * 30.0% * 8.4 * 4.4 †
Cathode materials optimization and new
-28.3% * 430.0% * 6.7% † 9.0 † 4.8 ‡
materials discovery
Advanced electrolyte/additive development -5.0% ‡ 217.1% * 26.7% * 7.8 * 4.4 †
Standardization of testing and safety
-5.0% ‡ 0.0% ‡ 0.0% ‡ 3.9 * 3.6 †
requirements
Demonstration projects -27.5% † 100.0% † 60.0% * 57.4 ‡ 4.9 ‡
Enhancing domestic recycling -4.0% ‡ 0.0% ‡ 0.0% ‡ 23.6 ‡ 4.4 †

The recommended investment levels and timeline by innovation are also identified in Table 4. Most
investments required are in the $5 million to $20 million range over a period of 3 to 5 years.
Developing a manufacturing ecosystem, establishing demonstration projects, implementation of best
practices, and enhanced recycling require significant investments in industrial processes and project
development, and therefore require more capital and time. A pattern that emerges is that there are
several innovations that yield impactful outcomes at relatively low investment levels, including
improved Zn metal (anode) performance, cathode materials optimization, separator innovation,
pack/system-level design, and inactive materials cost reductions. Investment in these innovations,
along with those in electrolyte/additive development and the standardization of safety requirements,
would yield solid reductions in LCOS at a modest required investment level. Activities that could help
reach the $0.05/kWh target, include demonstration projects that involve the development and
validation of advanced controls and management systems, as well as the development of a
manufacturing ecosystem to support the deployment of technologies at scale.

Although the needs, opportunities, and priorities of each Zn-based battery are unique and complex,
there are some specific topics that emerged as potential priority focus areas in both the Framework
Study and the Flight Paths listening session. Although it may be an overly broad prioritization, Flight
Paths may be seen as providing a qualitative sense of where the industry sees needs and
opportunities for collaborative advancement of technology, while the Framework Study provides a
numerically derived assessment of what innovations, advances, or developments may offer timely,
cost-effective, and meaningful impact toward battery manufacturing and deployment. Summarized

DOE/OE-0034 - Zinc Batteries Technology Strategy Assessment | Page 11

 Department of Energy | July 2023
in Table 5, cathodes, separators, and electrolytes were seen as common R&D areas where there is
both need (Flight Paths) and modeled impact (Framework) for innovation. The potentially significant
impact of the anode registered in the Framework Study did not align with the Flight Paths input from
industry. As mentioned above, anode development may be a potentially high-impact battery
component, but it may not be an explicit pre-competitive area where industry is seeking assisted
innovation. In the non-technical areas, the Flight Paths and Framework Study showed more
distinction. Flight Paths participants voiced a greater emphasis on DOE-enabled education;
improved relevance of codes, standards, and validation; greater access to demonstrations; and an
emphasis on community engagement/collaboration. The Framework Study also identified
demonstrations as a common source of impactful opportunity; however, other non-technical impact
areas related to the practical production of batteries were highlighted. Topics such as manufacturing,
system designs, and inactive materials cost reductions were emphasized priorities. These topics
should not be taken as exclusive priorities because key issues around the supply chain and
workforce were also highlighted as priorities, albeit less significant. Ultimately, these studies have
provided key insights into what industry and other experts working in Zn-batteries recognize as key
gaps and opportunities to advance Zn-based batteries. These insights may prove to be valuable in
identifying areas where DOE can engage and enable battery development—ranging from funding
basic science to enabling agile, evolving technologies to supporting large-scale demonstrations and
deployments as technologies mature.
Table 5. Summary of key opportunities identified from both the SI Framework and Flight Paths

R&D Technical Innovations Non-Technical Advances

Flight Paths Cathodes Education (public relations for Zn batteries)

Separators Zn-Specific Codes, Standards, Requirements, and Validation
Electrolytes (not force-fit to Li-ion)
Demonstrations/Validation Resources
Industry Cooperation (consortium/engagement with DOE/U.S.
Department of Defense)
Framework Separators Improved/Supported Manufacturing
Cathodes Pack/System-Level Design
Zn Anodes Demonstration Projects
Electrolytes Inactive Materials Cost Reductions

DOE/OE-0034 - Zinc Batteries Technology Strategy Assessment | Page 12

 Department of Energy | July 2023

Appendix A: Industry Contributors

Table A.1. List of SMEs contributing to the Framework analysis

Participant Institution
Erik Spoerke Sandia National Laboratories
Tim Lambert Sandia National Laboratories
Amy Marschilok Stony Brook University
Dan Steingart Columbia University
Debra Rolison United States Naval Research Laboratory
Ryan DeBlock United States Naval Research Laboratory
Jeffrey Long United States Naval Research Laboratory
Xingbo Liu West Virginia University
Rohan Akolkar Case Western Reserve University
Kang Xu United States Army Research Laboratory
Nian Liu Georgia Institute of Technology
Chungsheng Wang University of Maryland
Sanjoy Banerjee Urban Electric Power
Jinchao Huang Urban Electric Power
Gautam Yadav Urban Electric Power
Onas Bolton Octet Scientific
Josef Daniel-Ivad International Zinc Association
Frank Goodwin International Zinc Association
Francis Richey Eos
Michael Burz EnZinc
Meinrad Mahler EnZinc
Michael Galluzzo EnZinc
Philip Baker EnZinc
Sasha Gorer Zelos Energy
Simon Fan Zinc8 Energy Solutions
Steve Edley Zinc8 Energy Solutions
Brian Adams Salient Energy
Feng Zhao Storagenergy Technologies
Konstantin Tikhonov Imprint Energy

DOE/OE-0034 - Zinc Batteries Technology Strategy Assessment | Page 13

 Department of Energy | July 2023

Appendix B: Innovation Matrix and Definitions

Table B.1. List of innovations by innovation category. Some innovations apply to cavern storage and tank
storage; however, some only apply to tank storage.

Innovation Category Innovation

Raw materials sourcing Mining and metallurgy innovations for battery-grade Zn metal
Supply chain Supply chain analytics for sustainable sourcing
Technology components Inactive materials cost reduction
Separator innovation
Pack/System-level design
Manufacturing Implementation of manufacturing best practices
Developing a manufacturing ecosystem
Advanced materials development Improved Zn metal performance
Cathode materials optimization and new materials discovery
Advanced electrolyte/additive development
Deployment Standardization of testing and safety requirements
Demonstration projects
End of life Enhancing domestic recycling

Mining and metallurgy innovations for battery-grade Zn metal: Innovations such as

hydrometallurgical processes and mining ores at sufficient scale for producing battery-grade Zn
metal.
Supply chain analytics for sustainable sourcing: Supply chain analytics to identify opportunities
for sourcing of precursor materials (custom salts, binders, etc.) for cell assembly and the chemicals
required for developing next-generation electrolyte additives for improved performance.
Inactive materials cost reduction: System-level design or materials innovation to reduce the cost
of inactive materials (e.g., current collectors, cell housing, battery management system, busing).
Separator innovation: Materials innovation to reduce the cost and/or improve the performance of
separator technologies. This includes the integration of materials from other electrochemical
systems (e.g., Pb-acid, fuel cells), the development of new separators with selective transport
properties and improved conductivity, or other innovations that drive down the cost of materials.
Pack/System-level design: Optimization of cell architectures specific to Zn chemistries, rather
than relying on existing architectures (e.g., Li-ion, Pb-acid) to reduce the required cell infrastructure
(e.g., battery management system requirements) relative to existing systems.
Implementation of manufacturing best practices: Increased automation, waste reduction,
adapting existing infrastructure (e.g., idled Pb-acid plants), and the integration of best practices
from existing manufacturing modalities (e.g., Pb-acid, Li-ion).
Developing a manufacturing ecosystem: Supplier engagement for critical component
manufacturing at relevant scales and overall standardization of critical system components to de-
risk component development for suppliers and manufacturers.
Improved Zn metal performance: Electrode architecturing for improved morphology control,
alloying concepts, and other innovations that suppress dendrite formation and improve the
performance of the Zn metal anode. This does not include electrolyte design.
Cathode materials optimization and new materials discovery: Discoveries that enable
improved performance of existing cathode materials (e.g., enabling two-electron transfer for

DOE/OE-0034 - Zinc Batteries Technology Strategy Assessment | Page 14

 Department of Energy | July 2023
MnO2), the discovery of new materials (e.g., reversible Zn intercalation cathodes for Zn-ion), and
the discovery of new catalysts/electrode architectures that can enable improved performance (e.g.,
for Zn-air, Zn-Br).
Advanced electrolyte/additive development: New electrolyte chemistries/additives for improved
electrode reversibility (anode and cathode), enhanced temperature stability, higher voltage
operation, and other innovations that improve the performance or decrease the cost of the overall
system.
Standardization of testing and safety requirements: Development of standardized cycling
protocols for different long-duration storage use cases (e.g., few versus tens of hours versus 100-
hour storage, relevant charge/discharge rates), the definition of other performance requirements
(e.g., high/low temperature stability, acceptable self-discharge rates), and Zn-specific installation
guidelines that are not derived from Li-ion best practices (e.g., battery management system
requirements). This also includes expanded testing infrastructure, improved access, and a lower
cost for testing capabilities.
Demonstration projects: Innovations that are combined in a demonstration project for a specific
deployment. This would likely be conducted through a consortium of companies or utilities, with
DOE and private entities both contributing to the project. Analytics support could be supplied by
National Laboratories.
Enhancing domestic recycling: Innovations that enhance recycling automation and domestic
capacity and reduce its environmental impact. This could include hydrometallurgy for secondary Zn
production, recycling electrolyte, and recovering byproducts to improve the value proposition for
recycling. This could also include innovations that plan for the recycling of the battery during the
design and manufacturing stages rather than designing it purely for battery performance and then
devoting resources to determine the best method for recycling it. This includes strategies to
recycle/refurbish the battery at its deployment location in order to extend its economic lifetime.

DOE/OE-0034 - Zinc Batteries Technology Strategy Assessment | Page 15

 Department of Energy | July 2023

Appendix C: Innovation Coefficients

Table C.1. Innovation coefficients

Implementation of manufacturing best

Mining and metallurgy innovations for

Standardization of testing and safety

Cathode materials optimization and
Inactive materials cost reduction

Improved Zn metal performance

Enhancing domestic recycling

Advanced electrolyte/additive
Developing a manufacturing
Supply chain analytics for

Pack/System-level design

new materials discovery

Demonstration projects
battery-grade Zn metal

sustainable sourcing

Separator innovation

requirements
development
ecosystem
practices
Innovation

Mining and – 0.25 0.50 0.50 0.50 0.35 0.35 0.25 0.50 0.50 0.50 0.50 0.15
metallurgy
innovations for
battery-grade Zn
metal
Supply chain 0.25 – 0.20 0.25 0.50 0.40 0.50 0.25 0.20 0.30 0.50 0.50 0.20
analytics for
sustainable sourcing
Inactive materials 0.50 0.20 – 0.10 0.25 0.45 0.85 0.65 0.65 0.20 0.50 0.75 0.40
cost reduction
Separator innovation 0.50 0.25 0.10 – 0.55 0.40 0.50 0.60 0.65 0.60 0.40 0.60 0.40
Pack/System-level 0.50 0.50 0.25 0.55 – 0.25 0.65 0.55 0.60 0.60 0.50 0.55 0.30
design
Implementation of 0.35 0.40 0.45 0.40 0.25 – 0.20 0.40 0.40 0.40 0.45 0.65 0.50
manufacturing best
practices
Developing a 0.35 0.50 0.85 0.50 0.65 0.20 – 0.50 0.50 0.50 0.50 0.65 0.25
manufacturing
ecosystem
Improved Zn metal 0.25 0.25 0.65 0.60 0.55 0.40 0.50 – 0.50 0.75 0.50 0.65 0.50
performance
Cathode materials 0.50 0.20 0.65 0.65 0.60 0.40 0.50 0.50 – 0.55 0.55 0.65 0.45
optimization and new
materials discovery
Advanced 0.50 0.30 0.20 0.60 0.60 0.40 0.50 0.75 0.55 – 0.55 0.60 0.55
electrolyte/additive
development
Standardization of 0.50 0.50 0.50 0.40 0.50 0.45 0.50 0.50 0.55 0.55 – 0.85 0.50
testing and safety
requirements
Demonstration 0.50 0.50 0.75 0.60 0.55 0.65 0.65 0.65 0.65 0.60 0.85 – 0.50
projects
Enhancing domestic 0.15 0.20 0.40 0.40 0.30 0.50 0.25 0.50 0.45 0.55 0.50 0.50 –
recycling

DOE/OE-0034 - Zinc Batteries Technology Strategy Assessment | Page 16

 Department of Energy | July 2023

Appendix D: Descriptive Statistics for Individual

Innovations
Table D.1. Descriptive statistics for individual innovations

Investment_

Investment_

Investment_

Investment_
Innovation_

Timeline_

Timeline_

Timeline_

Timeline_
Innovation

mean

mean

mean

mean
sbc_

sbc_

sbc_

sbc_

cyc_

cyc_

cyc_

cyc_
high

high

high

high
low

low

low

low
std

std

std

std
cat

Raw materials Mining and 4.00 28.67 16.33 19.44 1.75 7.00 4.38 3.42 -0.05 -3.00 -0.67 1.30 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
sourcing metallurgy
innovations for
battery-grade Zn
metal
Supply chain Supply chain 3.00 19.75 11.38 16.21 1.60 3.60 2.60 1.51 -0.05 -3.00 -0.71 1.28 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
analytics for
sustainable
sourcing
Technology Inactive 1.30 14.00 7.65 15.15 1.67 3.67 2.67 1.37 -0.05 -2.00 -0.65 0.91 0.50 0.50 0.50 0.00
components materials cost
reduction
Separator 2.90 20.40 11.65 24.26 2.29 6.14 4.21 3.12 -0.25 -5.00 -1.92 2.67 0.20 5.00 1.96 1.85
innovation
Pack/System- 3.20 28.80 16.00 30.12 1.86 5.14 3.50 2.41 -0.05 -5.00 -1.12 2.17 0.20 0.50 0.35 0.21
level design
Manufacturing Implementation 5.30 43.40 24.35 40.04 1.79 5.00 3.39 2.42 -0.05 -3.00 -0.60 1.18 0.20 2.00 1.10 1.27
of manufacturing
best practices
Developing a 13.80 114.6 64.20 154.2 3.40 7.80 5.60 3.34 -0.01 -3.00 -0.63 1.18 0.50 0.50 0.50 0.00
manufacturing 0 7
ecosystem
Advanced Improved Zn 3.14 13.71 8.43 13.05 2.13 6.63 4.38 3.36 -0.30 -0.30 -0.30 0.00 0.20 10.00 2.42 3.76
materials metal
development performance
Cathode 4.00 14.00 9.00 12.97 2.25 7.25 4.75 3.61 -0.30 -0.50 -0.37 0.12 0.50 10.00 4.30 3.83
materials
optimization and
new materials
discovery
Advanced 2.43 13.14 7.79 13.31 2.13 6.63 4.38 3.36 -0.20 0.10 -0.05 0.21 0.20 5.00 2.17 2.00
electrolyte/additi
ve development
Deployment Standardization 1.50 6.33 3.92 3.85 1.86 5.29 3.57 2.65 -0.05 -0.05 -0.05 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
of testing and
safety
requirements
Demonstration 4.50 110.3 57.42 140.8 2.29 7.57 4.93 3.56 -0.05 -0.50 -0.28 0.32 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.00
projects 3 5
End of life Enhancing 3.83 43.33 23.58 3.8.16 2.29 6.57 4.43 3.37 -0.02 -0.05 -0.04 0.02 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
domestic
recycling

sbc = storage block cost, cyc = lifetime cycles

DOE/OE-0034 - Zinc Batteries Technology Strategy Assessment | Page 17

 Department of Energy | July 2023

References
[1] K. Kordesch and W. Taucher-Mautner, "Primary Batteries –- Aqueous Systems | Leclanche
and Zinc-Carbon," in Encyclopedia of Electrochemical Power Sources, 2009, pp. 43-54.
[2] P. A. Marsal, K. Kordesch, and L. F. Urry, "Dry Cell," U.S. Patent 2,960,558, 1960.
[3] W. J. R. Wruck, B, K. R. Bullock, and W. H. Kao, "Rechargeable Zn-MnO2 Alkaline
Batteries," J. Electrochem. Soc. , vol. 138, no. 12, pp. 3560-3567, 1991.
[4] M. B. Lim, T. N. Lambert, and B. R. Chalamala, "Rechargeable alkaline zinc-manganese
oxide batteries for grid stroage: Mechanisms, challenges, and developments," Mater. Sci. &
Eng. R, vol. 143, 2021, doi: 10.1016/j.mser.2020.100593.
[5] M. B. Lim and T. N. Lambert, Rechargeable Zinc Batteries for Grid Storage, 2021. [Online].
Available:
https://www.sandia.gov/app/uploads/sites/163/2021/09/ESHB_Ch5_Zinc_Lim.pdf.
[6] F. R. McLarnon and E. J. Cairns, "The Secondary Alkaline Zinc Electrode. ," J.
Electrochem. Soc., vol. 138, no. 2, pp. 645-656, 1991.
[7] W. J. Walsh, "Advanced batteries for electric vehicles - a look at the future. ," Physics
Today, vol. 33, no. 6, 1980.
[8] G. W. Heise, "Air-polarized primary battery," Patent 1899615, 1933.
[9] E. D. Spoerke et al., "Driving Zn-MnO2 Gridscale Batteries: A Roadmap to Cost-Effective
Storage," MRD Energy & Sustainability, vol. 9, pp. 13-18, 2022.
[10] J. F. Parker et al., "Rechargeable nickel–3D zinc batteries: An energy-dense, safer
alternative to lithium-ion," Science, vol. 356, no. 6336, 2017.
[11] J. Yi et al., "Challenges, mitigation strategies and perspectives in development of zinc-
electrode materials and fabrication for rechargeable zinc–air batteries," Energy & Environ.
Sci. , vol. 11, no. 11, pp. 3075-3095, 2018.
[12] L. Gao et al., "A High-Performance Aqueous Zinc-Bromine Static Battery," iScience, vol.
23, 2020.
[13] V. Viswanathan, K. Mongird, R. Franks, X. Li, V. Sprenkle, and R. Baxter, "Grid Energy
Storage Technical Cost and Performance Assessment," United States, PNNL-33283, 2022.

DOE/OE-0034 - Zinc Batteries Technology Strategy Assessment | Page 18