Batteries are a growing option to store excess energy generation for the electric grid.
Different battery technologies are suitable for different applications based on their lifespan, energy density, efficiency, and safety.
Batteries also have trade-offs in material availability, costs, and recyclability.
Solar and wind power generation is variable. Production depends on weather and sunshine and may peak when energy demand is low (Yuan et al. 2019). Energy storage systems save excess power from both variable sources and power plants for later use. They can reduce strain on the grid during peak demand, increase renewable energy efficiency, supply backup power during outages, and allow utilities to buy and sell excess energy (Jiang et al. 2025).
In the U.S., battery energy storage systems (BESSs) are a growing technology to store excess power (Energy Information Administration (EIA) 2025, Jiang et al. 2025). Electricity enters a BESS and drives a chemical reaction. When energy is needed, the reaction is reversed to generate electricity. This returns 60-95% of the energy put into the BESS, a rate known as Round Trip Efficiency (RTE).
BESSs are compact and easily scaled up (Gyuk et al. 2013). They are also less constrained by geography than traditional pumped hydropower storage systems, which require large reservoirs of water to store energy (Colotelo n.d.). In 2025, the U.S. operating BESS capacity was 44 gigawatts (GW), of which 95% was installed since 2021 (Feeney et al. 2026, EIA 2025). Another 55 GW of BESSs is under construction.
Common types of BESSs include:
Each type has different strengths and weaknesses (Jiang et al. 2025, Table 1). RTE and the battery’s lifespan (measured in cycles of charging and discharging) influence how it can be used. Higher energy density batteries require less weight and physical space to store energy. Safety is another consideration, particularly the risk of batteries catching fire.
LIBs use lithium-based reactions to store energy in their electrodes. LIBs have high energy density, are highly efficient (85-95% RTE), and last between 1,500 and 10,000 cycles (Jiang et al. 2025, Dufek et al. 2023). LIBs are versatile and used to store renewable energy, lower the strain of peak energy demand, and buy and sell energy. LIBs have a risk of overheating and catching fire (He et al. 2024, Lai et al. 2022).
LABs are the oldest rechargeable battery technology and use lead plates submerged in acid (Babinec et al. 2023). LABs are nonflammable and use inexpensive, abundant materials. These batteries commonly supply backup power to the grid during power outages. However, LABs store less energy, have a shorter lifespan (300-1,000 cycles), and are less efficient (75-85% RTE) compared to LIBs.
RFBs store energy in tanks of liquid chemicals (Sprenkle et al. 2023). RFBs are scalable, since energy increases with chemical volume and concentration. The most common RFBs are vanadium-based (Huang et al. 2022). They can store and provide energy for longer periods (over 10 hours), which can increase renewable energy use (Zhang et al. 2022). RFBs are nonflammable and have a long life (5,000-20,000 cycles), but have lower energy density and efficiency (65-75% RTE) than LABs and LIBs.
Material availability, costs, and recyclability varies between battery technologies. LIBs use cobalt and lithium, and RFBs use vanadium. The U.S. government has designated these as critical minerals, which are essential to the economy and prone to supply chain disruption (U.S. Geological Survey (USGS) 2025).
The U.S. imports 79% of cobalt, 41% of vanadium, and over half of its lithium consumption (USGS 2026). Chile, Australia, Argentina, and China account for more than 70% of the world’s lithium reserves. Over 70% of the world’s cobalt supply is mined in the Democratic Republic of the Congo (DRC), where mining practices are linked to human rights violations including child labor (USGS 2026, Schleich 2024). Australia has the world’s largest vanadium reserves, but China and Russia currently produce 90% of vanadium mining (USGS 2026, USGS 2025).
Vanadium RFBs can cost two to three times more to build per kilowatthour than LIBs and LABs (Jiang et al. 2025, Sprenkle et al. 2023). Vanadium and specialized components contribute to the higher costs.
Recycling and disposal of LIBs is more complicated, expensive, and resource intensive compared to other batteries (Yanamandra et al. 2022, Fan et al 2020). Established recycling programs in the U.S. recycle 99% of LABs (U.S. Environmental Protection Agency 2025).
| Chemistry | Cost | Safety | Energy Density | Lifecycle | RTE | Recyclability |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Lithium-ion (LIB) | Low | Flammable | High | Medium | 85-95% | Low |
| Lead-acid (LAB) | Low | Nonflammable | Medium | Short | 75-85% | High |
| Redox flow (RFB) | High | Nonflammable | Low | Long | 65-75% | High |
Table 1. Performance metrics of different battery storage technologies. Common technologies include lithium-ion, lead-acid, and vanadium redox flow batteries. Factors such as safety, energy density, lifespan, and round-trip efficiency affect how each type of battery can be used at the electric grid scale. Data from Jiang et al. 2025.
References
Babinec S, Balducci P, Liaw B (2023) Technology Strategy Assessment: Lead-Acid Batteries. Findings from Storage Innovations 2030. Link.
Colotelo A (n.d.) Pumped Storage Hydropower. Pacific Northwest National Laboratory. https://www.pnnl.gov/pumped-storage-hydropower
Dufek EJ, Durvasulu V, Mosier T, Balliet H, Willey M, et al. (2023) Technology Strategy Assessment: Lithium-ion Batteries. Findings from Storage Innovations 2030. Link.
U.S. Energy Information Administration (EIA) (2025) Form EIA-860. https://www.eia.gov/electricity/data/eia860/
Fan E, Li L, Wang Z, Lin J, Huang Y, et al. (2020) Sustainable Recycling Technology for Li-Ion Batteries and Beyond: Challenges and Future Prospects. Chemical Reviews. 120(14): 7020-7063. https://doi.org/10.1021/acs.chemrev.9b00535
Feeney A, Ackermann Logan G, Issokson M, Rangel N (2026). U.S. Energy Storage Monitor: Q1 2026 and 2025 Year in Review. Wood Mackenzie. Link.
Gür TM (2018) Review of electrical energy storage technologies, material and systems: challenges and prospects for large-scale grid storage. Energy & Environmental Science. 11(10): 2696-2767. https://doi.org/10.1039/c8ee01419a.
He D, Wang J, Peng Y, Li B, Feng C, et al. (2024) Research advances on thermal runaway mechanism of lithium-ion batteries and safety improvement. Sustainable Material and Technologies. 41: e01017. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.susmat.2024.e01017.
Huang Z, Mu A, Wu L, Yang B, Qian Y, et al. (2022) Comprehensive analysis of critical issues in all-vanadium redox flow battery. ACS Sustainable Chemistry & Engineering. 10(24): 7786-7810. https://doi.org/10.1021/acssuschemeng.2c01372.
Jiang T, Shen D, Zhang Z, Liu H, Zhao G, et al. (2025) Battery technologies for grid-scale energy storage. Nature Reviews Clean Technology. 1: 474-492. https://doi.org/10.1038/s44359-025-00067-9.
Lai X, Yao J, Jin C, Feng X, Wang H, et al. (2022) A review of lithium-ion battery failure hazards: test standards, accident analysis, and safety suggestions. Batteries. 8(11): 248. https://doi.org/10.3390/batteries8110248.
Schleich K (2024) Unveiling the dark side of innovation: sustainability, cobalt mining, and modern-day slavery. SMU Science and Technology Law Review. 27(1): 8. https://scholar.smu.edu/scitech/vol27/iss1/8/.
Sprenkle V, Li B, Zhang L, Robertson LA, Li Z, et al. (2023) Technology Strategy Assessment: Flow Batteries. Findings from Storage Innovations 2030. Link.
Gyuk I, Johnson M, Vetrano J, Lynn K, Parks W, et al. (2013) Grid Energy Storage. U.S. Department of Energy. https://www.energy.gov/oe/articles/grid-energy-storage-december-2013
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (2025) Battery Collection in Action Case Study: The Lead-Acid Battery Collection Network. https://www.epa.gov/electronics-batteries-management/battery-collection-action-case-study-lead-acid-battery-collection
U.S. Geological Survey (USGS) (2025) Interior Department releases final 2025 List of Critical Minerals. https://www.usgs.gov/news/science-snippet/interior-department-releases-final-2025-list-critical-minerals.
U.S. Geological Survey (USGS) (2026) Mineral Commodity Summaries 2026. https://doi.org/10.3133/mcs2026.
Yanamandra K, Pinisetty D, Daoud A, Gupta N (2022). Recycling of Li-Ion and Lead Acid Batteries: A Review. Journal of the Indian Institute of Science. 102: 281-295. https://doi.org/10.1007/s41745-021-00269-7.
Yuan S, Stainsby W, Li M, Xu K, Waite M, et al. (2019) Future energy scenarios with distributed technology options for residential city blocks in three climate regions of the United States. Applied Energy. 237: 60-69. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.apenergy.2019.01.048.
Zhang L, Feng R, Wang W, Yu G (2022) Emerging chemistries and molecular designs for flow batteries. Nature Reviews Chemistry. 6: 524-543. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41570-022-00394-6.
