Lead-Acid vs.

Lithium for the Smart-Grid:

Balancing the Illinois Battery Research Facility Efforts
Kurtis Kelley
Firefly International Energy Co.
2012

Writing this paper has been particularly difficult. We really have two goals; first, to express concern
about the potential for one-sided efforts at the new Illinois Battery Research Center and, second, to
dispel some myths and show you why advanced lead-acid chemistry, often overlooked, is so much
better than believed. We, at Firefly in Illinois, are very concerned about what technologies will receive
focus in the new facility at our back door; and if this is going to be just a repeat of the $2B federal
investment in batteries from just a few years ago. We are concerned, for the sake of this country, that
we will see more misguided focus on flavor-of-the-day technologies rather than taking an objective
approach to solving our grid and energy issues. I don't believe we need to go over specific
misjudgments involving that $2B investment, but we are wondering, are we doing it again with this
new center?
Poor decisions in these government-funded ventures are more hurtful than you realize. We all recall
that $2B U.S. federal funding of several battery technologies, overwhelmingly of lithium. What is not
known is some of the side effects of those technology decisions that were enormously harmful to this
country's other evolving battery technologies. In the eyes of battery investors, the federal government
had just voted on which technologies were good and which were bad, assuming that the decision
makers in Washington were qualified to do so. Investors quickly drew back from some promising
technologies and jumped to the federally funded technologies. Meanwhile the unsubsidized
companies struggled to find even private funding. New lead-acid technologies were largely ignored
and some small companies were accused of lying about test data. Venture investors reinvested in
failing, federally identified technologies with no ROI. Firefly is a case in point, and the response
letter that Firefly sent to the DOE, challenging each point for denial of funding in detail, went ignored.
Why was it ignored? Embarrassment? Were the companies being funded already chosen and excuses
manufactured to deny the others?
It is assumed from the press reports that Argonne will be orchestrating the Illinois Center. We also
challenge this decision based, in part, on past experience with the lab, their past suspect testing
equipment, and their voiced dismissal of lead-acid chemistry. Argonne appears to be overly defensive
of lithium, perhaps to justify the large expenditures of the past. Their patented cathode material has
never been used to manufacture in the U.S. in spite of the heavily federal subsidies in support of it.
The Korean LG chemical plant in Detroit that licensed the technology and which received $150M in
U.S. subsidies, has never produced a single battery in Detroit. The Chevy Volt, with agreements to use
the Korean battery and touted to be the darling of EV cars, is a dismal failure by any definition of the
word, both in cost and in performance. We are obviously concerned about the quality of oversight
historically being exhibited in ventures like this Illinois Battery Center. We also wonder why Firefly,
an Illinois company producing batteries with an Illinois discovered technology and one of the two most
advance lead-acid R&D centers in the world, was never contacted. Firefly has now spent nearly $60M
2012 Firefly International Energy Company

in focused, lead-acid R&D, mostly privately funded. Caterpillar spent additional resources in the
technology before spinning out Firefly. Besides the enormous knowledge base that Firefly has and is
willing to share for targeted projects in the U.S., it is also now successfully manufacturing and selling
advanced batteries in Illinois. But the company is struggling for capital and implementing its newer
technologies is economically impossible at this time. Firefly is working hard to succeed in spite of
what feels like federally-funded competition for deep-cycling, battery energy-storage.
The second purpose of this paper is to clear up some common misconceptions about both advanced
lead-acid and lithium battery technologies, and their suitability for deep-cycle, Smart-Grid applications.
It is worth exposing the misinformation that keep expectations for lead-acid batteries so low. While
there are other evolving battery types out there, the misinformation distributed between lead-acid and
lithium creates poor decisions and is harmful to our society and to this country. Useful comparison
between these two generic technologies eventually should come down to the sustained-cost-of-energystorage specific to any application, which includes all the consumer and societal costs including
environmental responsibility, U.S. access to raw materials, recycling, and maintenance and operational
costs. Each has its place, but the potential for lead-acid in creating an energy-efficient, sustainable
technology to support the U.S. need for high-performance battery storage is under-valued.
Battery Performance; Lithium and Lead-Acid:
Is lead-acid actually larger, heavier, less efficient, and shorter lived than lithium? Certainly if you
looked at the 100 year-old technology in your car's starter battery, you would think so. The flood of
poor quality, foreign batteries into this country would also tend to support those assumptions. Make no
mistake, these low-end batteries are selling hotly for vehicle starting application with little need for
improvement. But this is not representative of what lead-acid chemistry can actually do. Lets take a
simple case of the Chevy Volt lithium battery pack planned for 2013. These are deep-cycle batteries,
not unlike those needed for Smart Grid energy load-deferral. The Volt pack specifications are 53
Wh/kg and 105 Wh/l. Compare this simply with a traditional, industrial, lead-acid storage battery with
45 Wh/kg and 112 Wh/l. Not a big difference and these are not advanced lead-acid batteries. The big
difference comes in cost, cycle life, and calendar life. Cycle life can be higher in the lithium packs
compared to traditional lead-acid, but calendar life is actually shorter due to aging.
The graph to the left is from a 2010-2011 report
by the U.S. Idaho National Laboratory (INL)[1]
showing the general effects of temperature on
cycle life aging in lithium batteries. The INL had
this to say: Testing has identified the
technologies that suffer from temperature
dependent power and capacity fade. As an
example, lithium cycling at 30 degrees centigrade
shows nearly a 20% decrease in battery capacity
in about 10 months. Argonne National
Laboratory has this to say in a 2012 report [5];
In their present form, Li-ion batteries bear
several shortcomings. Continual charging and
discharging of the battery wears down the
structure and stability of its electrodes.
2012 Firefly International Energy Company

Furthermore, electrolytes of choice contain corrosive and flammable ingredients that are unstable at
high voltages, and electrode-electrolyte reactions can degrade electrode stability. To improve the safety
and longevity of these batteries, researchers will need to find new electrolytes and ways to protect
electrode surfaces at the electrode-electrolyte interface. Compare a projection of this with a
statement in a 2010 EPRI report [2]; A 1-MW/1.5-MWh lead-acid system by GNB Industrial Power
and Exide has been operating for 12 years at a remote island location in Alaska.... In that project, the
battery system exhibited very little visible degradation upon post-test analysis and was replaced in
2008.
These GNB batteries are a good example of the performance of traditional, industrial, lead-acid
storage batteries. While you can argue that the test conditions are different, it's clear that there is some
disparity in the common mindset that assumes lithium is better. A 2010 paper from Sandia National
Laboratory [3] also had this to say: There are at least 100,000 battery storage systems at utility
substations in the U.S....and control equipment when the grid is not energized. The vast majority of
these systems use lead-acid batteries... Apparently, users are generally satisfied, though reduced need
for routine maintenance, improved reliability, and longer battery life would make alternatives
attractive, especially if the cost is
comparable to that of the incumbent
technologies. Now consider that the
reduced need for routine maintenance,
improved reliability, and longer battery
life is already coming to fruition in
Advanced Lead-Acid Battery
technologies, precisely the focus of
companies like Firefly.
How much better are advanced lead acid
batteries to traditional ones? With
respect to the improvements suggested
by Sandia, very! To the right is a graph
of third part test data comparing the
Firefly Oasis battery with traditional
high-end lead-acid batteries of identical
size.
These tests were done in very abusive conditions to accelerate failure modes. The testing was
performed at 50 degree centigrade under over-charge conditions; far more abusive than normal
conditions in an application. The advanced lead-acid battery of Firefly actually performed over 4 times
better than the next best; and at a comparable cost for the battery itself. This translates into a 4X lower
cost-of-ownership.
Firefly is also not the only advanced lead-acid battery technology out there. Others that come to mind
include Axion's PbC battery from the Axion Power Battery Manufacturing company in Pennsylvania,
the UltraBattery being developed at East Penn Manufacturing Co. in Pennsylvania, and the LC spiral
Battery by Exide. The UltraBattery is currently being extensively tested in HEV applications, showing
superior results and with oversight by the Advanced Lead-Acid Battery Consortium (ALABC)[6]; the
Exide battery is in testing at Sandia with excellent results; and some are exploring grid applications.
2012 Firefly International Energy Company

It is also to us that the common claim, even within much of the lead-acid industry that the theoretical
capacity of lead-acid chemistry is only 170 Wh/kg. This is a pervasive thought from calculations done
many decades ago and based on traditional lead-acid battery design. In fact, the theoretical density is
214 Wh/kg and, realistically, a practical, complete, lead-acid battery pack should be capable of 80
Wh/kg after we discard the shroud of traditional design.
Environmental Costs:
Isn't lead refining poisoning the environment? Of course there are lead smelters out there that pollute.
With a strong interest in advanced lead-acid batteries, there is every reason for these places to clean up
their act and governmental regulation is a must. As an example, there are lead smelters like RSR
Technologies' new operations in Southern California that actually exhausts cleaner air than it takes in.
It is actually improving the air quality in the area due to its use of modern design and emission controls.
Let's not throw the baby out with the bathwater by discouraging lead-acid advancement with
extensive competition of federal dollars. Rather, let's include advancing lead-acid in programs at
places like this new Illinois Center. We know the lead-acid industry cannot afford the same level of
marketing that federally subsidized research can and they shouldn't have to. Bad press from the
Lithium community is poison enough. Get involved with lead-acid.
Most of the hype about lead toxicity is due to the extensive use of lead oxide in paints years ago. It
created an irrational public panic about lead use in general though the threat was primarily from aging
paint in residential area. It is potentially dangerous as are many of the elements we manage everyday
like nickle. Actually, due to its weight and processability, lead is surprisingly easy to control and
handle.
Lead and sulfuric acid, the primary components for lead-acid batteries are also both derived from large
U.S. mineral resources. The easily mined mineral galena (lead sulfide) takes a minimum of energy to
mine and refine and recycling is extremely energy-efficient. Lithium, on the other hand is not widely
available in the U.S.. The relatively small reserves in ancient lake deposits of the West contain low
concentrations and affordable only because it is a secondary element being mined. Hard-rock deposits
are very low in concentration and extraction would be very expensive. Add to this the difficulty in
recycling the lithium into new batteries; still only a dream after all these decades of lithium battery
research.
Cost of Energy Storage:
I have included a 2010 paper entitled Evolving Lead-Acid Batteries [4] that walks through some of
the concepts of calculating the real costs of energy storage with advanced lead-acid and some of the
advancements that lead-acid research have shown to be practical in minimizing costs. The costs for
lead acid is actually already quite low. EPRI stated in their 2010 paper [2] that ...advanced lead-acid
batteries and Zn/Br flow batteries were generally found to have the potential for smallest gaps to
support the energy storage business case for battery technologies. Quite simply, this means that leadacid is already closer to meeting energy-storage cost-goals than lithium even before you consider these
new lead-acid advancements.

2012 Firefly International Energy Company

EPRI, in their paper on battery costs and benefits[2], also states: No single energy storage option
meets every need for the applications identified. Instead, a portfolio of storage options that meet cost,
performance and durability requirements will be needed to meet the needs of the electric enterprise..
As a country, we need to embrace various battery technologies. Avoidance of the obviously high
potential of advanced lead-acid would be a very poor decision.
Sandia's paper on energy storage for the electricity grid [3] makes a plea to seriously add more
consideration to the end-of-life recycling/disposal that is a large cost consideration: Although not
addressed explicitly in this report, in most cases there will be non-trivial decommissioning costs
associated with almost any storage system. For example, eventually batteries must be dismantled and
the chemicals must be removed. Ideally, dismantled batteries and their chemicals can be recycled, as is
the case for the materials in lead-acid batteries. Ultimately, decommissioning-related costs should be
included in the total cost to own and to operate storage. Advanced lead-acid batteries already fit into
the international, lead-acid recycling infrastructure; the widely-acclaimed poster child of successful
recycling where 99% of the battery is recyclable into new batteries.
In consideration of the many costs involved with installing, maintaining, and decommissioning large
battery storage systems to support the US Smart Grid initiative, Firefly also models cost to help focus
their own battery efforts to move those costs down. The graph below is an output of one of those
models. The Firefly
Technology shows the
progression of the
technology over the
past years and also
shows the lowest costof ownership based on
calendar life, cycle life,
and O&M costs. In this
case, the Firefly
technology is generally
representative of other
advance lead-acid
battery technologies as
well. Lithium is plotted
using all the known
lithium technologies.

Summary:
With the renewed interest in advanced lead-acid battery development over the last 5 to 10 years, partly
due to the challenge of lithium technologies, there is an evident new potential to replace traditional
lead-acid in heavy-cycling energy-storage applications for the Smart Grid initiatives. Higher
efficiency, lower lead use, greater robustness. Firefly technology is the only advanced, lead-acid
battery technology that actually increases deep-cycling performance while also increasing battery
2012 Firefly International Energy Company

capacity creating an opportunity to drop the cost of battery energy-storage to effective numbers. Other
advanced lead-acid technologies are showing enormous potential for high-rate partial-state-of-charge
applications that could assist frequency modulation and grid energy rate shaping. The dropping,
lifetime-costs of advanced, lead-acid batteries; the recycling infrastructure; and the readily-available
raw-materials from U.S. mineral resources should encourage funding efforts if the U.S. is serious about
the energy-saving potentials of the Smart Grid.
References:
[1] Jeffrey R. Belt, Taylor Bennett, Randy Bewley, Chinh Ho, Clair Ashton; Battery Performance and
Life Testing; Contract Number: DE-AC07-05ID14517 (INL) , FY 2010-2011, Idaho National
Laboratory
[2] Electric Energy Storage Technology Options: A White Paper Primer on Applications, Costs, and
Benefits. EPRI, Palo Alto, CA, 2010. 1020676.
[3] Eyer, Jim and Corey, Garth; Energy Storage for the Electricity Grid: Benefits and Market Potential
Assessment Guide; SAND2010-0815. 2010. Sandia National Laboratory
[4] Kurtis Kelley, Boris Monohav, Matt Maroon; Evolving Lead Acid Batteries: Design and
Management for Cycle Service; Firefly Energy, 2010
[5] Yin, Stephany; The Long Winding Road to Advanced Batteries for Electric Cars, Argonne National
Lab report, 2012
[6] Donald Karner, Tyler Gray, Russel Newnham, Jeff Wishart, Sally (Xialei) Sun; Development and
Testing of an Ultra-Battery Equipped Honda Civic; ALABC Project DP1.8, 2012

2012 Firefly International Energy Company