I am too lazy to copy paste the battery check list
----------------------------------------------------------------
Dear battery technology claimant,
Thank you for your submission of proposed new revolutionary battery technology. Your new technology claims to be superior to existing lithium-ion technology and is just around the corner from taking over the world. Unfortunately your technology will likely fail, because:
[ ] it is impractical to manufacture at scale.
[ ] it will be too expensive for users.
[ ] it suffers from too few recharge cycles.
[ ] it is incapable of delivering current at sufficient levels.
[ ] it lacks thermal stability at low or high temperatures.
[ ] it lacks the energy density to make it sufficiently portable.
[ ] it has too short of a lifetime.
[ ] its charge rate is too slow.
[ ] its materials are too toxic.
[ ] it is too likely to catch fire or explode.
[ ] it is too minimal of a step forward for anybody to care.
[ ] this was already done 20 years ago and didn't work then.
[ ] by this time it ships li-ion advances will match it.
[ ] your claims are lies.
----------------------------------------------------------------
> [ ] it lacks the energy density to make it sufficiently portable.
... only matters for mobility applications. You can forget about this one for grid storage.
> In contrast, a typical Li-ion battery retains only 80 percent of its charge capacity after 300 to 500 cycles, depending on conditions.
LiFePO4 lasts for about 3000 cycles before 80% degradation, not 300-500.
> The batteries were also tested at temperatures as high as 200 degrees Celsius
Thermal runaway on LFP is 120C, not 200 but still not a temperature you will easily hit.
And finally (as always):
> before the Al-ion battery is ready for commercial applications, its energy density will need to be improved
Which means it's not commercially viable.
LiFePO4 is cheap to manufacture, uses lithium, iron, phosphate, all of which are fairly plentiful and lasts for over 3000 cycles (before reaching 80% capacity).
I wonder if they are quoting unrealistic 0-100% numbers and you are quoting realistic 20-80%. If so, and you multiply the Li capacity by 0.6, I wonder how far off aluminum's (undisclosed) density is.
On an unrelated note, I’m surprised that lithium is only 4x the price of aluminum. They’re both incredibly common elements, but lithium extraction is harder for a lot of reasons.
This would be really useful for plugin hybrids, even if the density is not competitive with LFP for pure EVs.
Just replacing it with LiFePo batteries would give you 4x the lifetime. Of course, with current technology the battery would have to be twice the size.
In January 2025, the North America price of lithium carbonate was $9.37/kg. But lithium carbonate is just 18.7% lithium, so the price is $50/kg of contained lithium.
In comparison, the current market price of aluminum metal is $2.62/kg. And aluminum compounds (where the large energy expenditure needed to reduce Al(+3) to the metal is not needed) should be cheaper.
Aluminum is much more common than lithium. It's the third most abundant element in the Earth's continental crust after oxygen and silicon.
Maybe, maybe not. The number that would actually matter is capacity in joules after 10,000 cycles, not the percentage.
Depends more on price than anything else. Maybe won't replace phone batteries, but a stationary battery for home or a utility-sized one that uses less temperamental chemistry would be very welcome.
picture of AA batteries
>Lithium-ion batteries like these currently dominate the market, but aluminum-based alternatives could be a better solution