search.noResults

search.searching

saml.title
dataCollection.invalidEmail
note.createNoteMessage

search.noResults

search.searching

orderForm.title

orderForm.productCode
orderForm.description
orderForm.quantity
orderForm.itemPrice
orderForm.price
orderForm.totalPrice
orderForm.deliveryDetails.billingAddress
orderForm.deliveryDetails.deliveryAddress
orderForm.noItems
Feature: Consumer electronics


Solid-state batteries: Progress, pressure and the path to scale


By Dr Dustin Bauer, Senior Associate, Reddie & Grose L


ithium-ion batteries are one of the most consequential energy innovations of recent decades. Teir widespread adoption across portable electronics, wearables and,


most notably, electric vehicles has played a critical role in enabling electrification, reducing emissions and supporting the transition toward a lower-carbon economy. However, despite their success, lithium-ion batteries face well-documented limitations, particularly around safety and energy density constraints. Te concept of replacing the liquid


electrolyte with a solid alternative has emerged as a compelling solution to many of these challenges. By doing so, a range of safety concerns can be mitigated whilst unlocking improvements in performance. Tis is where solid-state batteries (SSBs)


come to the fore. With the potential to deliver higher energy density, enhanced safety and faster charging times, they represent a significant step forward in battery technology. In recent years the conversation has shiſted from questioning whether solid-state batteries will succeed, to when they will reach mass adoption, and what must happen to enable that transition. Although their commercial rollout has


progressed more slowly than some initially anticipated, solid-state battery technology has continued to mature. Early applications are already emerging in areas such as portable devices, wearables and selected motorcycle platforms. At the same time, major industry players, including Samsung, are advancing toward mass production with the intention of integrating solid-state batteries into premium products. Te focus now turns to overcoming the


remaining barriers: scaling manufacturing processes and achieving cost efficiencies that will enable widespread commercial adoption. As these challenges are addressed, the role of intellectual property (IP) will become increasingly important. Not only in protecting battery innovations themselves, but also the manufacturing techniques that lead to their commercially viable widespread adoption.


Why the delay? Two of the problems stopping the widespread commercialisation of SSBs are a lower ionic conductivity of current solid electrolytes compared to liquid electrolytes, and a limited cycle life because of structural changes in the electrolyte material during successive charge and discharge cycles.


36 July/August 2026 www.electronicsworld.co.uk Another major problem of solid


electrolytes has been found to be lithium- ion migration across the interface between the electrode(s) and the solid electrolyte. While inorganic glass and ceramic


electrolytes show promise, questions remain regarding ion conductivity across the electrode/electrolyte interface, rigidity and cycle life. Some solid polymer electrolytes, on the other hand, suffer from narrower stability windows (which limits the energy density of the battery) and insufficient lithium conductivity.


Toward industrial reality Solid-state batteries are now a proven technology at the lab scale, and prototypes have demonstrated promising performance beyond the laboratory environment. However, translating this progress into mass production remains a key challenge, which is responsible for the delayed roll- out that was anticipated to be much further along than it is in 2026. Tis is because of several factors, including the complexity of the production and scaling, materials that can be difficult to source, and cell architectures that are highly precise. Te focus has now shiſted from proving that the technology works toward making it consistent at scale and commercially viable.


Page 1  |  Page 2  |  Page 3  |  Page 4  |  Page 5  |  Page 6  |  Page 7  |  Page 8  |  Page 9  |  Page 10  |  Page 11  |  Page 12  |  Page 13  |  Page 14  |  Page 15  |  Page 16  |  Page 17  |  Page 18  |  Page 19  |  Page 20  |  Page 21  |  Page 22  |  Page 23  |  Page 24  |  Page 25  |  Page 26  |  Page 27  |  Page 28  |  Page 29  |  Page 30  |  Page 31  |  Page 32  |  Page 33  |  Page 34  |  Page 35  |  Page 36  |  Page 37  |  Page 38  |  Page 39  |  Page 40  |  Page 41  |  Page 42  |  Page 43  |  Page 44