Subscribe now

The mainstream narrative positions battery swapping as an improvement over plug-in charging. In this framing, electric vehicle (EV) batteries are treated like propane gas cylinders: arrive, swap a depleted pack for a charged one, and resume driving within minutes (Figure 1).

Proponents present this as a logistics problem. Swapping is faster than charging, and by separating the battery pack from the vehicle's upfront cost it enables a compelling Battery-as-a-Service model. If a third party owns the battery, EV manufacturers simply need to make the physical interface interchangeable

The problem is that a shared physical interface is standardization. Agreeing on pack geometry, connector placement, thermal management interfaces, and structural mounting points requires EV manufacturers to freeze part of their vehicle and battery architecture.

This matters because EV batteries are not interchangeable energy containers. They are highly sensitive, tightly integrated electrochemical systems whose degradation, lifespan, and safety profiles are directly shaped by cell chemistry, thermal history, and pack-level engineering design.

The question, then, is not whether swapping is faster than charging. It is whether a standardized, physically interchangeable battery architecture is compatible with the direction EV technology is evolving.

Increasingly, the answer appears to be no.

The core constraint: standardization under rapid technical change

Battery swapping depends on a strict prerequisite: structural standardization. In practice, this is difficult to achieve in an industry where pack designs are actively diverging.

Different vehicle applications demand different engineering trade-offs (e.g., balancing energy density against power density, or cycle life against fast-charge tolerance), which not only shape the cell design but also pack architecture and integration strategy. Imposing a frozen standard in this environment risks locking out some of the most promising innovations in the field, including cell-to-chassis architectures that treat the battery as a structural component of the vehicle itself.

As a result, EV manufacturers have little incentive to converge on a shared format. The battery pack is the primary lever for differentiation in range, safety, cabin space, and cost. Standardizing the battery means commoditizing the core intellectual property and surrendering product defensibility.

In theory, manufacturers could standardize only the external battery interface while continuing to innovate internally. In practice, however, the battery has become so tightly integrated into vehicle architecture that even partial standardization constrains engineering freedom. The economic cost of adopting a common format therefore remains high.

Industry-wide standardization is, for these reasons, a non-starter in the near to medium term.

What about China?

The most cited counterexample is China, where NIO has built over 3,000 swap stations across 700 cities. On the surface, this looks like evidence that battery swapping can scale.

But if one looks closer, it shows that NIO’s network has historically worked because it was a closed ecosystem: one company, one proprietary system. While they are currently trying to open their platform to partners like Changan and others, achieving true cross-brand physical standardization remains, as a CATL executive recently noted, ‘‘the most important issue we still need to solve.’’

NIO demonstrates that battery swapping can scale operationally. The unresolved question is whether such systems can scale profitably while expanding beyond a tightly controlled ecosystem. The fact that standardization remains an open challenge after a decade of deployment suggests that the difficulty is not temporary.

The economics reinforce this. NIO’s swap business lost €400 million (3.12 billion yuan) in 2024 alone, with stations averaging just 32 service sessions per day (Figure 2).

Therefore, China demonstrates that battery swapping can function within a tightly controlled and vertically integrated environment. It says nothing about whether swapping can go mainstream in an open, competitive market.

The hidden cost: battery inventory

Swapping infrastructure requires more than stations. It also requires spare batteries. Every swap location must maintain an inventory of charged packs capable of handling demand spikes. Unlike charging infrastructure, where the battery remains inside the vehicle, swapping infrastructure concentrates large amounts of capital in batteries that spend much of their time waiting for use.

This creates another economic hurdle. The swap station operator is not only financing land, robotics, maintenance, and grid connections, but also a pool of idle battery assets. Any assessment of battery swapping economics must therefore account for both infrastructure costs and battery inventory costs.

This inventory burden is largely absent from discussions that compare swapping and charging solely on replenishment speed.

Charging has narrowed the gap

Modern EV charging has improved substantially over the past decade. Higher-voltage architecture operating around 800 V has lowered currents needed to transfer power while reducing heat generation. Cell-level thermal management now allows for aggressive, highly optimized charging curves. And larger battery packs have reduced the frequency of charging events altogether.1

For most consumers, a 20-minute charging stop is enough to add meaningful highway range.2 The marginal benefit of reducing that stop to a three-minute battery swap is simply not large enough to justify the infrastructure and logistical complexity of swapping networks.

Nor is it necessary. Most charging occurs while vehicles are already parked: overnight at home, during working hours, or at destination locations. In those cases, reducing charging time from several hours to a few minutes creates little additional value because the vehicle was not needed during that period anyway.

This conclusion, however, may obscure a more important point: battery swapping may not be a consumer mobility solution at all.

The one segment where swapping makes sense

A passenger vehicle is idle most of the time. A commercial vehicle is an economic asset whose utilization directly dictates the total cost of ownership and fleet profitability. Under commercial operating conditions, charging time is a revenue-generating capacity sitting unused.

Consider a municipal city bus fleet operating on fixed, predictable routes. Each bus returns to a centralized depot to replenish its energy. A typical 150 kWh bus battery charged via a standard 50 kW depot DC charger requires several hours to fully recharge. At fleet scale, this creates compounding idle time (Figure 3).

The intuitive response is to upgrade to high-power charging.3 But this approach runs into real constraints: power grid saturation, permitting timelines, and the cost of transformer upgrades (particularly in older, diesel-era depots not designed for high electrical loads).

Here, battery swapping offers a possible alternative. Instead of fast-charging the vehicles, the fleet operator maintains a pool of identical batteries at the depot. These packs are charged slowly and efficiently during off-peak hours, considerably flattening the depot's peak electrical demand. When a bus rolls in, an automated system swaps the pack in minutes.

In this case, the bottleneck shifts from vehicle downtime to inventory management. Whether the resulting utilization gains are sufficient to justify the added inventory costs becomes a fleet-specific economic question.

Second-order constraint: the human factor

Even within commercial fleets, optimizing vehicle downtime through battery swapping ignores a critical operational variable: the human driver.

Most countries enforce mandatory rest periods for commercial fleet drivers. Under EU labor frameworks, for example, a truck driver must take a 45-minute break after every 4.5 hours of driving. When a vehicle is legally required to sit idle while its operator rests, the economic value of a three-minute battery swap evaporates.

A high-power fast charger, such as the Megawatt Charging System (MCS), can easily replenish the pack during that mandatory human rest cycle, with no swapping infrastructure required.4 Any economic case for swapping must therefore remain compelling against a moving technological target rather than today's charging capabilities.

Swapping only yields a positive return on investment when the energy replenishment cycle cannot be absorbed into existing operational schedules. Which brings us to the one context where that condition is satisfied.

Removing the human factor

The strongest case for battery swapping emerges when the human driver is removed from the equation entirely. Picture a Waymo sitting at a charger at 4pm, no passengers, no driver, no reason to be parked except that its battery is at 10% state of charge (SOC).

In fully autonomous operating environments, such as urban robotaxi networks, automated port logistics, warehouse fleets, vehicles are no longer bound by labor laws or biological rest cycles. Asset utilization approaches 24/7, constrained only by maintenance windows and energy replenishment. Waymo’s robotaxis are already designed around this model: continuous operation, with downtime as the enemy of unit economics (Figure 4).

Consider what this means at scale. A fleet of 10,000 autonomous vehicles loses 10,000 vehicle-hours daily to charging. Swapping recovers 8,300 of them.5

Baidu's sixth-generation robotaxi, operating commercially in Wuhan, runs on a battery-swapping architecture in which vehicles autonomously schedule their own swaps based on real-time battery level and station availability. The human has been removed not just from the driving seat, but from the energy management loop entirely.

Crucially, this context satisfies all conditions that make swapping viable: a centralized operator, a standardized vehicle platform, predictable routes, and continuous utilization. The standardization problem that is intractable across a fragmented consumer market becomes solvable when a single fleet operator controls both the vehicle specification and the infrastructure.

Battery swapping's future, if it has one in passenger-adjacent mobility, will most likely be written by autonomous fleet operators.6

Conclusion

Battery swapping is often framed as a faster version of charging. This misses the central issue. The debate is not fundamentally about energy replenishment speed but about asset utilization. In environments where vehicles spend most of their lives parked, charging remains the simpler solution. In environments where every minute of downtime carries an economic cost, swapping becomes increasingly attractive.

It is a niche infrastructure model whose viability depends entirely on system-level conditions: standardization, asset utilization, grid constraints, and labor economics.

For passenger EVs, fast charging has likely established itself as the optimal solution for long routes. For commercial fleets with human drivers, the case remains conditional. And for autonomous systems operating at scale, battery swapping may yet prove to be critical infrastructure; not because it is faster than charging, but because it is the only recharge model that does not require the asset to stop earning.

The future of battery swapping may therefore depend less on batteries themselves than on who owns the vehicles. As long as cars remain personal possessions, charging is likely to dominate. If transportation becomes increasingly autonomous and fleet-based, battery swapping could evolve from a niche solution into critical infrastructure.

That’s all for now — until next time! 🔋

If you enjoyed reading this piece, consider sharing and subscribing to Lithium Horizons. It helps support future articles on materials powering the energy transition.

Share

Subscribe now

The recent news that Norwegian battery hopeful Morrow has secured a supply contract with a German defense player is, on the surface, a win for European sovereignty. It proves that local LFP cells can meet NATO’s mission-critical standards.

But if you zoom out, the deal looks less like a win and more like a retreat from the mainstream battery sector that contributes to the larger theme of European technological stagnation.

For years, the European battery narrative rested on a single pillar: the electric vehicle (EV) revolution. That was the backbone of the industry. Now, as that narrative weakens under the pressure of Chinese cost dominance and softer-than-expected demand, Europe’s battery makers are scrambling to redefine themselves.

In less than a decade, the industry has cycled through multiple “identity phases”:

• The EV gold rush (2020–2022): every startup promised a gigafactory to power Europe’s electric future.

• The ESS pivot (2023): as EV growth slowed, companies repositioned toward energy storage for renewable grids.

• The AI boom (2024–2025): data centers became the new “North Star,” with batteries framed as critical infrastructure for power stability.

• The defense era (2026): rising geopolitical tensions shift focus toward military supply chains and energy security.

The death of scale

Rather than executing against a clearly defined industrial strategy, many European battery players appear to be reacting to external demand signals. Each new “hot” sector triggers repositioning, capital reallocation, and revised messaging.

While adaptability is valuable, constant pivoting risks undermining long-term competitiveness and innovation.

This reactive behavior can be attributed to several factors:

• Fragmented policy signals: Europe is simultaneously pushing climate goals, energy independence, digital infrastructure, and defense readiness. Companies follow whichever signal is loudest at any given time.

• Capital constraints: Compared to global leaders, European firms operate with tighter funding conditions. That makes them more sensitive to shifting investor sentiment and short-term opportunities.

• Fragmented supply chains: Without access to low-cost raw materials, European producers struggle to compete on price. Instead, they gravitate toward markets willing to pay a premium for “Made in Europe.”

• Technological overlap: Batteries are, by nature, cross-sectoral. The same core technology can serve EVs, grids, data centers, and defense. This flexibility, while a strength, also enables constant repositioning.

The harsh reality is that scale requires consistency.

To compete with global leaders, European gigafactories need stable, high-volume off-take agreements measured in gigawatt-hours, not niche contracts with high margins but limited volume. Defense and high-end niche markets offer high margins, but they do not offer the GWh-scale volumes needed to pay off the billions in Capex required for gigafactories that would enable mass electrification.

When a company like Morrow pivots to defense, they are making a pragmatic choice of survival over scale. By chasing niche applications, they avoid the price wars of the mass market.

That may be smart in the short term. But at the system level, it creates a deeper problem: Europe risks never reaching the scale required to compete globally.

Toward a coherent strategy

This does not mean Europe should ignore emerging opportunities like defense or AI infrastructure. On the contrary, these sectors are strategically important and could become significant battery markets. However, engagement should be anchored in a broader, consistent framework.

A more effective approach would involve:

• Clear prioritization: Identifying core markets where Europe aims to lead (e.g., premium automotive, industrial-scale ESS) and encouraging companies to focus deeply on particular applications rather than attempting to serve all markets simultaneously.

• Policy & capital alignment: Ensuring that industrial policy and capital availability send consistent, long-term signals rather than shifting emphasis too frequently.

• Value chain integration: Building strength not just in cell manufacturing, but in materials, recycling, and system integration.

A continent of niche players?

Morrow’s move into defense is understandable, even logical, given the current geopolitical context. But it also serves as a microcosm of a broader issue within Europe’s battery ecosystem.

Adaptability is essential in a fast-evolving industry. Yet without a stable strategic core, adaptability can easily become opportunism. If Europe wants to build a globally competitive battery industry, it must move beyond reacting to the latest trend and start executing against a clear, consistent vision.

Otherwise, it risks becoming a continent of high-tech boutiques, permanently in a startup mode: always pivoting, always promising, and always one trend away from the next bankruptcy.

That’s all for now — until next time! 🔋

If you enjoyed reading this piece, consider sharing and subscribing to Lithium Horizons. It helps support future articles on materials powering the energy transition.

Share

Subscribe now

Subscribe now

In the previous article, we introduced Lyten as a materials-driven company built around its core innovation: 3D Graphene™, a tunable carbon ‘‘supermaterial’’ positioned as a platform for multiple applications. We also examined how this material underpins Lyten’s business model and broader strategy, moving from niche to mainstream applications.

In this article, we turn to Lyten’s flagship product: lithium–sulfur (Li–S) batteries, and examine how this carbon platform is used to tackle one of the most persistent challenges in next-generation batteries.

Li-S batteries: a primer

Lithium–sulfur batteries (Figure 1) have long been considered a potential successor to conventional lithium-ion chemistries. Their appeal lies in a compelling theoretical combination: high energy density and abundant materials.

A typical Li–S cell consists of (as opposed to standard lithium-ion batteries):

• A lithium metal anode (instead of graphite)

• A sulfur-based cathode (instead of NMC or LFP)

• An electrolyte that is typically ether-based, rather than the carbonate

In theory, Li–S batteries can reach 400–500 Wh/kg, significantly above today’s best commercial lithium-ion cells (~250–300 Wh/kg). At the same time, sulfur is inexpensive and widely available, and the chemistry avoids critical materials such as nickel and cobalt. Naturally, this positions it as a strong strategic complement to Li-ion.

On paper, this makes Li–S an attractive candidate for applications where weight is important and where supply chain independence is critical, such as aerospace and defense.

The fundamental challenges

Despite decades of research, Li–S batteries face several well-known limitations:

• Polysulfide shuttle effect: during cycling, sulfur forms soluble molecules, called polysulfides, that migrate from the cathode to deposit on the anode. This leads to the loss of active material, low Coulombic efficiency, and rapid battery capacity fading.

• Poor conductivity: sulfur is electrically insulating, requiring conductive hosts and complex cathode architectures.

• Lithium metal instability: the lithium anode introduces dendrite growth, unstable solid electrolyte interphase (i.e., SEI), and other safety concerns.

• Practical system limitations: efforts to mitigate these issues often introduce high cathode porosity of >40%, excess electrolyte requirements and reduced energy per volume.

As a result, Li–S systems often struggle to compete with lithium-ion in reality, especially in applications like electric vehicles where volume, lifetime, and cost are critical.

That said, Li–S remains attractive for niche applications where high gravimetric (i.e., per kg) energy density outweighs cycle life, volume, and cost constraints.

Lyten’s approach: engineering the cathode

Lyten’s core idea is to use its 3D Graphene™ as a structured carbon host for sulfur.

Read more

Subscribe now

When Northvolt’s financial troubles became public, many observers saw it as a serious blow to Europe’s fragile battery industry. The collapse of one of the continent’s most ambitious gigafactory projects raised uncomfortable questions about whether the West could realistically compete with Asian battery giants.

Then an unexpected buyer appeared: Lyten, a U.S startup developing lithium-sulfur (Li-S) batteries.

The acquisition instantly transformed Lyten from a niche company into a player with industrial-scale ambitions. But to understand why Lyten made such a bold move, we first need to understand what the company actually is and why it believes its technology could change the future of batteries.

What is Lyten Inc?

Founded in 2015, Lyten is a Silicon Valley startup focused on advanced materials engineering. Contrary to popular belief, it is not purely a battery company. Instead, it markets itself as a supermaterial applications company, emphasizing the central role of materials science and engineering in its products.

Lyten’s flagship technology, 3D Graphene™, is a greenhouse-originated carbon material that offers unique resistive, capacitive, inductive, structural, and energy absorbing properties. The key feature of this material is its tunability. Its structure can be adjusted for a wide range of applications. In fact, Lyten’s website lists a number of seemingly disconnected products, all based on this graphene-based supermaterial (Figure 1).

Its batteries have successfully powered unmanned aerial vehicles and the company actively promotes its batteries for mobility, defense and aerospace applications. Last year, it acquired several assets from the bankrupt battery manufacturer Northvolt, including its Polish battery energy storage system (BESS) factory (Northvolt Dwa). In the press release, Lyten highlighted that it intends to expand ‘‘its product line to include the world’s first BESS powered by lithium-sulfur batteries‘‘.

Beyond batteries, its products are also used in 3D printing, concrete admixtures, structural adhesives, sensing, packaging, and other applications.

Company snapshot

• Founded: 2015

• HQ: San Jose, California, USA

• CEO: Dan Cook

• Employees: ~300 (pre-Northvolt acquisition)

• Funding: $625M+

• Valuation: ~$1.5 billion (2023)

• Key investors: Prime Movers Lab, Stellantis Ventures, FedEx, Honeywell, etc.

Notable technical experts:

• Kumar Bugga - a Senior Fellow at Lyten and Principal Member of Technical Staff at NASA Jet Propulsion Laboratory. He is the acting technical reference for Lyten’s batteries, having extensive experience in specialized batteries for several flight missions including Mars Exploration Rovers, outer planetary missions (e.g. Europa Clipper and Lander), and others.

• Celina Mikolajczak - Chief Battery Technology Officer at Lyten (until August 2025) and ex-QuantumScape, Panasonic Energy, and Tesla. She was responsible for advancing the manufacturing of Li-S batteries through the ramping of pouch and cylindrical cell pilot production.

• Chaitanya Khare - Head of Reactor and Materials Industrialization at Lyten and ex-Dow Chemical. He leads the industrialization of 3D Graphene™ material production.

Business model and market focus

Lyten’s business model is built on a materials-first platform centered on its proprietary 3D Graphene™ material produced from greenhouse gases. Since this material can be tailored for multiple uses, Lyten can effectively address several markets with a single core technology and insulate the company from downturns in any one sector.

The company currently targets sectors that prioritize supply chain independence, such as drones, aerospace, and defense. By focusing on these niche, high-margin markets, Lyten can generate early revenue to support the scale-up of its flagship Li-S battery technology for mass electric vehicle and energy storage businesses.

Partnerships with OEMs (i.e., original equipment manufacturers) like Stellantis, Honeywell, and FedEx provide opportunities for co-development and early product validation. Key collaborations include space applications with the U.S. Defense Innovation Unit, aviation with Honeywell, logistics with FedEx, and electric vehicles with Stellantis.

After acquiring Northvolt assets (Figure 2), the company has also announced plans to open a headquarters in Luxembourg to support European market expansion. The company intends to restart operations in all facilities utilizing Northvolt’s existing lithium-ion NMC technology, with plans to gradually integrate Lyten’s Li-S batteries into the product portfolio.

Rather than positioning itself solely as a battery company, Lyten frames its identity as a clean-tech manufacturer with a locally sourced supply chain. Its narrative emphasizes sustainability, transforming greenhouse gases into advanced materials that power a range of next-generation technologies.

Overall, this strategy positions Lyten as a resilient company with a consistent sustainability narrative (i.e., sustainability and a path to net zero) across diverse markets. Its main advantage lies in the nature of its product: a versatile wonder-material that can be tweaked and tuned for different use cases.

Core technology: 3D Graphene™

Lyten’s core technology is its 3D Graphene™.

Graphene is a two-dimensional material composed of carbon atoms arranged in a hexagonal lattice. Essentially, it is a single-atom-thick layer of graphite (Figure 3), boasting exceptional properties such as extraordinary strength and outstanding electrical and thermal conductivity.

The company converts greenhouse gases into solid carbon, which forms the basis of what Lyten calls 3D Graphene™, a material whose properties can be tuned through morphology changes and bonding with other elements. This allows it to be adapted for multiple applications.

The exact process Lyten uses to convert greenhouse gases into graphene is proprietary and not publicly disclosed. What is known is that it is a non-combustion, non-polluting method that transforms methane into solid carbon with hydrogen as a byproduct. The rest, we can deduce from their patents.

Patents on carbon materials

The company lists more than 550 granted or pending patents, most of them in carbon materials synthesis and reactor design:

• US9862606B1 (filed in 2017) describes a catalyst-free method for thermal cracking of hydrocarbon gases into highly ordered and high surface carbon nanoparticles (i.e. graphene, nano-onions) at a rate of up to 200 g/hr.

• US9862602B1 (filed in 2017) describes the design of a continuous flow reactor for catalyst-free thermal cracking of hydrocarbons into carbon nanoparticles and hydrogen gas.

• US9767992B1 (filed in 2017) describes the design of a microwave plasma reactor that allows the production of different carbon allotropes (i.e., graphene, nano-onions, nanotubes, graphite, fullerene).1

• US12320008B2 (filed in 2023) describes a pulsed microwave reactor design for producing covetic materials (i.e. carbon-metal composites) made out of graphene nanoplatelets and metals, such as aluminum or copper (Figure 4).

• US12479730B1 (filed in 2024) describes a method of producing oxidized carbon allotropes with up to 10 atomic percent content.

What is 3D Graphene™?

Judging by its patents and published images, Lyten appears to be using a catalyst-free plasma-based reactor approach to produce carbon nanomaterials from methane. The released images (Figure 5) show that the company has a reasonable control of the carbon morphology. However, this control is not translating to a pure monolayer graphene.2

Lyten’s proprietary 3D Graphene is a complex ‘‘soup’’ of carbon nanomaterials: few-layer graphene (i.e., several layers of graphene; up to 15 according to one of their patents), thin graphite, amorphous carbon, fullerenes and others. This results in a hierarchical structure full of pores and crevices that can be tuned using process parameters (i.e., temperature, pressure, etc.).

Therefore Lyten’s super material is not pure graphene. It is also not pure graphite. Instead, it it occupies a middle ground between the two, has in-between properties, and is structured in such a way to have a high-enough surface area to be able to mix well with sulfur (for batteries) and other materials.

Manufacturing scale is critical

Lyten’s strategy is unusual in the battery industry. Rather than starting with a single product, the company has built its business around a materials platform. However, the success of this strategy ultimately depends on one critical factor: scale.

Producing complex carbon materials with consistent properties is notoriously difficult. For Lyten’s model to work, its reactors must be able to manufacture large volumes of 3D Graphene™ at low cost while maintaining tight control over morphology and quality between production batches.

If the company succeeds, it could unlock new applications for graphene-like carbon materials across energy storage, structural materials, and electronics. If it fails, the technology may remain limited to niche, high-value applications.

The acquisition of Northvolt’s assets gives Lyten an industrial infrastructure and an opportunity to test whether its materials platform can scale beyond the laboratory.

In the next article, we examine Lyten’s Li-S in detail and evaluate whether this long-promised technology can finally overcome the limitations that have held Li-S back for decades.

That’s all for now — until next time! 🔋

If you enjoyed reading this piece, consider sharing and subscribing to Lithium Horizons. It helps support future articles on materials powering the energy transition.

Share

Subscribe now

Subscribe now

For much of the past two years, the battery industry has endured a ‘‘lithium winter’’. After the mania of 2022 saw prices peak at over €70,000 per ton, the market faced a steep correction amid inventory overhangs, slowing (though still positive) EV growth, and a flood of new lepidolite capacity in China that crushed the spot market. By mid-2025, lithium carbonate bottomed out near €10,000–€12,000 per ton, forcing high-cost miners to pause projects.

That cycle may now be turning, not because demand suddenly surged, but because Beijing has decided that deflation has gone far enough. On January 9, 2026, it issued Announcement No. 2, slashing VAT export rebates from 9% to 6%, effective April 1, with a total phase-out by January 1, 2027. This represents a massive hit to profitability. In an industry where net margins for second-tier exporters often hover around 5%, a 3% cut is enough to decide a company’s fate.1

Before that, in December 2025, China tightened the regulatory oversight of lithium mines and cancelled 27 mining licenses in Yichun, Jiangxi. While the number sounds alarming, the reality is that this move was more of a ‘‘clean-up’’ and consolidation operation. Most of these permits were inactive and many of the mines operated under “ceramic clay” or “limestone” permits to bypass the stricter oversight required for strategic minerals, such as lithium. Beijing is effectively closing these loopholes and forcing a transition from disorderly expansion to industrial discipline.

These policies triggered a rapid response across the market, with buyers accelerating purchases and inventory levels dropping ahead of implementation deadlines. In just the first six weeks of 2026, prices have rallied roughly 30%, currently stabilizing near €18,000 per ton (Figure 1).

Taken together, these developments suggest that China is placing a structural floor under lithium pricing; we have likely seen the lowest levels of this cycle.

Read more

Subscribe now

In September 2020, Tesla hosted its highly anticipated Battery Day. Led by Elon Musk and Drew Baglino, the event outlined a grand plan to rewrite the economics of lithium-ion batteries and unlock a 25,000 USD electric vehicle (Figure 1).

Five years after Battery Day, Tesla’s vision proved directionally right but far harder to manufacture than its timelines suggested. While Tesla successfully industrialized certain manufacturing innovations, many core breakthroughs in materials and cell design remain difficult to scale.

This article examines what Tesla’s Battery Day got right, where execution fell short, and what those outcomes reveal about the battery industry.

NOTE: You can watch the full Battery Day event on Youtube. The transcript of the event can be read here and here.

The original promise

Tesla’s thesis was straightforward: to build a truly affordable EV, battery manufacturing had to be vertically integrated and radically redesigned.

The Battery Day set two headline targets:

1. Scale: 100 GWh of battery production by the mid-2020s and 3 TWh by 2030.

2. Cost: A 56% reduction in pack-level costs.

To achieve this, Tesla presented five interconnected innovations:

1. The 4680 ‘‘tabless’’ format

Shifting from a standard 2170 cylindrical cell to a larger 4680 format (i.e., 46 mm diameter, 80 mm height), Tesla could use fewer cells per pack and larger electrodes, resulting in cheaper assembly. The claim was that this format could deliver 5x more energy and 6x more power per cell.

To solve the heat issues, which are common in larger cells, Tesla introduced a ‘‘tabless’’ design (Figure 2), where the electrode’s entire edge conducts current, lowering resistance and improving thermal dissipation.1 This was also supposed to help in achieving a higher production throughput, since there would be no stopping for traditional tab welding steps.

The cell form factor change was expected to allow for a 14% USD/kWh reduction at the battery-pack level.

2. Dry electrode manufacturing

Conventional electrode coating relies on liquid solvent-based slurries (i.e., wet process or coating) and massive drying ovens to evaporate said solvents after coating (Figure 3). By using a dry powder-to-film process (i.e., dry process or coating), Tesla aimed to eliminate solvents, cut factory footprint tenfold and lower energy consumption.

The end goal was a high-speed continuous-motion production line capable of ~20 GWh/year; a massive increase in production output considering that state-of-the-art wet process lines offer ~3 GWh/year per line.

This manufacturing innovation was supposed to enable an additional 18% USD/kWh reduction at the battery pack level.

3. Silicon-rich anode

To boost energy density, Tesla proposed replacing most graphite with raw metallurgical silicon, which would help increase the range by 20% at a cost of only 1.20 USD/kWh of anode material. Since silicon changes its volume by up to 400% during charge-discharge cycles, its particles crack and lose electrical contact with each other. To mitigate this, Tesla proposed wrapping silicon in an ion-conductive polymer and using ‘‘elastic’’ binders (Figure 4).

Read more

Subscribe now

Sodium-ion batteries have moved onto the mainstream technology radar. MIT Technology Review named sodium-ion one of its 2026 Breakthrough Technologies, reflecting the growing commercial relevance. The industry has decisively moved beyond proof-of-concept demonstrations and into the early adoption phase, where the technology is being tested at scale across real operating environments.

As the global economy accelerates the batterization of anything that can be batterized, it is becoming increasingly clear that no single battery chemistry will dominate all use cases.1 Instead, the future is likely to be multi-chemistry, with different battery technologies optimized for different applications. The key question, then, is what position can sodium-ion batteries secure within that future and where do they offer a meaningful advantage over established lithium-ion technologies.

Sodium vs lithium

Sodium-ion (Na-ion) battery cells closely mirror lithium-ion (Li-ion) batteries in their overall architecture. Both use a cathode and an anode separated by an electrolyte, through which ions shuttle back and forth in a so-called rocking chair mechanism.

The key difference lies in the charge carrier: lithium ions are replaced by sodium ions. Because sodium ions are larger, different electrode materials are required. Commercial Na-ion batteries therefore rely on hard carbon anodes, instead of graphite, and employ several cathode chemistries, including layered oxides, polyanion compounds, and Prussian blue analogues.

This familiar cell architecture allows sodium-ion batteries to be manufactured on existing lithium-ion production lines with modest modifications, shortening scale-up time and reducing capital expenditure.

Moreover, Na-ion batteries benefit from two structural cost advantages:

1. Abundant, lower-cost precursor materials, practically eliminating exposure to volatile lithium, nickel, and cobalt prices.

2. Aluminum current collectors on both electrodes, eliminating copper on the anode side.

Together, these factors shift the bill of materials towards a lower cost per kWh compared with conventional Li-ion. In theory, Na-ion cells could be up to ~30% cheaper. In practice, however, current Na-ion cell production costs are around 50–60 EUR/kWh, roughly on par with lithium iron phosphate (LFP), due to immature supply chains and limited manufacturing scale.2

Performance snapshot

Na-ion battery performance depends heavily on cathode chemistry. Commercial Na-ion cells typically deliver ~100–150 Wh/kg and ~200–300 Wh/l, below mainstream LFP energy density but sufficient for applications where energy density is not critical (Figure 1).

Read more

Subscribe now

In late 2023, the global energy market was shaken when China, which is responsible for refining more than 90% of the world’s graphite into battery-grade anodes, announced export controls on the mineral. While the world has been obsessing over lithium, a quieter and arguably more dangerous crisis was unfolding.

The West has poured hundreds of billions of dollars into electric vehicles and battery gigafactories. Yet it remains almost entirely dependent on a single country for one material that no lithium-ion battery can function without: graphite.

Often overshadowed by its flashier peers (e.g., lithium and nickel), graphite is the workhorse of the battery industry. Every lithium-ion battery, from smartphones to grid-scale energy storage, relies on graphite as the dominant anode material.1 Roughly 95% of the anode material in today’s batteries is graphite and, by weight, a battery cell contains up to ten times more graphite than lithium (Figure 1). Without graphite, lithium-ion batteries simply would not work.

And batteries are only part of the story. Around 40% of global graphite consumption goes into steelmaking. It is also used in high-temperature crucibles, dry lubricants, conductive brushes for electric motors, rocket nozzles, heat shields, and, most famously, pencils. From the furnaces of the steel age to the batteries of the electric age, graphite has remained indispensable.

Geopolitical considerations

Graphite’s supply chain is far more concentrated than lithium’s, creating a strategic vulnerability that is only now being fully appreciated.

Today, China controls nearly every critical link:

• >70% of global natural graphite mining (Figure 2)

• ~95% of the synthetic graphite production

• >90% of battery-grade anode processing

This concentration gives China immense geopolitical leverage. In late 2023, Beijing introduced permit requirements for certain graphite exports. In October 2025, these measures escalated with Announcement No. 58, targeting not just material exports, but also the specialized furnaces, equipment, and technical know-how required to manufacture high-performance anodes.2

Although these restrictions were temporarily suspended in December 2025, the suspension expires in November 2026. The West now has less than a year to build meaningful domestic capacity before the supply is once again constrained.

It raises an uncomfortable question: what if the energy transition isn’t limited by lithium, but by the same material found in your pencil?

In this article, we examine:

• Why graphite is indispensable to lithium-ion batteries

• The processing technologies China is protecting

• Graphite projects emerging outside of China

• Potential alternatives that could weaken the graphite monopoly

Let’s dive in! 🔋

Read more

Subscribe now

Not long ago, forecasts painted a very different picture of the battery energy storage system (BESS) landscape. Graphs like the one in Figure 1 predicted that by 2030 LFP (lithium iron phosphate) would claim around 40% of the market, while nickel-rich chemistries such as NMC (lithium nickel manganese cobalt oxide) and NCA (lithium nickel cobalt aluminum oxide) would still hold more than 20%.

Fast-forward to 2023, and the reality looks very different: LFP already accounted for roughly 80% of new storage deployments, NMC survives mainly in legacy installations, and NCA has all but vanished from the sector.

This rise of LFP owes much to the scale and momentum of China’s battery industry and is a sharp reminder of how quickly market dynamics can overturn even the most confident forecasts. Still, patterns are emerging, and by studying them we can make informed (though humble) guesses about what lies ahead.

Read more

This past week brought exciting updates on fast-charging advancements: Farasis unveiled optimization software to boost charging efficiency, BYD introduced a new ultra-fast charging platform capable of adding hundreds of kilometers of range in minutes, and PULSETRAIN secured fresh funding to advance its AI-driven pulse-charging technology for longer-lasting batteries.

As competition intensifies and investment surges, the race to perfect fast-charging technology is overshadowed by Europe’s struggling battery production capabilities, with over 30% of announced projects facing delays or cancellations. However, geopolitical shifts and Brussels’ renewed focus signal a push to streamline policies and resurge local manufacturing.

Let's dive in! 🔋

Lithium Horizons is a reader-supported publication. For deeper insights, including in-depth analysis, the latest developments, and expert insights into the battery, energy, and materials industries, subscribe below.

Subscribe now

Ten Key Industry Developments

1. Farasis Energy launched an advanced simulation software that optimizes battery cell design for fast charging. This tool enables ultra-fast charging—up to 6C for LFP batteries and 5C for ternary cathode batteries, both in pouch format. By using a Reduced Order Modeling (ROM) approach, it slashes simulation times from 8-10 hours to just 10 seconds. (Read more)

   Commentary: The tool tackles one of the biggest hurdles to electric vehicle adoption: charging time. It remains to be seen if the same benefits apply to other battery cell formats.

   ---

2. BYD has introduced its innovative "Super E-Platform," a 1,000V architecture enabling ultra-fast charging at 1MW. Debuting in the Han L and Tang L models in China starting April, BYD plans to support this with over 4,000 ultra-fast charging stations nationwide. (Read more)

   Commentary: This technology allows EVs to gain approximately 400 kilometers of range in just five minutes, rivaling the speed of refueling gasoline vehicles.

   

   ---

3. The European Commission has approved Spain’s €699 million state aid plan to construct 1.8 GWh of utility-scale energy storage. Partially funded by the European Regional Development Fund, the scheme provides direct grants to support projects that enhance grid stability and integrate renewable energy sources. (Read more)

   Commentary: In line with EU’s energy transition goals, this funding will allow Spain to continue increasing the penetration of renewable energy sources into its power grid.

   ---

4. CATL is pushing its second generation sodium-ion battery development to surpass 200 Wh/kg and discharge normally at -40°C. Their first generation sodium-ion battery, unveiled in 2021, hit 160 Wh/kg and was able to discharge at -20°C retaining over 90% of its capacity. Second generation is slated to be mass produced from 2027 onward. (Read more)

   Commentary: In theory, sodium-ion batteries are direct competitors to LFP due to their better performance at low temperatures, fast charge capabilities and lower cost. In reality, more development is needed.

   

   ---

5. Theion, a German startup specializing in lithium-sulfur batteries, secured €15 million in a Series-A funding on March 20, 2025. These batteries promise over 1,000 Wh/kg, while costing one-third as much as traditional lithium-ion batteries. The funds will support the transition from small coin cells to larger pouch cells for electric vehicles, aviation, and energy storage. (Read more)

   Commentary: Lithium-sulfur batteries could be three-times as energy dense as today’s lithium-ion batteries. Main bottleneck to their commercialization is poor cycle life. It is unclear if Theion has managed to overcome it.

   ---

6. Munich-based PULSETRAIN raised €6.1 million in seed funding to advance its AI-driven pulse-charging battery tech. It extends EV battery life by 80% and is targeted for two-wheelers and commercial vehicles first, with plans to scale across multiple sectors by the late 2020s. (Read more)

   Commentary: Balancing fast charging with battery thermal management is the key to enabling faster electric vehicle adoption. PULSETRAIN promises to do exactly that.

   

   ---

7. Xiaomi is bolstering its European battery research by hiring at least five senior executives from BMW. This move includes appointing Rudolf Dittrich, a 15-year BMW veteran, to lead its planned EV R&D center in Munich, Germany. (Read more)

   Commentary: As European automotive industry faces unprecedented challenges, Chinese players are stepping in with a strong ability to attract top-tier talent.

   ---

8. SK On will supply Nissan with 100 GWh of U.S.-made, high-nickel EV batteries from 2028-2033 in a $661 million deal, powering 1 million midsize EVs from Nissan’s upgraded Canton, Mississippi plant. (Read more)

   Commentary: This partnership came as a result of U.S subsidy policies, shifting Nissan from its previous Chinese supplier, AESC, to enhance eligibility under the Inflation Reduction Act.

   

   ---

9. France-based Novacium has developed third generation of its silicon-anode battery that successfully surpassed 1,000 cycles with over 3,000 mAh capacity and 80% retention. The cells deliver 18% more capacity than traditional graphite benchmark batteries. (Read more)

   Commentary: Silicon-based batteries are promising for their potential to store more energy than commercial batteries, but they usually suffer from poor cycle life. Novacium has reached an important milestones with 1,000 cycles.

   ---

10. Samsung SDI is raising $1.38 billion via a rights offering to expand its Hungary plant to 40 GWh/year, fund a $3.5 billion GM joint venture for a 36 GWh/year battery plant in Indiana by 2027, and invest $350 million in solid-state battery lines in South Korea. (Read more)

    Commentary: Samsung SDI has been losing market share to Chinese battery giants. This is part of a larger strategy to regain its dominance.

Share

Paper of the Week

A Nature Energy study forecasts Europe’s battery demand to exceed 1 TWh annually by 2030, outpacing domestic production despite ambitious growth plans. Using probabilistic modeling, researchers project a median self-sufficiency rate of just 27% by 2030, with Asian companies likely dominating production capacity due to their early investments.

The analysis clearly shows the need for accelerated battery factory construction and better industrial policies to bolster Europe’s battery ecosystem, warning that without urgent action, the region risks heavy reliance on imports as electric vehicle adoption surges.

On the Go

Michael Barnard of Redefining Energy Tech interviewed Mark O'Malley, Leverhulme Professor of Power Systems at Imperial College London, about the renewable energy transition. Their discussion focused on shifting to an inverter-driven grid, which introduces technical challenges in balancing supply and demand while ensuring stability. A key issue is optimizing grid-following inverters, which dominate today, versus grid-forming inverters, which can independently set voltage and frequency.

Read More

Thank you for reading! We appreciate your engagement and invite you to subscribe for more updates. Please share your thoughts and feedback in the comments below. If there's a specific topic you'd like us to explore in future editions, feel free to let us know in the comments. Your input helps us tailor our content to better meet your interests.

Subscribe now

Share Lithium Horizons

Subscribe now

In light of Northvolt’s official bankruptcy earlier this month and the geopolitical changes since Trump took power, I believe it’s an opportune moment to revisit the topic of European competitiveness.

Last year, I wrote an article on this very issue, analyzing the market capitalization of various companies. The findings were sobering: European companies were nowhere to be seen in the Top 10. I concluded that piece by proposing measures to help Europe reclaim its competitive standing.

In my analysis I wrote:

‘‘The International Energy Agency chief, Fatih Birol, proposed that Europe needs ‘’a new industrial master plan’’. Europe needs exactly less of that. Europe has been very good at proposing plans, but very poor in executing these plans. Europe holds 38% more cleantech patents than the USA and twice more than China, yet these patents are not seeing the light of the day.’’ — Europe’s Technological Stagnation

At the time, I argued that Europe faces significant challenges in execution—specifically, in translating its innovations into successful commercial enterprises. I concluded the article by emphasizing that this issue was of strategic importance.

Read more

This week, we focus on the European Union's efforts to catch up in the global battery race. The industry is undergoing a significant shift as Chinese LFP cells become commoditized amid stiffening competition, redirecting attention to Europe's struggling battery sector.

The recent bankruptcy of Northvolt, a once promising Swedish battery manufacturer, has sent shockwaves through the industry. As Europe grapples with this setback, Chinese battery giants and Tesla are seizing the opportunity to expand their footprint.

Let's dive in! 🔋

Read more

Let's dive in! 🔋

Read more

Let's dive in! 🔋

Read more

Let's dive in! 🔋

Read more

Let's dive in! 🔋

Read more

Subscribe now

‘‘The 4680 is going to fail and never be successful.’’

― Robin Zeng, CATL Founder and Chairman

You've likely heard all the hype surrounding Tesla's 4680 battery cells. Introduced during Tesla's Battery Day in 2020, the 4680 cell format promises higher energy content and power capability. Four years later, this battery format has only been integrated into some Tesla vehicles produced at Gigafactory Texas, such as the Model Y and the Cybertruck.

The production of 4680 cells has encountered significant challenges. There have been rumors that Tesla has been recalling Cybertrucks equipped with these 4680 cells due to an issue termed "Cell Side Dent Induced Core Collapse." Additionally, CATL's founder, Robin Zeng, has publicly expressed skepticism about this battery format, stating outright that it will never work. Even Elon himself was on the verge of scrapping the project altogether. Nevertheless, it seems that Tesla has tapped China's Ningbo Ronbay New Energy and Suzhou Dongshan Precision Manufacturing to help reduce materials costs as it ramps up production of 4680 battery cells.

Tesla has been attempting to scale up the production of their 4680 cells for the past four years. According to their public announcements, in September 2024, they stated that they had produced their 100 millionth 4680 cell. Prior to that, in June 2024, they announced the production of their 50 millionth cell. This means that within a span of three months, they produced 50 million cells, equating to an annual production rate of 200 million cells. Given that each cell is estimated to have 87 Wh of energy, this translates to 17.4 GWh of 4680 cells produced per year.1 This is enough to quip 141 463 Cybertrucks with batteries.2

This is a promising achievement. But why is Tesla even considering the 4680 cells? Why go through all this trouble of introducing a new cell format?

Read more

Let's dive in! 🔋

Read more

Subscribe now

“Space, the final frontier… to boldly go where no man has gone before.”

— Captain James T. Kirk, Star Trek

Just as Captain Kirk dreamed of exploring the unknown, engineers dream of powering spacecraft for unknown environments. Space exploration often involves missions to some of the universe’s most inhospitable regions, making robotic spacecraft essential. These spacecraft require reliable power sources, typically provided by energy generators such as photovoltaic solar arrays or radioisotope thermoelectric generators. However, energy generation alone is not always sufficient, particularly during peak power demands. For this reason, energy generators are usually paired with energy storage systems, such as batteries.

Batteries can be categorized as either primary or secondary. Primary batteries are designed for a single use, providing power without recharging, which makes them ideal for space missions where no additional energy generation or storage is available. Examples of planetary probes that used lithium–sulfur dioxide (Li–SO₂) primary batteries include the Galileo and Cassini spacecraft.

Conversely, secondary batteries are rechargeable (e.g., lithium-ion; Figure 1), allowing them to undergo multiple charge–discharge cycles. This capability makes them suitable for extended space missions that require long-term, sustainable energy storage. The European Space Agency's experimental Proba-1 Earth-observation mission in 2001 was the first to use rechargeable lithium-ion batteries in space.

What constraints do batteries face in extreme environments? How do they differ from those used in everyday applications such as smartphones or electric vehicles? How are they designed, and who manufactures them? These are some of the key questions addressed in this article.

We begin by examining the harsh conditions batteries must endure in space, followed by a brief history of batteries used in space missions, along with their performance requirements and design considerations. We conclude with a discussion of spacecraft designed for Europa missions and an overview of companies that manufacture batteries specifically for space applications.

Let's dive in! 🔋

NOTE: If you are reading this in your email client, the text may be clipped due to its length. Click on "View entire message" at the bottom of your email to read the whole article, or open it in your browser or Substack app.

Extreme conditions

Energy storage requirements for space exploration vary depending on the destination and the nature of the mission. Nevertheless, these systems must consistently withstand a range of severe environmental conditions such as extreme temperatures, radiation, microgravity, and vibration, all while providing sufficient power and energy output.

To appreciate the severity of these conditions, consider the planet Venus. Landing a rover on its surface would require an energy storage system capable of functioning at approximately 500 °C under about 90 atm of pressure. These conditions are roughly 20 times higher in temperature and 90 times greater in pressure than the standard operating limits of commercial lithium-ion battery systems.

Extreme pressures pose significant challenges for the structural design of battery packs. While moderate pressure can improve interfacial contact between the layers of a battery cell, excessive pressure can hinder ion transport, ultimately reducing battery cycle life.

Standard lithium-ion batteries operate optimally between 10 °C and 40 °C. Temperatures outside this range result in degraded performance. At low temperatures, increased electrolyte viscosity and slowed reaction kinetics raise internal resistance and elevate the risk of electrical shorts. At high temperatures, electrolyte degradation, separator melting, and eventual cathode decomposition can occur. The release of oxygen during cathode breakdown can initiate thermal runaway, leading to catastrophic battery failure.1

Beyond temperature and pressure, radiation is another critical factor. Earth's magnetosphere protects the planet from much of this harmful radiation, but once outside it, spacecraft are exposed to intense irradiation without adequate protection. Radiation exposure can alter material properties, leading to unpredictable and often degraded behavior (Figure 2).

Ionizing radiation, such as gamma rays, can damage liquid organic electrolytes by generating free radicals that react with other components within the battery cell. Radiation can also induce cross-linking in polymer binders, compromising the structural integrity of electrodes. Additionally, it may alter the pore structure of polymer separators, affecting their wetting behavior. Neutron or ion irradiation induces defects in the crystal structure of materials. Collectively, these effects can reduce battery capacity, shorten cycle life, modify the solid-electrolyte interface, and increase internal cell resistance.

Mechanical stresses such as vibration, acceleration, and impacts are additional considerations, particularly during liftoff or landing. Vibration can compromise interconnections, including electrode-to-tab welds or terminal-to-busbar connections within a battery module or pack.

Understanding these environmental challenges helps explain why space battery development has always involved trade-offs between energy density, cycle life, and reliability.

Read more

Let's dive in! 🔋

Read more