MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4406681373 · doi:10.1051/e3sconf/202560602004

Rechargeable Batteries for Renewable Energy: Current Status, Technical Challenges, and Future Directions

2025· article· en· W4406681373 on OpenAlexaff
Qiao Hu

Bibliographic record

VenueE3S Web of Conferences · 2025
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicAdvancements in Battery Materials
Canadian institutionsColumbia College
Fundersnot available
KeywordsRenewable energyCurrent (fluid)Environmental scienceEnvironmental economicsNatural resource economicsEngineeringElectrical engineeringEconomics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

With the increasing severity of climate change and the threat of global warming, countries are boosting the development and promotion of renewable energy sources like solar and wind to bring about the energy transition and reduce carbon emissions. However, because these energy sources are unreliable in supply, efficient energy storage technologies are required to balance energy output to satisfy daily electricity demand. Among numerous energy storage alternatives, rechargeable battery technology has received a lot of interest due to its high energy density, efficiency, and reusable nature. Currently, lithium-ion batteries, nickel-metal hydride batteries, lead-acid batteries, and other rechargeable battery types are widely utilized in consumer electronics, transportation, renewable energy storage, medical equipment, and other industries. This paper examines the basic working principle, structure, and important chemical reactions of rechargeable batteries, as well as their performance indicators such as capacity, energy density, cycle life, and so on. Furthermore, this paper addresses the technology’s global application cases, as well as the status of its development and the major problems, such as safety, cost, longevity, environmental impact, and other issues. Finally, this article examines probable future technology breakthroughs, market trends, and the possibility of suitable policy support in this field.

Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.

How this classification was reachedexpand

Full frame distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.920
Threshold uncertainty score0.520

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

Machine scores (provisional)

The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.

Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.

Opus teacher head0.026
GPT teacher head0.274
Teacher spread0.248 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designNot applicable
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".

Quick stats

Citations3
Published2025
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueE3S Web of ConferencesSame topicAdvancements in Battery MaterialsFrench-language works237,207