That website is cancerous even with an ad blocker.

Wait that's the whole article? One sentence.

ProLogium Technology has started mass production of its Gen 3.5 Lithium Ceramic Battery in Taiwan, putting an all-solid-state battery design with high energy density into Giga-level manufacturing.

A third-party test by TÜV found that ProLogium’s 185.4 Ah large-format cell reached 381 Wh/kg of gravimetric energy density and 903 Wh/L of volumetric energy density. In simple terms, the cell can store more energy for its weight and size, an advantage for electric vehicles and other applications where battery space is limited.

The cell also passed a separate test by UL Solutions under China’s GB/T 43568-2026 methodology for all-solid-state batteries. After six hours under vacuum at 120 degrees Celsius, the cell recorded less than 0.05% weight loss, compared with the standard’s maximum threshold of 0.5%.

That result allows the cell to be classified as all-solid-state under the Chinese standard. GB/T 43568-2026 has also been submitted to the International Electrotechnical Commission as a reference for international standardization.

Battery numbers meet factory scale
The bigger development is not just the cell’s performance figures but the manufacturing scale behind them. ProLogium says its Gen 3.5 battery is now in mass production at its Giga-level facility in Taiwan, moving the technology beyond laboratory and pilot-line production.

The company’s Lithium Ceramic Battery platform has been developed since 2012. ProLogium began commercial production in 2013 and says it has since shipped more than 2.4 million cells for consumer, specialty and automotive applications.

Its manufacturing process has also evolved in stages. A Sheet-by-Sheet production line began commercial operation in 2013, followed by a Roll-to-Roll line in 2017. The company’s third-generation Giga-level manufacturing platform entered operation in 2024.

That progression is important because solid-state batteries have faced a difficult transition from promising laboratory cells to reliable, high-volume manufacturing. ProLogium’s approach is to carry manufacturing knowledge, equipment, and process improvements from one battery generation to the next instead of starting over at each stage.

Same architecture, new chemistry
At the center of the platform is ProLogium’s Logithium cell architecture. It uses a ceramic separator and an edge-frame structure that extends around the electrode perimeter to help isolate potential burrs while providing sealing and insulation.

The architecture has remained in place as ProLogium has changed electrolyte chemistry and active materials. The company says this allows new battery generations to use much of the existing manufacturing foundation.

That strategy will be tested further with Gen 4, which uses a fully inorganic superfluidized electrolyte while retaining the same Logithium architecture and manufacturing process. ProLogium expects only about 10% of its existing Giga-level production line and related equipment to require modification for Gen 4 production.

Gen 4 is also designed to add an Active Safety Mechanism intended to prevent thermal runaway by stabilizing electrode active materials at high temperatures. The company is targeting applications including electric vehicles, maritime systems, aerospace, unmanned systems and data centers.

ProLogium is also building a manufacturing strategy beyond Taiwan, with France planned for scaled production and North America targeted for phased localization. The company says the model could use battery inlays produced at scale in France or Taiwan before downstream partners assemble them into cells, modules and packs closer to customers.

For now, the Gen 3.5 production milestone puts ProLogium’s solid-state battery technology on a manufacturing line rather than leaving it at the prototype stage.

Quoted the article for ya in another comment.

For comparison, li-ion 18650-size 3500mAh cells are 260Wh/kg, that is almost +50% capacity per gram but only +15% capacity per volume

Correct me if I'm wrong, but wouldn't this be great for electric commercial flights?

Any info on the cost? What the price per kWh would be?

Is that from the same website? All I see for any article on their website is a single sentence.

Still...

I understand that these things are perhaps less flammable because no electrolyte that burns, but also there's a question about efficiency, manufacturability, overheating, charge depletion in time and across cycles etc. Maybe it's not even any good

Drone batteries then

Only if power density is good enough

I'd have thought that the weight would be the deciding factor

Every percent gain in battery weight compounds insanely for commercial flight.

It is the same problem as with rocket fuel. You have to store the energy to carry the capacity to store the energy. And that's even worse for batteries because at least the rocket gets lighter as it uses its fuel. Whereas a loaded battery is basically the same weight as a loaded one.

Sure. And, given how people tend to hype stuff which never works out, it probably isn't. But, sometimes it is, so... maybe?

it's nice to find someone who gets it in the wild. i'll give you an example: 90% of clinical trials fail, and it creates a predicament: some news site grabs a headline from university press release, which is informed by a paper. paper says that maybe there is some effect in cell line, if you use some new compound, against some kind of cancer. sometimes it grabs more attention if it's a compound from common plant because of folk medicine connection. press release: university w made a compound y that kills cancer z. article: university w makes a drug for cancer z. clickbait youtube video: underdog researcher DESTROYS ALL CANCER. naturally, years pass, compound goes through extra testing and in most of cases, fails, many times even before it ever touches humans. sometimes it doesn't work, sometimes you need quarter of body mass of it to see effect, sometimes it wipes out liver, sometimes it does something else entirely. then clueless people looks back at these headlines, and ask, where is cure for cancer z, or sometimes even where is cure for all cancer. the stupid and embarrassing reality is that it never existed, because it was at best toy compound and maybe someone develops something out of it, but mostly it won't. some people take it as a sign of conspiracy that suppresses inconvenient TRUTH and there is a cure, but you can get it only from a BOLD RESEARCHER THAT THREADS WHERE NO ONE ELSE DARES. then we get clinics ran by scammers and a lot of dead people

that said, there's already a lot of things, mostly moving things, that can be electrified with current technology. it would be a nice thing to have something better, but it's not like it's strictly necessary to have it

I realise that. I'm reading that energy densities will have to be around 800wh/kg for planes to rely entirely on battery power, but there are shorter distance planes already using battery power. With how quickly solid state batteries recharge, I don't see why planes couldn't just stop more often. It's a small price to pay for zero emission flights.

For this reason, green hydrogen is likely the best bet for air transport

Or car batteries. EVs are still heavier than ICE vehicles and road wear goes up by what was it, the 4th power of axle weight? Even at the exact same capacity per volume, an increased capacity per weight is a huge advantage. Not to mention that the car itself needs to have beefier suspension, tires and brakes for more weight (even though yes, on the braking side, EVs get regen braking - they still need to be able to stop quickly if something happens to the drivetrain). Also no danger of battery fires.

If this works out AND charge/discharge rates are good AND production scales fast enough, this could be huge in a few years. Of course it might also not be.

The incredibly unbelieveable smells-like-bullshit donut battery hit an even higher Wh/kg (not by much) in the new VTT test, but there's still no guarantee that every test's been on the same type of cell. Current leading theory is that they're just taking a bunch of completely different cells to be tested and the solid state one might not be the same one that did all the other tests.

There are many ways in which planes can be different.

Smaller plane going shorter distance at a slower speed can also mean that there are more lines and lines avoiding big hubs. If a plane goes slower but closer to your destination, you may not mind!

The cost equation changes a lot if fuel is much cheaper.

Biofuel is a possibility too.

You're right, so much about our world revolves around how cheaply we can put...fucking...smoke into the air. It's maddening, but you're right.

I don't know if oil will get cheaper though, do you think it will?

Ohhh this actually seems cool. While for me size matters more than weight(heh) and this battery mainly improves on the weight but its still very cool. Its already smaller and lighter and i imagine its gonna get even better because that was what happened when lithium batteries overtook.

But that has the same emissions issue as the current fuel

Sigh....instead of short plane flights, just take a train.

Didn't we literally just establish that the power density is higher than Li-Ion?

Ultimately yes. People easily get confused between power density (power per volume), energy density(energy per volume), specific energy(energy per mass unit) and specific power(power per mass unit)

Unfortunately, train tickets are often more expensive than plane tickets. So you pay more and it takes longer.

that's energy density, maybe you can only discharge it only over 20h without damaging it or something (probably not but there are so many places where things fail). power density was not reported there

This sounds absolutely insane to me, which country do you live in?

That's a whole different debate. I tend to agree that they are less ideal, that their proponents say, but they are actually renewable. They don't add durably CO2 in the atmosphere from fossil sources. It is a very different thing. The CO2 they emit is part of a cycle. Ideally, that's also a type of emission that we cut, but it is possible to include them in a sustainable society.

By fuel, I was meaning electricity. Electricity is much cheaper than oil and I think will remain so.

Germany lol.

Ah, it appears you got Deutsche Bahned.

Do lithium batteries somehow move? Or do I just not know what solid state means in this context?

They are talking about the electrolyte - the material between the battery anode and cathode that allows the transport of lithium ions.

A normal lithium ion battery generally uses gels-like materials. Lithium hexafluorophosphate dissolved in organics is common, and is a viscous liquid.

A solid state electrolyte is basically a solid ceramic membrane that allows the ions to travel through it. Many potential benefits around stability, sustainability, and durability. Challenges around electrical contact, particularly as the battery cycles because the active materials do change volume slightly as the lithium moves between the sides of the cell.

Biofuel is a dead-end technology. Synthetic fuels from direct air capture of CO2 are about 3X as efficient in terms of energy in -> energy in fuel, while also avoiding wasting all the extra nutrients (phosphorus, potassium, nitrogen - some of which are scarce) needed for the plant to grow that give nothing in terms of energy storage and must be recaptured.

A bunch of solar panels and some direct air -> methanol plants uses far less land than corn fields for bioethanol, while also providing easy avenues to switch energy from feeding the grid to filling the tanks depending on conditions.

Can't imagine why...

CO2 is not the only emission and pollution in the high atmosphere is even more damaging than on the ground.

Synthetic fuels from direct air capture of CO2 are about 3X as efficient in terms of energy in -> energy in fuel

I have a very hard time believing it to be true, but I am always opened to an unexpected good news. Do you have a specific tech/source in mind for that claim?

Which pollution are you thinking of?

You worked in Pharma too, huh?

Well put.

there are dozens of us, dozens!! (closer to third of dozen)

wdym worked? i don't think i'll ever retire

Well incomplete combustion, which is unavoidable, produces carbon monoxide, VOCs, soot, and unburned fuel. All which would be dumped into the high atmosphere.

I was in briefly around þe time þe last MD C-level at GSK was replaced by a marketting wonk; a bunch of people I liked started trickling off, a couple got laid off, and I headed for greener pastures. Pharma wasn't my domain anyway, so I had no real career ties. I did learn a hell of a lot about drug development, and þe research process (specifically, þe business side). I was pretty young at the time and bought into þe whole "we have to charge a lot, because it's so expensive to develop drugs" until a director a couple of levels above me said, "don't feel sorry for the company. They're making plenty of money."

In a weird twist of fate, my wife, whose background was even less medical-related þan mine, found her way into þe medical device field, only she's stuck wiþ it. So I now know more þan I wanted to about med devices þan I ever þought I would, too.

I know these are bad for human health, but are they bad for the environment in these quantities and at this altitude?

Unburned fuel is an order of magnitude worse for the atmosphere than CO2. Plus you think only humans are poisoned by these things?

Unburned fuel is also an order of magnitude less in terms of volume than burned fuel. It is also something that's solvable by better combustion and optimized engines.

Humans are 'poisoned' by these things in cities where they live close to thousands of vehicles that pass a few meters away. Inside sometimes a city where this gas accumulates.

And they are not poisoned per se. They lose years of life expectancy and they get preventable diseases. An animal population regulated by predation probably does not notice these differences in life expectancy.

Don't get me wrong, that's still a problem, but that's not an ecological and climatic problem and something that can be addressed after we've finished our transition out of the fossil fuel.

What does unburned fuel do to the atmosphere? And is coal, gas and oil in the ground harmful (being unburned fuel)?

Worse greenhouse gases.