This is a content farm/copy of a copy (rule c)1), but I won't remove this due to the immense momentum this post has. Additionally, the linked ScienceDirect paper appears unrelated.
Instead, I'd recommend one of the following high-quality sources:
https://advanced.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/aenm.202506734 (paywalled but has abstract, and your local library may have access) —thanks SaveTheTuaHawk@lemmy.ca!
Hmm, there's no discussion of what the energy density is compared to lithium-based battery chemistries. In articles about new battery designs, that usually means it's pretty bad. This will have limited value if you need 10x battery volume/mass for equivalent energy storage, primarily only for grid-scale systems, which the article specifically mentions near the end:
The development arrives as the international race to develop iron-based flow batteries accelerates, with the technology increasingly viewed as the most viable successor to lithium-ion for large-scale grid storage.
I'm guessing these batteries are heavy and bulky compared to an equivalent LiPo. Probably safer than the molten sodium grid storage systems, so that's good.
On the other hand, while lithium may be trading at 80x the price of iron on the market, you're going to need a lot more iron than you would lithium for each unit of equivalent energy storage, plus it's going to take up more space (real estate). The eventual storage system will probably be somewhat cheaper than an equivalent lithium system, but won't fit everywhere, especially developed urban areas due to larger space requirements, and definitely won't be 80x cheaper, even if the iron/lithium price ratio remains the same. It won't replace lithium batteries in mobile applications (vehicles, electronics, etc) or anywhere that physical space is at a premium.
The article is written to sound overly positive about this protoype, with a sensationalized headline, while not mentioning the drawbacks, and just hoping that the reader is to too ignorant to notice.
*Edit: Also, the picture attached to the article is bunk. Flow batteries require a pumping system to circulate the electrolyte fluid, which comes with a long-term.maintenance cost:
[...] all flow batteries include auxiliary components such as pumps and valves, which do require a regular maintenance cycle.
Meanwhile the US has a president who doesn't understand how magnets work.
I've seen articles similar to this many, many times over many, many years, but we're still using the same battery tech as ever. Breakthroughs are good and all, but don't go ranting and raving too hard about this stuff unless it becomes viable and practical enough for either consumer or industrial applications, preferably both.
Ok so it's a cheaper competitor to LiFePO. Low density but that's fine for grid storage. Australia should be stoaked
Can anyone verify the post's "16 years (6,000 cycles)" claim? I have access to the paper's content and I don't see either figure. In fact, even its abstract says "more than 950 cycles".
I've waiting for this
It won't scale and we'll never hear about it again
tldr, how is this breakthrough different than than the other battery breakthroughs? I read some new battery that solves "the world’s massive energy storage needs." about once or twice a year and so for not a single one had a noteworthy followup a year later.
They are also developing LFTRs and have the largest stock pile of thorium on the planet.
Factorio batteries
Iron flow batteries are not in cells pictured in OP. They are in vats that fill a fuel cell to make power. Under 80% efficient, though OP claims to have broken through 75% efficiency barrier. 8 hour charge/discharge rate is good enough to be practical, but the balance of plant of fuel cell and pumps makes it not as cheap as pure iron could impress.
top 50 comments