The DOI matches its Crossref record; 3 of the 3 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.
Quantifying the promise of lithium–air batteries for electric vehicles
Abstract
Researchers worldwide view the high theoretical specific energy of the lithium–air or lithium–oxygen battery as a promising path to a transformational energy-storage system for electric vehicles. Here, we present a self-consistent material-to-system analysis of the best-case mass, volume, and cost values for the nonaqueous lithium–oxygen battery and compare them with current and advanced lithium-based batteries using metal-oxide positive electrodes. Surprisingly, despite their high theoretical specific energy, lithium–oxygen systems were projected to achieve parity with other candidate chemistries as a result of the requirement to deliver and purify or to enclose the gaseous oxygen reactant. The theoretical specific energy, which leads to predictions of an order of magnitude improvement over a traditional lithium-ion battery, is shown to be an inadequate predictor of systems-level cost, volume, and mass. This analysis reveals the importance of system-level considerations and identifies the reversible lithium-metal negative electrode as a common, critical high-risk technology needed for batteries to reach long-term automotive objectives. Additionally, advanced lithium-ion technology was found to be a moderate risk pathway to achieve the majority of volume and cost reductions.
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.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
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.
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
Armand, M., & Tarascon, J.-M. (2008) · Nature · doi:10.1038/451652a · Cited by 19,612
Opportunities and challenges for a sustainable energy future
Chu, S., & Majumdar, A. (2012) · Nature · doi:10.1038/nature11475 · Cited by 12,550
Li-O2 and Li-S batteries with high energy storage
Bruce, P. G., Freunberger, S. A., Hardwick, L. J., & Tarascon, J.-M. (2012) · Nature Materials · doi:10.1038/nmat3191 · Cited by 9,479
Cited by
Performance and cost of materials for lithium-based rechargeable automotive batteries
Schmuch, R., Wagner, R., Hörpel, G., Placke, T., & Winter, M. (2018) · Nature Energy · doi:10.1038/s41560-018-0107-2 · Cited by 3,233
Batteries and fuel cells for emerging electric vehicle markets
Cano, Z. P., Banham, D., Ye, S., Hintennach, A., Lu, J., Fowler, M., & Chen, Z. (2018) · Nature Energy · doi:10.1038/s41560-018-0108-1 · Cited by 2,873
Gür, T. M. (2018) · Energy & Environmental Science · doi:10.1039/c8ee01419a · Cited by 2,566
Albertus, P., Babinec, S., Litzelman, S., & Newman, A. (2017) · Nature Energy · doi:10.1038/s41560-017-0047-2 · Cited by 1,888
Supercapacitors Performance Evaluation
Zhang, S., & Pan, N. (2015) · Advanced Energy Materials · doi:10.1002/aenm.201401401 · Cited by 1,529
Metadata
- Authors
- Gallagher, K. G., Goebel, S., Greszler, T., Mathias, M., Oelerich, W., Eroglu, D., & Srinivasan, V.
- Venue
- Energy & Environmental Science
- Publisher
- Royal Society of Chemistry (RSC)
- Published
- 2014
- Volume
- 7
- Issue
- 5
- Pages
- 1555
- ISSN
- 1754-5692 (ISSN-L)
- 1754-5706
- OpenAlex
- W2120205360
- Cited by
- 460
- References
- 3
- FWCI
- 32.19
- 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: Quantifying the promise of lithium–air batteries for electric vehicles. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1039/c3ee43870h
- The paper
- Gallagher, K. G., Goebel, S., Greszler, T., Mathias, M., Oelerich, W., Eroglu, D., & Srinivasan, V. (2014). Quantifying the promise of lithium–air batteries for electric vehicles. Energy & Environmental Science. https://doi.org/10.1039/c3ee43870h
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.