Research reports that are written by people who genuinely believe what they are saying exhibit a certain level of urgency. That quality can be found in the October 2025 UNC Innovate Carolina energy storage report. It’s 48 pages long, comprehensive without being evasive, and its main point is straightforward: before the window closes, North Carolina must move more quickly, build more carefully, and treat energy storage as an economic priority rather than a policy footnote. It remains to be seen if state lawmakers will pay attention.
The report comes at a time when the American battery industry as a whole is taking a serious look at itself. While Asia constructed the factories, trained the labor, and took control of the manufacturing market, the United States led for decades in research and invention (lithium-ion technology was primarily an American invention). Currently, China, Japan, or South Korea produce about 88% of all lithium-ion batteries. That gap does not automatically close. Along with Chicago, Charlotte, North Carolina, is one of the few American cities where power electronics expertise is truly concentrated in one location. However, manufacturing capacity and expertise are not the same thing, and North Carolina continues to fall short in this regard.
| Category | Details |
|---|---|
| Report Title | NC Energy Storage Report — UNC Innovation and Entrepreneurship |
| Publishing Institution | University of North Carolina (UNC) — Innovate Carolina |
| Report Published | October 7, 2025 |
| Report Length | 48 pages; five core recommendations for accelerating energy storage in NC |
| National Context | 88% of all lithium-ion batteries are currently manufactured in Asia (China, Japan, South Korea) |
| US Energy Storage Jobs | Nearly 48,000 employed in energy storage nationally (DOE census data); major footprints in states including North Carolina |
| Key NC Energy Hub | Charlotte, NC — recognized center for power electronics expertise alongside Chicago |
| Federal Research Investment | Joint Center for Energy Storage Research (JCESR) at Argonne National Lab — $120 million DOE investment across 20 institutions, targeting 5x battery density at 1/5 the cost |
| Grid Storage Growth Estimate | GTM Research projects grid-scale storage reaching 2.6 gigawatts within years of the report’s baseline — a 30x expansion |
| Competing Chemistries | Lithium-sulfur and organic flow batteries among alternatives being developed to reduce Asia’s manufacturing advantage |
The UNC report does a fair job of outlining five suggestions meant to alter that. The direction is fairly obvious, even though the specifics haven’t been fully disclosed: the state will invest in storage infrastructure, university research programs and industry partners will better align, and North Carolina will be promoted as a location for businesses wishing to establish or grow battery-related operations in the United States. The agenda is not radical. Its quiet urgency stems in part from the fact that it reads more like something that ought to have been written five years ago.
Here, the national context is important. In an effort to create batteries with five times the energy density and one-fifth the cost of existing lithium-ion technology, the Joint Center for Energy Storage Research at Argonne National Laboratory outside of Chicago has been funding 20 institutions with $120 million. Proponents of emerging chemistries, such as organic flow batteries and lithium-sulfur batteries, contend that their arrival will reset the manufacturing playing field. Everybody begins at the beginning. That might be the case, in which case the states with prepared ecosystems will be able to take control of the sector this time. North Carolina aspires to be one of those states. It’s genuinely unclear if it moves quickly enough.
There is a noteworthy historical pattern that should probably cause some discomfort. The lithium-ion battery was created by American researchers. In addition, they created the solar panel, laptop, cellphone, and VCR. In each instance, the industry expanded elsewhere while the invention took place here. Although the causes are well-known, such as fragmented policy, short-term thinking, and a lack of consistent manufacturing investment, recognizing the pattern does not guarantee that it will be broken. As early as 2017, industry observers like analyst Julie Blunden warned that the discussion needed to shift from abstract to concrete “in the next six months.” It’s difficult to ignore the UNC report’s arguments. Eight years have passed since then.
This does not imply that North Carolina’s push is misguided or that the report is incorrect. The state possesses the research facilities, the East Coast location, and some of the industrial infrastructure necessary to sustain a significant battery manufacturing industry. In some energy policy circles, there is a belief that the next few years will determine whether the US gets a significant portion of the upcoming storage build-out, whether it be for buildings, electric vehicles, or the grid, or if it also shifts to factories abroad. At the very least, North Carolina is vocally posing the appropriate questions. That is not insignificant. Things usually get complicated when it comes to whether the solutions are funded.
