The cost of storage is the most interesting claim: 5 cents per kWh, amortized over the system life. If everything else about the article was identical but the cost was 40 cents per kWh then this would be just another chemistry experiment too expensive for widespread use. So I was really hoping to find more details about the cost number -- what modeling assumptions went into it, what sort of lifetime is warrantied from the manufacturer, whether the cost is genuinely based upon current prices or is one of those malleable "in a few years..." projections.
Everything that they have disclosed, technology-wise, looks believable and good. But past vanadium redox flow batteries have been fairly expensive per cycled kWh and I thought that was more about the relatively high price of vanadium than about the temperature/solubility limits of all-sulfate electrolytes. If the mixed-acid electrolyte really is the main enabler of the impressively low claimed cost, I'd like to read how. Mostly I'd like to read supporting evidence behind the "5 cents" number.
Everything that they have disclosed, technology-wise, looks believable and good. But past vanadium redox flow batteries have been fairly expensive per cycled kWh and I thought that was more about the relatively high price of vanadium than about the temperature/solubility limits of all-sulfate electrolytes. If the mixed-acid electrolyte really is the main enabler of the impressively low claimed cost, I'd like to read how. Mostly I'd like to read supporting evidence behind the "5 cents" number.