Donut Lab alleged Solid State Battery launched at CES 2026

[Bud]

I think there is no reason for debating if we agree Donut's "charging demo" clip is s fake. If this was a fake, everything else is likely to be the same.
I have no idea why would they want this fake. Did not they realize engineers would be looking at it?

That's the thing, I don't think it's "fake" as such.
I think the camera really is pointing at PSU screen and it's really delivering that, and the time is accurate etc.
It's what they leave out and don't show you that matters.
I think they simply have more cells in parallel off-camera, and they are just showing one small pouch cell. So everyone just assumes it's all going into that one cell, and ergo they aren't lying, you are just misled by your own assumption.

I am not disputing the camera thing, certainly it was a real power supply but that does not change anything because we do not see the complete setup, just pieces of it. What i am saying is that the fact that current and voltage did not change during the "charging" to 82% can only mean one thing: the power supply was connected to a dummmy load off screen. It does not matter how many cells were connected in parallel - during a real charging from zero to 82% either the voltage or current would have changed, and that did not happen. This is why the demo is a fraud.

[tszaboo]

I think there is no reason for debating if we agree Donut's "charging demo" clip is s fake. If this was a fake, everything else is likely to be the same.
I have no idea why would they want this fake. Did not they realize engineers would be looking at it?

That's the thing, I don't think it's "fake" as such.
I think the camera really is pointing at PSU screen and it's really delivering that, and the time is accurate etc.
It's what they leave out and don't show you that matters.
I think they simply have more cells in parallel off-camera, and they are just showing one small pouch cell. So everyone just assumes it's all going into that one cell, and ergo they aren't lying, you are just misled by your own assumption.

I am not disputing the camera thing, certainly it was a real power supply but that does not change anything because we do not see the complete setup, just pieces of it. What i am saying is that the fact that current and voltage did not change during the "charging" to 82% can only mean one thing: the power supply was connected to a dummmy load off screen. It does not matter how many cells were connected in parallel - during a real charging from zero to 82% either the voltage or current would have changed, and that did not happen. This is why the demo is a fraud.

We don't know the SOC-V curve of the battery.
If you would see the curve of a LFP battery, going from 3.1V to 3.2V from 20% to 80%, you could call it fraud, if your only reference is an NMC battery.

[ejeffrey]

I doubt that would be legally enforceable. But I'm sure a competitor would do it anyway and take the minimal risk involved.

Or more likely, they would hire an outside consultant to do it and provide a report.  There are a ton of legal and practical advantages to doing it that way.  For one, that consultant can sell the report to a dozen automakers for the cost of a single teardown.  It also makes it easier to insulate your engineers against knowingly violating any patents by directly copying the competitor.  And it can be easier for a small contractor to buy a product without being noticed or doing something deceptive.

[Electrodynamic]

I doubt that would be legally enforceable. But I'm sure a competitor would do it anyway and take the minimal risk involved.

Or more likely, they would hire an outside consultant to do it and provide a report.  There are a ton of legal and practical advantages to doing it that way.  For one, that consultant can sell the report to a dozen automakers for the cost of a single teardown.  It also makes it easier to insulate your engineers against knowingly violating any patents by directly copying the competitor.  And it can be easier for a small contractor to buy a product without being noticed or doing something deceptive.

Indeed and around 15 years ago I was the engineering guy people paid to evaluate new technology.

It was pretty cool, $50/hr all expenses paid, I fly in and do my testing to evaluate the technology then fly back and write a report. Not run of the mill tech but the exotic stuff nobody else had a clue how to evaluate. The man of last resort if you will. Of course, everything was under NDA's and I assumed no liability.

It was neat and I got to see a lot of the wild stuff that nobody ever hears about. 

[Randy222]

I thought the Li stuff was plentiful, easy to get at, and easy to convert into a energy dense toxic batt pack, which by now should be driving down prices on a daily basis. I guess we were lied to.

Lithium is plentiful in the earth's crust, and indeed the oceans. It's the cobalt needed in the cathode, that is problematic.

Plentiful?
30mil metric ton is what's there.
That only makes 500mil Tesla3 vehicles (60kg Li per batt pack).

About 1.644bil vehicles worldwide.

You'll be short about 1bil vehicles with that little bit of Lithium.

You can up the number by making the batts (range) much lower though. Cut Tesla3 range in half, that will get you 1bil Tesla3 batts.

Factor in the recycle pile of Lithium, it cannot scale into the world demand, and, having all that 30mil ton of toxic Li out there (in-use) is not good.

Supercaps are next best fad (lithium killer), after that it's all H.

If the Donut folks (they dont have Wheel or Dunkin in their name, do they?) have a supercap that works, so be it. Is it better than Chery's, probably not.

[thm_w]

What i am saying is that the fact that current and voltage did not change during the "charging" to 82% can only mean one thing: the power supply was connected to a dummmy load off screen. It does not matter how many cells were connected in parallel - during a real charging from zero to 82% either the voltage or current would have changed, and that did not happen. This is why the demo is a fraud.

It does go from 2.7V to 4.2V when charging, read my post.
You can find LCO charge curves that are very flat.

[Bud]

Now post a chart that shows a flat current AND flat voltage at the same time cycle.

[thm_w]

Now post a chart that shows a flat current AND flat voltage at the same time cycle.

If I had that I'd have a chart of their supposed specific battery chemistry, which I doubt exists.
The current is limited by the supply to 270A, and its normal for li-ion to sit at CC until 60-80% charge.

Anyway, here is an interesting comparison, graphene aluminum-ion tech: 10k cycles, 150Wh/kg "some day", 10C charge rate.
https://graphenemg.com/gmg-unveils-graphene-aluminium-ion-battery-that-fully-charges-in-6-minutes/
But you can see the voltage curve is very different, and real world capacity is only 58Wh/kg so far.

[Electrodynamic]

I thought the Li stuff was plentiful, easy to get at, and easy to convert into a energy dense toxic batt pack, which by now should be driving down prices on a daily basis. I guess we were lied to.

Lithium is plentiful in the earth's crust, and indeed the oceans. It's the cobalt needed in the cathode, that is problematic.

Plentiful?
30mil metric ton is what's there.
That only makes 500mil Tesla3 vehicles (60kg Li per batt pack).

About 1.644bil vehicles worldwide.

You'll be short about 1bil vehicles with that little bit of Lithium.

You can up the number by making the batts (range) much lower though. Cut Tesla3 range in half, that will get you 1bil Tesla3 batts.

Factor in the recycle pile of Lithium, it cannot scale into the world demand, and, having all that 30mil ton of toxic Li out there (in-use) is not good.

Supercaps are next best fad (lithium killer), after that it's all H.

If the Donut folks (they dont have Wheel or Dunkin in their name, do they?) have a supercap that works, so be it. Is it better than Chery's, probably not.

Well, it took about 100 years to scale up ICE technology to where it's at and it's still only 35% efficient at best . It's kind of a joke as far as efficiency goes if we include all the infrastructure, waste and pollution from drilling a well to our gas tank. In Alberta we have field after field of abandoned wells nobody wants to take responsibility for rotting in the ground. In Texas they say half the ground water that's still left is polluted. It's a real shit show. 

Hydrogen ain't going anywhere and it's a scam. It burns near invisible and is highly explosive. It makes gasoline look like candle wax by comparison. Lithium may burn but if you have a hydrogen leak and one little spark it will scatter car parts for blocks.

Here is a good real life example of what happens when a hydrogen tank explodes. It blew out windows 100' away.

2 injured after hydrogen tank explosion inside pickup truck at Henry Ford Hospital

[sleemanj]

30mil metric ton is what's there.

180 bilion tons in the oceans, minimum, are the numbers I have seen.  Lithium in the oceans is as good an inexhaustable supply asnthere is, it takes a lot of work to get it though.

[Randy222]

30mil metric ton is what's there.

180 bilion tons in the oceans, minimum, are the numbers I have seen.  Lithium in the oceans is as good an inexhaustable supply asnthere is, it takes a lot of work to get it though.

I read seawater has 0.2 parts Li per million, 230bil tons total, but filtering all the seawater is an impossible task. Considering such extraction at-scale has no existing path fwd, it's likely not gonna happen given other tech is available. Perhaps TBD, but I highly doubt anyone will pursue it.

There is a carbon foortprint to look at, for everything. I know there's also a lot of land destruction to get Li.

Mining equip should be loaded with huge Li batts and charged by sunlight in daytime, and then ran at night, OR, everything charged by small onsite nuke plant power.

1) amount of material available
2) carbon footprint per metric ton
3) earth destruction (whatever unit this may be)
4) cost per metric ton

1-4 also applies to the materials in supercaps. Supercaps appear preferable in application, but can they scale? Graphene at-scale is currently also a challenge, but innovation has basically just started.

IMHO, from available data, Li is basically on it's way out.

[Randy222]

Well, it took about 100 years to scale up ICE technology to where it's at and it's still only 35% efficient at best . It's kind of a joke as far as efficiency goes if we include all the infrastructure, waste and pollution from drilling a well to our gas tank. In Alberta we have field after field of abandoned wells nobody wants to take responsibility for rotting in the ground. In Texas they say half the ground water that's still left is polluted. It's a real shit show. 

Hydrogen ain't going anywhere and it's a scam. It burns near invisible and is highly explosive. It makes gasoline look like candle wax by comparison. Lithium may burn but if you have a hydrogen leak and one little spark it will scatter car parts for blocks.

Here is a good real life example of what happens when a hydrogen tank explodes. It blew out windows 100' away.

2 injured after hydrogen tank explosion inside pickup truck at Henry Ford Hospital

ICE is 40% currently, but that number has minimal footprint.
And agreed, there is an end-to-end wrapper to look at, which was not yest discussed for Li batts. The other half for batts, Li or caps or whatever, is where does all the electrons come from and how will you deliver it. Nuke power is the only feasible way to make all that needed power, and, the power delivery system worldwide needs to basically be rebuilt.

There's not enough data currently to determine overall safety of H tank in vehicle. One good thing for H, is that the current infrastructure for transmitting natural gas can be retrofitted to move H (blending and then separation at endpoints). Transmitting 100% H needs new infrastructure.

Surely challenges there to be solved.

Side note: Related to end-to-end, I keep asking but cannot find answer. Is it better to use paper plates at home, use and garbage recycle, OR, use my std lifetime glassware plates and clean them in sink or dishwasher (requires water/soap/electric/sewer etc)? Which one is better overall for the environment (earth), the end-to-end view?

[rteodor]

30mil metric ton is what's there.

180 bilion tons in the oceans, minimum, are the numbers I have seen.  Lithium in the oceans is as good an inexhaustable supply asnthere is, it takes a lot of work to get it though.

I read seawater has 0.2 parts Li per million, 230bil tons total, but filtering all the seawater is an impossible task. Considering such extraction at-scale has no existing path fwd, it's likely not gonna happen given other tech is available. Perhaps TBD, but I highly doubt anyone will pursue it.

There is a carbon foortprint to look at, for everything. I know there's also a lot of land destruction to get Li.

Mining equip should be loaded with huge Li batts and charged by sunlight in daytime, and then ran at night, OR, everything charged by small onsite nuke plant power.

1) amount of material available
2) carbon footprint per metric ton
3) earth destruction (whatever unit this may be)
4) cost per metric ton

1-4 also applies to the materials in supercaps. Supercaps appear preferable in application, but can they scale? Graphene at-scale is currently also a challenge, but innovation has basically just started.

IMHO, from available data, Li is basically on it's way out.

The usual shortsighted argument. Almost nowhere nobody takes into account Li recycling. Copper and Al have 60...80% recycling rate in the worst cases. Even better in the best cases. If Li extracted mow is reused for 1 century at 80% recycling rate would it have worth its currently energy intensive digging and processing ? By how much ?
 

[AVGresponding]

I thought the Li stuff was plentiful, easy to get at, and easy to convert into a energy dense toxic batt pack, which by now should be driving down prices on a daily basis. I guess we were lied to.

Lithium is plentiful in the earth's crust, and indeed the oceans. It's the cobalt needed in the cathode, that is problematic.

Plentiful?
30mil metric ton is what's there.
That only makes 500mil Tesla3 vehicles (60kg Li per batt pack).

About 1.644bil vehicles worldwide.

You'll be short about 1bil vehicles with that little bit of Lithium.

You can up the number by making the batts (range) much lower though. Cut Tesla3 range in half, that will get you 1bil Tesla3 batts.

Factor in the recycle pile of Lithium, it cannot scale into the world demand, and, having all that 30mil ton of toxic Li out there (in-use) is not good.

Supercaps are next best fad (lithium killer), after that it's all H.

If the Donut folks (they dont have Wheel or Dunkin in their name, do they?) have a supercap that works, so be it. Is it better than Chery's, probably not.

Please provide citations for your claims. A cursory search reveals global resources to be around three times what you claim, and increasing.

https://iere.org/how-much-lithium-is-on-earth/
https://aenert.com/fileadmin/default/templates/images/Energy_Landscape/250209_Lithium/250208Lithium2024en.pdf
https://www.statista.com/topics/3217/lithium/#editorsPicks

30mil metric ton is what's there.

180 bilion tons in the oceans, minimum, are the numbers I have seen.  Lithium in the oceans is as good an inexhaustable supply asnthere is, it takes a lot of work to get it though.

I read seawater has 0.2 parts Li per million, 230bil tons total, but filtering all the seawater is an impossible task. Considering such extraction at-scale has no existing path fwd, it's likely not gonna happen given other tech is available. Perhaps TBD, but I highly doubt anyone will pursue it.

There is a carbon foortprint to look at, for everything. I know there's also a lot of land destruction to get Li.

Mining equip should be loaded with huge Li batts and charged by sunlight in daytime, and then ran at night, OR, everything charged by small onsite nuke plant power.

1) amount of material available
2) carbon footprint per metric ton
3) earth destruction (whatever unit this may be)
4) cost per metric ton

1-4 also applies to the materials in supercaps. Supercaps appear preferable in application, but can they scale? Graphene at-scale is currently also a challenge, but innovation has basically just started.

IMHO, from available data, Li is basically on it's way out.

It's not filtered, it's recovered by evaporating brines. Five minutes of research would have revealed these facts to you.

[SteveThackery]

Here is a good real life example of what happens when a hydrogen tank explodes. It blew out windows 100' away.

I wonder if the hydrogen actually combusted. Hydrogen is typically stored at around 10,000psi when it is in portable tanks. I don't know - just thinking out loud if there would be enough energy to do that level of damage purely due to the pressure.

Obviously hydrogen has to mix with oxygen before it will combust, so the only hydrogen that can burn is that which has leaked out of the tank. Clearly a leak plus a spark can cause the leaked hydrogen to burn. But then what? If the explosion is big enough to damage the tank, hydrogen will be released en masse. But because it needs to mix with oxygen, I would imagine a rapid burn after the initial explosion, rather than a bigger explosion. If it didn’t damage the tank, then a flame at the point of the leak?

I know nothing about the physics of explosions, as you can see! But I just wonder - was it just the tank splitting apart explosively, with no actual combustion?

[shapirus]

Here is a good real life example of what happens when a hydrogen tank explodes. It blew out windows 100' away.

I wonder if the hydrogen actually combusted. Hydrogen is typically stored at around 10,000psi when it is in portable tanks. I don't know - just thinking out loud if there would be enough energy to do that level of damage purely due to the pressure.

Obviously hydrogen has to mix with oxygen before it will combust, so the only hydrogen that can burn is that which has leaked out of the tank. Clearly a leak plus a spark can cause the leaked hydrogen to burn. But then what? If the explosion is big enough to damage the tank, hydrogen will be released en masse. But because it needs to mix with oxygen, I would imagine a rapid burn after the initial explosion, rather than a bigger explosion. If it didn’t damage the tank, then a flame at the point of the leak?

I know nothing about the physics of explosions, as you can see! But I just wonder - was it just the tank splitting apart explosively, with no actual combustion?

Have you ever tried to collect hydrogen (from a chemical reaction or electrolysis) in a test tube and burn it? It's pretty scary even at that scale, I can tell you. It won't burn slowly, it's pretty much an explosion.

[tszaboo]

Have you ever tried to collect hydrogen (from a chemical reaction or electrolysis) in a test tube and burn it? It's pretty scary even at that scale, I can tell you. It won't burn slowly, it's pretty much an explosion.

Not to mention, the amount of electrical energy to set it on fire is crazy small. Like shorting out a tiny 0603 ceramic capacitor makes a spark enough to explode it. And some people want us to use this as heating out homes. They are crazy, or don't understand the risks.

[Electrodynamic]

Here is a good real life example of what happens when a hydrogen tank explodes. It blew out windows 100' away.

I wonder if the hydrogen actually combusted. Hydrogen is typically stored at around 10,000psi when it is in portable tanks. I don't know - just thinking out loud if there would be enough energy to do that level of damage purely due to the pressure.

Obviously hydrogen has to mix with oxygen before it will combust, so the only hydrogen that can burn is that which has leaked out of the tank. Clearly a leak plus a spark can cause the leaked hydrogen to burn. But then what? If the explosion is big enough to damage the tank, hydrogen will be released en masse. But because it needs to mix with oxygen, I would imagine a rapid burn after the initial explosion, rather than a bigger explosion. If it didn’t damage the tank, then a flame at the point of the leak?

I know nothing about the physics of explosions, as you can see! But I just wonder - was it just the tank splitting apart explosively, with no actual combustion?

I have a bit of first hand experience with hydrogen when I was testing water electrolyser setups. I have an acreage and I'm a little redneck so it made sense to fill a sealed 5 gal pail with hydrogen gas and ignite it to see what actually happens. Well, it exploded and scattered pieces of plastic all over my yard.

We need the proper air fuel mixture but the explosion relates more to confinement imo. Liquid gasoline on the ground burns slow but vaporize it in a 50 gal barrel and it explodes tearing it to pieces. Hydrogen is always vaporized when it leaves a vessel which is much more dangerous than gasoline.

It's funny, the car makers and hydrogen buffs always try to show liquid gasoline burning or a hydrogen tank venting which is disingenuous. Where in reality it's a slow leak within a confined space igniting then exploding which is the real danger.

[Randy222]

The usual shortsighted argument. Almost nowhere nobody takes into account Li recycling. Copper and Al have 60...80% recycling rate in the worst cases. Even better in the best cases. If Li extracted mow is reused for 1 century at 80% recycling rate would it have worth its currently energy intensive digging and processing ? By how much ?

You misunderstood my recycling comment.
You are talking about how much waste Li goes back into new product.

I was talking about how big the recycling pile is at any given time, hence Li that is not being used.

[Randy222]

Please provide citations for your claims. A cursory search reveals global resources to be around three times what you claim, and increasing.

30mil metric ton is what's there.

I over-estimated the total,.... my bad. Also, current world extraction (2023) is only a dismal 180k ton. From extraction to application, Li does not scale.

Did the Canad folks get it wrong?
https://natural-resources.canada.ca/minerals-mining/mining-data-statistics-analysis/minerals-metals-facts/lithium-facts

[Electrodynamic]

The usual shortsighted argument. Almost nowhere nobody takes into account Li recycling. Copper and Al have 60...80% recycling rate in the worst cases. Even better in the best cases. If Li extracted mow is reused for 1 century at 80% recycling rate would it have worth its currently energy intensive digging and processing ? By how much ?

You misunderstood my recycling comment.
You are talking about how much waste Li goes back into new product.

I was talking about how big the recycling pile is at any given time, hence Li that is not being used.

This reminds me of the recycling scam.

We used to have recycling bins and everyone made the effort to separate everything into neat little piles. Oh yes, we were saving the world. Then we found out nobody had a clue how to recycle everything and were exporting the material to poor countries or burying it in a landfill. Here we need to be clear the real problem is people not being intelligent enough to solve the problems they created. Now I save a great deal of time and effort by just taking everything to the landfill.

Landfills are wild, where I live they filled in a giant coulee between two hills with garbage over 100 feet deep. Mountains and mountains of toxic garbage just rotting in the ground. The engineers were brilliant making this giant landfill only 500 meters from a beautiful river and not one drop will ever leak. Yep... we got it all figured out.

[SteveThackery]

I've just googled some interesting information about hydrogen combustibility.

Lower flammability limit: 4% hydrogen in air by volume

Upper flammability limit: 75% hydrogen in air by volume.

Ignition energy: 0.02mJ

This is an unusually wide flammability range, and an unusually low ignition energy, making hydrogen dangerous compared with many other gases.

It's detonation range is a bit narrower, at 18% to 59%.

So as Electrodynamic alludes to: it's dodgy stuff.

[Bud]

Now I save a great deal of time and effort by just taking everything to the landfill.

Good you have that option to just diy. When i bought my house, the city was running waste collection every week with no limit. Now they do it once every two weeks and only take 3 garbage items. Recycling stuff they take weekly though, so it makes sence to people to separate "recycling" waste , so they can get rid of junk quicker. Where recycling waste goes and what happens to it nobody know.

[Analog Kid]

Now I save a great deal of time and effort by just taking everything to the landfill.

Good you have that option to just diy. When i bought my house, the city was running waste collection every week with no limit. Now they do it once every two weeks and only take 3 garbage items. Recycling stuff they take weekly though, so it makes sence to people to separate "recycling" waste , so they can get rid of junk quicker. Where recycling waste goes and what happens to it nobody know.

I currently only recycle two things: paper and metal.

Plastic is out since here, as in probably many places, it just goes into the landfill.
i know this both from asking someone at the recycling facility and from this article from a credible source, which explains why plastic recycling (at least here in the US) is basically a crock of shit:
https://www.npr.org/2020/09/11/897692090/how-big-oil-misled-the-public-into-believing-plastic-would-be-recycled

Glass used to be recyclable at this facility (Waste Management). But a couple months ago they took away their big collection bin and put up notices saying they were no longer accepting any glass.
They said you could take your glass to a county facility, but guess what happens to it there?
It gets crushed and used as roadbuilding material. Kinda-sorta recycling, I guess.
I just don't bother with it any more. Into the landfill!

I think that the paper and metal I schlep over there gets recycled, but who the hell really knows?

[Randy222]

I think if they want to play with the big boys in this field, they need to change name, "Donut Lab" just not cutting it.