Post #2068668

2026-04-28 13:03 UTC

@65dBnoise I will! Often my impression is that these sorts of papers are real, but the university PR and/or science-hype-websites blow things way out of proportion. From the abstract it sounds like an alkaline all-liquid asymmetric flow battery. Which is cool but nothing new---mostly ligand engineering. There are other academic groups and startups already working on this type of system. 6000 cycles sounds like a lot, but it depends to what state-of-charge, charge density, current density, etc. Also it will almost certainly need an ion-exchange membrane by default---a critical component not found in any commercially successful battery (in my opinion of commercial success: not in Li-ion, lead-acid, V, Fe/Cr, Zn/Br flow...) Usually the authors in the paper itself are much more measured, and don't make the same claims without context that are made in the science-hype outlets.

Replies (1)

@kirk@social.coop 2026-04-29 14:16

@65dBnoise I've skimmed it and it's about what I thought, FWIW. I have done a calculation I need to double check (might make a blog post cause I'm tired of everyone sharing these articles - I have seen this article all over the place) - but it seems like their 6000 cycles took less than 5 days to complete. Because it takes only 34 seconds to charge the battery. Because they use 40 mL of electrolyte, but at fairly low concentration (0.6 M), large cell (28 sq. cm), high current density (80 mA/sq. cm), charging to 65% theoretical max SOC. Granted, those conditions do push the electrolyte hard - it is converting between charged states many times, and they show a good improvement over other ligands. But to say "6000 cycles!" is misleading, because the cycles are extremely short by design.

Open ##2068669