A panel discussion at the BCI 2026 conference in Nashville, today, explored how consortium-led research programmes are being used to bridge the persistent gap between battery science and commercial deployment, with speakers highlighting both the promise and the practical challenges of multi-institution collaboration.
The session, titled Consortium Applied R&D Programs (SAGE/Zn/OE960/OE961), brought together representatives from industry, national laboratories and programme management, reflecting the multi-stakeholder structure typical of US Department of Energy-backed initiatives.
Opening the discussion, Russ Weed, president of CleanTech Strategies, outlined the scope of the OE961 programme, which is focused on advancing flow batteries for cost-effective long-duration energy storage. The project combines national laboratory leadership with participation from system developers, materials suppliers and manufacturers, alongside Battery Council International as a partner. Core workstreams include lifetime and membrane testing, safety, techno-economic analysis and supply chain development, as well as modelling and investment strategies linked to incentives under the Inflation Reduction Act.
Tim Ellis, technical director at ABRG within BCI, said such programmes had evolved over the past decade in response to a long-standing disconnect between academic research and industrial needs. “There was lots of great stuff going on in battery research,” he noted, “but none of it related to what industry actually needed.” The consortium model, he suggested, was designed to ensure that research outputs are directly relevant to commercialisation pathways.
From the national laboratory perspective, Xiaolin Li of Pacific Northwest National Laboratory described a broad, collaborative effort involving multiple laboratories and universities aimed at developing long-life, affordable and domestically viable battery technologies. The approach combines benchmarking, modelling and experimental validation to build confidence in emerging chemistries and accelerate their route to market.
Tim Lambert of Sandia National Laboratories emphasised that, particularly in zinc-based systems, many fundamental scientific questions remain unresolved. These include basic issues such as pressure effects, electrolyte behaviour and interface stability—areas where published data can be sparse or outdated. The consortium approach, he said, is intended to generate a robust scientific foundation that can support more informed engineering decisions.
Lambert also highlighted the importance of balancing academic curiosity with industrial relevance. “Academics love to follow a folly,” he said, warning that without clear direction, research efforts can drift away from practical outcomes. Assigning ownership of specific technical “thrusts” to different partners was one way to maintain focus and accountability.
A recurring theme throughout the session was the importance of alignment—both in terms of research priorities and organisational culture. Weed said that establishing consensus across competing companies and institutions required sustained effort, often taking up to two years of discussion and iteration. Identifying “non-competitive” areas of research, where companies could collaborate without jeopardising their market positions, was key to building trust.
Administrative complexity was another major challenge. Ellis pointed to the difficulty of reconciling different operational timelines, including DOE fiscal years, corporate planning cycles and university schedules. Programmes that attempted to manage activity centrally risked slowing down decision-making, he said, whereas pushing responsibility down to topic leads and technical teams allowed work to proceed at “the speed of industry”.
Cost-sharing requirements also shape programme design. Under OE960/961, participants were required to contribute 20% of total project costs, a burden that Weed said was made manageable by distributing it evenly across participating companies and aligning contributions with specific workstreams.
Data sharing and intellectual property remain sensitive areas. Ellis described systems in which independent testing generates anonymised datasets that can be shared across participants without revealing proprietary details. However, he cautioned that maintaining confidentiality is increasingly difficult. “Keeping a trade secret is really tough too,” he said, particularly in collaborative environments where knowledge is exchanged informally.
Panel argues that know-how is more valuable than IP
Several panellists argued that the real value of consortia lies less in formal intellectual property than in the accumulation of tacit knowledge and “know-how” among participants. This shared understanding can inform better design, testing and scaling decisions, even where specific results are not publicly disclosed.
Questions from the audience touched on the likelihood of success across multiple research areas, and how external stakeholders – such as utilities – can track progress. Panellists were clear that failure is an inherent part of the process. Rather than aiming for universal success, programmes are designed to generate learning that can guide future development.
For external observers, access points include DOE annual review meetings and published materials, as well as direct engagement with programme participants. As Lambert noted, greater interaction with industry stakeholders can help researchers design more relevant experiments and accelerate the translation of findings into real-world applications.
Photo: (L-R) Russ Weed, President, CleanTech Strategies; Courtney Greco, Project Manager, Battery Council International; Tim Ellis, Technical Director, ABRG, BCI; Xiaolin Li, Chief Scientist, PNNL; Tim Lambert, Energy Storage Materials Thrust Lead, Sandia National Labs
Credit: James Snodgrass
