Welcome to /c/UpliftingNews (rules), a dedicated space where optimism and positivity converge to bring you the most heartening and inspiring stories from around the world. We strive to curate and share content that lights up your day, invigorates your spirit, and inspires you to spread positivity in your own way. This is a sanctuary for those seeking a break from the incessant negativity and rage (e.g. schadenfreude) often found in today's news cycle. From acts of everyday kindness to large-scale philanthropic efforts, from individual achievements to community triumphs, we bring you news—in text form or otherwise—that gives hope, fosters empathy, and strengthens the belief in humanity's capacity for good, from a quality outlet that does not publish bad copies of copies of copies.
Here in /c/UpliftingNews, we uphold the values of respect, empathy, and inclusivity, fostering a supportive and vibrant community. We encourage you to share your positive news, comment, engage in uplifting conversations, and find solace in the goodness that exists around us. We are more than a news-sharing platform; we are a community built on the power of positivity and the collective desire for a more hopeful world. Remember, your small acts of kindness can be someone else's big ray of hope. Be part of the positivity revolution; share, uplift, inspire!
This is a content farm/copy of a copy (rule c)1), but I won't remove this due to the immense momentum this post has. Additionally, the linked ScienceDirect paper appears unrelated.
Instead, I'd recommend one of the following high-quality sources:
https://advanced.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/aenm.202506734 (paywalled but has abstract, and your local library may have access) —thanks SaveTheTuaHawk@lemmy.ca!
Hmm, there's no discussion of what the energy density is compared to lithium-based battery chemistries. In articles about new battery designs, that usually means it's pretty bad. This will have limited value if you need 10x battery volume/mass for equivalent energy storage, primarily only for grid-scale systems, which the article specifically mentions near the end:
The development arrives as the international race to develop iron-based flow batteries accelerates, with the technology increasingly viewed as the most viable successor to lithium-ion for large-scale grid storage.
I'm guessing these batteries are heavy and bulky compared to an equivalent LiPo. Probably safer than the molten sodium grid storage systems, so that's good.
On the other hand, while lithium may be trading at 80x the price of iron on the market, you're going to need a lot more iron than you would lithium for each unit of equivalent energy storage, plus it's going to take up more space (real estate). The eventual storage system will probably be somewhat cheaper than an equivalent lithium system, but won't fit everywhere, especially developed urban areas due to larger space requirements, and definitely won't be 80x cheaper, even if the iron/lithium price ratio remains the same. It won't replace lithium batteries in mobile applications (vehicles, electronics, etc) or anywhere that physical space is at a premium.
The article is written to sound overly positive about this protoype, with a sensationalized headline, while not mentioning the drawbacks, and just hoping that the reader is to too ignorant to notice.
*Edit: Also, the picture attached to the article is bunk. Flow batteries require a pumping system to circulate the electrolyte fluid, which comes with a long-term.maintenance cost:
[...] all flow batteries include auxiliary components such as pumps and valves, which do require a regular maintenance cycle.
Energy density isn't really a problem for grid-wide storage. Just build huge electrolyte tanks under the solar panels, voilà, generation and storage.
If they're really stable, they'll probably be placed all over the place and be a huge help in managing demand.
It won't fit all use cases, you'll want batteries with better density for anything mobile, but there's definitely also a huge use case for this type of battery.
The mw scale container lithium batteries could fit at most substations for a decentralized storage system without needing much if any new land. These kind of lower density batteries wouldn't work as well for that. They'd need more land and couldn't go in as many places.
The main benefit of these kinds of batteries is that you mainly just need to increase storage tanks to increase capacity. So price is pretty flat compared to the linear increase for lithium ones. Above a certain size, they are cheaper. Plus ~15k charge cycles vs 1k. Easy to recycle the electrolyte. No fire hazard because it's all disolved in water. But bigger space footprint.
Redox flow batteries already exist, are proven and in use as grid-storage.
The current tech appears to be mostly based on vanadium and using iron instead makes it much less problematic in case of spill and handling and more importantly cheaper to build.
Energy density is low, but is totally no issue when we talk about grid-storage solutions.
To put a number (from the linked Wikipedia article) here: iron-iron based redosx flow batteries have an average fluid energy density of 20 Wh/l.
Or in other words: you need 500 litres to save 1 kWh of electric energy.
Low price and durability (in terms of cycles) look very promising!
there’s no discussion of what the energy density is compared to lithium-based battery chemistries
Energy density is not a universal concern for low cost batteries. Not every energy storage device is for a car or phone.
Sure, but as I already pointed out above, it's very relevant for an article titled:
China develops iron battery 80 times cheaper than lithium that can last 16 years
This is a misrepresentation of the facts. While iron may be 80x cheaper than lithium, the iron battery built with this design will not be 80x cheaper than an equivalent lithium battery, because it will require substantially more material, as well as additional mechanical complexity (liquid pumping).
You're responding as if I'm criticizing the technology. I'm not. I'm criticizing the sensationalist writing of this article that is intentionally manipulative of the reader.
Every time I see a sensational headline like this, I wonder, what's the catch?, because certainly I would have heard about it before it's finalized.
Thanks for providing said catch.
In articles about new battery designs, that usually means it’s pretty bad
In case of iron it's inherently really, really bad due physical size of iron atoms. But that's okay for power grid balancing and solar farm storage. And I really doubt the 80x cheaper value too - this might be cost of materials, but the end cost of battery is dominated by other things.
Meanwhile the US has a president who doesn't understand how magnets work.
I get you, the guy's an idiot, but to be fair most people don't know how magnets work.
Stop doing magnets.
Inanimate objects were never meant to be attracted to each other.
Years of sticking yet no real world use found.
Wanted to join things just for a laugh? We had a tool for that it was called glue.
"Magnetism and electricity are two sides of the same coin” "attraction decreases with the inverse square of distance” - statements dreamed up by the utterly deranged.
Look at what magnematicians have been demanding your respect for all this time with all the funding we have given them.
“hello I would like an invisible force please”
They have played us for absolute fools.
Yeah, I had a TA explain it in college and none of the physics 2 students understood, which to be fair, she warned us would be the case. I only understand magnetism on the practical macro scale, and most people don't even understand that.
They work like percentages
From him I learned that magnets mustn't get wet!
I never knew...
I've seen articles similar to this many, many times over many, many years, but we're still using the same battery tech as ever. Breakthroughs are good and all, but don't go ranting and raving too hard about this stuff unless it becomes viable and practical enough for either consumer or industrial applications, preferably both.
Ehhhh battery tech has been advancing quite a bit lately as we (thankfully) move away from lithium-based batteries. Grid-scale installations use a variety of battery tech these days with constant improvements being made to them. Liquid metal batteries, salt batteries, flow batteries, etc there are a lot of new options being used and developed.
On the more consumer-focused end of things, LFP batteries have surged in popularity due to their lower cost, higher reliability, and longer life. NMC batteries are also sued in some EVs. We probably won't see a replacement to lithium ion cells for consumer electronics for a while because their power density per size/weight is so good but R&D is still making progress with alternative technologies.
Yeah, for gridscale power in areas without enormously expensive land prices, cheap might beat out dense in terms of battery tech usability. Lithium is still best for applications that require energy density (EVs) but for grid storage I can see bulky, cheap, resilient/reliable batteries make more sense as a long-term investment.
I can see bulky, cheap, resilient/reliable batteries make more sense as a long-term investment.
Pump water up a hill during sunlight.
Just requires a hill that is big enough, two basins that can hold the water, and then of cause we need all the water.
Liquid metal batteries, salt batteries, flow batteries, etc there are a lot of new options being used and developed.
Ambri is already broke.
we're not using all the same battery tech today. there's sodium ion batteries which are widespread in china already today. the west is just lagging behind (again)
Ok so it's a cheaper competitor to LiFePO. Low density but that's fine for grid storage. Australia should be stoaked
Can anyone verify the post's "16 years (6,000 cycles)" claim? I have access to the paper's content and I don't see either figure. In fact, even its abstract says "more than 950 cycles".
https://advanced.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/aenm.202506734
Synergistic Design of High Steric Hindrance and Negatively Charged Anolyte Enables 6000-Cycle Stability for Alkaline All-Iron Flow Batteries
The media on this is mostly slop quoting slop.
tldr, how is this breakthrough different than than the other battery breakthroughs? I read some new battery that solves "the world’s massive energy storage needs." about once or twice a year and so for not a single one had a noteworthy followup a year later.
This tech needs years to reach practical terms.
This tech needs years to reach practical terms.
here are some older examples:
2007: https://www.technologyreview.com/2007/01/22/226911/battery-breakthrough/
2009: https://research.ibm.com/publications/lithium-air-battery-promise-and-challenges
2012: https://www.technologyreview.com/2012/10/16/183258/a123-systems-files-for-bankruptcy/
while researching I found, that apparently we had a potential real recent breakthrough though, which is actually used in a car https://electrek.co/2026/02/05/first-sodium-ion-battery-ev-debuts-game-changer/
I've waiting for this
my body is ready!
It won't scale and we'll never hear about it again
They are also developing LFTRs and have the largest stock pile of thorium on the planet.
Factorio batteries
Iron flow batteries are not in cells pictured in OP. They are in vats that fill a fuel cell to make power. Under 80% efficient, though OP claims to have broken through 75% efficiency barrier. 8 hour charge/discharge rate is good enough to be practical, but the balance of plant of fuel cell and pumps makes it not as cheap as pure iron could impress.