> If they made it cheaper per kWh then they should say that
They do say that. Quote from the article:
> at less than 1/10th the cost of lithium-ion
"100 hours" isn't an advantage for this technology. The advantage is the cost effectiveness. "100 hour battery" mostly means that it will take 100 hours to discharge one of these batteries (of any capacity) at the maximum discharge rate that the technology allows. Obviously that is a huge downside compared to lithium ion, which is able to respond to grid energy needs with much higher power density!
But it doesn't really matter, if the price is right. Long duration energy storage is all about lowering the cost per kWh by developing technologies that have lower power density in exchange for also lowering cost per kWh of storage. Lithium ion isn't cost effective for long duration storage right now.
Also, people in that industry know that surely no one would proudly advertise a "100 hour battery" if it weren't significantly cheaper than lithium ion on a per kWh basis, so the term "100 hour battery" also means (to the right audience) that the batteries have to be cheaper than lithium ion.
Whether Form Energy will succeed in their claims at scale is TBD. I hope they do well, because cheaper energy storage is immensely helpful for decarbonization of the grid.
> Also, people in that industry know that surely no one would proudly advertise a "100 hour battery" if it weren't significantly cheaper than lithium ion on a per kWh basis
Or they just have a slow-discharge technology and are trying to create the illusion it's good for something.
> at less than 1/10th the cost of lithium-ion
That's just a PR statement at this point. They haven't built many batteries.
If the materials cost for a lithium-ion battery went down 90%, battery cost would only go down 50%.[1]
The number of "it's going to be really cheap" battery claims far exceeds the number of really cheap and usable batteries that actually ship.
As I said, whether they succeed or not is an open question.
Their claim is not referring to the raw battery materials. Their claim appears to be that they will be able to offer grid scale batteries for 1/10th of the cost of lithium ion, all in. Obviously, the drawback is that these batteries take over 100 hours to discharge and recharge, so they’re slow.
They are doing a pilot project for Great River Energy in 2023. That’s when we will know how real this product is.
Industry experts that I respect believe that Form Energy is very real, unlike all the vaporware that exists out there.
You can remain skeptical and dismissive if you want. It’s irrelevant to whether Form Energy succeeds or fails.
I haven’t seen anyone here saying that Form Energy has a 100% chance of success, and skepticism is warranted for any startup. Even if a battery startup has perfect battery technology, they can still fail for many reasons.
This is the key statement: with this number, more isn't better. It just clarifies which class of discharge rate you're competing with. When discussing batteries which take at least 100 hours to discharge, this battery looks to be the most cost-effective.
> Also, people in that industry know that surely no one would proudly advertise a "100 hour battery" if it weren't significantly cheaper than lithium ion on a per kWh basis, so the term "100 hour battery" also means (to the right audience) that the batteries have to be cheaper than lithium ion.
That seems like a stretch or an unwise convention. It could have some other advantage instead. Loudly proclaiming a disadvantage doesn't tell you what's good about a product, or what circumstances it's useful in.
thank you for all the great comments in this thread. I'm a former Li-Ion researcher (Yi Cui group). I'm less familiar with grid storage. Would you be open to chatting a bit more about this? My email is in my profile. Thank You!
The hard part is making it cheaper per kWh.
If they made it cheaper per kWh then they should say that