This article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

Energy Mid‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Energy, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Energy on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.EnergyWikipedia:WikiProject EnergyTemplate:WikiProject Energyenergy Mid This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale. Electronics Low‑importance This article is part of WikiProject Electronics, an attempt to provide a standard approach to writing articles about electronics on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, you can choose to edit the article attached to this page, or visit the project page, where you can join the project and see a list of open tasks. Leave messages at the project talk pageElectronicsWikipedia:WikiProject ElectronicsTemplate:WikiProject Electronicselectronic Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale. Electrical engineering Low‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Electrical engineering, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Electrical engineering on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Electrical engineeringWikipedia:WikiProject Electrical engineeringTemplate:WikiProject Electrical engineeringelectrical engineering Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale. Chemistry Low‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Chemistry, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of chemistry on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.ChemistryWikipedia:WikiProject ChemistryTemplate:WikiProject ChemistryChemistry Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

The article makes note that solid state batteries exhibit low power density (low power per volume) but shortly thereafter notes these batteries have very high power to weight. This seems contradictory, given that one of the solid electrolytes given as an example is largely silver (fairly dense). It would seem like these batteries would have to be of very low density to exhibit low volumetric power density yet high mass power density. If density it that low, it would be noteworthy in this article. 166.137.99.120 (talk) 02:18, 23 November 2016 (UTC) BGriffin[reply]

The german version of the article says that they have a high energy density, but a low power density. Maybe that helps? --77.178.131.255 (talk) 10:18, 17 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I concur. I've removed the mention in the beginning about low energy densities. It is unsourced, whereas the reference later to high energy densities has a source and matches what I've read elsewhere. --Jerdwyer (talk) 19:02, 16 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

As an electrochemist, I find the terminology "solid-state" to be confusing. Yes, these batteries have a solid electrolyte(nothing wrong with that terminology), but as the reactants will undergo a volume change during charge and discharge, I find the term "solid-state" in this case to be misleading. Solid state to me is electrons and holes. Solid state devices do not undergo significant volume changes during use. The bastardization of the terms anode and cathode is already widespread in battery literature, looks like we're headed for another with "solid-state". Why not just solid electrolyte? Glasspusher (talk) 19:18, 17 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Instead of glass (Goodenough and Braga), some are looking into plastic polymers. An interview with Bill Joy ^[1], 16Aug2017 — Preceding unsigned comment added by NanooGeek (talk • contribs) 22:34, 16 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Does this really need to be a list with individual sections? It's basically one line per entry, would it not be better expressed as a single paragraph? --158.180.192.10 (talk) 13:50, 14 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Agree. Need a rewrite into prose. --Ita140188 (talk) 05:52, 15 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I added the following text to give context to what 10 megawatt hours per year means:

Will be able to produce about 10 megawatt hours per year, which means for a car that has a 100 kWh battery, will be able to produce enough batteries for 100 cars.

It is not to say that the batteries will be used for cars, but just to give context to the production capacity of the new line. What do you think? Daniel.Cardenas (talk) 00:28, 12 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, but this is speculation and is not allowed here. To give a sense of scale it would be better to cite the total Li-ion world production (with source) for comparison, for example. --Ita140188 (talk) 00:41, 12 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, I'm not grasping the speculation. Can you be more explicit? I'll update the text to be more specific that the info is for context and nothing else. Daniel.Cardenas (talk) 00:46, 12 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Daniel.Cardenas: Apparently you decided to include it anyway, I don't see why would you start a talk page discussion if you then proceed to ignore other people's objections. To give you an example, 100 kWh is a very large amount of battery capacity, practically used only by Tesla's most expensive model. To someone not familiar with battery capacity (to which this sentence is presumably directed) it would seem that the number of cars that are possible is only 100, while a more reasonable battery capacity of 50 or even 33 kWh would give 200 or 300 cars. Which is true? None of them, since we don't even know if these batteries are intended for EVs. If you use them for smartphones than you could make millions of them. This is speculation and inevitably introduce bias. Please avoid writing unreferenced claims. --Ita140188 (talk) 01:10, 12 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Sounds like you don't think the context is helpful. Would your other examples be helpful? I think it is good adding examples to the context or changing it, if you feel the provided example context is bias.

I think people understand what the words "context" and "if" mean. There is no statement saying what the batteries are going to be used for, therefore there is nothing untrue. Daniel.Cardenas (talk) 01:18, 12 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

This is a form of editorializing and original research, not an encyclopedic content. Retimuko (talk) 18:16, 12 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

A 20Ah battery costing $100,000 means nothing without a provided cell voltage. Could we get this in watts or something more meaningful?12.246.109.18 (talk) 21:33, 20 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The section stating "The battery capacity is up to 25mAh at 3.8v,[35] making it suitable for small mobile devices such as earbuds, but not for electric vehicles. Lithium Ion cells typically offer 2,000 to 5,000 mAh at similar voltage.[36]"
This is irrelevant. I do not understand why we are comparing a 1cm long tiny solid state battery to an 18650 and 21700 large cell. The writer said "at a similar voltage" as if voltage and mAh are related, which they are not. Capacity is given by density and size.
Suggest removal of the second sentence entirely.
Alternate replacements could include speaking of energy density or the reason why the cells are not appropriate for electric vehicles. Such new sentences would, however, require additional research and citations as the cited articles doesn't get enough into specifics.

I suppose you are correct that it's not obvious why the Murata battery is unsuitable for EVs. Even though each cell provides only .5% to 1% of the power of the kind of cell used in EVs, one could theoretically use 100 to 200x more of them. I believe that as a practical matter this makes them unsuitable for the purpose: there would be much more interconnect wiring, for one thing. But I don't know if I could find a reference to support that. Still, Murato's own publications show that they are targeting the small device market, not EVs. I think it's worthwhile to note that this battery is not intended for the EV market.

The Murato product is still significant, since it is one of the only (or the only) commercially produced solid state lithium battery. So it's worth mentioning.

Regarding amps and voltage: the important thing is to compare the power of the cell. The point is that the Murata cell provides much less power per cell than the 18650 or 21700. It's more common to directly compare battery cell power using watts, but when amps are specified, volts must be specified as well, per the equivalence watts = amps * voltage. To compare two batteries on amps alone does not provide the relative power of the batteries. Leotohill (talk) 21:18, 4 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I just made an edit that might help: check it out. I also considered changing the amps+volts references to watts, which would make the comparison more straightforward, but thought that I might need to explain that conversion from the numbers given in the references. Doing that would make the text more complex, more wordy, so I abandoned the idea. Leotohill (talk) 13:50, 5 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The main text in this article is from 2017/2018, almost 5 years ago. How about some edits reflecting all the new developments and progress. For example: https://batteriesnews.com/nio-supplier-welion-sees-1st-solid-state-battery-cell-roll-line/ Sedimentary (talk) 22:20, 1 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

You are welcome to contribute in the editing.--ReyHahn (talk) 00:02, 2 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]