Technologies
Battery energy storage technologies, compared
Chemistry and architecture determine cycle life, safety posture, footprint and how a system degrades. Start here.
Most procurement conversations begin with capacity and price, which is the wrong end of the problem. The chemistry and system architecture decide how long the asset lasts, what fire code applies to it, how much space it occupies, and what it is worth at end of life.
These pages compare the technologies on the terms that survive contact with a real site: cycle life under actual duty cycle, thermal behaviour, footprint per usable kilowatt-hour, and what the warranty actually commits the supplier to.
What this section covers
Lithium iron phosphate (LFP)
The default chemistry for stationary storage. Lower energy density than NMC, materially better thermal stability, and no cobalt in the cathode.
In research
Flow batteries
Power and energy scale independently — power comes from the stack, energy from the tank volume. Long cycle life, large footprint.
In research
Long-duration energy storage
What qualifies as long duration, which technologies credibly reach it, and where multi-hour discharge changes the economics.
In research
Sodium-ion
An emerging alternative that avoids lithium supply exposure. Assess it on shipped product and warranty terms, not roadmap claims.
In research
Pages are published as each one is researched and sourced. We do not put up an outline and fill it in later — an empty page that ranks is worse than no page at all.