To be fair, that doesn't appear to be a quote and the last few words of the sentence you quoted is important: > ... offering a comparable energy capacity and c

To be fair, that doesn't appear to be a quote and the last few words of the sentence you quoted is important: > ... offering a comparable energy capacity and cycling ability to some lithium-ion batteries already on the market. Having said that, it seems they do claim in the paper that the performance of their "battery" (really, they only tested a single cathode composition) is "competitive to the commercial LiFePO4-graphite" base on extrapolation of their lab results "to practical large format cells". I feel funny about that sort of extrapolation in an engineering context, but I'm not an electrochemist and also not a chemical engineer, and I have only skimmed through the abstract, introductions, and conclusions of the paper; so take this comment with a grain of salt. Edit: typo. Also, I'm not out to trash the work in case my comment comes across as being harsh—marketing aside (which is, sadly, pretty common in high-impact journals), it does seem like a step forward.