Search NASA⌕ Search

DOE OSTI · 1637433

Batteries Annual Progress Report (FY2019)

Taggougui, Mohamed·Thakur, Madhuri·Hayner, Cary·Slater, Michael·Wang, Yan·Surampudi, Bapiraju·Smith, Ian·Lopez, Herman·Hellring, Stuart·Costantino, Henry R.·Wood III, David L.·Du, Zhijia·Li, Jianlin·Kahvecioglu, Ozge·Libera, Joseph·Shin, Youngho·Xing, Yangchuan (Chad)·Pintauro, Peter N.·Dzwiniel, Trevor·Wood, Brandon C.·Battaglia, Vincent·Tucker, Michael·Ceder, Gerbrand·Srinivasan, Venkat·Iddir, Hakim H.·Smith, Kandler·Colclasure, Andrew·Finegan, Donal·Dey, Satadru·Rao, Ranjeet·Santhanagopalan, Shriram·Roberts, Scott A.·Abraham, Daniel P.·Bae, Chulheung·Allu, Srikanth·Gaines, Linda·Pesaran, Ahmad·Spangenberger, Jeff·Zhang, Zhengcheng (John)·Dufek, Eric·Keyser, Matthew·Usseglio-Viretta, Francois·Mai, Weijie·Brow, Ryan·Allen, Jeffrey·Dai, Sheng·Karulkar, Mohan·Amine, Khalil·Takeuchi, Esther·Takeuchi, Kenneth J.·Marschilok, Amy C.·Bock, David C.·Balsara, Nitash P.·Liu-Mattis, Wenjuan·Burrell, Anthony·Ahmed, Shabbir·Bloom, Ira·Robertson, David·Prezas, Panos·Flores, LeRoy·Lamb, Joshua·Saxon, Aron·Bethel, Thomas·Jansen, Andrew N.·Lu, Wenquan·Walker, Lee·Vaughey, Jack·Liu, Gao·Zhang, Ji-Guang·Li, Xiaolin·Cui, Yi·Croy, Jason R.·Wang, Feng·Bai, Jianming·Goodenough, John B.·Chen, Guoying·Toney, Michael F.·Strmcnik, Dusan·Stamenkovic, Vojislav·Doeff, Marca M.·Xiao, Jie·Tenent, Robert·Hendershot, Ron·Sunstrom, Joseph·Falzone, Alec·Kodas, Toivo·Meng, Ying Shirley·Belharouak, Ilias·Xin, Huolin·Lin, Feng·Persson, Kristin A.·Xu, Wu·Fan, Jiang·Manthiram, Arumugam·Kidner, Neil·Wang, Donghai·Wang, Chao-Yang·Jagjit, Nanda·Wang, Chongmin·Kostecki, Robert

Abstract

The Vehicle Technologies Office (VTO) of the Department of Energy (DOE) conducts research and development (R&D) on advanced transportation technologies that would reduce the nation’s use of imported oil and would also lead to reductions in harmful emissions. Technologies supported by VTO include electric drive components such as advanced energy storage devices (primarily batteries), power electronics and electric drive motors, advanced structural materials, energy efficient mobility systems, advanced combustion engines, and fuels. VTO is focused on funding early-stage high-reward/high-risk research to improve critical components needed for more fuel efficient (and cleaner-operating) vehicles. One of the major VTO objectives is to enable U.S. innovators to rapidly develop the next generation of technologies that achieve the cost, range, and charging infrastructure necessary for the widespread adoption of plug-in electric vehicles (PEVs). An important prerequisite for the electrification of the nation’s light duty transportation sector is development of more cost-effective, longer lasting, and more abuse-tolerant PEV batteries. One of the ultimate goals of this research, consistent with the current vehicle electrification trend, is an EV which can provide the full driving performance, convenience, and price of an internal combustion engine (ICE) vehicle. To achieve this, VTO has established the following overarching goal (Source: FY2021 Congressional Budget Justification1): …identify new battery chemistry and cell technologies with the potential to reduce the cost of electric vehicle battery packs by more than half, to less than $100/kWh (ultimate goal is $60/kWh battery cell cost), increase range to 300 miles, and decrease charge time to 15 minutes or less by 2028. VTO works with key U.S. automakers through the United States Council for Automotive Research (USCAR) – an umbrella organization for collaborative research consisting of Fiat Chrysler Automobiles (FCA), the Ford Motor Company, and General Motors. Collaboration with automakers through the partnership known as U.S. Driving Research and Innovation for Vehicle Efficiency and Energy Sustainability (U.S. DRIVE) attempts to enhance the relevance and the success potential of its research portfolio. VTO competitively selects projects for funding through funding opportunity announcements (FOAs). Directly-funded work at the national laboratories are awarded competitively through a lab-call process. During the past year, VTO continued R&D in support of PEVs. Stakeholders for VTO R&D include universities, national laboratories, other government agencies and industry (including automakers, battery manufacturers, material suppliers, component developers, private research firms, and small businesses). This document summarizes the progress of VTO battery R&D projects supported during the fiscal year 2019 (FY 2019).

Explore related subjects

Keep this discovery

Explore connections, maps & timelines

BibTeXRIS

Taggougui, Mohamed, Thakur, Madhuri, Hayner, Cary, Slater, Michael, Wang, Yan, Surampudi, Bapiraju, Smith, Ian, Lopez, Herman, Hellring, Stuart, Costantino, Henry R., Wood III, David L., Du, Zhijia, Li, Jianlin, Kahvecioglu, Ozge, Libera, Joseph, Shin, Youngho, Xing, Yangchuan (Chad), Pintauro, Peter N., Dzwiniel, Trevor, Wood, Brandon C., Battaglia, Vincent, Tucker, Michael, Ceder, Gerbrand, Srinivasan, Venkat, Iddir, Hakim H., Smith, Kandler, Colclasure, Andrew, Finegan, Donal, Dey, Satadru, Rao, Ranjeet, Santhanagopalan, Shriram, Roberts, Scott A., Abraham, Daniel P., Bae, Chulheung, Allu, Srikanth, Gaines, Linda, Pesaran, Ahmad, Spangenberger, Jeff, Zhang, Zhengcheng (John), Dufek, Eric, Keyser, Matthew, Usseglio-Viretta, Francois, Mai, Weijie, Brow, Ryan, Allen, Jeffrey, Dai, Sheng, Karulkar, Mohan, Amine, Khalil, Takeuchi, Esther, Takeuchi, Kenneth J., Marschilok, Amy C., Bock, David C., Balsara, Nitash P., Liu-Mattis, Wenjuan, Burrell, Anthony, Ahmed, Shabbir, Bloom, Ira, Robertson, David, Prezas, Panos, Flores, LeRoy, Lamb, Joshua, Saxon, Aron, Bethel, Thomas, Jansen, Andrew N., Lu, Wenquan, Walker, Lee, Vaughey, Jack, Liu, Gao, Zhang, Ji-Guang, Li, Xiaolin, Cui, Yi, Croy, Jason R., Wang, Feng, Bai, Jianming, Goodenough, John B., Chen, Guoying, Toney, Michael F., Strmcnik, Dusan, Stamenkovic, Vojislav, Doeff, Marca M., Xiao, Jie, Tenent, Robert, Hendershot, Ron, Sunstrom, Joseph, Falzone, Alec, Kodas, Toivo, Meng, Ying Shirley, Belharouak, Ilias, Xin, Huolin, Lin, Feng, Persson, Kristin A., Xu, Wu, Fan, Jiang, Manthiram, Arumugam, Kidner, Neil, Wang, Donghai, Wang, Chao-Yang, Jagjit, Nanda, Wang, Chongmin, Kostecki, Robert. 2020-05-01. Batteries Annual Progress Report (FY2019). https://doi.org/10.2172/1637433

Cite the original work for its findings. Save a collection to share your selection of sources.

KEEP EXPLORING

Related reports

An immersed interface method for microstructure-scale electrochemical battery models: numerical formulation and performance portable implementation

We present the numerical formulation, verification, and performance portable implementation of an immersed interface method for microstructure scale electrochemical modeling of batteries. The innovation in this approach is the resolution of chemical species and electrostatic potential discontinuities at active interfaces without the use of interface conforming unstructured grids. A unified formulation on Cartesian grids for all domains (electrodes and electrolyte) is used with interfacial flux conditions applied using volume fraction or “color” function gradients. We have developed one dimensional and two dimensional test cases with analytic solutions for electrochemical modeling using which we verified the consistency and accuracy of our scheme. Our solver is also validated against solutions from a macroscale model and an unstructured multi-subdomain solver for a full lithium ion cell. We then demonstrated the utility of our solver on an image-based complex battery electrode microstructure at high charging rate. Our technique also exhibits good scalability on distributed memory architectures using central processing units (CPU), with problem sizes up to 1.8 billion degrees of freedom and with 5400 ranks. Initial performance studies of our open-source performance portable solver showed about 70 times speed up using a graphics processing unit (GPU) compared to single compute core for a problem with 4 million cells.

25 ENERGY STORAGE↗

Solvation-guided inhibition of manganese dissolution of lithium- and manganese- rich cathode via cyclic carbonate molecular engineering

Lithium and manganese-rich (LMR) layered oxides represent a leading class of high-energy cathode materials, but their practical realization is fundamentally limited by severe manganese (Mn) dissolution, a process that triggers structural degradation and rapid capacity fade. While mitigation efforts have predominantly focused on interfacial engineering, the intrinsic contribution of bulk electrolyte solvation to this degradation pathway remains largely unexplored, primarily due to the difficulty of deconvolving its effects from concurrent cathode-electrolyte interphase (CEI) formation. Here, we report an experimental design to isolate the role of solvation. We systematically varied the electrolyte solvent solvation power by substituting the strongly coordinating ethylene carbonate (EC) with its weaker coordinating fluorinated derivatives, fluoroethylene carbonate (FEC) and trans-4,5-Difluoro-1,3-dioxolan-2-one (DFEC), while maintaining a consistent interfacial chemistry. Remarkably, the electrolyte formulated with the weakest solvent, DFEC, exhibits superior cycling stability, suppressing Mn dissolution by up to 63% relative to the conventional EC-based system. Post-mortem analysis unequivocally attributes this performance enhancement to the preservation of the LMR cathode's structural integrity, a direct consequence of mitigated Mn dissolution. This work provides conclusive evidence that modulating bulk electrolyte solvation is a potent and direct strategy for stabilizing LMR cathodes, establishing a vital design principle for next-generation battery systems.

25 ENERGY STORAGE↗

Geothermal district energy systems coupled with seasonal underground thermal energy storage: a U.S. techno-economic screening by climate and geology

In the United States, cooling-dominated commercial building loads can cause geothermal heat pump-based district energy systems to accumulate a long-term subsurface thermal imbalance, motivating the incorporation of seasonal underground thermal energy storage. We developed a transferable workflow to evaluate geothermal district systems that pair ground heat exchangers with seasonal underground thermal energy storage. Using standardized hourly loads for seven commercial buildings and a uniform cost framework, we simulated ten U.S. cities with a physics-based ground heat exchanger model, subsurface storage simulations, and economic assessment to isolate the roles of climate and hydrogeology. In cooling-dominated cities, underground thermal energy storage supplied the majority of annual cooling, cutting electricity use and summer peaks substantially while achieving levelized costs comparable to or below conventional chiller-boiler plants. In cooler climates, the storage share shrunk, required borefield size and costs rose, and levelized cost of energy increased nearly linearly with declining underground thermal energy storage fraction, indicating storage fraction as the primary economic lever. Sensitivity analysis showed capital risk dominated by borefield drilling and surface heating, ventilation, and air-conditioning and piping, with underground thermal energy storage costs secondary. This workflow provides a transparent foundation for site-specific design and screening of next-generation geothermal district energy systems.

25 ENERGY STORAGE↗