With SOS at 770 mph its closer to 4000 than 3000 mph; but I agree - neither is necessary.

Efficiently and qualitatively analyzed, it is the better solution and far less prone to failure; but all that is bad for business because it requires far less preventive and corrective maintenance.

"...LLTO can improve the energy density, power density, charging rate, safety, and cycle life of batteries..." Can? or shall improve???

I can already say that for my BEV and it is far more efficient and less expensive than all that H2-junk will ever be.

SO WHAT! Does that make them more efficient or cheaper?

The two most important factors to determine a good battery are the right chemistry and the structural design / architecture. By no means can this be achieved by adhering to 2D structures. A 3D structure is the right way to go and this can be achieved with 3D printers only. Adhering to 2D structures will benefit only slight improvements. The real breakthrough will be achieved only with 3D architectures and 3D printing. I'm convinced that 3D printing will revolutionize battery production.

The oceans are still teeming with life; but for how long? I'm extremely doubtful that the oceans will be sustainable to life for long as they are being used for disposal of garbage of any kind.

@ mahonj Your assumption for today's batteries is certainly correct but batteries of "tomorrow" will certainly cope with such a virulent environment.

Sorry to contradict you but it's best not to pollute at all. Of course that is impossible - however, it is possible to minimize pollution to such a level where nature can still cope with it and that is certainly not the solution which you have suggested.

It's best to use proper materials that don't build dendrites. It spares the effort to suppress or remedy dendrite growth.

Some five decades ago smoking was very popular and admirably attractive. All the adverse effects of smoking were not common knowledge then as they are today. Despite all of the facts known about smoking today, there are still plenty of mentally incapacitated women and men around that virtually devour nicotine. The "god" of combustibles must be proud to have so many steadfast disciples.

Hypedrogen and fool cells are a futile attempt of the oil-mafia to stay in business and avoid the trip to death-row.

This achievement will surely provoke objections of all "hypedrogen" and fool cell proponents.

@ Roger Pham Presently, there are magneto-caloric devices running at an efficiency approx. 35% higher than Carnot devices. The theoretical limit is around 70% higher than Carnot. Research is striving to improve to at least 50% better than Carnot. Irregardless, if you like or not, Carnot devices are marching on death row.

@ Roger Pham An old known technology - magneto-caloric (discovered 1880) - is becoming a heated competition to all devices based on the Carnot-Principle. It does not use poisonous gases or fossils, just plain water and is almost twice as efficient as any Carnot device. As far as the elementary structure (design) of the implemented alloy material is concerned, there is still room for improvement to further enhance efficiency. The resulting achievement will be highly efficient and absolutely silent using only an electric current to power it. It'll replace our fridges, deep freezers, and heat pumps that can be used to heat our vehicles and homes. 3D solid state cells printed with 3D-printers will dominate the world market within the next 10 years for just about any battery application with negligible charging times. Really, who needs FCs and excessive H² tech?

@ soltesza "The patented design of the electrolysis cells allows system efficiencies of more than 80%". 80.01% is also More than 80%. What is the actual efficiency rating? Why was is it not stated? However, a rating around 80% is not overwhelming. Normally, efficiency of electrolysis is around 70 %. FCs have an efficiency of 60%. Reconverting H² derived at 70% to electricity =s 70% x 60% or 42%. Reconverting H² derived at 80% to electricity =s 80% x 60% or 48%. The loss in efficiency is still over 50% and that is not, in my eyes, to be seen as admirable. That is an improvement in efficiency of 6% compared to conventional electrolysis. The pathway over batteries is still far, far better.

Well, for the unknowing, a good-sounding half truth leaves a better impression than disillusioning truth; that's good advertising.

I'm convinced that Tesla's first attempt with a two-gear tranny was a better approach than their final solution. A low gear for tugging a trailer (up to 60 mph) causes far less strain on the battery. I would welcome a two gear tranny as standard equipment on every BEV.

It's great to note the progress being achieved with Mg. Mg holds far greater rewards than Li additionally to being far safer and cheaper and more energy dense. No cobalt necessary to prevent dendrite growth. It is also more easily recovered in a recycling process. Implementing a correct elementary structure ensures structural integrity, high contact surface and subsequent low internal resistance enabling high charge and discharge currents and low charging times without detrimental temperature rise.

@ mahonj Your calculation is exceedingly optimistic. The quoted 690 MW is the peak power rating of the system which will never be achieved during transition of sunrise and sunset. The 3000 hrs. definitely lack max. sunlight radiation over a complete day.

If you really understood the law of conservation of matter and energy, you wouldn't rely on the on the results of a study that some jerks produced.

New advancements being proposed in battery technology are all based on different chemistries and materials but the cell architecture always remains the old common two-dimensional structure. The expected quantum leap will never occur until the cell architecture is changed to a three-dimensional structure. A three-dimensional structure will allow high contact surface and subsequently lower internal resistance and mass whilst increasing energy density considerably. Currently the "Lithium horse" is being flogged to death and a far better alternative - Magnesium - is being wholly ignored. Optimized 3D structures can be achieved only with 3D printers. There simply is no other way to to ensure precise reproduction of the necessary micro structures. The presently employed procedures leave the development of such structures to the chaotic reign of chance.

Give up EP. There are three categories of mental attitudes. Some people are: a) ignorant b) some are stupid c) some are just plain dumb. For someone who is ignorant, there is hope. For someone who is stupid, there is no hope. For someone who is just plain dumb, there is Trump. IOW, trying to educate dumb people is a fruitless effort. I've given up! My advice to you is to follow my example.

What a waste of green sustainable energy.

The experience that I've gained the past several years driving a BEV is unparalleled. The only maintenance incurred were as prescribed by the OEM and worn tires. Absolutely no comparison to an ICE drive. I've had to pay more attention to the expiring range after a charging session to avoid subsequent trouble which I never encountered. However, I would sincerely welcome a range increase of 2 to 3x of what is presently achievable. The simplicity, quietness and efficiency of an electric drive is simply utterly unbeatable compared to an ICE. After a car wash, an ICE still stinks during operation; a BEV never does - neither before nor afterwards. I don't need an ICE. I think it has done its job and more than sufficient damage. Just let it die and make room for a more than proper replacement. RIP ICE