this post was submitted on 01 Aug 2025
58 points (95.3% liked)
Futurology
3081 readers
54 users here now
founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
I find it misleading that they call it "100 hour battery". What's the point?
I'd rather see information about the price per kWh or energy density.
Edit: It even sounds bad, when I think about it now. What would you rather have: A battery that can charge and discharge fast or one that is slow in this matter? If this startup wants to succeed, it needs to beat lithium-based batteries in cost.
energy density doesnt matter that much for a landbased stationary battery
You're right. But still, some hard specs would be interesting
Oh absolutely. An article like this useless babble of buzzwords sucks.
Pricing seems to be 10x cheaper than lithium per kWh.
The battery has no rare earth metal in it, just common iron, which dramatically reduces cost. The 100hr storage is also 10-20x what lithium is designed for. Downsides appear to be slow charge/discharge and size of the batteries.
It is most likely a hybrid "iron air for long term storage, lithium for spikes and fluctuations" grid battery makes the most sense. These combo setups wouls likely have drastivally better long term storage and pricing then the current norm of "just Lithium."
There is more info about them in this article about another company in the space called Form energy.
Watt hours the point