Obviously, before they have scaled, they still need to scale. And, to scale at a useful rate, one needs a lot of money invested. And, any particular one might n

Obviously, before they have scaled, they still need to scale. And, to scale at a useful rate, one needs a lot of money invested. And, any particular one might not win, and so not end up scaling at all. So the question is whether to believe their numbers. If some other chemistry turns out better, this one won't scale and that one will, instead. Further, a projected efficiency might not pan out immediately, for an unanticipated reason, and another might win before it is solved. So such investment is risky: its value depends not just on this chemistry, but on all the others too, and which one succeeds in scaling fastest. Anyway, batteries are far from the only storage that will end up used, and costs for those are falling. Probably most storage will not be batteries, in the end. But a lot will be, reliably, and almost all of home storage will be. So, one or other will end up scaling. So the correct way to think of this is to treat the whole family of battery chemistries as the opportunity, and invest in a bunch of them. Most of those investments might flop, but one or more will certainly pay off big. There will probably not be just one winner. Lithium has already won the volume race, but its cost is still high partly because demand is high, driven by vehicle uses. Cost of various lithium chemistries is still falling, but not as fast as others still could. And safety is still a worry. Each battery chemistry still under consideration has some places where it shines: cheap raw material, longevity, volume or mass energy density, safety, charge rate, discharge rate, operating temperature range, compatibility with existing manufacturing processes, and lots more. So in different exact use cases, one will be favored over others, traded off against instantaneous cost, which will be falling for a long time, at a rate that varies with popularity.