[molticrystal]

While it was interesting at first, by peppering inaccuracies or at best oversimplifications, it makes me doubt the veracity of the rest of the content. For example:

>Non-rechargeable batteries have no such luck. Once drained, their chemistry cannot be restored.

Rechargeable batteries have limited cycles due to problems, mainly solidification or breakdown of electrolytes that prevent restoration, but there are others like mechanical effects.

Most "Non-rechargeable batteries" can actually be restored as well in the same sense of those labeled as rechargeable ones, but usually have a much lower cycle count due to these effects. For example can usually get a few cycles from your alkaline batteries, as long as you are trickle charging them since they don't usually have good venting.

[rsfern]

Par for the course for a uni press release, unfortunately. Not picking on Stanford at all, it just seems to be a common theme

Unfortunately the paper is not open access and I don’t think there’s a preprint, but from my quick read it seems pretty competently executed. (I’m a materials scientist but not a battery researcher.)

The cool thing about this paper IMO is that they’ve found a way to make rechargeable an established battery concept that’s known for high energy density. It also seems like maybe the cathode degradation over time could be better than in conventional solid state Li-ion tech, but I’m not really sure

[JumpCrisscross]

> Not picking on Stanford at all, it just seems to be a common theme

Fair to pick on Stanford when they put out releases containing false information. That other institutions also lie isn't an excuse.

[rsfern]

Fair enough, I don’t mean to excuse this, just making it clear that I’m not singling anyone out