The topic of Li-ion battery aging continues to fuel conversations in the energy storage industry. While this article does not aim to provide a comprehensive overview of battery aging (as we do in the Operations module of the BattXcel Program), the recent research published in Nature Energy and the subsequent discussions on LinkedIn have motivated me to share my thoughts. Some comments were quite frustrating to see and this is a critical discussion for our industry that highlights key challenges in how we test and evaluate batteries.
A Look at the Research
At Greenectra, we’ve taught for quite some years now that aging in the field differs significantly from standard lab tests. Real-world conditions introduce dynamic variables: fluctuating temperatures, variable current loads, and irregular charging patterns, just to name a few. This is why we emphasize the importance of realistic testing methods when predicting battery aging behavior. On the one hand, the article in question, titled “Dynamic cycling enhances battery lifetime”, presents findings that align closely with what we’ve been advocating for years. Real life operations matter. On the other hand, the title of the article is not optimal. A better phrasing might be: “Dynamic cycling can enhance battery lifetime.” The research article demonstrates that dynamic cycling profiles—designed to mimic real-world usage—can improve battery cycle life by up to 38%. This is a significant insight and it reinforces the importance of tailoring testing protocols to reflect actual operating conditions, or at least to be as close as possible to actual operating conditions.
Does dynamic cycling always improve the lifetime?
Experience shows us that dynamic cycling profiles do not always lead to better performance outcomes compared to constant current aging tests. In many cases, real-world dynamic testing may reveal worse aging behavior than traditional constant current cycling. The fact that we cannot really estimate aging from testing at very different conditions should make us think more about how specific use cases impact degradation. For example, certain dynamic profiles may expose batteries to harsher conditions—such as higher current peaks—which could accelerate degradation compared to standard constant current lab tests.
Industry Practices: Time for a Paradigm Shift?
No. Some comments on LinkedIn about this Nature Energy article caught my attention. A person with a cell-development-related position posted the question: “Are we cycling batteries the wrong way?” It is really surprising to see this question being asked in 2025. Another similar comment: “We need better testing methods to predict battery lifespan.” Seriously? We already have these methods—they exist, and some organizations are using them for years. The challenge lies not in developing better methods but in driving their adoption across the industry. We recently published an article about Common mistakes and the importance of Li-ion Battery Education and these comments relate closely to mistake 4, mentioned in that article. One final comment on yet another LinkedIn post on a similar topic: Someone said that battery tests are typically carried out under constant current conditions, but real-world applications draw constant power. As an example, EVs and smartphones were mentioned. First of all, that is simply wrong because EVs and smartphones draw a varying power profile. Second, constant power testing is a better choice than constant current testing in most real-world scenarios, but it is still a bad choice for applications that do not draw a constant power, like for example an EV.
Back to the Study and its Limitations
It is also worth noting some limitations in the Nature Energy study:
- Temperature Conditions:
- The study conducted its tests at a constant temperature of 35°C “for technological relevance” whatever the authors of the study mean by that. While this temperature is relevant for certain applications, it does not fully reflect real-world conditions where batteries experience fluctuating temperatures. Elevated temperatures accelerate some aging processes, but for example lithium plating is usually increased when charging at lower temperatures.
- If similar tests were conducted at -let’s say- 5°C it is possible that dynamic cycling would not show improved aging performance or might even result in worse outcomes due to lithium plating.
- Battery Chemistry:
- The batteries tested were commercial silicon oxide–graphite/nickel cobalt aluminum (NCA) lithium-ion cells. While this chemistry is used in certain electric vehicles, results from these tests may not directly translate to other chemistries such as lithium iron phosphate (LFP) or nickel manganese cobalt (NMC). Each chemistry has some unique aging mechanisms and responses to dynamic cycling profiles can be different.
Moving Forward: 3 selected points to consider
- Adopt Realistic Cycling Profiles: If not done already, testing protocols should incorporate dynamic cycling patterns that reflect real-world usage scenarios.
- Educate Stakeholders: Decision-makers need to understand both the benefits and limitations of dynamic testing compared to traditional methods and they should be aware that standard tests in sales brochures are maybe not that useful to make a good decision. This is one of the reasons why we created the BattXcel Lite Program: We do not need to educate desicion makers about all details of all different aging mechanisms, but they should be aware of the complexity at least, and they should know about the limitations of “traditional” aging testing.
- Expand Temperature Ranges: If relevant to the application, testing should include high- and low-temperature scenarios.
Legal Disclaimer
The information provided in this article is for general informational purposes only and represents a personal view. All information is provided in good faith; however, Greenectra OÜ makes no representation or warranty of any kind, express or implied, regarding the accuracy, adequacy, validity, reliability, availability, or completeness of any information.
Under no circumstances shall Greenectra OÜ be held liable for any loss or damage of any kind incurred as a result of the use of this information or reliance on any information provided. Your use of this information and your reliance on any information is solely at your own risk.
