What Comes After Lithium?

Contributed by Bill Mitchell, Senior Business Unit Director, Renewables & Energy Infrastructure at Jabil. Edited by Sean Wolfe.

Lithium-ion, particularly lithium iron phosphate, is not going away as a primary energy storage technology anytime soon. But several emerging technologies may begin to chip away at specific applications where they offer advantages, such as lower cost, longer duration or better temperature performance. As the market diversifies, energy storage system manufacturers need to design for flexibility with adaptable battery platforms and processes to accommodate these alternative chemistries.  

Different chemistries win at different jobs 

Lithium iron phosphate, or LFP, batteries are ly to dominate the stationary storage industry for the next decade. The incumbent has a couple of decades head start over newer technologies and is useful across a broad range of applications. It’s also currently the primary bankable storage technology proven at scale. However, that wasn’t always the case. 

When lithium-ion batteries were first deployed as grid storage almost , there were relatively few installations. While most people thought the technology would work, not everyone could afford to take that risk. Today, many promising emerging storage technologies face a similar challenge: proving that they can deliver reliable performance and bankability at scale.  

Sodium-ion batteries 

Sodium-ion is the closest competitor to lithium, although reaching substantial adoption and cost parity is unly before 2030. Depending on the chemistry, sodium-ion can offer long cycle life and good performance across a wide temperature range. For very fast-cycling applications, sodium batteries have a smaller footprint than lithium. They also a manufacturing process similar to that of lithium-ion, particularly at the module and system levels.  

Compared to lithium, sodium-ion batteries offer better performance in cold weather, may have a cost advantage once production scales, , and can be safer. However, some versions of sodium-ion require much tighter temperature control and can experience thermal runaway at lower temperatures, releasing up to 2.5 times the amount of gases compared to a lithium system.  

Grid-scale and industrial applications are potential fits for sodium-ion where weight and volume are less important. They can also work in tandem with lithium-ion batteries, such as providing backup power for data centers by operating in environments up to 55º C without active cooling.  

Flow batteries 

Flow batteries, including vanadium- and zinc-based systems, could become increasingly relevant for long-duration applications. Flow batteries may also gain traction as demand shifts from today’s typical two- and four-hour systems toward six-, eight- and longer-duration storage.  

Unlithium-ion batteries, which lose capacity over time, flow batteries can be left completely charged or discharged for long periods without degrading. They can also be economically scaled simply by sizing the electrolyte tanks. For instance, a 1 MW system could be designed for four, eight or 12 hours of storage with different size tanks. 

The main issue with the flow battery is that it has the potential for leaks, requiring a secondary containment inside of the container and at the pad-level, adding further costs. While some companies have signed gigawatt-hour deals with flow batteries, it’s still a very small percentage compared to the lithium market. The battery technology needs more field data, long-term performance and bankability before it can compete for a larger of the market.  

Iron-air batteries 

Iron-air batteries have the same opportunities as the flow battery for long-duration storage, with greater capacities up to 100 hours; however, flow batteries are better characterized in the field. These multi-day batteries capture energy from the rusting and unrusting of iron, and then recharge by reversing the reaction with an electrical current. The “unrusting” may degrade some components and is one of the top technical challenges.   

There are a few characteristics of the iron-air battery that are preferable to a flow system, such as requiring less maintenance and lower material costs, while some less favorable characteristics include large size and a slower response. Ultimately, it will depend on the project specifics whether iron-air has a cost advantage over a flow battery.  

What will drive the move away from lithium? 

Cost will be the primary driver of diversification beyond lithium. Lithium-ion has a long runway because it benefits from decades of manufacturing experience, massive factories, refined supply chains, a high energy density, known performance, and a wide range of applications. But it will not suit every use case. Long-duration storage beyond six to eight hours, environments with sub-freezing temperatures, and applications requiring extremely fast charging or ultra-high cycle life may benefit from other storage technologies. 

The right battery choice will depend on several factors, including long-duration performance, operating temperature range, energy density, cycle life, safety and cooling requirements, supply-chain security, and the application itself, such as arbitrage, frequency regulation or backup power.  

Alternatives such as sodium-ion will begin to take meaningful market when they can deliver the required performance at a lower total cost. Since sodium-ion has a similar manufacturing process to lithium-ion, established battery manufacturers with highly automated gigafactories and large-format module assembly will be well positioned to make that switch.    

The main challenges for emerging storage technologies are manufacturing cost, scale, limited operating history and financeability. While these hurdles cannot be eliminated entirely, pilot deployments, accelerated testing, performance data, and strong warranties can reduce these barriers. Widespread displacement of lithium-ion will depend on whether another technology can compete economically at scale and prove performance with real-world evidence.  

Building flexibility into production as storage tech evolves  

Since no one knows which storage technologies will be competitive five years from now, battery manufacturers should build flexibility into their product architecture and production lines.  

At the system level, many battery technologies will be similar outside of the cell itself; they will be in some form of an enclosure or container, only with different battery chemistry inside. This creates an opportunity for OEMs to develop configurable platforms that can accommodate different cell formats and chemistries as the market evolves, rather than assuming that one standardized configuration will provide the lowest-cost solution in every situation. 

The key differentiator will be the ability to introduce new cells or chemistries without redesigning the entire system or rebuilding the manufacturing process. Standardized mechanical, electrical, thermal and control interfaces can help create that flexibility. 

Supply-chain readiness for competing alternatives  

The energy storage supply chain is already changing. Lithium-ion batteries have expensive and tightly-controlled supply chains, with much of the existing capacity concentrated in China, creating key bottlenecks, price volatility, and geopolitical risks. In the U.S., efforts to establish domestic supply chains are already underway with direct brine extraction and recently discovered lithium deposits in Texas, Louisiana, and the Great Salt Lake in Utah. 

At the same time, the industry is beginning to ramp up sodium-ion supply chains as quickly as possible. As the sixth most abundant element on the planet, sodium can open up more localized production and reduce concerns over energy security.  

The transition will be gradual. Lithium-ion should remain dominant for the next decade, while meaningful sodium-ion adoption is more ly after 2030 as manufacturing volume, field data and supply networks mature. 

More choices for customers 

The future of energy storage isn’t about replacing lithium with another battery chemistry. Instead, the industry is moving toward a broader toolkit of technologies, each suited to optimize performance for different applications.  

In a few years, customers will have more choices, and will need a clearer understanding of what their applications actually demand. A project requiring 12 hours of storage may favor a flow battery, while an AI data-center application may prioritize high power delivery and a compact footprint over long energy duration.  

This diversity should benefit customers by creating more application-specific solutions and greater competition, maximizing their profitability in an energy storage project.  

About the author

Bill Mitchell is a senior business executive with a proven track record of delivering leadership and strategic vision in emerging and high-technology product markets, driving growth across companies and teams within complex international environments.  

Bill leads the Energy Storage strategy for Jabil’s Renewable Energy and Infrastructure division, including the startup of their ESS manufacturing center or excellence in the U.S. Throughout his career, he has managed P&L responsibility exceeding $1 billion across multiple business units, spanning energy storage, EV charging, solar power conversion, and data center power and cooling solutions.  

With over 30 years of experience in clean energy technologies, Bill has built deep expertise across all core business operations. Prior to joining Jabil, he served as Vice President of Sales and Marketing for grid and commercial energy storage products at A123 Systems. Earlier in his career, he co-founded Nuvera Fuel Cells, now a subsidiary of Hyster-Yale Material Handling, Inc.  

Bill holds a Bachelor of Science and a Master of Science in Mechanical Engineering, both from The Pennsylvania State University.