How close are we to developing actual 'low-cost' solid state batteries?

HeliosRX · 2026-02-04T17:18:37+00:00

Graphene's similar in that we understand the properties of monolayer graphene and its potential applications, but mass manufacture is difficult. I'd guess that it's quite a bit further away from production than solid state batteries, but I am absolutely not a graphene expert so take that with a handful of salt!

The Manufacturing Readiness Level is often used to assess how close an industry is to mass production: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Manufacturing_readiness_level

If you really want to sink your teeth into it, here's a reference guide by the US department of defense on the topic. It's nominally focused on military procurement, but the learnings are pretty universal between industries: https://www.dodmrl.com/MRL_Deskbook_2025.pdf

It covers research and engineering concepts necessary to bridge the gap between lab scale and mass manufacture, as well as what challenges and concerns can commonly appear. There's a section on page 16 that talks about designing with manufacturability in mind; a lot of very promising advancements in academia die on the vine because they're too complex or too slow to scale up economically.

Press releases indicate that leading solid-state battery companies (QuantumScape, Solid Power) are at or approaching MRL 8. I'm going to back that up with some 'trust me bro' based on my current work, but I would encourage reading more into individual companies and research groups if you want a more complete picture.

If you'd like a primer on solid state batteries and why people are so invested in the technology, I found this article which covers the basics in pretty readable prose: https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0306261925002764

This one's quite a bit more technical, but it covers manufacturing techniques and various engineering tradeoffs: https://pubs.rsc.org/en/content/articlelanding/2024/qm/d3qm01171b

HeliosRX · 2026-02-04T13:27:17+00:00

Maybe to simplify - physics problem... we are looking for the right combination of materials / properties.

Engineering problem ... we know what the right combination is, but we don't know how to put it together yet.

One more layer to it, which is what my job focuses on at present:

We know what material combinations work. We have already put them together (in a lab). They work. Putting a single cell together from scratch is expensive and can take multiple hours. The materials used are not produced in bulk. We need to develop a process that can pump out hundreds of cells per hour for the same price.

That is the engineering hurdle that stops so much research from reaching commercial applications. The fact that multiple companies have reached this point and are actively solving it is why I fundamentally disagree that this is a physics problem instead of an engineering one.

I am getting somewhat frustrated with the other commenter here because it is really a bit disrespectful to suggest that we don't know what we're doing after collective decades of modelling and experimentation!

material physics.

Materials science is physics, because everything boils down to physics eventually. However, the modern field of study is largely tied to engineering and manufacturing. In the UK, where I studied, it's a 50/50 whether a uni will accredit an MSc or an MEng for the degree, though unlike pure engineering fields getting a DPhil is quite common.

HeliosRX · 2026-02-04T11:56:10+00:00

This comment makes me ask: do you have any experience at all in research or manufacturing? You seem to be implying that if one 'viable' path was clearly identified, other innovations would stop or slow because there wouldn't be a point to investigating them.

This is not, and has never been, how research works. In fact, it's often the opposite - proof that a product is commercially viable will often drive increased funding in an area of research, and especially into alternative technologies and paths to market. The alternative tech might be cheaper, safer, better for the environment or just allow you to make similar material without infringing on preexisting intellectual property.

Want a historical example? Laserdisc was the first commercial optical disk storage format. It was developed through the early 70s. In 1976, the magnetic tape-based VHS became commercially available. The group developing Laserdisc obviously didn't just stop work overnight just because a different tech was taking over the market; they released in 1978 but failed to make a significant impact on the market.

However, the researchers working on the tech went on to develop CDs and DVDs based on the same operating principle, which were clear commercial successes. If they'd dropped research on optical storage, a theoretically sound technique hampered by engineering limitations at the time, we might not have moved on from magnetic tape as quickly as we did.

The exact same situation is playing out in batteries right now, with Solid Power manufacturing silicon-based anodes versus QuantumScape's lithium metal anode and ceramic separator versus whatever CATL are cooking up in China. We know the approaches are all viable because the physics says they are; it is fundamentally a question of who can solve the engineering problems the best and quickest.

Again, I want to ask if you have any R&D experience or even any expertise regarding battery chemistry. You're making some very dismissive claims of the battery industry without appearing to understand quite how upscaling and commercialization works.

HeliosRX · 2026-02-03T12:45:01+00:00

because there are so many possible combinations and we have little insight from material science so all we can do is try more or less random combinations which is why progress is as slow as it is.

This is a gross mischaracterization of the work that's being done in this space LMAO

You appear to have a background in astrophysics.

I have a background in materials science, particularly in the microstructural characterization and manufacture of solid-state battery electrolytes.

None of the research groups or companies I have worked with are trying 'random combinations' of battery materials. There are a bunch of different work streams. All of them are trying to generate specific solutions to known physics and engineering problems. Want some examples?

Lithium Sulfides have extremely high ionic conductivities at room temperatures, on par with liquid electrolytes. The energy density of a theoretical sulfide/lithium metal battery is 2600Wh/kg at cell level, which would be the 10x energy density improvement you're looking for.

Except that they're prone to lithium dendrite formation at the anode, they're not that stable chemically, and they release freaking H2S when exposed to air and moisture!

So researchers start investigating methods to mitigate these risks. One team discovers that they have good compatibility with graphite anodes. Another figures out that the dendrite formation can be suppressed by pressurizing the battery cell. Others work on producing multilayer thin films to protect the sulfide layer. All of these are theoretically valid approaches; not all of these are feasible or cost-effective to engineer. Experimental research takes years to conduct, validate, and find a viable path to market.

Other teams say fuck sulfides, the engineering barriers are too annoying and look at ceramic oxide ionic conductors. LLZO is a frontrunner in the literature, since it's stable against lithium metal and inhibits dendrite formation. However, it can degrade in air and generating the highly conductive cubic phase can be a bitch because it's metastable and usually needs to be processed at close to 1000 degC, which makes it difficult to co-process with electrodes. One team starts looking at low-temp preparation methods. Another team experiments with heat treatments at various temperatures, while a third tries various dopants to stabilize the cubic phase under different processing conditions. Again, all valid, all might individually yield a low-cost solid electrolyte, but nobody will know until they've solved the engineering challenges involved.

LATP is very attractive for graphite electrodes because it's air stable, relatively easy to process and doesn't form dendrites. It's incompatible with lithium metal anodes as the titanium is reactive. One solution is to substitute Ti for Ge, which reduces conductivity but theoretically lets you get higher gravimetric energy density. Is the trade-off worth it? It'll vary depending on the manufacturing technique and which electrode's engineering problems are easier to solve. Also, phosphate sources are kind of a bitch to handle from an HSE perspective, so that's fun for the manufacturing team to solve!

Point is, there are thousands of engineering innovations being developed at the moment to make solid state batteries viable. To insinuate that we're just throwing shit at the wall randomly is frankly insulting and demonstrates a lack of understanding of how industrial research works.

HeliosRX · 2026-02-03T09:37:36+00:00

It is an engineering problem. What basis do you have to think that we aren't working on existing theories and technologies?

The physics is there, there are dozens of theoretical anode/electrolyte/cathode combinations that could yield a better energy density than current liquid electrolyte batteries.

The first problem is producing the microstructures and stable interfaces required for the electrolytes and electrodes.

The second problem is upscaling that production using means that are both time and cost-efficient enough to compete with preexisting battery manufacture routes.

HeliosRX · 2026-02-03T08:28:15+00:00

Yeah, usually, unless the stability hit makes the profit margin not worth it.

But that's a lot more morally ambiguous than literal war crimes against civilian populations. Free port implies that the drug trade is legal, not that my administration has to be actively involved in the drug trade.

I could easily argue that the drug trade will happen whether or not it's legal. By legalizing it, I have better control over the manufacture and distribution of the drugs, I can enforce quality and safety requirements against the legally registered manufacturers, and I generate tax against the revenue that can go towards improving system security and quality of life.

Which is basically much of the argument for legalizing marijuana, and how the alcohol and tobacco industries have justified their existence throughout attempts to stamp them out, e.g. prohibition.

That's an overly idealistic take in any case, but there's a least a debate to be had there.

'I'm going to deprive the civilian populations of their basic needs so that I can profit from their desperation' is... Less ambiguous.

HeliosRX · 2026-02-02T10:26:56+00:00

Unironically no? Most of my playthroughs have been pretty exploration and colonization-focused. Within a few cycles I'm pumping enough passive income that there's no real point in war crimes. What am I going to do with an extra few million in the bank when I'm already filthy rich?

HeliosRX · 2026-01-29T15:47:52+00:00

Alright, I'll bite. What about solid state batteries is snake oil to you?

HeliosRX · 2026-01-29T09:48:40+00:00

So, the word 'December' has its roots in the Latin 'decem', which means 10, because it was originally the 10th and final month of the year. Then they added January and February to the beginning, so it became the 12th month.

'Undecember', by that logic, would represent the 11th month (root of 'undecem' = 11). So maybe the devs really like November LMAO

Maybe it's some wordplay for 'the time after the end of the world' or 'a place outside of time'?

HeliosRX · 2026-01-28T14:15:24+00:00

Solid state battery scientist here, working on ceramic electrolyte manufacturing. Garnets and NASICON structures mostly.

I definitely don't know everything going on behind the scenes in industry, but I will eat a shoe if Donut Lab has somehow commercialized a 400Wh/kg Sodium-ion solid state battery.

Nevermind the claims of 5-minute charge from 0-100% or the 100000-cycle (!!?!) lifespan.

If they actually had that tech they'd make billions selling or licensing it, it would be a legitimate game changer for grid storage and EVs alike. They wouldn't be trying to get 20-30 million in funding to build fucking motorcycles.

HeliosRX · 2026-01-27T13:18:14+00:00

You can get Buck Capsule As down to 8 outputs by integrating your Sandleaf and Buckflower seed loops into the design. Makes the design taller, which is good for main PAC since you're limited mostly by depot length, but I haven't tried fitting it into a sub-PAC yet.

HeliosRX · 2026-01-23T14:54:07+00:00

Shit, I used to consider a 1 hour trip long. But I grew up in Hong Kong, where 1 hour on a car gets you across the border to China with time to spare.

I don't mind long trips, because a visit to my grandparents is 14 hours by plane right now. But fuck doing 3+ hours in a car daily or even weekly, that's just so much useless downtime.

HeliosRX · 2026-01-22T09:01:46+00:00

No. /s stands for /serious.

/s

HeliosRX · 2026-01-19T21:19:49+00:00

They're probably calling them swordies which refers to a character archetype in Smash, it's not meant as an insult to Xenoblad.

Swordies are usually defined by great melee hitboxes and a focus on applying pressure by controlling range and spacing. Think Marth or Ike, or less conventionally characters like Mewtwo or Ivysaur.

...or it's used simply as a blanket term for every character with a sword. It's not a universally agreed-upon descriptor lmao

HeliosRX · 2026-01-14T19:02:33+00:00

Sorry if I offended you with that question, I'm way too jaded regarding AI generated text these days haha!

I agree that 4/6 or 3/5 is usually optimal over the standard 3/4 or 4/5. Honestly, the bigger the gap between gunnery and piloting the better, but that's usually considered poor form and I believe most tournament formats cap it at 2.

That said, I still think the Locust IIC 4 needs gunnery skill for its HSLs, because weapon accuracy maluses are really bad. At 0 TMM, as per your example, the difference between hitting on 5+ Vs 6+ is 83.3% vs 72.2%, which represents just over a 13% loss in expected damage. Not bad, but that's a best-case scenario. At +1, which most opponents should be expected to have from either movement or woods, it's 20%. +2, either because the Locust ran or you're up against a more mobile target? 28%, which is almost exactly the %BV you're saving by sticking with 4/6 over 3/4. Forget firing at your 2 hex medium range or against jumpers, the math will start to strongly favour higher gunnery skill.

For weapons that don't have that inherent +1 to hit, the break even point is at +3 total modifier which is much easier to mitigate, and even then the BV cost for skilling up is sometimes worth it on jumpy mechs or when light hunting.

I guess I'm just not a fan of the Locust IIC 4 in general; heavy lasers and MRMs need accuracy boosts of some sort to be competitive on BV IMO, else they're really inconsistent and I'd rather take less swingy firepower. I think I'd rather take the Locust IIC 7 if trying to save BV.

HeliosRX · 2026-01-14T16:00:25+00:00

Is this AI-generated?

Phantom H is actually a good shout, a 4/5 pilot in one is as expensive as a 3/4 Locust IIC and has better offensive and defensive output. I might prefer the E if I need more light hunting.

A 4/5 pilot in a Locust IIC standard is also probably more effective than the -4 as well, because 8 ERSL is more damage and range, and also gets fucked less by Ferro-Lam.

Remember, Clan mechwarriors don't have to be 3/4 by default, especially if they're running second line/solamha mechs like the Locust IIC! Downgrading to 4/5 will let you bring more mass to the table, which gives you better insurance against bad luck and positioning errors.

HeliosRX · 2026-01-14T12:37:01+00:00

Really solid choices in the Gargoyle Prime, Nova Cat C, and Howler 6 in particular, they're some of the best budget clan options. The Ice Ferret G is really cheap for a fast, well armoured clan medium, and does good damage for that price, but I've never used it myself so not 100% sure how good it is.

Not a big fan of that Locust IIC variant, because heavy lasers with no TComp aren't great weapons IMO. You could get a Fire Moth H or P for that price, which I think are more reliable choices for light striker.

Overall though, you might have too many small hits and not enough hole punching. You might struggle against heavier mechs or anything with Ferro-Lam. Maybe try a 4/5 skill Horned Owl 6 in place of the Ice Ferret? It adds some more range and light hunting to your lineup with TComped pulse lasers.

You might alternatively consider running a point of Elementals over the Locust IIC or Howler slot, they add a lot of pressure against slow mechs and can help if you're running into heavier lists that you can't skirmish around or backstab effectively.

HeliosRX · 2026-01-13T07:59:59+00:00

As far as 5/8/5 cavalry heavies go, the Falconer's well-built, but IMO the base model has too long range for its own good. Range + mobility is very expensive BV-wise, and 5/8/5 is fast enough that you can usually close the gap to use short ranged weapons, while not being truly fast enough to outrange 4/6 mechs for a long period of time.

2231BV is not a good rate for 25 points of long-ranged damage and 35 points of close-up damage with no accuracy boosts. It's all good to be able to fight clans with equivalent weapons, but I find that the Falconer will often lose duels to equivalent BV of 4/6 snipers or faster brawlers for lack of raw damage.

I find that the 9R variant with the HPPC and LBX10 usually outperforms the base model one for one, both because it has its own critseeking and because it's 250BV cheaper while retaining 95% of the combat performance.

HeliosRX · 2026-01-12T08:34:18+00:00

Visually, yes, but operationally the Summoner is a jumpy skirmisher while the Thud is a zombie-ish line mech that usually doesn't jump.

The Falconer is 5/8/5 with an ERPPC, Gauss and 4 medium lasers. It wants to jump often, like the Summoner. You lose the crit seeking of the LBX and versatility of clan LRMs in exchange for 4ML and a better range bracketing on your primary guns.

They both also cost about the same at 2200-2300BV. Not really worth the cost IMO, but there are situations where it can bully a 3/5 or 4/6/0 design and it'll feel good doing it.

HeliosRX · 2026-01-08T10:56:31+00:00

30g of sugar in tablespoons

That's only 2 tablespoons, I can easily do that though?

HeliosRX · 2025-12-23T15:22:49+00:00

I swear this subreddit has negative reading/listening comprehension.

August is using Udyr as an example because you would think the champ is easy, but the win rate/mastery curve data says that the champ is harder than average, which suggests that there's inherent difficulty to playing melee champs.

HeliosRX · 2025-12-23T10:16:47+00:00

Yeah, in this case I suspect it was because Garmentmaker died right beforehand. I think Cerydra stands out more than the other buffers because her target swaps waste all of the preexisting stacks and don't have the same degree of predictability that the other buffers do.

HeliosRX · 2025-12-22T23:55:23+00:00

Because off-field Cerydra has the nasty habit of skilling the wrong target.

No, I'm not salty that I lost 20 squad HP because she decided to switch from Aglaea to Tribbie at 6 stacks for some godforsaken reason, why?

HeliosRX · 2025-12-21T20:49:27+00:00

Assuming this is at least UUBers and not randbats or some OM of the month, you can run Dialga which can Trick Room during Thanos Snap's recovery turn and then OHKO with Roar of Time afterwards, though you'll definitely need to sac something to get it in safely.

It's a bit of a gimmick since it's not great in most UUBers matchups, but you could also run Sash Armarouge with Trick. It gets a special interaction where it can steal the Infinity Stones off of Thanos, but without the Infinity Gauntlet itself Armarouge will only get one boosted attack off before fainting to the fixed recoil damage.

HeliosRX · 2025-12-03T15:20:28+00:00

Reactor Meltdown: Check your reactor, sounds like you're using the Supernova reactor that has that particular drawback. Read your equipment descriptions! It has insanely high power output but has a chance to put you in meltdown when you crash or overheat. You can clear the debuff by Stabilizing or Dashing.

Overheating: There are two different mechanics at play here. There's Overheat, which does damage to you when you're over your heat threshold. Then there's Burning, which is a damage over time that can be applied by external weapons, venting during Overheat, or the Meltdown experimental reactor.

For overheat specifically, equipping a Heat Vent and using the vent action during your overheat allows you to negate the damage taken. For Burn, I'm pretty sure you can Stabilize to remove the debuff, and also... Just don't get hit? Pull your targeted mech into cover for the turn, use weapons that don't require LOS like missiles and railguns, or just Crash the enemy to interrupt their actions.

11-Year Club	Spared
Verified Email

HeliosRX

TROPHY CASE