A solid-state battery breakthrough may be taking shape in Maryland

Skye Jacobs

Posts: 746   +15
Staff
Forward-looking: In a quiet corner of Beltsville, Maryland, a new chapter in battery technology is unfolding. Ion Storage Systems, a company that began as a university research project, has emerged as a leading contender in the race to commercialize solid-state batteries – a technology long promised but rarely delivered at scale.

After a recent visit to the company's Maryland facility, The Wall Street Journal concluded that Ion Storage Systems stands out as a company with a real chance of achieving this long-sought breakthrough. Backed by the US Department of Energy and private investors, Ion's batteries are now rolling off the production line, with early units already being tested by the Department of Defense and major electronics manufacturers.

Solid-state batteries are often described as the holy grail of energy storage. Unlike conventional lithium-ion batteries, which use a liquid electrolyte and a graphite anode, solid-state batteries replace the liquid with a solid ceramic material and often use lithium metal as the anode.

This design promises a host of benefits: higher energy density, faster charging, longer lifespan, and, crucially, greater safety. Traditional lithium-ion cells are prone to overheating and, in rare cases, catching fire. The solid ceramic separator in Ion's design is nonflammable, dramatically reducing that risk.

The technical heart of Ion's innovation lies in its unique ceramic electrolyte. Where most solid-state batteries struggle with expansion and contraction – often called "breathing" – as they charge and discharge, Ion's three-dimensional ceramic structure acts as both a separator and a buffer. The porous ceramic allows lithium ions to move efficiently between the electrodes while accommodating the physical changes that occur during cycling.

This eliminates the need for heavy compression systems, metal plates, or springs that add bulk and complexity to other solid-state designs. The result is a battery that can be packaged in thin, flexible pouches, much like today's lithium-ion cells, but with far greater performance and safety.

Manufacturing these batteries is no small feat. The ceramic layer must be produced in meticulously clean environments, using processes more akin to semiconductor fabrication than traditional battery assembly. Ion recently invested in advanced sintering furnaces to expand its ceramic production, positioning itself to scale up from pilot production to commercial volumes. The company's new 33,000-square-foot facility employs 75 people, with plans to double that number as production ramps up.

Ion's batteries have already achieved impressive technical milestones. The company's cells have achieved over 1,000 charge cycles in laboratory tests, retaining more than 80% of their capacity – a key requirement for consumer electronics and electric vehicles. Unlike many solid-state prototypes that require external pressure to maintain contact between layers, Ion's design is fully compressionless and anodeless, simplifying manufacturing and integration into existing products.

The path to commercialization is notoriously difficult in the battery industry, where many promising technologies fail to scale or meet real-world demands.

The path to commercialization is notoriously difficult in the battery industry, where many promising technologies fail to scale or meet real-world demands. Yet Ion's approach has attracted significant attention from both government and industry. The company recently secured $20 million from the Department of Energy's ARPA-E program, matched by private investment, to accelerate development and manufacturing. Collaborations with global materials companies like Saint-Gobain and technology firms such as KLA are helping Ion refine its processes and prepare for broader market entry.

Venture capital investment in solid-state battery startups has declined in recent years due to repeated setbacks across the sector, and while skepticism remains, Ion's progress is notable. Its batteries are already being evaluated for military applications, where reliability and safety are paramount, and for next-generation consumer electronics, where longer battery life and faster charging are highly valued.

If Ion can continue to meet its technical and manufacturing milestones, the implications are far-reaching. Solid-state batteries could enable electric vehicles with significantly longer range, smartphones that last days on a single charge, and even the electrification of heavy equipment and aircraft.

For the US and its allies, developing this technology domestically is also a strategic priority, offering a chance to reduce reliance on foreign battery suppliers and leapfrog competitors in the global energy transition.

Image credit: The Wall Street Journal

Permalink to story:

 
And yet another breakthrough

This one has actually passed fairly significant lab testing though and is a real business unlike many others. It's too soon to tell if they'll ultimately be successful in scaling up, but even if they can't, there is still a very significant market for high energy density wearable batteries that don't swell and also happen to be non-flammable.

Cost is the only thing that could kill this company.

 
I was commenting about being tired of "battery breakthroughs" in 2015. I feel like 99% are hoax business trying to milk subsidies from gov, just like the "green" stuff
 
This one has actually passed fairly significant lab testing though and is a real business unlike many others. It's too soon to tell if they'll ultimately be successful in scaling up, but even if they can't, there is still a very significant market for high energy density wearable batteries that don't swell and also happen to be non-flammable.

Cost is the only thing that could kill this company.
I hope they all work out. Thing is we never hear of that only the maybe
 
Unlike the rest of the tech industry.

Because the tech industry tends to make stand-alone products which you can just rush out the door. Batteries are different in that by themselves they're useless. You need to convince someone else's product to evaluate your battery, and come to the financial decision that they need to redesign their systems and retool their production lines to support it, and you need to be price competitive, and be able to meet manufacturing demand.

This is the type of thing that should be *heavily* subsidized in order to get a sustained product line going, then ease off as production ramps up. Instead, most of these advances die due to lack of sustained funding to get off the ground. Or put another way: Successful products tend to be the one's that gets billionaires attentions.
 
You need to convince someone else's product to evaluate your battery, and come to the financial decision that they need to redesign their systems and retool their production lines to support it,
This is why proprietary form factors are a bad idea. The world already has a set of widely accepted shapes and sizes of batteries, and new developments would likely be better accepted if they fit into one of those many extant slots. Instead, everyone needs to have their own thing, and even if a large company does decide to redesign their product to fit said new thing, since it is proprietary, should that supplier of the new thing shut down production, that large company is left without a battery, and needs to redesign/retool yet again in order to keep their product on the market.

I have no idea how many of the myriad miracle batteries TS reports on use their own proprietary format, or have a technology that will not fit into current form factors, but I suspect many of those "breakthroughs" so endlessly reported here fail to come to market due to their inability/refusal to conform with shapes and sizes acceptable to current manufacturers.
 
Because the tech industry tends to make stand-alone products which you can just rush out the door. Batteries are different in that by themselves they're useless. You need to convince someone else's product to evaluate your battery, and come to the financial decision that they need to redesign their systems and retool their production lines to support it, and you need to be price competitive, and be able to meet manufacturing demand.

This is the type of thing that should be *heavily* subsidized in order to get a sustained product line going, then ease off as production ramps up. Instead, most of these advances die due to lack of sustained funding to get off the ground. Or put another way: Successful products tend to be the one's that gets billionaires attentions.
No argument from me there. My only point was the entire industry hits with future breakthroughs that we don't hear about again. I'm sure you would know why better than I would.
 
I know everyone P&Ms about stories like these and how they never seem to come to fruition.

However, the way that I see it is that people never give up on improvements to batteries and continue to move forward. Failure can be thought of as success if the failure is analyzed to determine what went wrong and how that could be corrected, and then tested again, and again, and again until they find something that works...

If humans just gave up when something did not work, perhaps we would all be in bear skins and using stone knives.

Someone will work this out and someday solid state batteries and maybe even super-capacitors will come to fruition.

There's that corollary to Murphy's Law "Evey once in a while, Murphy does something right." And as Thomas Edison is thought to have said "98% of Genius is Hard Work."

I say keep going and pump more money into the research. Success is just around the corner.
 
Amen. Everyone here rolling their eyes at another article touting a battery breakthrough seems to forget that not so long ago lithium batteries didn’t exist.
"Not so long ago"?
They've been around since the 60;s, and some are still powering devices left on the moon during Apollo.
 
Amen. Everyone here rolling their eyes at another article touting a battery breakthrough seems to forget that not so long ago lithium batteries didn’t exist.
Lithium batteries have existed since the 1970's. The reason they weren't so prevalent is that lithium was, and still is, difficult to mine. Other battery types were good enough and cheap enough to be profitable. It wasn't until the 90's that portable electronics needed better run time that the then common battery types could sustain. Thus the evolution of the lithium battery.

That brings us to the present where Lithium just isn't good enough, safe enough or cost effective enough. Thus the mad dash to find the next big battery chemistry..
 
The interesting thing is that the number of obstacles to success keep getting more numerous as the articles go on. Now, size, shape, weight, etc all are factors. I guess back in the day, when the only sizes were aa, c, d, etc. that is true. However, I think that anything that does half of what these batteries promise you could adapt the project to the battery. The reality that sinks all of these things is the only that matters to most of these companies......PRICE!!!!!

I notice their current investors are the only people who always take the "price is no object" approach....DARPA, Government grants, defense department. etc. There may be something to this one since this crowd seems to be "all in" at the moment.

It also means we won't actually see it for some time to come...much like the transition from Ni-Cd to LI-Ion
 
The interesting thing is that the number of obstacles to success keep getting more numerous as the articles go on. Now, size, shape, weight, etc all are factors. I guess back in the day, when the only sizes were aa, c, d, etc. that is true. However, I think that anything that does half of what these batteries promise you could adapt the project to the battery. The reality that sinks all of these things is the only that matters to most of these companies......PRICE!!!!!

I notice their current investors are the only people who always take the "price is no object" approach....DARPA, Government grants, defense department. etc. There may be something to this one since this crowd seems to be "all in" at the moment.

It also means we won't actually see it for some time to come...much like the transition from Ni-Cd to LI-Ion
Unfortunately, the article does not mention voltage of the cells. If the voltage is the same or nearly the same as existing Li-on cells, that would be a big plus for adoption.
 
In the scheme of technology development, 60 years is a long time. From biplanes to moon landers. From smokeless powder to nuclear explosives. ENIAC to YouTube. 63 days to cross the US in 1903 to 3 days on the Interstate in 1963.
IMO, a more apt comparison would be ENIAC to a modern tablet, even though the number of years is similar to when Li-on batteries were developed.

"Long time," however, is subjective, and leaps in technology, IMO, are inherently unpredictable. That's why they take hard work.
 
Back