10 ms·

Theion sulphur crystal batteries promise breakthrough in energy density

76 points by danboarder 5y ago

aemtox 5y ago
I think Lithium Graphite batteries show up with better stats, even they have higher energy efforts in the production.
confident_inept 5y ago
We get several of these stories every year. It's news if something makes it out of a laboratory and even into prototype production. Do these articles do anything to help spur research or draw interest? What's the point?
- quaintdev 5y ago
  What I've observed is if something is breakthrough and profitable we directly see it on streets instead of years of the related experiments in lab.
- vardump 5y ago
  Indeed. Most true progress comes out of hundreds if not thousands small improvements and innovations.
- adrian_b 5y ago
  The article contains too little information about the exact chemical composition and structure of the new cathode and of the new solid electrolyte to allow one to assess whether the company will be able to deliver real products soon. On the other hand, all the claims are theoretically possible, sulfur could indeed replace the much more expensive cobalt or nickel oxides, if a cathode structure allowing good reversibility has been found. If the claims of the company are true and their batteries will start qualification tests during this year and mass production next year, it would be a very important development, by allowing in a few years much cheaper batteries, produced in much larger quantities. Of course, until further information, the claims could also be over-optimistic and the new batteries might have some undisclosed problems that will not be solved in time to permit the announced schedule. One possible problem is that the batteries have a solid electrolyte, which is presumably necessary to avoid a degradation of the cathode after too few recharge cycles. A solid electrolyte might limit the density of current, which would lead to a low maximum power per volume. In that case the new batteries might be disadvantaged in high-power applications, like power tools or electric cars. There is absolutely no information about how many charge-discharge cycles they have achieved with their completely new cathode structure. This is usually a major problem with most new promising cathodes. Their new battery might be twice cheaper than the current batteries, but it might have a lifetime of only a third of the lifetime of the current batteries.
  - _0w8t 5y ago
    The article mention about future trials in aerospace industry. So presumably the current is not a problem. But the number of recharging cycles can be the one. On the other hand if the new chemistry allows applications that were not possible before, quickly degrading but cheap batteries can be a useful option. Edit: according to https://newatlas.com/energy/rare-form-sulfur-lithium-ion-battery-triple-capacity/ https://newatlas.com/energy/rare-form-sulfur-lithium-ion-bat... it is possible to address the degradation problem. So maybe this is not vaporware.
    - adrian_b 5y ago
      At your link about the research done at Drexel University there is much more information about the structure of the cathode and about the obtained results, so it is more credible than the parent article, but it also refers to a research that does not appear to be close to commercialization. They have used a slightly different cathode structure, with carbon nanofibers instead of nanotubes, and with a different electrolyte. So, as shown by other posters, during the last couple of months there have been at least 3 announcements, from 2 commercial startups and from an university, all claiming to have solved the reversibility problem of the cathode in lithium-sulfur batteries, using either carbon nanofibers, carbon nanotubes or boron-nitride nanotubes, and the 2 startups claim that in a year or so such batteries may become commercially available. Having 3 such announcements instead of 1, makes it much more believable that at least 1 of them is not overly optimistic, so indeed the lithium-sulfur batteries might replace soon the lithium-cobalt and lithium-nickel batteries, making the batteries much more affordable.
  - mark-r 5y ago
    I wouldn't count on those batteries being any cheaper for a long time. There's a reason they applied for so many patents - they intend to capture all the savings through licensing fees I'm sure.
- greggsy 5y ago
  Ironing out the issues around scaling can take years, and investors are skittish to back projects that might reach well into the 100’s of $millions, and there’s so much other development in the market that it’s hard to pick the winning horse. Innovations gained during R&D might also be picked up by competitors, or they might rely on some complementary licensing that makes the whole thing unprofitable. I’d expect there to be more and more interest and investment in this space over the coming years, given the latest developments around energy security. (Interestingly, the Back Bay Battery Company simulation maintained by Harvard is commonly used as a case study in MBA programs.)
  - datavirtue 5y ago
    Has the Biden team mentioned anything about battery tech research funding? Or are they staying away from it so as not to spook current startups and investors that are making progress?
- chris_overseas 5y ago
  Li-S Energy[0] is a company with Lithium-Sulphur battery tech that looks to be close to commercial production. They just announced today[1] that they're building a commercial plant that will produce 1000 cells/week (equivalent to 2MWh of batteries annually). Arguably still somewhat vapourware at this point, but much better than most others I've seen. [0] https://www.lis.energy/ https://www.lis.energy/ [1] https://www.lis.energy/site/PDF/0f90f952-4a18-45ea-bce9-3c529894ae03/GeelongFacilityExpandedfor2MWhAnnualProduction https://www.lis.energy/site/PDF/0f90f952-4a18-45ea-bce9-3c52...
  - adrian_b 5y ago
    It appears that this other company uses a similar cathode structure, also based on nanotubes, but the nanotubes are made of boron nitride instead of carbon. So presumably the patents of these 2 companies are non-overlapping. In any case, having 2 companies with products based on very similar ideas, but still different, both claiming that are about a year away of starting production, is a good sign that this is something that might be real.
  - ogrisel 5y ago
    And here is another one: https://oxisenergy.com/ https://oxisenergy.com/ but this one was set "in administration" on 19 May 2021...
- giantg2 5y ago
  I like to hear about them so I have an idea of what could be in the future. Granted it might not happen, or take years longer than expected. But I do like to know that it could potentially mean that I have an electric vehicle to chose from when my current one dies in 10+ years. Also, these sound great for ultralight planes. Even though the electric motor weight is much lower than the gas engine options, battery weight makes electric almost impossible without significantly sacrificing flight duration.
athrowaway3z 5y ago
A truly cheap and revolutionary scalable solution has to start and focus only on net storage. Not because its lucrative, but because its the only place you can meaningfully compete before you have the economy of scale that lithium-ion has. If you drop the floor out of the that market, the other industries will come calling you.
- adrianN 5y ago
  It seems easier for a startup to use markets that can tolerate higher costs to bootstrap a production pipeline. Costs of the raw materials might be cheaper for this battery type, but competing with the huge factories for current battery tech is still difficult for a small company.
- krasin 5y ago
  Different markets require different tradeoffs. Flying things can tolerate higher cost, if it comes with a higher energy density, ability to charge/discharge quickly and (in some cases) higher cycle life. In this respect, sulfur-ion batteries might be viable even at 10x price compared to cheapest batteries on the market. Grid storage is all about the price per kWh. Sodium-ion batteries ([1]) might become a good fit, while they are absolutely useless for electric airplanes / drones. 1. https://www.catl.com/en/news/665.html https://www.catl.com/en/news/665.html
  - ieee2 5y ago
    They promis price of around 30-40 EUR/kWh, because of: Sulfur is an industrial byproduct – no harmful mining required. This drives material cost down to 0.20 EUR/kg (compared to state of the art cathode material NMC811 at 20.00 EUR/kg). No NMC needed. https://www.theion.de/ https://www.theion.de/
- pengaru 5y ago
  Maybe you chase that after proving the product in aerospace where the pockets are deep and standards high? It's not like lithium-ion owns aerospace, economy of scale doesn't give it the required energy density for an electric 747. Though I'm unclear on if this development opens up that possibility either.
Mizza 5y ago
Surely the dependency on CNTs will make this prohibitively expensive, at least for now.
adrian_b 5y ago
FYI, the name of the company, Theion, is the Latin transcription of the Greek name of sulfur. ("sulfur" is the preferred spelling instead of the pseudo-Greek spelling "sulphur", which is used in the article; in Old Latin the name of the element was "sulpur", and later it became "sulfur").
- ggm 5y ago
  English-AmericnEnglish warfare? The element has traditionally been spelled sulphur in the United Kingdom, most of the Commonwealth including India, Malaysia, South Africa and Hong Kong, along with the rest of the Caribbean and Ireland, but sulfur in the United States, while both spellings are used in Australia, New Zealand and Canada
  - adrian_b 5y ago
    Well, this war has been won by the Americans, because IUPAC (International Union of Pure and Applied Chemistry) has adopted the historically-correct spelling "sulfur". While some fancier British spellings at least correspond with spellings which were correct for English some time in the past, there are also many examples of pseudo-Greek spellings of Latin words, which insert the Greek sounds "y", "ph", "th" or "ch" in Latin words where they do not belong, as no such sounds have existed in Latin. There is no justification for the pseudo-Greek words, so they must be avoided when possible, by using the correct Latin spelling. That is not always possible, because for many words the tradition of pseudo-Greek spelling is entrenched on both sides of the Atlantic, e.g. the words "stylus" and "style".
    - zasdffaa 5y ago
      That's an impressive level of bikeshedding. Do you really think it matters? I mean, really anything in the world but your mood going to get worse if it's spelt in a way you dislike? (brit here, cares little if it's spelt ph of f)
      - gilleain 5y ago
richardfey 5y ago
Will it spill gaseous HSO4 in case of damage? Hopefully not!
lnsru 5y ago
I just ordered Kia EV6, friends were laughing: “we get new battery technology in couple years and you car will be soon outdated”. The truth is that the new battery technology comes every couple months. Never makes to mass production and silently disappears. I must wait for my car almost a year. Volkswagen group delivers car in almost 2 years when I order today. Even if the new batteries will come out, my Kia EV6 will be absolutely fine for my weekly 300 miles.
- bochoh 5y ago
  Yes exactly this, I bought a Kona Electric in November and on paper next to Tesla etc it’s not a great car. In reality it’s the best car I’ve ever owned (no hyperbole). I charged every other day for a ~60 mile round trip and never saw a gas pump. Although since then I’m full remote and it just sits in the driveway.
- ZeroGravitas 5y ago
  The new battery tech is coming to market every few months, it's been improving regularly for decades in price/performance etc. I always read these articles as having a subtext of "EVs are crap at the moment give 'em another decade" which I don't think resonates with me but is likely popular with certain segments and so gets clicks. One key repeated talking point is "when our tech gets out the lab in a decade you can fill your EV just like your ICE". I don't want to do that. It was smelly, expensive and inconvenient then, it is even more so now I have a EV that's fully charged every morning when it doesn't even need to be. In 10 years time it'll be nostalgia like a fax machine or sending a telegram.
  - tigerlily 5y ago
    > I always read these articles as having a subtext of "EVs are crap at the moment give 'em another decade" which I don't think resonates with me but is likely popular with certain segments and so gets clicks. You should introduce that certain segment to the Briggs & Stratton stock price :)
    - zcw100 5y ago
ajnin 5y ago
> Battery manufacturer Theion has designed lithium-sulphur cathode technology that triples the energy density and requires 90% less energy to produce. Compared to what ? Very annoying when articles do that, it shows a lack of rigor that does not inspire confidence in the rest of the article.
- chris_overseas 5y ago
  They almost certainly mean triple compared to lithium ion (similarly for the 90% less energy claim). Lithium ion batteries currenty hit a maxium energy density of around 265Wh/kg, with a theoretical maximum of around 400-500Wh/kg[0][1]. Lithium sulphur batteries have a theoretical maximum of around 2500Wh/kg. [0] https://cleantechnica.com/2020/02/11/lithium-sulfur-batteries-could-be-cheaper-more-energy-dense/ https://cleantechnica.com/2020/02/11/lithium-sulfur-batterie... [1] https://www.lis.energy/site/li-s-energy-applications/lithium-sulphur-key-advantages https://www.lis.energy/site/li-s-energy-applications/lithium...
  - stevespang 5y ago
  - deleted 5y ago
    [deleted]
  - hinkley 5y ago
    I've done the math a few times and I think there's an inflection point somewhere around 400WH/kg where auxiliary batteries for EVs become a viable option. Right now any replaceable battery is the domain of robotics, because there is no human-rated pack that would provide a compelling increase in range. Another factor of 2 and hauling a few 15kg cylinders or cubes out at a 'gas station' might get you to grandma's house or safely past a "no gas for 200 miles" sign.
- hulitu 5y ago
  This is journalism. They write a part of the story and the rest you must figure yourself.
- 5y ago
giantg2 5y ago
This sounds great. I hope it makes it to production without issues.
ieee2 5y ago
See much more details here: https://www.theion.de/ https://www.theion.de/
xyzzy21 5y ago
Most sulfur-based battery chemistries are NOT RECHARGEABLE.
throwawaygal7 5y ago
Cool stuff! One nit to pick - isn't the major source of Sulphur oil refining? Trying to spin this as being greener than the existing tech might be a bit much.

76 points by danboarder 5y ago

I think Lithium Graphite batteries show up with better stats, even they have higher energy efforts in the production.

We get several of these stories every year. It's news if something makes it out of a laboratory and even into prototype production. Do these articles do anything to help spur research or draw interest? What's the point?

quaintdev 5y ago
What I've observed is if something is breakthrough and profitable we directly see it on streets instead of years of the related experiments in lab.
vardump 5y ago
Indeed. Most true progress comes out of hundreds if not thousands small improvements and innovations.
adrian_b 5y ago
The article contains too little information about the exact chemical composition and structure of the new cathode and of the new solid electrolyte to allow one to assess whether the company will be able to deliver real products soon. On the other hand, all the claims are theoretically possible, sulfur could indeed replace the much more expensive cobalt or nickel oxides, if a cathode structure allowing good reversibility has been found. If the claims of the company are true and their batteries will start qualification tests during this year and mass production next year, it would be a very important development, by allowing in a few years much cheaper batteries, produced in much larger quantities. Of course, until further information, the claims could also be over-optimistic and the new batteries might have some undisclosed problems that will not be solved in time to permit the announced schedule. One possible problem is that the batteries have a solid electrolyte, which is presumably necessary to avoid a degradation of the cathode after too few recharge cycles. A solid electrolyte might limit the density of current, which would lead to a low maximum power per volume. In that case the new batteries might be disadvantaged in high-power applications, like power tools or electric cars. There is absolutely no information about how many charge-discharge cycles they have achieved with their completely new cathode structure. This is usually a major problem with most new promising cathodes. Their new battery might be twice cheaper than the current batteries, but it might have a lifetime of only a third of the lifetime of the current batteries.
- _0w8t 5y ago
  The article mention about future trials in aerospace industry. So presumably the current is not a problem. But the number of recharging cycles can be the one. On the other hand if the new chemistry allows applications that were not possible before, quickly degrading but cheap batteries can be a useful option. Edit: according to https://newatlas.com/energy/rare-form-sulfur-lithium-ion-battery-triple-capacity/ https://newatlas.com/energy/rare-form-sulfur-lithium-ion-bat... it is possible to address the degradation problem. So maybe this is not vaporware.
  - adrian_b 5y ago
    At your link about the research done at Drexel University there is much more information about the structure of the cathode and about the obtained results, so it is more credible than the parent article, but it also refers to a research that does not appear to be close to commercialization. They have used a slightly different cathode structure, with carbon nanofibers instead of nanotubes, and with a different electrolyte. So, as shown by other posters, during the last couple of months there have been at least 3 announcements, from 2 commercial startups and from an university, all claiming to have solved the reversibility problem of the cathode in lithium-sulfur batteries, using either carbon nanofibers, carbon nanotubes or boron-nitride nanotubes, and the 2 startups claim that in a year or so such batteries may become commercially available. Having 3 such announcements instead of 1, makes it much more believable that at least 1 of them is not overly optimistic, so indeed the lithium-sulfur batteries might replace soon the lithium-cobalt and lithium-nickel batteries, making the batteries much more affordable.
- mark-r 5y ago
  I wouldn't count on those batteries being any cheaper for a long time. There's a reason they applied for so many patents - they intend to capture all the savings through licensing fees I'm sure.
greggsy 5y ago
Ironing out the issues around scaling can take years, and investors are skittish to back projects that might reach well into the 100’s of $millions, and there’s so much other development in the market that it’s hard to pick the winning horse. Innovations gained during R&D might also be picked up by competitors, or they might rely on some complementary licensing that makes the whole thing unprofitable. I’d expect there to be more and more interest and investment in this space over the coming years, given the latest developments around energy security. (Interestingly, the Back Bay Battery Company simulation maintained by Harvard is commonly used as a case study in MBA programs.)
- datavirtue 5y ago
  Has the Biden team mentioned anything about battery tech research funding? Or are they staying away from it so as not to spook current startups and investors that are making progress?
chris_overseas 5y ago
Li-S Energy[0] is a company with Lithium-Sulphur battery tech that looks to be close to commercial production. They just announced today[1] that they're building a commercial plant that will produce 1000 cells/week (equivalent to 2MWh of batteries annually). Arguably still somewhat vapourware at this point, but much better than most others I've seen. [0] https://www.lis.energy/ https://www.lis.energy/ [1] https://www.lis.energy/site/PDF/0f90f952-4a18-45ea-bce9-3c529894ae03/GeelongFacilityExpandedfor2MWhAnnualProduction https://www.lis.energy/site/PDF/0f90f952-4a18-45ea-bce9-3c52...
- adrian_b 5y ago
  It appears that this other company uses a similar cathode structure, also based on nanotubes, but the nanotubes are made of boron nitride instead of carbon. So presumably the patents of these 2 companies are non-overlapping. In any case, having 2 companies with products based on very similar ideas, but still different, both claiming that are about a year away of starting production, is a good sign that this is something that might be real.
- ogrisel 5y ago
  And here is another one: https://oxisenergy.com/ https://oxisenergy.com/ but this one was set "in administration" on 19 May 2021...
giantg2 5y ago
I like to hear about them so I have an idea of what could be in the future. Granted it might not happen, or take years longer than expected. But I do like to know that it could potentially mean that I have an electric vehicle to chose from when my current one dies in 10+ years. Also, these sound great for ultralight planes. Even though the electric motor weight is much lower than the gas engine options, battery weight makes electric almost impossible without significantly sacrificing flight duration.

athrowaway3z 5y ago

A truly cheap and revolutionary scalable solution has to start and focus only on net storage. Not because its lucrative, but because its the only place you can meaningfully compete before you have the economy of scale that lithium-ion has. If you drop the floor out of the that market, the other industries will come calling you.

adrianN 5y ago
It seems easier for a startup to use markets that can tolerate higher costs to bootstrap a production pipeline. Costs of the raw materials might be cheaper for this battery type, but competing with the huge factories for current battery tech is still difficult for a small company.
krasin 5y ago
Different markets require different tradeoffs. Flying things can tolerate higher cost, if it comes with a higher energy density, ability to charge/discharge quickly and (in some cases) higher cycle life. In this respect, sulfur-ion batteries might be viable even at 10x price compared to cheapest batteries on the market. Grid storage is all about the price per kWh. Sodium-ion batteries ([1]) might become a good fit, while they are absolutely useless for electric airplanes / drones. 1. https://www.catl.com/en/news/665.html https://www.catl.com/en/news/665.html
- ieee2 5y ago
  They promis price of around 30-40 EUR/kWh, because of: Sulfur is an industrial byproduct – no harmful mining required. This drives material cost down to 0.20 EUR/kg (compared to state of the art cathode material NMC811 at 20.00 EUR/kg). No NMC needed. https://www.theion.de/ https://www.theion.de/
pengaru 5y ago
Maybe you chase that after proving the product in aerospace where the pockets are deep and standards high? It's not like lithium-ion owns aerospace, economy of scale doesn't give it the required energy density for an electric 747. Though I'm unclear on if this development opens up that possibility either.

Mizza 5y ago

Surely the dependency on CNTs will make this prohibitively expensive, at least for now.

adrian_b 5y ago

FYI, the name of the company, Theion, is the Latin transcription of the Greek name of sulfur. ("sulfur" is the preferred spelling instead of the pseudo-Greek spelling "sulphur", which is used in the article; in Old Latin the name of the element was "sulpur", and later it became "sulfur").

ggm 5y ago
English-AmericnEnglish warfare? The element has traditionally been spelled sulphur in the United Kingdom, most of the Commonwealth including India, Malaysia, South Africa and Hong Kong, along with the rest of the Caribbean and Ireland, but sulfur in the United States, while both spellings are used in Australia, New Zealand and Canada
- adrian_b 5y ago
  Well, this war has been won by the Americans, because IUPAC (International Union of Pure and Applied Chemistry) has adopted the historically-correct spelling "sulfur". While some fancier British spellings at least correspond with spellings which were correct for English some time in the past, there are also many examples of pseudo-Greek spellings of Latin words, which insert the Greek sounds "y", "ph", "th" or "ch" in Latin words where they do not belong, as no such sounds have existed in Latin. There is no justification for the pseudo-Greek words, so they must be avoided when possible, by using the correct Latin spelling. That is not always possible, because for many words the tradition of pseudo-Greek spelling is entrenched on both sides of the Atlantic, e.g. the words "stylus" and "style".
  - zasdffaa 5y ago
    That's an impressive level of bikeshedding. Do you really think it matters? I mean, really anything in the world but your mood going to get worse if it's spelt in a way you dislike? (brit here, cares little if it's spelt ph of f)
    - gilleain 5y ago

richardfey 5y ago

Will it spill gaseous HSO4 in case of damage? Hopefully not!

lnsru 5y ago

I just ordered Kia EV6, friends were laughing: “we get new battery technology in couple years and you car will be soon outdated”. The truth is that the new battery technology comes every couple months. Never makes to mass production and silently disappears. I must wait for my car almost a year. Volkswagen group delivers car in almost 2 years when I order today. Even if the new batteries will come out, my Kia EV6 will be absolutely fine for my weekly 300 miles.

bochoh 5y ago
Yes exactly this, I bought a Kona Electric in November and on paper next to Tesla etc it’s not a great car. In reality it’s the best car I’ve ever owned (no hyperbole). I charged every other day for a ~60 mile round trip and never saw a gas pump. Although since then I’m full remote and it just sits in the driveway.
ZeroGravitas 5y ago
The new battery tech is coming to market every few months, it's been improving regularly for decades in price/performance etc. I always read these articles as having a subtext of "EVs are crap at the moment give 'em another decade" which I don't think resonates with me but is likely popular with certain segments and so gets clicks. One key repeated talking point is "when our tech gets out the lab in a decade you can fill your EV just like your ICE". I don't want to do that. It was smelly, expensive and inconvenient then, it is even more so now I have a EV that's fully charged every morning when it doesn't even need to be. In 10 years time it'll be nostalgia like a fax machine or sending a telegram.
- tigerlily 5y ago
  > I always read these articles as having a subtext of "EVs are crap at the moment give 'em another decade" which I don't think resonates with me but is likely popular with certain segments and so gets clicks. You should introduce that certain segment to the Briggs & Stratton stock price :)
  - zcw100 5y ago

ajnin 5y ago

> Battery manufacturer Theion has designed lithium-sulphur cathode technology that triples the energy density and requires 90% less energy to produce. Compared to what ? Very annoying when articles do that, it shows a lack of rigor that does not inspire confidence in the rest of the article.

chris_overseas 5y ago
They almost certainly mean triple compared to lithium ion (similarly for the 90% less energy claim). Lithium ion batteries currenty hit a maxium energy density of around 265Wh/kg, with a theoretical maximum of around 400-500Wh/kg[0][1]. Lithium sulphur batteries have a theoretical maximum of around 2500Wh/kg. [0] https://cleantechnica.com/2020/02/11/lithium-sulfur-batteries-could-be-cheaper-more-energy-dense/ https://cleantechnica.com/2020/02/11/lithium-sulfur-batterie... [1] https://www.lis.energy/site/li-s-energy-applications/lithium-sulphur-key-advantages https://www.lis.energy/site/li-s-energy-applications/lithium...
- stevespang 5y ago
- deleted 5y ago
  [deleted]
- hinkley 5y ago
  I've done the math a few times and I think there's an inflection point somewhere around 400WH/kg where auxiliary batteries for EVs become a viable option. Right now any replaceable battery is the domain of robotics, because there is no human-rated pack that would provide a compelling increase in range. Another factor of 2 and hauling a few 15kg cylinders or cubes out at a 'gas station' might get you to grandma's house or safely past a "no gas for 200 miles" sign.
hulitu 5y ago
This is journalism. They write a part of the story and the rest you must figure yourself.
5y ago

giantg2 5y ago

This sounds great. I hope it makes it to production without issues.

ieee2 5y ago

See much more details here: https://www.theion.de/ https://www.theion.de/

xyzzy21 5y ago

Most sulfur-based battery chemistries are NOT RECHARGEABLE.

throwawaygal7 5y ago

Cool stuff! One nit to pick - isn't the major source of Sulphur oil refining? Trying to spin this as being greener than the existing tech might be a bit much.