You must log in or register to comment.

greenappletree t1_izzgfpz wrote

That would be gaming changing - question is how scalable is this and can they mass produce this to be commercially viable?


Rogaar t1_j00kkow wrote

This is not the first, nor the last, company to claim they have a solid state battery design.

Nothing to be excited over yet. I've been following the market for about 10 years as I have some investments in the energy sector. There are so many companies trying to do the next generation of battery, it's a mess at the moment and no clear winner yet.


Gnawlydog t1_j00v0bi wrote

Reminds me of my stocks in the early dotcom era.. was my biggest memory there, especially reading the story behind it. I lost a lot of money but it was a great learning experience. Thankfully I was only 18 at the time so easily recovered.. These days I'm much more careful. Ironically, I've been heavily invested in crypto for the last 10 years so maybe practice what I preach. LOL


TimTaga t1_j01h66r wrote

From what I've seen, Graphene Manufacturing Group (GMG) look to be the closest to bringing something to market.


NoMalarkyZone t1_j01i6cf wrote

I would bet on CATL, I think the Chinese will basically prop that up no matter what and I won't be surprised if they win the battery wars.


TimTaga t1_j01ixet wrote

I dunno, you could be right but at a glance their battery specs are way behind gmg, in power density, charging speed, materials cost, recyclability, heat dissipation, cycles/lifespan, fire safety. Almost every metric.


NoMalarkyZone t1_j01k56m wrote

Thats why I don't necessarily pick a company. I toss the money in an ETF style China fund thats heavy in CATL, but represents a lot of Chinese energy storage / production sector.


Rogaar t1_j05bj86 wrote

Yeah that's one at the top of my list. They are in a great position as they make graphene themselves so then taking it to the next level of manufacturing something with it, instead of just selling it, gives them an advantage over other battery manufacturers who have to source and buy the graphene.

And they are also a local company in my state. All the more reason to support them if it helps the local economy.


Phoenix5869 t1_j00hdd7 wrote

how many times have we heard about "breakthroughs" in battery tech that we never hear about again? I remember seeing an article 5 years ago about a battery that charged in 10 mins and could hold up to 4 days worth of charge, well 5 years later and nothing


greenappletree t1_j00hlkk wrote

I think getting something to work in an ideal environment with exotic materials and having it scale is a huge limitation.


Neil_Live-strong t1_j01tqul wrote

Stop using this “scalable” buzzword. You just asked the same question twice. Can we create an innovation platform that allows for scalability in a way that optimizes for any transitions after IPO? gif


LordOfTheBord t1_j023vcu wrote

Could this battery be as big as TikTok?


Neil_Live-strong t1_j04ut5u wrote

I don’t know if it could be as big as TikTok. But it could definitely be engineered to interface with it natively. Like Uber.


Weatherman_Accuracy t1_izzw05z wrote

So. In a matter of about 4 days we have announcement of fusion with a return rate - plasma propulsion - and now this…..


A1CST t1_j009jdt wrote

Too many good things in such a short amount of time. Can't wait for the next covid... or world War 3... to pay of this debt.


7oey_20xx_ t1_j066o40 wrote

Positivity!!!!! Positivity !!!!! Maybe this is what we get for Russia invading Ukraine and Covid, let’s say that instead.


Phoenix5869 t1_j00hhl7 wrote

Spoiler alert we will probably never hear about any of that ever again


GiantConifers t1_j00qyjq wrote

At least 2 of these things have been hyped as being "very close" in the past so hopes should not be pushed up too high.


flarelordfenix t1_izzfqzk wrote

Planned Obsolescence will never let us get these, I'm sure.


duxpdx t1_izznh4w wrote

Actually this is probably incorrect, at least for vehicles. Most people don’t wait for their engine to die before getting a new car. Having a vehicle battery that can maintain its storage capacity would be a huge benefit for the adoption of EVs, as well as for the used and new car markets. Auto manufacturers make more on a battery in a new car than in having to sell one to replace a depleted battery in an old car. The residual value of batteries from older vehicles would be a benefit to the used car and salvage markets. Your car frame might be totaled but your battery might be reusable or recyclable.


Fantasy_masterMC t1_j019bx6 wrote

While I agree planned obsolesce is an obstacle, you have to consider the primary uses for such batteries. Electric cars, mobile devices (phone, tablet, laptop, accessories), and (solar) power storage are the first things to come to mind.

With electric cars, most people that can afford a modern electric car will replace it long before battery degradation becomes a true factor.

With mobile devices, unless they regularly complete full cycles, other features will be obsolete long before battery truly becomes a problem. My current ancient Huawei p8 lite has more issues with memory (severely limiting the amount of apps I can install without needing to delete others) than it has with battery, though now after 6+ years of daily use it's finally showing serious battery degradation.

Stuff like Musks' power cell thingy seem like the most likely thing where degradation would be the main obsolescence factor, but those things are expensive enough that it probably doesn't need obsolescence to be planned, as by the time it would factor in there'd be a new, much better product already available, and the 'profit' from the purchase of the previous likely would not be 'used up' just yet.


Ubergoober166 t1_izzi09a wrote

Any technology that could potentially be a one time purchase would be snatched up and thrown in a vault by some big corporation. If there's no way to keep making consumers pay for the same thing repeatedly, their business model collapses.


aeusoes1 t1_izzj1c9 wrote

Metaphorically speaking, yes. In actuality, what they would do is snatch up the rights and sue anyone who tried to use anything that resembled "their: intellectual property.


winnie33 t1_izziohs wrote

Perhaps a subscription model would be possible? For some money each month, the company provides you access to a device. If it breaks or wears down you can replace it for free. Incentivizes companies to make their product as durable as possible.


unswsydney OP t1_izz9h5g wrote

Happy holidays r/Futurology,

We're stoked to share new research from our resident solid-state chemistry expert, Associate Professor Neeraj Sharma.

Alongside Professor Naoaki Yabuuchi from Yokohama National University, A/P Sharma has investigated a new type of positive electrode material with unprecedented stability for solid-state batteries.

The researchers discovered the material may offer a high capacity, safe and durable alternative to lithium-ion batteries - properties that make the material an excellent candidate for use in electric vehicles.

The team's work has been published in Nature Materials if you're keen to take a read:


omnichronos t1_izzjk0e wrote

From the article:
"The material the research team focused on was Li8/7Ti2/7V4/7O2, a binary system composed of optimised portions of lithium titanate (Li2TiO3) and lithium vanadium dioxide (LiVO2). "


"This cell exhibited a remarkable capacity of 300 mA.h/g with no degradation over 400 charge/discharge cycles."


MightyKrakyn t1_izzp9eb wrote

No degradation is pretty impressive, current EV batteries are about 2% of max per year. After 5 years you’re driving 10% less miles between charges, which forces more charge cycles.


Surur t1_j020j68 wrote

It's not really like that. Well-looked-after batteries see steeper initial loses and then much slower further losses.


Phobophobia94 t1_j00wvgq wrote

So much for cheap and readily available materials. But that capacity is impressive


SatanLifeProTips t1_izzna2n wrote

400 cycle tests are claimed to have ‘no degredation’? Well ooookay. Maybe run some more testing cycles. GM’s new battery is rated for 2000 cycles. Tesla cells are 1500 cycles.

But any battery improvements are welcome.


bappypawedotter t1_j00a1el wrote

Yeah, but those batteries are "oversized" and built to degrade. Basically, they are just putting a 40kwh battery with a "useable" 35kwh.


FuturologyBot t1_izze6nl wrote

The following submission statement was provided by /u/unswsydney:

Happy holidays r/Futurology,

We're stoked to share new research from our resident solid-state chemistry expert, Associate Professor Neeraj Sharma.

Alongside Professor Naoaki Yabuuchi from Yokohama National University, A/P Sharma has investigated a new type of positive electrode material with unprecedented stability for solid-state batteries.

The researchers discovered the material may offer a high capacity, safe and durable alternative to lithium-ion batteries - properties that make the material an excellent candidate for use in electric vehicles.

The team's work has been published in Nature Materials if you're keen to take a read:

Please reply to OP's comment here:


bloodrsh t1_izzxhwj wrote

and there it is. we’ve been waiting for Tony stark to develop this but he never did so thanks for this


Eelroots t1_j004f61 wrote

I see potential for renewable power storage. Current batteries need replacement every 5 / 8 years. You may invest in these and keep them running for the rest of your life.


pl4tform t1_j00yufb wrote

What about thermal runaway? Those EV car fires are very intense.


TheArkansasBlackbird t1_j010a0u wrote

*yawn* more pop science bs. Nothing like locking the actual facts behind a paywall to make it sound real.


JoOngle t1_j01evdo wrote

I love innovations like this.

But modern LiFePO4 batteries cost as muchs 4-5 times as much as regular batteries, and most people can't afford these for their personal solar power storage.

So I'm guessing these batteries will be even more costly to produce. We're sadly still using Sealed Acid batteries because of the low price. Yes low price now, extreme costs on our environment.


aFoxNamedMorris t1_j01gzx0 wrote

I imagine this will help in electrifying air travel and making EVToL "air cabs" a possibility. Expect more on that next year.


mypostisbad t1_j01jgfq wrote

This will totally revolutionise our world. Like Graphene did does will


wejo_HQ t1_j02g2mc wrote

Interesting that Airbus is partnering with Renault on the development of solid state batteries.


scuac t1_j03sogi wrote

What about charging times? Because if it takes significantly more than current batteries that may be a non-starter.


proteusON t1_izzk4c2 wrote

This will bankrupt planned obsolescence firms. So... It'll never go commercial.


OptimalConcept143 t1_izzl98q wrote

Solid state batteries will never have the energy density of lithium ion unfortunately.


mnvoronin t1_izzn9z6 wrote

If you read the linked article, you will find that the battery in question is using lithium ions. And the researchers claim 300 mAh/g energy density, which is pretty much up there.


OptimalConcept143 t1_izznulk wrote

They listed it in mass density because they don't want you to notice how much greater the volume density is. Solids at human scales will pretty much always be less dense in volume than liquids.


mnvoronin t1_izzqgh3 wrote

Huh? It's exactly the opposite.

Liquids typically have a density between 0.7 to 2 kg/l (one of the densest electrolytes used in batteries, sulphuric acid, is 1.84). Common solids go from 1 to 8 kg/l (iron is 7.8) and some even higher. For example, lithium titanate used in the battery is about 3.4 kg/l.


SatanLifeProTips t1_izzngxc wrote

Also the article is saying that it’s capacity is 300ah/g. That is on par or better than current state of the art NMC lithium cells.


OptimalConcept143 t1_izzo2fm wrote

Listing it in mass density seems misleading when volume density is what matters in things like cars and phones. Generally with normal conditions solids are less dense in volume than liquids.


SatanLifeProTips t1_izzomle wrote

The car world cares a LOT more about weight to power than density to power ratios. Weight is everything. And I would assume that the size to power density is reasonable.


OptimalConcept143 t1_izzpvjp wrote

Not true, most consumers list range as their biggest worry with EVs, and if you want max range you either need to have as much energy in as little space as possible, especially since you need space in the vehicle for people and storage.


SatanLifeProTips t1_izzqiv4 wrote

Range = the best power to weight ratio.

I’m assuming the battery has a reasonable power to density ratio but there is actually a LOT of room for batteries in a car when you build a dedicated EV skateboard style chassis. You run out of weight capacity long before you run out of space to install batteries. And a pound of battery saved is a half pound of suspension and structure saved. It really really matters. A lighter battery makes the entire car lighter.


OptimalConcept143 t1_izzrnoz wrote

That's true isn't it?

I'm still skeptical. I've seen way too many posts about battery tech over the past decade and it never pans out.


SatanLifeProTips t1_izzs17x wrote

Yet I will be able to buy a electric chevy pickup with 640km of range, 250kW charging and a 2000 cycle rating starting next month. That’s a million km battery.

Sometimes battery tech DOES make it to the public.