Earlier quoted context omitted.
Would this be a correct summary of the paper? 1) eliminates Cobalt 2) improves energy density (more range) 3) faster charge rate 4) less SOC (state of charge) swing, meaning less cost & weight 4) 5x longer lifespan
1) 532 is not a new chemistry. It's not even the lowest cobalt chemistry; there's 511 and 811 beyond that (811, or 80% nickel, 10% manganese, and 10% cobalt, is not yet technically feasible). 2) Range is decreased. 532 has lower energy density. 3) Maybe..? But nothing truly significant. The additives in this chemistry mean a lot of heat gets generated during charge/discharge. Heat is the limiting factor during charge…
It's unfortunate they call it grid storage. Apparently you can make money by connecting a battery to the grid as the one in South Australia does make money, but I have no idea how it does it. Perhaps the price goes through the roof when a coal generator trips out and a battery can react so fast it gets first dibs on the money. The one in South Australia has certainly done that. It must be something like that as the storage is so small and the batteries so expensive they would have to get an astronomical price on what they do sell.
A house battery on the other hand - that's a different matter. The price of retail electricity at is 3 times the wholesale price, and unlike the grid battery the house usually pays nothing to charge it - it comes from the root top solar. Even so batteries aren't competitive yet, as in the return you get on installing one in a house in Australia is currently negative. But if the price drops by 1/2 it will save money by adding a battery.
I struggle to see how grid batteries fit in, but house batteries (which are really a grid battery installed at the other end of the wire) seem like they are just around the corner.