"—on the basis of the electrode materials—above 570 Wh kg-1, with an estimated practical energy density above 285 Wh kg-1."

Now that's an interesting, and I believe, honest blurb to put in an announcement like this. Most of the time, they just give us the really high number of the anode material, but in this case they gave us the real world number including electrolyte, packaging, useful energy (considering state of charge limitations I assume), etc.

A real world energy density of ~300Wh/kg would be a good step forward, especially if the price is "low cost" as they say. :-)

In 2022 i will change my current dodge neon 2005. Im following the market closely each days for evolution in technologies. If this battery is good then i might like it in a hybrid instead of a pure bev. An electric like the volt with a small gasoline range extender is the best as i often do long trips of 1500 miles 2 time a year. I don't like to recharge on the road. A small 2 cylinder gasoline recharger is sufficient. The volt have a costly weighthy overbuilt gasoline recharger instead of a small efficient recharger. With a small battery like this that is efficient and light, then a pure electric range of 100 miles associated with a small gasoline recharger is the best combinaison for long or short trips without hassles.

I wonder what its low temperature performance is like?
An aqueous electrolyte could make it vulnerable to freezing.
That is why there is interest in solid state.

To me this seems suited for large-scale grid storage - high cycle life (2-3 cycles a day to level out peaks in the grid) and low cost production. Which is good, we need cheap grid storage.

If we can hit certain targets for grid storage, the incremental cost per kWh would be so low that the cost wont be that much when compared to expensive peaking power. For example, if you had a battery that cost $100/kWh, got 5,000 cycles, and was 80% round-trip efficient, then you'd end up with a effective cost for storage of 2.5c/kWh.

@Darius:
I don't follow you.
How are you working out the figures to give you that result?

One fast multi-charger station may cost less than 10,000+ over equipped EVs for the occasional long distance drive?

Why drive around with 200+ kWh of batteries when 60 to 75 kWh or so would do the job, except for the 3 or 4 long drives/year, if major highways were equipped with ultra quick chargers (less than 15 minutes) .

It is becoming less and less certain that the Boeing 787 batteries are at fault. That aircraft has had many short circuits in related power distribution panels.

The on-going investigation may very well discover that shorts in power distribution panels and inadequate battery load/short circuit and high temps protection caused the batteries to over heat etc.

Boeing may have to go back to the design table.

Installing an ultra fast charging station, at every major cross road (highways) in USA, would require only about (25 x 25 = 625) stations. BEV users would never be more than 60 miles from an ultra quick charge station while driving on highways.

Each station could cost $4,000,000 to $5,000,000. The total worst case cost would be $3.1B. That's is equivalent to the cost of the last Oil war for a single day or the cost of imported crude oil for a single day.

Progressively multiply the initial installations 10X over the next 10 years or so with one day a year without an Oil war.

By 2023 or so, USA would have enjoyed a total of 10 days without an Oil war and would have an ultra quick charge station every 25 miles on all major highways.

Very, very good news...now we just need to see them do the easy part (haha) and take it from research to production...but man this would be a step up (especially the cycle capacity issue) take me here ASAP.

DD, yep those are cell energy densities, and pretty good too. Add the aqueous electrolyte (non flamable) and you may have a fairly safe cell as well, even with a little lithium foil in there (lithium burns in water). However, it's likely a less violent reaction (given the small mass) than having flamable organics like the standard carbonate electrolyte solvents or gasoline exploding. Yes, that's correct, the most dangerous thing about a lithium ion battery is the organic solvent (the gasoline like thing) volitilizing and exploding, just like your gasoline car. Although to be fair, there is more explosive liquid in your gas tank by far than in a typical li ion battery pack. So, your gas tank is way more dangerous than any li ion pack. But hey let's all fear the unfamiliar, it certainly works for the people who own the markets.

I'd be concerned with the rate capability however (the current density)on these cells. Cars need power and energy, but perhaps combined with ultracaps, or a smaller power battery. The lisicon layer is a lower ionic conductivity, and although thin, it will slow down conductivity. It's purpose is two fold, first to control chemical potential on the foil side so that lower driving force is applied to return the li ion to the metal foil, and the second is to prevent the aqueous electrolyte from contacting the metal foil. So, by design, current density has to be lowered somewhat.