How organic flow batteries could erase the need for critical-mineral dependency

Renewable energy resources are taking on a leading role in global energy production due to their affordability, sustainability, and availability. However, many clean technologies require critical minerals, such as lithium, nickel, cobalt, copper, and rare earth elements. This presents a challenge to scaling up production and deployment, particularly in countries like the United States, where these materials are not found naturally or where refining capabilities are not available. What’s more, historically fraught relationships with some countries that do produce these materials can complicate the situation further. 

There’s a clear gap in the market for domestically-produced renewable energy innovations, particularly within battery energy storage. The global energy storage market is increasing year after year, a clear indicator that the adoption of clean, reliable energy is unstoppable. There’s an opportunity for the United States to stake its place within the burgeoning energy storage manufacturing and development industry by exploring alternative technologies that don’t require critical minerals or materials and instead make use of abundant, domestically-available resources.  

Critical-material alternatives 

Under the DOE’s Energy Act of 2020, “critical materials” include non-fuel minerals, elements, or substances that carry a high risk of supply chain disruption and serve an essential function in one or more energy technologies. Currently, the DOE maintains a list of 50 critical materials that meet these qualifications. 

The United States has incredibly limited domestic production of most critical materials on the DOE’s list. Therefore, it has a history of seeking trade and mining agreements to leverage the natural resources of other nations to meet ever-increasing demand for the many technologies that require critical minerals. Earlier this year, a long-awaited minerals deal was signed between the United States and Ukraine. The Donald Trump administration also introduced an executive order to pursue deep-sea mining in domestic and international waters with a goal of reducing reliance on foreign nations for critical minerals. Even with progress being made on certain fronts, ongoing trade challenges, import uncertainty, and geopolitical tensions underscore the need to shift to domestic alternatives in parallel to these efforts. 

Looking at energy storage technologies more specifically, two of the leading battery chemistries – lithium-ion and vanadium flow batteries – require materials on the DOE’s critical list. Lithium-ion has led the battery market for the last decade but as high-profile fires at large-scale projects raise skepticism about the future of lithium-ion developments, alternative battery options have become more attractive. 

For instance, flow batteries are non-flammable and especially well-suited for large-scale, long-duration applications. They can also support short-duration applications needing multiple cycles per day. However, the most mature flow batteries on the market today rely on vanadium for their battery chemistry. As a critical material with a limited annual production ceiling and domestic scalability constraints, it has a high cost floor that can cut into its competitive value when compared to lithium-ion. 

The good news? There are other flow battery chemistries available that leverage organic, abundant materials. These batteries have the potential to significantly reduce or even eliminate dependency on lithium, cobalt, vanadium, and nickel – all critical minerals that remain essential for most conventional energy storage systems.

Safe, available, affordable

Organic flow batteries are a strong alternative to lithium-ion for the mid- to long-duration energy storage space and many can be fully domestically produced. Flow batteries help stabilize utility grids amid rising energy demand and provide reliable backup power during extreme weather events.

Organic, aqueous flow batteries have become a strong competitor to vanadium – some technologies are being commercialized that use battery active materials produced from abundant, domestically-sourced materials such as coal tar. On the whole, flow batteries have been found to have the lowest levelized cost of storage of any non-geologically constrained technology for long-duration storage, beating even lithium-ion batteries and sodium-ion batteries – but only with new (i.e. non-vanadium) active materials.

Organic flow batteries offer the same fire safety benefits as vanadium systems, making them ideal for projects in densely populated settings — a crucial benefit as communities grapple with the risks and aftermath of recent lithium-ion battery fires like the one in Moss Landing, California, earlier this year. Their ability to leverage available, affordable materials rather than critical minerals subject to import duties and supply chain disruption, also improves the overall cost curve for organic flow batteries.

Ramping up production and adoption of organic flow batteries could provide decentralized, low-cost energy storage, reduce reliance on global critical-mineral supply chains, and facilitate a truly green energy transition with minimal environmental and geopolitical exposure. But this won’t be achieved overnight and it’ll require support from more than just battery developers and researchers. To move organic flow battery projects from pilot to commercial scale, we need greater awareness and education around their benefits and use cases; continued public and private investment into research, development, and demonstration efforts; and a supportive policy environment that streamlines project permitting rather than impedes it.

About the author:

Eugene Beh is the co-Founder and CEO of Quino Energy, a company commercializing aqueous organic flow batteries first developed at Harvard University’s School of Engineering and Applied Sciences.