The Future Battery

How much has the battery improved during the last 150 years? Compared to other advancements, the progress has only been moderate. A battery holds relatively little power, is bulky, heavy, and has a short life span. Battery power is also very expensive. The smaller the battery, the higher the cost-per-watt becomes. Yet humanity depends on the battery as an important portable power source.

The speed at which portability and mobility is advancing hinges much on the battery. So important is this energy source that engineers design handheld devices around the battery, rather than the other way around. With each incremental improvement of the battery, the doors swing open for new products and enhanced applications. It is the virtue of the battery that provides us with the freedom of being disconnected from home and office. The better the battery gets, the greater our mobility and freedom will become.

The improved runtime of new portable devices is not credited to higher energy-dense batteries alone. Much improvement has been made in reducing the power consumption of portable devices. Some of these advancements are, however, counteracted with the demand for faster processing time of laptop computers and quicker data transmission of cellular phones. 

The electric vehicle has failed to become the accepted mode of transportation because of the battery. Short distances between recharging and a limited service life of the battery are to blame. Consumers demand a battery that will last for the life of the vehicle but battery manufactures are hesitant to provide the mandatory 8 to 10-year warranty. 

Battery research is proceeding at a steady pace. The average annual gain in capacity is typically 6%. In comparison, microelectronics has done much better

Gordon Moore made his famous observation in 1965 when he predicted that the growth in the number of transistors per integrated circuit would double every two years. Through Intel's relentless technological advances, Moore's Law has been maintained and is being carried into the 21st century. Such advances would shrink a heavy-duty car battery to size of a coin, had this been possible for batteries.

Will the fuel cell replace the battery?

More than 2,000 organizations throughout the world are actively involved in fuel cell development. There is a good reason for this - it's a great concept. And yet, since its invention in 1839 by Sir William Grove, the fuel cell has made little impact in our daily lives so far. In comparison, the internal combustion engine, a development that began at about the same time as the fuel cell, has far broader use.

The fuel cell was used in the Gemini space program in the 1960s, followed by trial runs in buses and cars during the 1990s. One of the main obstacles is high energy cost. The cost-per-watt. must be reduced by a factor of ten to become competitive with other sources, such as the internal combustion engine. 

The improvements of the fuel cell during the last 10 years have been moderate. Attempts to mass-produce have failed, even though four public fuel cell companies in North America have raised over a billion dollars in public stock offerings from 1999 through 2001. Unlike other investments that paid early dividends from product sale, returns on fuel cell lies years ahead. Today, 45% of the money raised by the four fuel cell companies is lost. 

Fuel cell advocates are promoting a technology that is intended to replace the battery but the opposite is occurring in mobile and portable applications. The fuel cell has a defined power band in which it operates efficiently. Outside this band, the fuel cell loses effectiveness. Sluggish start-up when cold and limited loading are other limitations. Until resolved, the fuel cell will serve as the generator to charge the batteries that do the driving. 

There are also problems with the longevity of the stack. The membranes, the core of the engine, degenerate too quickly. The replacement of the stack is a major expense. Until these problems can be resolved, the fuel cell will be reserved for specialty applications, such as providing power (and water) for space vehicles and submarines. Here, no combustion is possible and toxic exhausts cannot be tolerated.

Experts believe that the fuel cell, as we know it today, would only be implemented in vehicles if the supply of fossil fuel is exhausted or if mandated by law due to environmental concerns. Comments have been made that the fuel cell may never become the engine of choice for mass-produced cars. This is in line with the notion that the steam engine of the 1800s was never intended to propel airplanes. 

Continuous improvements in the fuel cell are being made but the results are slower than with other technologies. Eventually, the fuel cell will find important niche markets that dwell outside the domain of the polluting internal combustion engine. Should a major break-through occur and the fuel cell does become an alternative power source, the world would become a cleaner place and humanity would be thankful for it.


What is the ultimate miracle battery?

The ultimate miracle battery is nowhere in sight and the battery remains the 'weak link' for the foreseeable future. As long as the battery is based on an electro-chemical process, limitations of power density and short life expectancy must be taken into account. We must adapt to this constraint and design the equipment around it.

People want an inexhaustible pool of energy in a small package that is cheap, safe and clean. A radical turn will be needed to satisfy the unquenchable thirst for portable and mobile power. It is anyone's guess whether a superior electro-chemical battery, an improved fuel cell, a futuristic atomic fusion battery or some other groundbreaking energy storage device will fulfill this dream. For many, this break will not come in ones lifetime.

*** Please Read Regarding Comments ***

Comments are intended for "commenting," an open discussion amongst site visitors. Battery University monitors the comments and understands the importance of expressing perspectives and opinions in a shared forum. However, all communication must be done with the use of appropriate language and the avoidance of spam and discrimination.

If you have a question, require further information, have a suggestion or would like to report an error, use the "contact us" form or email us at: While we make all efforts to answer your questions accurately, we cannot guarantee results. Neither can we take responsibility for any damages or injuries that may result as a consequence of the information provided. Please accept our advice as a free public support rather than an engineering or professional service.


On January 4, 2011 at 9:30pm
BWMichael wrote:

If you are that worried about your battery failing, always keep a spare on hand because you never really know when a battery is going to fail

On December 13, 2011 at 2:35pm
Mike Ashforth wrote:

Would it be possible to create a battery from graphite cell structures that “remember” electrical voltage in the same way a silicone chip has memory? This would be incredibly light and would have the potential to retain huge amounts of charge.

On January 15, 2012 at 6:16pm
John Kerstiens wrote:

How I have wished for decades that a cheap battery with very long life, high degree of safety and an energy capacity of some 3 or more kilowatt-hours per kilogram were achievable. Electrochemically, it could be done, if only the active material could be some 30 or 40 percent of the total cell weight, particularly if the negative electrode used oxygen from the air, as is the case with metal-air batteries. The 64 thousand (no, 64 billion!) dollar question is whether this is possible with sufficient ingenuity and luck. A compact flow battery design just might, if the electrochemical cell could be made small and chemically efficient, with remaining room for the active material. Stranger things have happened.

On January 24, 2012 at 8:44am
Neil wrote:

2 points
Since batteries are need to start IC engines, the concept of batteries being need to start FC engines is moot.
Hydrogen as a fuel is very attractive since the combustion product is water.
When H2 can be produced economically from water, the case for H2 FC vehicles will be much enhanced.  Then perhaps the current over-reliance on centralized power distribution networks might disappear.
Don’t see it happening in the current paradigm.

On December 1, 2013 at 7:27pm
Grace Yow wrote:


thank you for your website. it would help if the articles are dated. today is december 1, 2013. if i had not scrolled down to comments, i would not have known this.

it would also be great if articles are updated as there is so much ground this website covers.

take care,

On July 21, 2014 at 12:59pm
Richard McIver wrote:

As fossil fuels get more expensive,  solar pv comes down in price,  more electric will
be used.  When you saw the International Space Station you saw pv solar panels
and as they come down in cost more use.  The ISS was an ad for the future (pv
solar) as well as fuel cells,  and H2/O2 as an energy source.  Lithium-ion, lithium
polymer,  and aluminum-air batteries are better electric storeage for electric power.

On October 30, 2014 at 10:32pm
Jerry James wrote:


On November 7, 2014 at 7:37am
Adan.Rodriguez wrote:

thank this is very informatinal

On March 23, 2015 at 3:40pm
doug jackson wrote:

I have the answer to the battery powered car !
Im an engineer ,and have developed various machines in the past for example the roadmole.
The road mole answers a lot of problems and i found that to come up with the answers you have to think out of the box.
Now the way that milk floats have been running on batteries for years is way out of date ,we do have the technology out there to make a car that uses solar and battery power whilst harnesing kenetic energy.
i know how it can be done and i will build a car .
all i can say without giving the game away is that the problem to do with the battery.
Cheers Doug Jackson

On June 29, 2015 at 6:21pm
Gary wrote:

The ultimate answer lies in capturing the energy that is all around us.
The energy of the universe. The sun. Planetary magnetic fields. The kinetic energy of the movement of planets through the cosmos.
It will happen. There are more genius minds at work out there today, than ever. You gotta believe…we ain’t seen nothing yet!

On November 3, 2015 at 4:18am
K A Rahaman. wrote:

Futuristic battery will be that battery when we will be able to invent a battery that doesn’t need to charge for 30 to 40 years. And we can install it in our electric cars, bike, house, industry, building etc. And we will not have to pay electric bills for 30 to 40 years. Also it will be pollution less. Please don’t underestimate this idea. Because nothing is impossible in science. Let’s science fiction comes true.

On December 14, 2015 at 5:55pm
Steven Kreshnaw wrote:

Rechargeable batterie may or may not be of major focus when it comes to future batteries.

If we could create powerful Akkumulators the demand for batteries’ raw materials would shrink, too. And as we have to move forward to a zero footprint life on earth this may becomes important.

We maybe should take a closer look to nano to improve chemical batteries. Maybe we have to find new ways to generate energy viai something we yet did not discoverr.

Greets from a brainstorming one

On February 2, 2016 at 12:50pm
Rick Cordasco wrote:

It’s complicated…. and then maybe not

1st there are linear systems, and then there are non linear systems,
2nd gas in your cars gas tank is a linear system…. caveat.. see below
3rd a battery is a temporal, spatial, parametric etc. non linear system.

Linearity follows superposition, one question, one answer, one value in one value out, exact, we are humans we can deal with this well.
Non linearity’s are of two types, finite and infinite, there different levels of cardinality, different sizes of infinities, so the most basic non linear system is a system of PDEs,, partial differential equations, this is ugly, only gods deal with this well

All systems are non linear even your cars gas tank, keep the tank open, heat it up, old car, etc. you thought you had enough gas in one exact tank to get to back to Kentucky? Ahhh Mission critical always have a gas can,spare battery, an extra bullet, alternative source, etc

You want to make a system linear hold as many parameters, terms, constant, minimize, the parametrics, bound the solutions, linearize the problems. Or give probabilities, because you cant know, or are just lazy, that’s what probability is… stupid monkeys we are!

I will stay away from infinite series, Taylor, and Continuums, Alephs that Google or plex can never attain, .... Elon…. just your pocket gets full and ours empty.

Believe me there are much better solutions, then batteries, or fusion, We are just not capable yet, Even when Homer miraculously finally got back home it was a mess!

Engineers rule, Systems Engineers rule engineers.

“Scientist see the world the way it is, Engineers see the world the way it could be, Mathematicians dream and walk away”

On August 6, 2016 at 10:48pm
C.devender reddy wrote:

My personal opinion is with in5years we will get a battery eqalent to 1kwh per kg weight
Which is enough for electric cars and electric plane& the cost also become cheap that is
$100/- per kWh

On September 15, 2016 at 9:24am
peter j connell wrote:

Predictions are tricky, especially if they involve the future smile

Excuse the long preamble please. It was going to be two posts, but they seemed too interconnected.

We always want tech to be better, but its damn good and very doable now.

The problems re greater acceptance of EVs by commuters is very much mental, and thats partly historical.

A sage analogy in a post here was if the ICE hadnt been invented, folks and industry would have made do with steam cars uncomplainingly.

In the mere ~100 years since the model T, we and our regimes have come to associate a car, with a vehicle designed for an ICEs strengths.

What weaknesses? Compared to what? There was nothing close before to compare with. We just accept their; costs, complexity and overkill, and are blind to advantages of EVs.

We demand EVs be equal, at what they ~never will be - muscle cars that tow a boat all day on the highway, even if we havnt done it for years, cant afford the gas and prefer to fly to warmer climes for hols anyhoo.

“Have a life” type simplicity is one big unremarked advantage. Just charge, drive and forget. An electric motor has just ONE moving part. Competent electrics kept dry & cool is zero wear & fail~.

We are now seeing evS w/ no transmission or gearbox, even steering could be done by fixed hub motor wheels intelligently controlled. A ~solid state car?

Until urban folks adjust their thinking/perception/egos away from raw power to more minimalist, and sufficient for all but the most extreme of their needs, then EVs will remain a niche.

Perhaps the disproportionate take-up of evS in china supports this - no such preconceptions.

The correct urban commuter logic is that recently applied by UPS parcells, on a trial fleet of ~250 ~4 tonne? trucks.

Sufficient battery for a normal day, but it has a ~motorcycle engine (~? 650cc 2 cylinder?) charger/assist/range extender if needed, The truck can always return to base independently, even on friday.

Give unto Caesar. You cant beat petrol for compact energy, so to use it as a last resort is fine - greener than hauling the weight of unused reserve battery capacity.

Optioned correctly, most urban commuters should arrive home most days close to empty w/o petrol motor, and run only on grid charges at work and/or home.

So whereas the prevailing paradigm for hybrid EVs is, ala Prius, an ICE sufficient for all day freeway driving and very limited battery. For plug-ins, the paradigm is mega expensive/heavy batteries with 160km range.

What i predict will truly launch EVs to dominance in the; major, cashed up, market of urban commuters, is as above, an ICE motor which puts out sufficient power to, on a busy day, ~MAINTAIN urban speeds w/o draining battery, and/or, add charge during traffic interruptions. ICE power is small, but can be accumulated.

A realistic expectation is that public charge points will proliferate. Another plus for perceptions of a more plug in oriented hybrid.

A big variable is extremes of climate. A/C on hot days and heating on cold days are a big ask for batteries. The “lost” heat of a tiny ICE in an EV would not be lost in canada.

Mainly tho, the onboard ice is just a huge stress eliminator. A bigger battery is heavier as a reserve, and only dealays the journeys stress point

With all the debate about battery type strengths vs weakness, one would think there would be more about hybrid batteries? Create a team of storage solutions, and intelligently switch between or combine them, to handle the highly variable demands of EVs.

As discussed here, FCs suck as a sole EV power source, but ~OK as a range extending, onboard charger. Similarly, super caps suck re cost & capacity, but great for handling surges of power that chemical batteries hate - e.g; accelerating from 0 to 15kph, passing or regeneration.

Even much maligned flywheels have similar good points. Math?, but very mature tech looking for a new job is the hard drive industry. 15-20k rpm is no problem - cheap. If a rapidly spun up/drained few kg platter of 20k rpm mass,  it would resemble a relatively huge supercapacitor.