{"id":1699,"date":"2021-02-15T16:55:05","date_gmt":"2021-02-15T15:55:05","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/wpethzprd.ethz.ch\/energy\/?p=1699"},"modified":"2025-03-27T16:15:05","modified_gmt":"2025-03-27T15:15:05","slug":"navigating-battery-misinformation","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/blogs.ethz.ch\/energy\/navigating-battery-misinformation\/","title":{"rendered":"The hitchhiker\u2019s guide to navigating battery misinformation"},"content":{"rendered":"\t\t
\n\t\t\t\t\t\t
\n\t\t\t\t\t\t
\n\t\t\t\t\t
\n\t\t\t
\n\t\t\t\t\t\t
\n\t\t\t\t
\n\t\t\t\t\t

By Varun Duggal<\/h2>\t\t\t\t<\/div>\n\t\t\t\t<\/div>\n\t\t\t\t
\n\t\t\t\t
\n\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\n\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\"\"\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t<\/a>\n\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t<\/div>\n\t\t\t\t<\/div>\n\t\t\t\t\t<\/div>\n\t\t<\/div>\n\t\t\t\t\t<\/div>\n\t\t<\/section>\n\t\t\t\t
\n\t\t\t\t\t\t
\n\t\t\t\t\t
\n\t\t\t
\n\t\t\t\t\t\t
\n\t\t\t\t
\n\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t

Varun Duggal<\/a> is pursuing his Master\u2019s in Energy Science and Technology<\/a> at ETH Zurich. He is an electrical engineer by training and maker by heart. He is currently working on performance modelling and techno-economic assessment of lithium-ion battery systems for addressing challenges and opportunities presented by the energy transition.<\/p>\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t<\/div>\n\t\t\t\t<\/div>\n\t\t\t\t\t<\/div>\n\t\t<\/div>\n\t\t\t\t\t<\/div>\n\t\t<\/section>\n\t\t\t\t

\n\t\t\t\t\t\t
\n\t\t\t\t\t
\n\t\t\t
\n\t\t\t\t\t\t
\n\t\t\t\t
\n\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t

Unprecedented technological advances, drastic cost declines, and the global transition toward low-carbon infrastructure have made batteries one of the most important technologies of our times<\/a>. Separating facts about batteries from fiction is vital, especially in a time of rampant misinformation. This guide highlights some of the red flags you should look out for while traversing the seemingly infinite universe of battery information.<\/h3>

Batteries have become a major part of the global agenda surrounding the global low-carbon transition, particularly for energy and transport. Naturally, this boom is subject to extensive coverage. There are a plethora of articles, reports and papers surrounding new electric vehicles (EVs), cutting-edge startups, consumer electronics with ever-growing battery lifetimes, the monthly \u201cwonder-battery\u201d, and of-course, explosions (remember hover-boards<\/a>?). Rapid progress in technology, cutthroat competition and the need to attract attention\/capital, also make batteries prone to the occasional exaggeration, misinformation and outright fraud. Technological complexity and jargon often render these undetectable to the uninformed eye, with implications ranging from grandma never charging her phone until it dies<\/a>, to GM having to drop a $2 billion deal<\/a>. While there are many forms of misinformation when it comes to batteries, below are three that I often come across and that you should question when you read about batteries:<\/p>

Ambiguous comparisons<\/h4>

One of the problems with battery facts is that it is very easy to overlook half-truths, because most readers are unaware of what the complete picture should look like. For instance, a commonly found claim such as, \u201cbattery A lasts up to X times longer than battery B\u201d<\/em> would not merit a second glance from most. However, any battery expert would tell you to take this with a grain of salt, as battery life is highly dependent on operating conditions<\/a>. Such blanket statements paint an incomplete picture without stating the benchmark for the comparison. Understandably, one might say punctilious descriptions and experimental details don\u2019t lend themselves well to articles or make for exciting reads. However, incomplete statements continually create ambiguity around battery issues such as EV range, fast-charging and battery performance.<\/p>

The impact of this may be seen in the evaluation of the hotly-debated vehicle-to-grid (V2G) technology (as explored in Christine Gschwendtner\u2019s recent post<\/a>). In 2017, two studies offered diametrically opposing results on whether V2G would increase<\/a>, or drastically reduce<\/a> EV battery lifetimes. The implications for V2G technology were major: while one exposed a severe shortcoming, the other proposed a pathway for further incentivizing EVs. In a joint reconciliatory paper<\/a> this contradiction was disambiguated and attributed to differences in the underlying assumptions. While one study exaggerated battery degradation due to unintelligent algorithms, the other one assumed an unrealistically coordinated and overly-intelligent system.<\/p>

Disinformation by incumbents<\/h4>
\"\"<\/a>
Screenshot from The Times article claiming \u201cElectric cars only greener than petrol after 50,000 miles<\/a>\u201d, Graeme Paton, 26 November 2020<\/em><\/figcaption><\/figure>

Most people at some point have read a study claiming EVs are more polluting than internal combustion engine vehicles. Such studies are frequently disproven only to further establish the sustainability of EVs (check out Martin Beuse\u2019s ETH blog post<\/a>). Several such reports have been tied back to companies and organizations with vested interests in ICE vehicles and fossil fuels through \u201ccrude attempts to spread misinformation\u201d according to Forbes<\/a>. The most recent high-profile example of these biased claims involved the known luxury sports car manufacturer Aston Martin dubbed \u2018#Astongate\u2019<\/a>. A Times article stated, \u201cElectric cars only greener than petrol after 50,000 miles<\/a>\u201d, citing a 2020 report Decarbonizing road transport: there is no silver bullet<\/a>. This report was swiftly disproven by Auke Hoekstra<\/a> (TU Eindhoven Senior Advisor Electric Mobility), who pointed out a lack of research, and noted the \u201cwho\u2019s who of anti-EV organizations\u201d on the sponsor page. This article further prompted a deep dive by Michael Liebreich<\/a> (New Energy Finance founder). In a bizarre turn of events<\/a> it came to light that the report was published by a \u201csock-puppet PR company\u201d tied to Aston Martin.<\/p>

False Advertising<\/h4>

As author and journalist Steve LeVine<\/a> put it, batteries are a \u201ctechnology that has had outsized examples of pretty extensive exaggeration and fraud<\/a>\u201d. It is not just the lay person that is susceptible to this exaggeration. In September 2020, GM announced a partnership with electric automaker Nikola, in which it would get $2 billion equity stake<\/a> in exchange for in-kind services and automotive components. A few days later, a report by Hindenburg Research<\/a> followed, accusing Nikola of being an \u201cintricate fraud\u201d based on defunct technology and marketing purchased technology as an \u201cin-house\u201d product. The marketing video \u201cNikola One in Motion<\/a>\u201d was proven to be fake. The dysfunctional truck had been (rather comically) towed up a low-grade hill and filmed while rolling down. The company\u2019s response<\/a> was that \u201cNikola described this third-party video on the Company\u2019s social media as \u2018In Motion\u2019. It was never described as \u2018under its own propulsion\u2019 or \u2018powertrain-driven\u2019.\u201d After this announcement, the Nikola stock plummeted, and GM reworked the deal into a non-binding MoU<\/a> to supply parts.<\/p>

Your best bet is to be a skeptic<\/h4>

Confused by now? Don\u2019t panic. Startups, media and academia realize this, and have been trying to help. Startups are more forthcoming with data<\/a>, even making problem areas publicly known. Media is playing a key role in critical analysis<\/a>. Academia is debunking <\/a>claims outside of exclusive academic literature. Here is what you can do:<\/p>