Sugar-powered biobattery has 10 times the energy storage of lithium: Your smartphone might soon run on enzymes

Zhang's glucose-powered enzymatic fuel cell (Virginia Tech)

Share This article

As you probably know, from sucking down cans of Coke and masticating on candy, sugar — glucose, fructose, sucrose, dextrose — is an excellent source of energy. Biologically speaking, sugar molecules are energy-dense, easy to transport, and cheap to digest. There is a reason why almost every living cell on Earth generates its energy (ATP) from glucose. Now, researchers at Virginia Tech have successfully created a sugar-powered fuel cell that has an energy storage density of 596 amp-hours per kilo — or “one order of magnitude” higher than lithium-ion batteries. This fuel cell is refillable with a solution of maltodextrin, and its only by products are electricity and water. The chief researcher, Y.H. Percival Zhang, says the tech could be commercialized in as soon as three years.

Now, it’s not exactly news that sugar is an excellent energy source. As a culture we’ve probably known about it since before we were Homo sapiens. The problem is, unless you’re a living organism or some kind of incendiary device, extracting that energy is difficult. In nature, an enzymatic pathway is used — a production line of tailor-made enzymes that meddle with the glucose molecules until they become ATP. Because it’s easy enough to produce enzymes in large quantities, researchers have tried to create fuel cells that use artificial “metabolism” to break down glucose into electricity (biobatteries), but it has historically proven very hard to find the right pathway for maximum efficiency and to keep the enzymes in the right place over a long period of time.

Enzymatic fuel cell diagram

A diagram of the enzymatic fuel cell. The little Pac-Man things are enzymes.

Now, however, Zhang and friends at Virginia Tech appear to have built a high-density fuel cell that uses an enzymatic pathway to create a lot of electricity from glucose. There doesn’t seem to be much information on how stable this biobattery is over multiple refills, but if Zhang thinks it could be commercialized in three years, that’s a very good sign. Curiously, the research paper says that the enzymes are non-immobilized — meaning Zhang found a certain battery chemistry that doesn’t require the enzymes to be kept in place… or, alternatively, that it will only work for a very short time.

Energy densities of various battery types

Energy densities of various battery types. “15% Maltodextrin”, in dark blue, is the battery being discussed here.

The Virginia Tech biobattery uses 13 enzymes, plus air (it’s an air-breathing biobattery), to produce nearly 24 electrons from a single glucose unit. This equates to a power output of 0.8 mW/cm, current density of 6 mA/cm, and energy storage density of 596 Ah/kg. This last figure is impressive, at roughly 10 times the energy density of the lithium-ion batteries in your mobile devices. [Research paper: doi:10.1038/ncomms4026 - "A high-energy-density sugar biobattery based on a synthetic enzymatic pathway"]

If Zhang’s biobatteries pan out, you might soon be recharging your smartphone by pouring in a solution of 15% maltodextrin. That battery would not only be very safe (it produces water and electricity), but very cheap to run and very green. This seems to fit in perfectly with Zhang’s homepage, which talks about how his main goals in life are replacing crude oil with sugar, and feeding the world.

The other area in which biobatteries might be useful is powering implanted devices, such as pacemakers — or, in the future, subcutaneous sensors and computers. Such a biobattery could feed on the glucose in your bloodstream, providing an endless supply of safe electricity for the myriad implants that futuristic technocrats will surely have.

Share This Article


Post a Comment

  • Pasha Pasha

    You wish! As was stated in recent story about Li-Ion batteries: manufacturers will increase capacity incrementally. Assume ~10% every year. So that they can have sea of money to swim in, when the time comes we are having x10 capacitive batteries from today.

    • Bill Norton

      You make absolutely no sense.

      • Dozerman

        He’s saying that they won’t let a huge leap in battery storage happen because there isn’t any money to be made in it. It’s better from a financial standpoint to incrementally increase storage capacities year by year until we reach this “order of magnitude increase”.

        Problem wit that theory is that this shifts the money away from the battery itself and onto the fuel that goes in it.

        • Bill Norton

          To which I would reply: poopycock

          • Dozerman

            Meh, conspiracy theorists are like that weird uncle everyone has to see at christmas: they’re entertaining for awhile, but you’re glad to see them go away.

            Poopycock? Are you brittish?

          • Bill Norton

            British no. Poppycock just sounds more friendly than stupid.

          • Dozerman

            Sorry for the over generalization. British are the only ones that I’ve ever heard using that word.

          • Bill Norton

            No need to be sorry. I just like the word, and I am not one of those Americans who want to be British kind of guys.

          • Dozerman

            Never met an American who wanted to be…

          • The Federal Farmer

            But the Beatles!

          • Tom Currell

            I wouldn’t dismiss it too quickly, the computer industry have been using these tactics for years. I see no reason why battery companies wouldn’t also, it makes for a solid business model.

          • Dozerman

            I’m not dismissing it.

          • Christopher todd

            So spinning something into a conspiracy theory is not dismissive? Who are you? Alex Jones?

          • Domush

            Putting out the best you can at the highest price you can charge for it is the solid business model of all companies.

            If you honestly think Intel and AMD are just sitting on 10ghz processors they just don’t feel like selling yet, you may need to remove that tinfoil hat because it’s cooking your brain.

            The exact reason most electronics have upgradable firmware now is because companies are running so bleeding edge they put stuff out before testing is complete in order to stay relevant and competitive, the exact opposite of your conspiracy theory.

          • Damion Lee

            Actually, Intel had quad-core 10GHz processors on the lab benches way back in 2002 (some of you tech guys may remember the articles and interviews back then) Those processors didn’t even feature on their 10 year roadmap.

            Technology companies actually work between 10 and 15 years ahead of what they release into the commercial markets. Pasha Pasha and Dozerman are absolutely correct that Lithium battery technology will be released over a period of time if they are able to bleed it out they will.

            The key will be how the patent is handled for this technology. If it is either left unpatented or with a royalty free patent there is a good chance that this technology will roll out quickly and will cause the rapid rollout of Li-Ion technology.

            On the other hand, if they patent is sold off or carries a hefty royalty fee, the likelihood is that this technology won’t see the light of day for a few decades. Remember that Li-Ion technology dates back to the early 70′s, but the first commercial Li-Ion battery wasn’t released until 1991 (Sony). There is no conspiracy theory, that is simply how the technology industry works.

          • Jason Brown

            I agree wholeheartedly with what you say about tech companies releasing techs that are 10-15 years old. Actually sometimes older. In the nuclear field, these new powerplant designs that being put into to service just today are designs that are at least 20 years old.

          • Kurtis D

            There are three reasons why Li-Ion wasn’t used commercially until the 90′s: Until the late 80′s, Li-Ion batteries had piss-poor energy densities. You’d have to have carried around something the size of a car battery to get the same charge as you do out of a modern AA battery. Also, Li-Ion batteries were extremely dangerous, liable to burst into flame at the slightest sign of overcharge or non-uniform discharge, two aspects that were nearly impossible to control until certain production and power electronics techs caught up. Finally; the market wasn’t there. There weren’t all that many things available to consumers that needed a portable high quality source of power.
            Why do I bring this up? Because in certain aspects of the tech industry, technologies are marketed as they’re being invented. Companies usually don’t sit on highly marketable tech that could give them a massive edge on the competition. This is especially true in the Li-Ion industry. Li-Ion is nearing its maximum energy density with current 2 dimensional electrodes. That’s why you see so many research institutions looking into refuelable “batteries” for the portable gadgets of the future. Batteries as we currently know them won’t be able to keep up with the power-hungry devices of tomorrow. This is why this glucose based fuel cell is such a huge breakthrough.

          • Damion Lee


            Technology companies actually work between 10 and 15 years ahead of what they release into the commercial markets. Pasha Pasha is absolutely correct that Lithium battery technology will be released over a period of time if they are able to bleed it out they will.



          • Defenestrator

            No, Intel had 10GHz *transistors* in the labs in 2002. There’s a world of difference between getting a single transistor to switch at a given clock rate and getting a billion of them to switch in coordinated fashion within that same time window.

          • Damion Lee

            No, Intel had 10GHz transistors back in 2001 – you don’t get quad core transistors. The processor in the labs was a quad core unit made up for 4 2.5GHz units working in tandem.

          • Damion Lee

            No, Intel had 10GHz transistors back in 2001 (March). The 10GHz processor in 2002 was a lab setup created from 4 2.5GHz processors working in tandem. You don’t get quad-core transistors.

          • Domush

            Four 2.5ghz processors is called quad core. Using your failed logic I have a 12ghz pc in my house right now and a traffic jam is really a race car made up of many slows cars working in tandem.

          • Damion Lee

            You will notice Domush that I referred to it in both cases as a quad core. But the difference between that technology and the multi-core unit you have in your PC is that your processors cores operate based on software instructions which spread the load over the cores. The quad core lab processor ran the 4 cores in tandem, not independently – meaning that it operated as a single 10GHz processor, not 4 2.5GHz processors.

          • Domush

            Quad core is tandem. Learn your terminology. The fact you are saying “4 cores” means they are discreet processors. Just because they are on the same chip doesn’t magically make them run faster, it means they can handle x times the data (x being the number of cores) at the same speed as each core.

            I have a degree in this and decades of experience, so trust me when I say you’re making yourself look like an idiot.

          • Damion Lee

            And I’ll match your experience with my own working with HP, Fujitsu-Siemens and other industry companies.

            4 cores being used as individual cores (in parallel) is not the same as 4 cores being run in series. This technology simply never came to be commercially released as parallel processing was the route that was, and is followed. Primarily because of the brick wall that is the heat problem with high speed processors.

          • Domush

            By all means, link me to a technical article describing this mythological “series computing” processor.

            Now you’re just pulling jargon out of your ass, thinking because you once read some electronics article that said series is different from parallel that somehow that would sound intelligent to plop out regarding processors, when that isn’t how series and parallel work in electronics.

            In the computer world, things running in series are far slower than those running in parallel, as there is locking and waits required. That is why SATA data cables don’t have 2 ports like IDE cables once did.

            I can bring up examples all day long, why? Because I’m actually educated in the field.

            Deepak Chopra is famous for the same thing you are doing.. stringing together jargon in the hopes it will makes sense or,at the very least, bamboozle the reader enough to back off. it’s called word salad and it doesn’t fool anyone with an ounce of industry knowledge.

          • Christopher todd

            “Because I’m actually educated in the field.” Could just be good at scanning google.. There is no proof of your claims to be educated in the field.. So why did you mention that.. When no one can confirm it? You could be some Obese geek for all we know. The instant guest likes stopped. Lol..

          • Domush

            Hey look, more red herring fallacies from the guy who just got called out on his ridiculous posts.

            Even if your sad attempt at distraction were true, my posts stand on their own merits. After all, if you had a real argument you wouldn’t be focusing on my experience but my arguments.

            Feel free to verify my assertions on the topic, you’ll find they are all correct, and then you can wish you had the same experience, but instead you went the “make people think I’m smart by stringing together jargon” route of the con man. A con who just got called out and is now hoping to reclaim some dignity by resorting to red herring fallacies.

            Sorry pal, I’m well educated in those as well.

          • Christopher todd

            You are just a troll. The end.. Gj confirming your claims.. Lol..

          • Regenz

            LOL, you got PWNED

          • zerobeat

            Thanks, Domush, for articulating exactly what I was thinking!!!! I had enough knowledge to be 99% sure that Damion was pulling this “series processor” out of his keester, but 1% of me thought “um, is there maybe another use of the word ‘series’ that applies in this context?”

          • Urich Hunt

            Im starting to think youve never built an integrated circuit before.. there is a difference between multiprocessor and multicore btw.. take for example, i can have a 2 processor setup with 4 total cores (like my current laptop for example).. and just because something has multiple processors in it, doesent mean they arent used in tandem to increase power instead of used independantly to process functions by themselves.. ie, if i used 2 processors in series at 2.5GHz, i would create a single 5GHz processor.. you should really look into series vs parallel s

          • Urich Hunt

            FYI, I live in Oak Ridge TN.. ORNL (Oak Ridge National Labs) has a Petabyte processor in a computer… And its not even the fastest on earth atm.. i believe the HDD in it is a SSD Yotabyte hard drive.. please tell me again how this tactic of incramental increase is invalid again?

          • Christopher todd

            Finally someone with a brain.. These guys are acting like we can buy this battery now.. Brain dead zombies..

          • Christopher todd

            You spun what he said into a conspiracy theory? Define: Conspiracy theory.. Must be murican.. There is no attempt to cover anything up.. Is SMART.. To milk the people.. Since they are too stupid to know we can merge the best parts to make a product that lasts. People are stimulus response animals..

            Meh, Zealots are those A-holes that come on comments to insult people. While mentioning events tied to cosmic imaginary friends.

          • Dozerman

            The hell is your problem? Conspiracy theory is a broad term and thus encompass a huge variety of erroneous beliefs generally directed at some intangible organization that manipulates events. He clearly believes that “the man” will suppress this new battery tech in order to turn a profit.

          • Dozerman


          • Christopher todd

            I see no mention of “The man” Nor a mention of suppress.. Sorry man.. But you.. Are making stuff that is not there.. Also? I go by definition.. Not what the people pass around.. People have issues with Gossip.. Big issue here in America.. Example.. Liberal By definition = Tolerance, equality, and liberty. Is used as an insult here now by religious sheep. Heck.. They even use sheep as an insult while their deity is a lamb.. Businesses do hold back.. Called milking the stock. Stock being the people.

          • Eric Scoles

            Is it conspiracy theory, or just thinking about how markets work?

          • WTFMFWOMG

            Our economic system is based upon scarcity, which is a paradigm that must be overcome before these new ideas become accepted.

          • Nacho Daddy

            Sounds like you got the wrong hole!

          • danwat1234


        • crackmasta

          Its about marketability. Think about the production cost of a 10ghz chip vs. how many people would actually buy such a thing. Only the most hardcore of gamers would waste their money on something like that. If video game companies could actually make money off PC sales you would probably see games being made that exceed console graphics, as a direct result of that the demand for higher performance processors and gfx cards would increase.

      • Christopher todd

        You didn’t understand.. Its the same thing people think about graphics
        cards for pc. Is much smarter for the business to milk people. As in
        release the tech slowly over time with the economy. To get the most
        money possible from ur junk. Working up to ur higher products. Make sense?

        • Domush

          Your comment shows your deep ignorance of both market competition and the video card market itself. AMD and Intel (nvidia) both put out the fastest cards they can manufacture within a price point people will pay. The many different models of cards have different speed, quality and type of parts. For instance, the gtx560se, gtx560 and gtx560ti are all the identical cards but with different memory speed and % of defective features disabled. The gtx560se is quite literally a defective gtx560ti, so they reduce clock speed and disable the defective sets of transistors in order to still sell it as a stable product.

          This is exactly why some cards can be flashed to their higher priced counterparts, because they technically are their higher priced counterparts but failed to run stable at the higher clocks.

          This is exactly how conspiracy theories begin, ignorant people seeing things they don’t understand and insisting there is some evil motive behind it. Reality is far more mundane, such as selling defective cards at lower speeds for less money so you can still make a profit.

          As I told the last guy, take off the tinfoil hat long enough to educated yourself on how the industry actually works rather than making wild claims about an entire industry of competitors colluding to hold back what would ensure they would make billions from.

          What’s next, Microsoft has windows 8 back in 1890 but wanted to sell telegraphs instead?

          • Damion Lee

            Your comments show a deep ignorance of how this market works. Intel back in 2009 showcased a 48-core processor, it was made available in very limited numbers (100 units) to researchers in 2010. However, this technology was released three years AFTER they developed an 80-core processor (back in 2007).

            By your logic the 80-core and the 48-core processors would be available to the general consumer, at possibly astronomical prices. This simply is not the case.

            Back in 2007 the first commercially available 1TB hard drives were made available. However, 1TB hard drives existed back in the early 90′s but were not commercially available.

          • Domush

            Developing something and having it available for mass production are not even in the same ballpark. Do you really think Intel is going to tool an entire plant in order to make one offs on the off chance some mega rich guy will want one?

            All of this, ignoring the fact of compatibility with existing tech. Do you recall how well Dec alpha processors did? Sure, they were awesome processors but they were a beta vcr in a vhs world. Making something fast and making something which sells, has support, software, market capital and consumers which want to wait around for all of that to happen are sometimes worlds apart.

            This is beyond the fact most research items are cobbled together and are not meant to be touched, let alone used in commercial applications. Frankly, if you don’t know the difference between beta and release you have no business even speaking of the computer industry.

            Linux is ages faster than windows, but you don’t see it on your pc, do you? Compatibility often trumps performance. Welcome to the real world.

            Your argument just went from ignorant to downright idiotic.

          • Damion Lee

            The original comment was that manufacturers will roll technology increases out over a period of time, enabling them to extract the highest possible revenue from those technologies. You are arguing that this is not the case.

            Tech companies absolutely do have technology which they can produce now, which they could tool for now but do not because that would stop sales of existing products. So retooling is rolled out slowly to spread the cost over the sales of current and introduced technology.

            That is no conspiracy, that is a simple fact. Whether a company tools now or in 10 years won’t affect the relative cost at mass-production realise. Having limited production capacity causes increased production costs. If Intel tooled to mass produce 48 core processors next year, the production costs would be the same (relatively) as if they tooled to mass produce in 10 years time. However, if they tool for it in 10 years time, they can roll out more Octo-cores, then Deca-Cores, DoDeca-Cores, Iso-Cores etc.

            Why on Earth would the tool for a 45 or 80 core processor which they have the technology to produce now, when they can slowly upgrade the technology they release commercially and ensure a higher longer term return on their technology? The answer is, they wouldn’t. If they sell 8, 10, 12, 16, 20 and 32 core processors (as random core suggestions), they will profit from each of those. If they immediately release what they have today, they won’t profit as much from all of those.

            Your concept of business practice and commercial strategy is wildly off base.

          • Domush

            Read a book on how technology manufacturing works. I’m not your free tutor.

            Start with nano-scale manufacturing, as that is what has been limiting speeds for the last decade.

            ..unless you enjoy the thought of having an Econoline-van-sized liquid nitrogen cooling tank in your computer room in order to run that 80-core processor intel has “just laying around”.

          • Damion Lee

            I think you’re missing the point – what a company ‘can’ mass produce and what they ‘do’ mass produce are two entirely different things. The technology you can buy, and the technology a company ‘can’ sell, are two entirely different things.

          • Domush

            Haha, nice try backing off into the “well, it’s theoretically possible for them to mass produce them, given unlimited resources and consumers with unlimited funds and every special permit required by the government to handle the chemicals required to cool them with an infinite supply of rare earth metals and electricity to power them being free” argument.

            Yeah, them not going the unsupported, nitrogen cooled, beta, no software, no willing purchasers willing to spend $millions per item mass production route is totally just to string us along and drive prices up.. clearly.

          • Damion Lee

            I’m not backing off into theoretical scenarios. You are simply reading things the way you want to read them to keep your argument going.

          • Domush

            Then by all means, clarify your point.

            It seems pretty cut and dry to me, you think Intel is sitting on 80-core processors because they just don’t feel like releasing them.

            Am I wrong in this summary?

          • Damion Lee

            Yes you are entirely wrong in this summary.

            My point – my one and only point in all of this is that the technology is released over a period of time, not as soon as it becomes available.

            These may be by reason of market support (for instance Blu-Ray, which was developed for the 90′s but pulled by Sony in favour of joining the DVD camp because the industry was rallying behind the DVD format. Later they re-visit Blu-Ray and release it in competition to the HD-DVD format). Alternatively, it may be because of a potential issue of faults within the line (for instance the Intel delay on Broadwell).

            It may be because the transition to mass-production isn’t economically viable for the company (Sony FED television technology). It may be because the market isn’t ready.

            The standard home consumer market isn’t ready for an 80-core processor. However, the super computer market IS. But having got an 80-core processor in play, Intel produce and restrictedly release a 48-core processor. No one expects this market to be massive, but rather than release the 48 at one price, and the 80 at another, they don’t. They spread the release of technology out over a period of time. Rollout of technology is a time-tested method of creating revenue. A purchaser will spend more by purchasing an item and upgrading again at a later date.

            The time to market for technology is a long period. This all came out of the assertion that Li-Ion cells have room for improvement which will be rolled out in stages, which came about because of the suggestion that this fuel cell could be commercially available in 3 years. Which is never going to happen. Li-ion technology was developed in the 70′s. It was repeatedly demonstrated in the late 70′s. It was not released commercially until the early 90′s.

          • Domush

            Quote from your original post:


            Quote from your supposed “clarification” (aka, utterly changed assertion):


            From “they sit on it to string us along for more money” to “they released it immediately but nobody wanted it”. Of course, the reason the industry was behind the lesser format is because readers for DVDs didn’t cost the same as a car.

            This goes against your entire argument of “release over a period of time to bleed it out”.

            Nice attempt to pretend you weren’t dead wrong in your initial argument while proving you were in your “clarification”.


          • Christopher todd

            Instant gust votes on this guys comments.. Lmao!

          • Domush

            Could it be because my comments are factually correct based in industry knowledge because I work in the industry and have been a fan of computers my entire life?

            Nope, it must be yet another conspiracy. Maybe it’s Intel trying to help spread propaganda..

          • Christopher todd

            I knew you would call it a conspiracy.. Define conspiracy.. Here calling people ignorant? Didn’t know that?

          • Domush

            You tried this on another commenter if I recall. You may wish to buy a dictionary, as I used it in the proper context.

            “Conspiracy: A plot to carry out some harmful or illegal act”

            The ignorance is all yours, pal.

            Any other red herrings you wish to attempt to distract from your ridiculous assertions?

          • Christopher todd

            There was harm in saying “Instant gust votes on this guys comments” Congrats! You are a nut..

          • Domush

            I recall your reading comprehension being higher at the beginning of this debate. Being called out on your bullshit seems to negatively affect your comprehension skills.

          • Christopher todd

            ……. You hide ur info for a reason.. You are nobody but some faceless jerk on comments. The end. You confirmed nothing.. Just another dog. Good scanning google. Ur use of foul language? Yeah.. I bet ur some obese clown sitting in his moms basement.

          • Christopher todd

            That dude Domush? Gets instant gust likes on each of his posts he made. lol..Ignoring him.. Must hide his face for a reason.

          • Christopher todd

            I mentioned no conspiracy theories about myself. I am just open to the possibility. Its people that “KNOW” that are the insane ones.. “ignorant people” I never said that I know or don’t know. I’m not RELIGIOUS about my opinions thank you very much. Went to 1890-present as example.. Lmao..

  • Aaron Esbenshade

    First we got a grip on math, then on physics, then chemistry, and the Day of Biological systems is on our doorstep, as a natural progression to the understanding of increasingly complex systems comes access to increasingly excellent technologies. This is AWESOME!

    • Sarah

      Well said sir.

  • algol2000

    The powers that be will not let this happen. It is all about resource control.

    • Domush

      And the aluminum industry wins again with yet another person fashioning a tinfoil hat

    • Domush



        “Control food and you control people. Control energy and you control nations.” – Henry Kissinger

        “Give me control of a nation’s currency and I care not who makes its laws.” – Mayer Amschel Rothschild

        Our economic system is based on scarcity, and any discovery that upsets this premise will not be tolerated. The only “conspiracy” is in our minds, in that this is the only acceptable way to do things.

  • Singh1699

    This seems to fit in perfectly
    replacing crude oil with sugar, and feeding the world.

    At least there’s some good scientists still. :)

    • Joel Detrow

      Scientists have always worked for good. It’s the greedy who fund them that misuse their discoveries.

      • Loraine

        Money profit money profit…
        These are times I think about the folks in The Venus Project.

      • Singh1699

        The death of personal honor in the west aka death of men due to radical feminism is half the reason.

        You can’t say you work for good, for example if you work for Idk blackwater or Lockheed art in. You can say they do good and bad but which side are they more on?

        Many men are scared to be them, so they can’t hold anyone accountable. Lol rise up being scared of girls is wack.

        • Domush

          When you equate equal rights with loss of honor you have already lost the argument.

  • SirGCal

    so… it produces water… and they’re talking about this around your cellphone… right… This year waterproof-ish phones have come out but… Either way I wouldn’t want a dead phone or a wet pocket…

    • eonvee375

      yes they will just let it drip in your pants like theyve put the exhaust pipe right next to you inside the car’s salon…

    • Joel Detrow

      Waterproof phones are all the rage in the far east and Europe. For some reason, American companies just don’t see any value in selling devices that are safe from being totally ruined by a little bit of water. (hint: $$$$$$ )

      But seriously, the water will stay in the power module.

      • Singh1699

        Phone insurance is all the rage in America. Carriers sell most phones and insurance packages. Most have several hundred deductibles.

    • Corey McDonald

      It’s never going to gain adoption in phones until it’s rechargeable from a power source. It’s just not convenient enough. (woohoo, my phone lasts an extra 10 hours of stand by or 1 hour of talk time, but I have to carry around these vials of solution to recharge it. Wow, I wish I could just plug it in) It could easily be used in the 1000′s of applications that don’t need a rechargeable battery, or where you would want to refill it so rarely that it wouldn’t be a big deal.

    • Danielle

      The energy leaves the battery, the water stays inside…

  • James Tolson

    any tech using this technology would be sweet :-)

  • Magnus Blomberg

    One important figure was left out of this article. Power? How fast can it discharge the 596Ah from one kg of sugar? If it takes 100 years it would not be useful in that many mobile devises.

    • Carlos Hernandez

      Since the process is enzymatic I assume it must be quick (I mean, most of the enzymes they use are the ones our bodies use to get energy out of sugar). The problem that arrises then is that enzymes decay fast. In our bodies it’s no problem since we replace them, but they don’t propose any mechanism to replace decayed enzymes.

  • Jeff Vahrenkamp

    honestly, the value 596 amp-hours/kilo means nothing without a voltage. Normally these values are listed in W-hours. Marine lead acid batteries have amp hour ratings, but that is becuase it is a given that their avg voltage is about 12, so you can do the math. Since I have no idea what the voltage this battery puts out, the amp-hour rating means nothing to me.

    • Sebastian Anthony

      The supplementary materials have a table listing the voltage (0.5V), and the Wh (298). So, yes, low voltage. But could have multiple fuel cells in series, I guess? The rest of the figures look pretty good.

      • Jeff Vahrenkamp

        that table at the end is much more informative. 298Wh/kg for their cell vs 150Wh/kg for the Li ion battery. So more like a 2x gain. I thought something was up when they listed everything in Amp-hours/Kg which is really a worthless unit without knowing voltage..

  • Felix

    Honestly, I don’t think this is very green at all. I know, this might not be a very popular opinion, but how does a battery that would require enormous amounts of land to produce the sugar qualifies as ecologic? Unless we develop a whole new way of growing sugar canes (or whatever crop needed), if we suddenly switched to this tech, how much farming land would we need dedicated to that crop? We can’t be using food for energy production, we are already using a lot of land as it is, and that’s just to feed us.

    On the other hand, maybe this will trigger the development of farming towers or something where we can have a building efficiently growing the plants, production line style. That I’d be OK with. Engineered bacteria might be acceptable depending on what the inputs for the process are. The idea and the energy density seems amazing, I’m just worried about what is needed to produce its fuel.

    Note, I am by no means defending the establishment, I just am always wary about tech that implies the use of crops and farming land for something other than food. Same as those “nature friendly” houses looking all good in the middle of the forest. Yes, it seems nice individually in the pictures, now build a thousand of them and see how the forest looks. May not be the first thing that comes to mind, but the habitat with the least environmental impact would be a huge ass apartment building that can house a lot of people, sharing resources, in a small footprint. Here as well, it might not be the first thing you think, but this battery might have a bigger environmental impact than the current generation.

    • Joel Detrow

      Sugar is a renewable resource. If finding greener, cheaper ways to produce more of it suddenly becomes economically desirable (and it just did), companies WILL start finding or making ways to produce more sugar at less cost. My money’s on genetically modified algae, since their biological pathways already produce glucose while consuming carbon dioxide and sunlight.

      • Brave Toaster

        So is sunshine. Until someone can find a more renewable way to power my electric car than with solar cells, I’m unimpressed.

    • Daniel Holley

      Sugar is the by-product of photosynthesis, so maybe we can create a battery that absorbs CO2 then produces oxygen and sugar (by the way H2O is needed for this, so the secondary reaction that produces H2O can be consumed by the first process). Not only efficient, green, and cheap, but it is also cleaning our air as well.

    • PacoBell

      This is the missing link. GVL creates sugar directly from discarded biomass.

    • Captain_Sakonna

      “We can’t be using food for energy production, we are already using a lot of land as it is, and that’s just to feed us.” We have much more land tied up in agriculture than is actually necessary to feed us, mainly because we are feeding tons and tons of plants to livestock (who then inefficiently convert them into animal products) instead of just eating the plants ourselves. If we replaced all the livestock feed with biofuel, I think we’d do fine.

      • Orion Antares

        No the grains they feed to livestock are actually not that healthy for people either and they make the animal products just as unhealthy because of that.

    • Orion Antares

      Maltodextrin is made from corn or wheat. Both are already grown in so much over abundance that food companies try to get you to eat far more of it than is actually health.

  • squirrelboy

    “0.8 mW/cm”
    how exactly does this make sense? 0,8 mW per centimeter obviously doesn’t work, so what else could cm mean?

    • BobDoleIsOld

      It does mean per centimeter, and makes perfect sense. It’s an energy density in area of the cell. That’s pretty common for capacitors.

      • squirrelboy

        centimeter is length, cm² is area, cm³ is volume. energy density per unit of volume makes sense. per area does not. you can’t store anything in a surface.

        @pacobell i’ve seen cubic feet as cf, so by that logic, cm would mean cubic meter. which it obviously doesnt.
        they used /cm twice, so they didnt just forget to put a ³ behind it

    • PacoBell

      They probably meant cubic centimeter. So much for extremetech editors =P

    • eyebeam

      You are correct, it is a typo. The linked article states the density in units of mW/cm² which is according to the area of the membrane.

  • zapper

    more sugarcane slavery ???

    • Orion Antares

      Corn or wheat are used to make maltodextrin.

  • alex tree

    Wow this sounds huge; but water and breathing in a smart phone?
    I’m not sure people would go for that but even so this is an exciting approach.
    To power cars like that would be groundbreaking.

  • brian nost

    Published in yesterday’s Nature Communications. It sounds too good to be true but this is the real deal guys.
    Very exhilarating breakthrough. The forecasts of us getting out of this energy mess just got a lot brighter. Scientists like Zhang are the heroes of our age at a time when nothing else works. Let’s see them, aswell as the bums in Washington and the apathetic public for who they really are. Collectivism won’t survive this century.

    • Singh1699

      Collectivist bankers have been robbing you guys for a few centuries now..

  • Cees Timmerman

    Methanol has an energy density of 2400 Wh/kg? says 6400 Wh/kg (and 7850 Wh/kg for the less toxic ethanol.) says the specific energy of methanol is 19.7 MJ/kg, which is 5470 Wh/kg.

  • Guest


  • UncleB

    And: Electric motored cars are 80+% efficient – watch Big Oil “disappear” this system! They cannot afford to have cars running on sugar beets for competition, can they?

    • Corey McDonald

      Good point. This could be a really viable solution for alternative fueled cars. You would go to a gas station and refill on maltodextrin.

  • rrdonovan

    Great so now some dumbass redneck will pour bottle of Jack in his pickup truck along with a Cola. Now you have two drunks on the road.

  • albalma

    Oh, wait, this violates every law of market known to the envious Wall-Street and Congress people!! It’s great to see alternative technologies being put out there!

  • djkiranappiah

    Stop using cm and Amps, stick to the proper system of meters and kWh! Also, cool story

    • Singh1699

      Hmm I’m not sure my phone uses 2 kwh in a year. And it’s barely 15 cm tall why would I use large measurements.

      Would you like my height in light years?

      • djkiranappiah

        I usually see Battery capacity in kWh, and length in metres or km, not cm! I am not impartial to height in feet and inches, but don’t like the US’ imperial system of thousand million billion and pound, ounces, etc
        America! Get your system straight!

        • Andru

          I think Singh1699 may have just been ungenerously pointing to the fact that batteries are typically measured in Wh (watt hours). Your household electricity, however, will be measured in kWh. A kWh is 1000 Wh, and so is not typically used for batteries.

          Ah (amp hours) is another typical measurement for batteries, which is the one used in this article.

          cm is absolutely a valid unit to use at a scale of less than one meter.

      • Michael Cull

        Hi just read the whole of this thread. Just like to say I’m British and read with humour the verbal exchanges, keeping in subject, if hose strong words passed by some in a physical sense then we could be talking about A salt and Battery (sic) Oh sorry not sweet enough ?

  • Rod Campbell-Ross

    Sugar is not an energy source – it is a carrier. You still need an energy source. Such elementary errors undermine an article such as this.

    • eeenok

      if you’re going to nitpick along those lines, the only energy source is the big bang

      • Komninos Maraslidis

        By his definition, is oil an energy source?

        • JoFergus

          Oil got it’s energy from the Sun, ancient plant life and geology.
          No intermediate steps required by man aside from extraction/proessin.

          Please indicate where sugar is widely available for extraction/processing without any prior energy inputs/costs

          • Domush

            “No intermediate steps required by man aside from extraction/proessin [sic]“

            You do realize the meaning of the word intermediate, right? Extraction and/or processing are intermediate steps.

            Sugar, like oil, is energy storage. In fact, all matter is energy storage. You are trying to be pedantic but failing quite spectacularly.

          • JoFergus

            Still not getting it, huh
            Since you had such trouble to not be an arse, Domush,
            I’ll give you a little kick in the right direction.

            Let’s make it nice and simple for you…

            The oil gets in the ground without any ‘intermediate man-made processes’ required.

            Still not getting it?

            Just try to imagine how much man-made energy/effort (ie. cost) it took to create the energy stored in oil, in the ground (ie. pre-collection/extraction), in the first place.
            ( hint: humans didn’t even exist yet )

            Get it now? Good.

            Now…How much energy/effort does it take to develop sugar at a large industrial-scale, in the form of cane or beets
            ( again, pre-collection/extraction ).
            You know…That whole “agriculture” thing?

            Starting to get the bigger picture now Domush?
            Good….Here’s the simple question again:

            Which form of stored energy (ie. a reserve) do you think took more actual effort/expense (ie. energy inputs and costs) to create in the first place? Oil or sugar?

            Now if you’re feeling capable, you might also consider the energy density (ie. Joules per volume/mass unit) of oil vs. a sugar-beet/cane, to get an even better sense of which one has a better energy/value yield by volume.

            But since you were already struggling with the semantics of the word “intermediate” and getting all picky about it’s usage (ie. while also being quite ironically *pedantic* about it LOL), we’ll just leave it at that.

            BTW: Did you notice the correct usage of the word “pedantic” just now Domush? No? Well then just look it it up, because it’s clearly not what you think it means. No need to thank me for sparing you further embarrassment….at least with that word.

            While you’re at it, here’s your new word for the day, arsewipe
            Patronizing: (see above)

          • Andru

            I think you just used up your full quota of patronising for 2014.

          • JoFergus

            Probably ;-)
            None left for that dufus anyways…
            He’s still trying to figure out that one “energy source” doesn’t even exist without the added inputs of agriculture.
            He also thinks I’m makign some sort of case for oil…pfft
            His ignorance is his own problem.

          • Domush

            Wow, looks like someone can’t handle being shown to be wrong. fragile ego?

            As to your attempts to add false equivalence, photosynthesis is not man made and every plant on the planet uses it to store energy as sugars. So when it comes to comparing natural means of energy storage sugars beat oil without a sweat when you, using your own exemption, exclude extraction costs.

            Also, your comparison of oil and sugar energy density is meaningless, seeing as the newly developed energy cell makes a chemical conversion, where your coveted oil needs to be burned, adding pollution, then used to produce steam to turn a turbine in order to spin a generator. Each step in this process have enormous inefficiencies. Direct chemical conversion wins handily yet again.

            So, using your same condescension, (except mine is backed by actual relevant data) when you bother to use your brain, sugar conversion is the clear winner in this context.

            Sugar is produced quickly, naturally, using energy from the sun in a more direct way (ie, not using a 12 step, million year process), puts out no pollutants when converted to electricity and improves the environment when both produced and processed.

            Oh, and pedantic was used correctly, but thanks for trying.

      • Rod Campbell-Ross

        Nit-picking? An energy source is critical.

  • doug r

    Everyone seems to be missing the obvious. Cars. Wouldn’t sugar be a step before ethanol-and therefore have a smaller carbon footprint? There’s already fuel cells that produce water, so that’s being worked on.
    Where does the carbon go?

  • Brian F

    Kind of sounds like the Mr. Fusion from back to the future 2. Lol

  • oceanbreeze2400

    “a sugar-powered fuel cell that has an energy storage density of 596 amp-hours per kilo”

    Amp-hours is not a unit of energy.

  • Mac

    Only byproduct is Water? I don’t think so.

    Maltodextrin is C6nH(10n+2)O(5n+1)

    Where does the rest of it go?

    • Newcastle

      If the enzymes are metabolizing maltodextrin then CO2 will be the end product. Also maltodextrin is made from starch which comes from either corn or wheat depending on local availability. Sugar cane is not involved. The author of this article really needs to take basic chemistry again.


        Plant-based sources of carbon close the carbon cycle when the new crop absorbs the CO2 produced by the energy conversion process, so concerns about plant-carbon fuels can be somewhat alleviated.

  • debbiedowner3
  • Sudo Nim


  • Elliander Eldridge

    I would be more interested in seeing how this could apply to robotics. An android that needs to eat, for example, would be cheaper to operate and could solve some problems. It might also be possible to use neuron based computing in a machine that eats.

    Meanwhile, robotic limbs for amputees could be fed by your own body so it never needs charging.

    Together this could easily lead to a blending of organics with machinery to a point that blurs what it means to be alive.

    Of course, the real problem is going to be in creating something that is easy to grow for decentralization. Maybe in the future machines can also extract calories from normal food or maybe even leaves and produce waste useful in garden composting? Or maybe we will need a genetically engineered photosynthetic microbe that is super calorie dense.

    In such a scenario maybe we can even power our homes that way.

    • Sentry616

      Great, robot butlers that have to shit. I was going to program mine to spank my monkey, but the first time it farts I’ll never be able to look at it the same way.

      • Elliander Eldridge

        lol! and fart it shall! Even if we could hypothetically engineer a microbe that we can grow in aquariums and provides minimal waste, there will be gas buildup which in turn means farting. Don’t worry, your house will also be farting. In practice though, this would be a little different than gas is keeping a septic tank. You wouldn’t even notice it.

        I really think this will require genetic engineering though. Calorie rich foods are generally rare in nature, and foods that are calorie dense aren’t really good for decentralized growth in a manner that would not compete with food growing space. I can grow a complete food cyano bacteria, but those are 60 to 70 percent protein dense and very low in calories. If we were to engineer one that is calorie dense while growing just as rapidly you would be able to grow all the energy you need or your home and your computer and your robots. Since these organisms are already substantially more efficient than any of our solar panels, this could easily render most solar panels completely obsolete.

        • Sentry616

          But you forget to take into account the lazziness of consumers. Panels on the roof require less direct action than machines we have to feed. Also the energy that these bacteria provide more or less comes from the sun, but we have to collect it in the form of food for them. Advances in materials tech like graphene will greatley increase how much sunlight is converted to electricity and graphene supercapacitors will allow storage with high energy density. Seems more efficient to me to gather sunlight than gather organic matter that has gathered other organic matter that has gathered sunlight. Cut out the middle man if you will.

          • Elliander Eldridge

            Yes, consumers are lazy, but they’re also cheap. And yes, that energy also comes from the Sun. That’s the point. Life is substantially more efficient at dealing with solar energy than our machines, and even if we were to increase our efficiency there is still the fact that each year they become less and less productive.

            It would be possible to construct a self maintaining system to grow microbes. In fact, the micro farming industry is already working on things like that in regards to food production.

            If a consumer was given a choice between a $40,000 solar panel or a $10,000 bioreactor that produces just as much energy or more, and promises to have lower maintenance costs and last longer, I am fairly certain the consumer is going to go with the cheaper option. On the other hand, if the systems were identical in price but the bacteria produced ten times as much energy they would also go with the bacteria.

  • marcellus2

    Proof of concept with a theoretical energy density. This is just a potato battery. Investors beware.

    We all know what happens to potatoes that you leave on the table too long.

    More serious issues: Corn prices went up. No tortillas but full US gas tanks. Sugar is the main staple for surrogate foods that a large percentage of people on this planet depend on. Lots of oil and water needed to grow sugar. Burning off cane fields not good either. N o t a solution, just another headache.

    • Elliander Eldridge

      If we use corn crops as the source of sugar, I completely agree with you. However, there are other possible sources of sugars. Algae and cyanobacteria are efficient, but are not sugar dense. We can engineer a sugar producing cyanobacteria and to keep it from escaping we could require specific conditions not normally found in nature so it would only survive in specially designed bioreactors. They can be sold to local communities and integrated into the exterior of homes.

      • marcellus2

        Viable probably. Not a friend of gmo. Corps in that field have a horrible trackrecord. In ten years we will know if gmo crops have a health impact. Same thing with engineered organisms. That bacteria could sugar coat the whole world. Reminds me of the recent accident where a hawaiian sugar pipeline ruptured and wiped out a whole reef and coast. So we are back to cane and that is energy intensive and poses a big runoff problem too. I`d rather mine a remote aera for lithium and lead. Both not consumables and recylable.

        • Elliander Eldridge

          I wasn’t suggesting this is a food source. For the record I am studying to be a genetic engineering even I am NOT a fan of most GM food products. Genetic engineering has amazing uses when tempered with the reason. For example, tomatoes have been engineered to last for 3 months without refrigeration by simply removing a gene and are completely safe, what crops engineered to produce their own pesticides have been proven to be unsafe by the fact that these pesticides have been found in the bloodstream of pregnant women. One crop known as StarLink corn was never even intended for human consumption the found its way in through cross pollination. Children died eating corn products, and we are still trying to get its genetic traces out of the food supply.

          I think that people who refer to GM product in some generalized way as to suggest that they are all safe is just as dangerous as the people who refer to it is all dangerous. Its a science, pure and simple. It can be used for good or evil. One product can help while another product can harm.

          When genetically engineering a microbe for some industrial purposes it is important to engineer it in a way to prevent its survivability in nature. This can be done, and has been done in the past without any problems.

  • Dasypygal Andy

    What happens to the carbon in the sugar?

    Only products electricity & water?

  • PietSmit

    can anybody explain the anode? What does CNTs VK3 (+ whatever) stand for? By my knowledge it’s not something from the periodic system.
    Maybe a stupid question, or I overlook something….

  • Eric Scoles

    While this is extremely neat, laudable lateral thinking, etc., it is very, very far from a panacea. It poses the same fundamental problem that all biofuel approaches do: they deplete soil and pose a zero-sum problem w.r.t. food production.

    In order for it to be sustainable, a biofuel shift ABSOLUTELY MUST go hand-in-hand with profound reductions in energy consumption and profound diversification in energy production means. We have a tendency to damn anything that’s not a total solution, and biofuel (which is what we’re talking about, here) is in no way a sustainable total solution. NOTHING is. We need to get away from “total solution” thinking.

    • Scott Wright

      thanks for that, I enjoyed thinking about the issue from a new angle I had not contemplated yet. hmmmmmmm

  • Drak
  • John Gros

    They think small. What about electric cars?????

    • Orion Antares

      Electric cars actually sound more practical than cell phone batteries for something like this.

  • Arae Ender

    please. please don’t let greedy battery companies like duacell and energizer run over you and squash what could be a very safe and eco-friendly solution. electric companies squandered the poor guy who came up with the solar driveway. i don’t want to see this happen here too

  • Honda

    Where does the carbon go to, if the battery produces on water and electricity. The article does not make any sense because the glucose molecule is made up carbon, hydrogen and oxygen so something has to happen to the carbon. It may remain in the solution as an effluent but then the battery is still producing something other than electricity and water.

  • Keith Lam

    Be careful. The oil man will kill you.

  • JustSumGuy

    Much babble about CPU’s here, talk batteries please.

    Check out M.A.I.L. batteries, there is no reason these did not hit our market yet.

    Google search- metal air ionic liquid battery

    Announced in 2009 and still not on the market, tell me why it disappeared without seeing some kind of conspiracy, good luck with that.

  • Guerrero De Luz

    Tenian Razon en MATRIX la pelicula… Somos Baterias Pensantes…

  • Remo Prata

    I would tell these guys one thing only watch out the big corporations will want to kill you off….

  • Remo Prata

    Another thing, remember Nikola Tesla, and Stan Meyer they proved that you don`t need batteries and petroleum to run our vehicles and our BBQ and our furnaces. Anything that needs combustion can run on simply……….Water!!!

  • The Federal Farmer

    Enslaving enzymes!

  • guy in the field

    I can see all sorts of problems with actually implementing this tech. I haven’t read the science behind this but I am almost certain that there will be severe limitations to power output, huge dependence on temperature (optimum only at 28°C or something), problems keeping the enzymes alive and stable over long time periods, and the nightmare of integrating a battery with a large proportion of liquid into something portable, safe (given that water and electric components don’t mix well), and ruggedized.

  • stepinit

    Let’s look at energy density as MJ/kg:

    sugar: 15.55
    ethanol: 30.
    gasoline: 43.54

  • Mike_E_V

    So lithium producing nations need to invest in cane fields in Hawaii? Good. Look where lithium comes from.