Student or educator? Sign up with your school email and get 6 months of Pro free.
Cited by 390

The DOI matches its Crossref record; 6 of the 6 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.

Theoretical versus Practical Energy: A Plea for More Transparency in the Energy Calculation of Different Rechargeable Battery Systems

Betz, Johannes, Bieker, Georg, Meister, Paul, Placke, Tobias, Winter, Martin, Schmuch, Richard·2019·Advanced Energy Materials

Abstract

Electrochemical energy storage at a large scale poses one of the main technological challenges of this century. The scientific community in academia and industry worldwide intensively is exploring various alternative rechargeable battery concepts beside state‐of‐the‐art lithium ion batteries (LIBs), for example, all‐solid‐state batteries, lithium/sulfur batteries, magnesium/sulfur batteries or dual‐ion batteries that could outperform LIBs in different aspects. Often, these concepts also promise very high theoretical energies per mass or volume. However, as theoretical values exclude numerous relevant parameters, they do not translate directly into practically achievable energy values: The gaps between practical capacities and voltages compared to the theoretical values differ for each system. In order to provide high transparency and to illustrate which cell components are most important in the limitation of the practical energy values, in this study, the specific energies and energy densities are calculated in six subsequent steps—from the theoretical energy values of the active materials alone to the practical energy values in an 18650 cylindrical cell. By providing a tool to calculate the energy values of six different battery technologies with different assumptions made evident, this study aims for more transparency and reliability in the comparison of different cell chemistries.

Overview

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1002/aenm.201803170

Cites

6 of 6 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Verification

Claims the paper makes

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Citations

Cites

Show all 6 references

Cited by

See all 390

Metadata

Authors
Betz, J., Bieker, G., Meister, P., Placke, T., Winter, M., & Schmuch, R.
Venue
Advanced Energy Materials
Publisher
Wiley
Published
2018-12-21
Volume
9
Issue
6
ISSN
  • 1614-6832 (ISSN-L)
  • 1614-6840
OpenAlex
W2906108923
Cited by
390
References
6
FWCI
18.91
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
closed

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review

How to cite

Cite CoChat for the checks on this page, and the paper for its own findings.

This page
CoChat. (2026). Citation check: Theoretical versus Practical Energy: A Plea for More Transparency in the Energy Calculation of Different Rechargeable Battery Systems. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1002/aenm.201803170
The paper
Betz, J., Bieker, G., Meister, P., Placke, T., Winter, M., & Schmuch, R. (2019). Theoretical versus Practical Energy: A Plea for More Transparency in the Energy Calculation of Different Rechargeable Battery Systems. Advanced Energy Materials. https://doi.org/10.1002/aenm.201803170

Data sources

Bibliographic data: Semantic Scholar, OpenAlex, Crossref.

Contains information from the Semantic Scholar Academic Graph Datasets, made available under the ODC Attribution License (ODC-BY 1.0).

Semantic Scholar’s data is described in: Kinney, R., et al. (2023). The Semantic Scholar Open Data Platform. arXiv:2301.10140.