What is the High Yield Battery Fab

It's the end of September 2024, and the battery outlook in Europe looks grim.

The public perception is that we have already lost the competition vs Asian manufacturers. But what if I told you that the people from within this industry predicted the events happening today a long time ago?

In this article I will explain why this had to happen, why the game is far from over and why one year ago I left the six figures job as Chief of Manufacturing, to start my own company: High Yield Battery Fab.

This will be a long and complex article, but you won’t understand a complex matter with a simple piece of text…

1. Introduction - lets get back in time

I will start from taking you back in time, to the June 2023 and the introduction to the High Yield Battery Fab project, which was written back then:

"Introduction - Li-ion cells and semiconductors revolutions

Lithium-ion batteries were commercialized in the 1990’s by SONY and since then this technology revolutionized markets of consumer electronics, power tools and, most recently, the automotive sector. Five times larger energy density than Lead-acid batteries resulted with the battery packs which can compete with ICE propulsion on the open market. The automotive market is enormous, but the real opportunity lies in the grid application of the cells. With revolution in renewables, which is best depicted with recent periods of overproduction of electricity, the demand for the battery energy storage will be so large that the only limitation for ramping up of capacities will be access to the raw materials.

Today’s battery market resembles the semiconductor revolution of the 1970’s which has accelerated with the introduction of the Intel 4004 embedded processing unit.

Back then the demand was also much larger than supply which resulted with development of multiple chip brands. However as technology matured, the competition was more and more tight, which forced chip manufacturers to look for manufacturing efficiency.

This is how the idea of the custom chip fabrication was invented. Today the chip making process is divided into design still owned by the big brands like Apple or Intel, but the manufacturing is conducted in the specialized plants called FABs. The most advanced fabs are owned by the famous Taiwanise manufacturer, TSMC.

It is worth mentioning that this business model is very unusual, as the large corporations tend to vertically integrate the entire supply chain, especially in the IP intensive areas. Nevertheless chip manufacturing follows this pattern, where design is done by the R&D departments of the corporations and manufacturing is left for specialized units.

A good depiction of this state is the fact that the largest chip design country on Earth is India, where not a single chip is manufactured…

Currently Lithium-ion cells are in a different stage of development than chips.

Li-ion cells were commercialized in the 1990’s, when the 18650 cylindrical format was introduced - the format which is still used today. The introduction of smartphones led to development of the thin prismatic pouch cells - that is the reason why most pouch cells manufacturers are somewhat related with the smartphone industry (LG, Samsung…).

However the mobile phones market did not provide sufficient scale for the battery industry, thus no real revolution  in manufacturing started at this point.

To make the picture clear it is worth noticing that for seven billion smartphones we need only approx 100 GWh of batteries, which means that the demand of the entire world could be covered by a single LG gigafactory in Wroclaw, Poland, which produces more than 100 GWh. On the other hand, to cover the demand for one billion electric vehicles the World needs more than 500 such gigafactories, what is more the demand coming from the grid is of different magnitude than the one from automotive, and currently the revolution in this sector has not yet even started.

This sudden explosion of the battery market characterizes the current landscape of the industry.  Today the largest barrier is the limited supply of the cells. That landscape set the current leading paradigm: to increase throughput, to produce as much as possible.

Companies compromise on quality, yield, and on efficiency. They do all of this with a single KPI in mind: throughput.

As demand is so large, there are also a lot of newcomers. Tesla started to produce their own cells after learning from cooperation with Panasonic. In Europe there is Northvolt, but also Volkswagen who wants to start in-house production. In the midst of the Li-ion cell hype even Dyson planned to build their own cell factory.

The authors of this project know this very well, as they are embedded in this field, building gigafactories and advising many smaller players around the globe.

In our opinion the market is going to change within 5-10 years. As the technology will mature, and as the demand will get saturated with supply, there will inevitably come the time, where all the companies will start competing with the efficiency of their processes.

Currently all cell factories in the World are highly inefficient with poor design of dry-room area, no integration between equipment, and no real scrap generation monitoring.

Therefore the one who will implement a highly efficient process will gain enormous market advantage.

That is exactly the goal of this project, to design the most efficient manufacturing process on the market."

Lets also look for a couple of bullet points from the same document:

"

• Li-ion cell market is now in a stage of exponential growth - according to the report by McKinsey & Company the demand for li-ion cells will rise from 700 GWh in 2022 to 4,700 GWh in 2030.
• According to this projection the market will be worth over 400 billion US dollars.
•  In order to cover the projected demand – another 160 cell manufacturing facilities need to be established.
• However, the reports prepared before year 2023 tend to underestimate growth of the large-scale grid Battery Energy Storage Systems. Year 2023 will be historic in the European grid in as for the first time overproduction of the electric energy was observed – to mitigate this challenge, large scale BESS need to be constructed. To keep electricity backup for 4 hour just for the German grid, one would need 880 GWh of storage.
• In the analysed report McKinsey forecasts that for year 2030, 4300 out of 4700 GWh demand will come from the automotive sector, leaving 400 GWh for both BESS and consumer electronics – this figure will definitely be larger as BESS will be necessity for the grid stabilization, and hydrogen projects are being cancelled worldwide.
• The reports don’t take electric buses, trains, haulage vehicles and heavy-duty vehicles into account, however the rapid development of the li-ion cell technology will inevitably lead to batteries adoption in these sectors as well.
• Regardless the source – all the reports signal the same trend: for the next decade the li-ion cell manufacturing will be a booming business.

This can be summed up with the following statements:

• Li-ion cells industry is on the beginning of the exponential growth towards 2030 and finally 2050.
• The biggest challenge is the supply side – with mining, refining and cell manufacturing being the largest bottleneck.
• As imbalance between supply and demand is so large, the current priority is to deliver the cells into the market – quality and process efficiency are second to throughput.
• As more and more production capacity ramps up, the supply-demand gap will shrink, making efficiency the key KPI.
• Those who won’t adopt to the new reality will disappear from the market.

"

As you can see, the diagnosis back then could be summarized with just two statements:

1. The battery industry will flourish
2. The current battery manufacturing technology is inefficient

Let's dive a little deeper to both of them.

2. The battery industry will flourish

In Europe we have witnessed the collapse of the Britishvolt, Moxion and Battrion. The plans announced by the VW are not being executed, Tesla Berlin is not manufacturing cells, LG ES and SK announce layoffs, Panasonic struggles and now Northvolt is in trouble too.

All of this is changing public perception of the batteries toward skepticism.

I can tell you that many investors are now withdrawing from the projects and suddenly there are interesting opportunities to procure decommissioned equipment from the cell factories which are being closed down.

The party is clearly over.

But the conclusion that the battery technology is a dead end, and we need to depart towards hydrogen, or go back to the ICE is in my opinion incorrect.

Of course - losing the first half of the battery manufacturing game may lead us to lose interest in this technology, but turning your head away won’t make this market disappear!

Saying - we’ve fallen behind and must catch up to the competition, is an honest and ambitious statement.

Saying - this technology was a dead end because we have lost, is dishonest and cowardice.

So let’s take a step back and see the phenomenon from the wider perspective. Currently we are undergoing multiple revolutions affecting the energy market:

2.1. First of all, the public underestimate the magnitude of energy demand growth.

Just look at this graph representing Global direct primary energy consumption since 1900:

Our economy is almost totally dependent on the fossil fuels, and even if we disagree with the man made global warming, we must agree that those are non-renewable energy source.

As the easily accessed deposits are being emptied, the cost of getting the raw materials is increasing.

Many skeptics of the EU ETS mechanism are blaming European Commission for the high energy prices in the European Union, but the reality is that it is much easier to depart from the finite source of energy while it is still abundant, than to do so in a landscape where you must fight with other economies to scramble what's left. We must reduce our reliance on fossil fuels - it is a matter of life and death within a hundred years time frame.

2.2. Secondly, computing power electricity demand surges beyond expectations

The chart below represents annual electric energy consumption of the data centers in the US.

In 2023 this number reached staggering 150 TWh - Its almost 17% of the electricity production in the entire Africa!

Currently we don't even know where the AI revolution will lead us in terms of the energy demand, but one thing is certain - it will significantly increase the already surging demand.

The data centers require so much electric energy that even the Microsoft is investing in the nuclear power.

This will put even more strain on the grid and the energy market in general.

2.3. Thirdly, we are in the middle of the photovoltaic revolution

The chart below represents price of the photovoltaic modules per installed power.

Since 2000 the price has dropped from 6170 $/kW to merely 260 $/kW. Its more than 95%!

PV became so dirt cheap that its capacity rises in a rather uncontrolled manner. The good example is Pakistan, where the solar energy installed capacity starts to have an impact on the entire grid.

The solar installed capacity worldwide is depicted on the chart bellow:

In between 2012 and 2022 the capacity increased more than 10 fold and the trend is clearly exponential.

But with this growth another problem emerges: overproduction of the electricity.

Can you imagine? We are generating overcapacity in the selected time periods!

This leads to two phenomenons.

One is the negative price of the electricity in order to get rid of the excessive energy.

The second one is a curtailment - mandatory reduction of the generation.

The chart below represents the amount of the curtailed (wasted) energy in California:

What to do, to avoid this waste?

Let's look at California again:

In the 2023 the installed power of the battery storage system in this state has reached 5 GW.

Batteries are the natural component of the photovoltaic installations and they won't stop popping out only because we won't be able to produce it. Someone else will...

Now, I don't even mention electromobility, because the grid storage itself is the market so large, that it will carry this industry regardless of what we do with transportation.

3. The current battery manufacturing technology is obsolete and inefficient

The Li-Ion cells were commercialized by SONY in the 1990's.

Bellow you can see Sony Walkman MZ-R4ST with the LIP-12 Li-ion cell.

The first Li-ion cells had Lithium Cobalt Oxide cathode (LCO) and the Graphite anode.

But as the time went by, the Nickel-Manganese-Cobalt Oxide cathode was introduced (NMC) along with the anodes with Silicon doping.

NMC cathodes evolved from 1:1:1 components ratio, through 5:3:2, 6:2:2, up to the modern 8:1:1 and even 9.5:0.4:0.1.

Panasonic also implemented NCA cathode - Nickel-Manganese-Aluminum Oxide.

The Graphite-Silicone ratio increased from 1:0 to 9.3:0.7.

The Titanium Oxide anode was also implemented, starting LTO chemistry - suitable for high current applications.

The cheaper alternative for Cobalt based cathodes was also introduced: the Iron-Phosphate (LFP) chemistry.

Yet more economical solution is being developed in a form of the Sodium-Ion chemistry.

A lot of research is put into separator membranes (ceramic coatings etc.) and electrolyte development.

The electrolyte doping is one of the most protected IP in the battery's world.

So if you look at the cells from 90's you won't see many similarities, except...

Form factor.

If you look closer at the cell from the picture, you will see that this is 18650 cylindrical format.

The same format was used for the Tesla Model S and X till 2018, when it has been replaced by the 21700 format.

I bet that Elon Musk asked himself this question: "Why so much has been done in a field of chemistry, and so little in a field of mechanical design".

Until introduction of the 4680 format, all the cells were following the same patterns.

Even if you look at the pouch cells they are just larger version of their smartphone counterpart.

But if the development in a field of cell mechanical design is slow, then the progress of the manufacturing process is almost non existent!

Look at this cell dispenser from the Chinese machine:

And now compare it with the one at the bottom.

Then click on at the bottom picture to be transferred to the Polish video from 1961!

You may say, this comparison is a cheap trick.

Of course it is! But how to depict the situation to the people who have no clue about cell manufacturing?

Maybe these statements will help:

• Currently there is no single cell factory in the World where the equipment for every process have been delivered by the same manufacturer.
• There is no single factory where all the equipment operates on the same automation hardware.

• There is no single factory where the entire process is fully digitalized.
• There is no single digital system which monitors and interacts with every aspect of production.

• There is no single factory where the management is aware of the real yield in a real time.
• There is no single factory where the traceability leads to the incoming materials.

To sum up, we are still in a stage, where the Li-Ion manufacturing plant is not treated as a whole, but as a compilation of the independent processes.

No AI is looking for a correlation between coating process set values and the cell formation parameters.

And for human it is impossible to do such analysis, as the amount of data is astronomical!

The manufacturing buildings are also not designed with the attention to detail they need.

Starting from the dryroom and cleanroom optimization.

Ask yourself a questions:

• How to maintain cleanroom parameters if you cut graphite electrode?
• Why half of the assembly equipment is patched with a Teflon tape?
• Why do we use Nitrogen for vacuum drying process?
• Where does the material disappear if we have 99% yield?

Do we ask ourselves those questions?

Or we just implement what we were told to implement, regardless of the operational costs.

4. Why we have fallen to this trap?

So if the manufacturing process is still so primitive, why couldn't we implement it in a more optimized form?

Well, the reason has something to do with Boeing, although you must figure out by yourself, what exactly it is.

I can only say that:

Lithium Ion cell manufacturing is a capital intensive business.

For example I need approx. 2 $M to deliver prototypes of the cells I've designed.

To ramp up the cheap semi-automatic pilot line you need approx 30 $M, and the huge gigafactory cost approx. 85 $M per 1 GWh of the annual installed capacity.

You may be Leonardo Da Vinci mixed with Albert Einstein, but without financing you won't do a thing.

So when the Li-ion cells became popular, various people with access to the capital started to raise it for the yet another Gigafactory.

Knowing how to raise capital =/= knowing how to manufacture cells. Pumping money into something =/= building diligently

What was the typical roadmap?

1. Raise some pre-seed capital
2. Plan throughput, sales, CAPEX and OPEX based on benchmarks
3. Draw some timeline
4. Raise seed capital
5. Start hiring of the core members
6. Complete cell design
7. Raise round A1 capital for equipment and site
8. Start equipment procurement
9. Start acquisition of permits
10. Start site design
11. Start negotiations with raw materials and components suppliers
12. Raise round A2 capital for Purchase orders payment tranche
13. Freeze the design of the equipment
14. Freeze site design
15. Raise round A3 capital
16. Hire engineers and specialists
17. Supervise equipment manufacturing and site preparation
18. Validate the raw materials
19. Prepare for FAT
20. Create documentation
21. Close B-sample gate
22. Conduct FAT
23. Ship and install the equipment on site
24. Hire directs
25. Conduct SAT
26. Close C-Sample gate
27. Start mass production

All in all, something like this:

However the reality was usually somewhat different:

1) The cell design was done in a R&D lab, by chemists who don't know much about manufacturing.

2) When design was handled to the equipment manufacturer there were usually three kind of answers:

a) [Westerners] We are able to deliver the equipment with certain parameters, and it is you who is responsible for the cell parameters (if the yield is low, it's your problem)

b) [Westerners/Korean/Japanese] We recommend to change the design, as this crap is not manufacturable

c) [Chinese] Sure my Friend! We can do it!

3) So the vendor from point c) was usually selected.

4) However after signing of the contract it quickly became clear that the sales people you were discussing with are gone, and now you are in the design freeze period, sitting Vis-à-vis equipment designers who just say: "we can't do this, this is impossible".

5) At the beginning your team try to contribute to the development of the project, but this lead to inconclusive meetings, email exchanges and so on, and you're approaching your next deadline without which you won't get another financial injection.

6) So after hours and hours of the discussions, you slowly learn to just let go and rely on your partners experience. After all, it is he who delivered equipment to BYD, CATL, CALB, and others...

7) At some point you stop asking questions, and when you sometimes do, the answer is "CATL does it this way, so keep it like that".

8) So your reliance turns into dependency and now all you can do is to hope for the best. After all they have built so many factories.

9) Your engineers go to training, which is based on the Chinese manuals (google translate if you're lucky), and its program consist of watching Chinese technicians running the equipment with HMIs in Chinese.

10) FAT is conducted, which is often just a dryrun of the machines and the equipment is ready for shipment.

11) Once the line is installed in the factory the commissioning starts and... Its your factory not the vendor's, so why do you require your vendor to run your plant?!

12) You have no access to the machines PLC, Except basic menu in HMI, everything is in Chinese. The errors names are combination of the Chinese characters and numbers, and you don't have a logbook.

13) The news start to appear that your project is getting delayed...

To be honest, if you are in this situation, it is very difficult to fix it. And believe me - many are exactly in this situation.

Skipping your homework at the very beginning ends up like this.

5. Are we stupid?

So, everyone is wrong and you are right Rafal, yeah? Is that what you want to say you spoiled brat?!

Hell no!

The painful but also hopeful truth is that I believe that the European engineers are the best manufacturing experts in the World!

Let me explain.

The East Asian approach is mostly learning by doing (Pali-Pali!) and is more statistic like, than logic like. If they try something and it works they go in this direction - like a neuronal network.

On the other hand Europeans often sit back, observe and start process of reasoning. As long as they are not certain, they won't make a major decision, and if the decision is required, they will try to define the uncertainty range - this saves them from going crazy, by letting their model imploding under the chaos of randomness.

In other words the East Asian engineers observe reality while the European and American engineers build models of reality with border conditions and defined set of rules.

Or even more descriptive: we Westerners are still in the Newtonian determinism, while East Asians have never abandoned Quantum Mechanics.

Both approaches have their pros and cons, but the East Asian suffers from difficulties in passing the knowledge to the others and to synthesize the knowledge of multiple people.

On the other hand we use strictly defined ideas and the rules of reasoning, which make every model more or less clear to everyone.

That is the reason why we engage into those deep discussion which we love, whereas our East Asian friends look on us with grin on their faces.

In a practical setting, this is the reason why FMEA was developed in the US, and why in the Asian companies the things like it, or cell specification are usually derived from the living process post SOP (while the entire purpose of the FMEA is to do it before - not after SOP).

BTW, this is one of the reason why European factories fail - they get documentation from their Chinese suppliers and treat it serious, while the sole purpose of it is because Europeans demanded it (please - don't).

So the strength of us Europeans and Americans as well is that we could build a good, comprehensive model of the cell factory, and roast it as long as it gets near perfection.

This is exactly what I am doing, but more about this later.

If we've built such a model, we would quickly realize how much waste is embedded into today's processes, just nobody looks in this direction. Its so easy to miss the obvious...

So if the Western Engineers are so good where are they?

The same place I've been: China, India, Singapore, Indonesia, Emirates.

Or they do business in the US.

Why they are there? Because they earn big money, but also they can focus on what they devoted their life to: good engineering work.

6. No. We are not stupid

And how you are getting financing in the EU?

Well, you can try to get huge financing from the programs like Horizon Europe, but this resembles making your case in the court of Constantinople.

There are even companies, specializing only in the acquiring funds from the programs like this one.

I was astonished when representative of such company wanted to completely divert my project in order to fit it into the criteria.

Its not the program which aligns to the projects, its the other way around!

Here in Europe we first look at the newly announced programs and then coming out with the projects!

"What is your passion? I haven't been told yet".

There are also summits, meetings, and congresses, but, sorry to say, for me, they feel more like social events designed to show that you've mingled with influential people.

We love inviting politicians, commissioners, and so on, but what's the point? Can I get an appointment so we can actually move forward? No. So what's the point?

All the discussions are shallow, polite, and almost scripted.

Can we stand up at an event like this and ask directly: "Hey, Britishvolt, where are your cells?"

No, and even if we did, the answer would be something like:

"We are enhancing our efforts to progress toward a sustainable future for Europe to ensure diverse and equal prosperity for every human being."

Man, I just asked where your cells are, and you gave me a lecture written by ChatGPT.

Lets face it, every hardcore engineer who respects themselves doesn't want to talk about equality, the greater good, the coexistence of cultures, or any of that.

If we did, we would have studied sociology, not calculus.

Do you know how hard it was to learn about divergence and curl?

We just want to do our job.

Going to the battery summit I would like to actually talk about the batteries. Funny isn't?

So the really hardcore people are filter out and those who stay are forced to fit this culture of empty politeness which is laughed so hard by our friend from the US (Although EU may ban memes, which will obviously make us much more respected worldwide).

So where the real engineering nerds go?

Those hungry for success go to the US, Shenzhen or Bangalore to open their own startup, some go abroad to work as one of the respected, well paid experts, and the majority just blend into the existing European job-market, trying to do their work as good as possible.

However they are not being listened to by those in charge - if they were, they would be in charge, not those mild "never sticking out"managers above them. Paradox.

Now, lets get back to the paragraph No. 4 of article.

Do you understand now why this happens the way it is?

Even if the European engineers want to do things right, and for example press for design optimization, the other side can just play slow, knowing that at some point the European management, who is afraid to step out of the line will give up, terrified by the deadlines and obligations, and the real experts have no influence over company strategic decisions whatsoever.

C'mon guys we all know that that's the way it is - you are all writing me private messages about it, looking for someone to cheer you up :)

7. Europe is not yet lost

So first of all - even though the European engineers are in shackles, there are still here, waiting for their chance. That's the huge reservoir of brain power.

Secondly there are still good companies in Europe, with centuries old engineering ethic code - for example Eirich Machines, Inc. , where the real experts like Stefan Gerl only wait for a call to build an engineering monument of their life.

There are also bold ideas like TeraFactory by Jukka Järvinen

Thanks to Cristopher Iacò I also visited one Italian designer who is designing 60 ppm winding machine, although I've been asked not to give to many info about it.

We have talented people and good companies, just all of them are in the similar situation: people maintain their status, but on the company level, there is not enough capital to push things forward.

What is more, the fact that our companies are struggling does not mean that life is rosy for the other ones.

Just look at the LG Energy Solutions cumulative free cash flow chart:

Of course it is caused by the investment activity, but it shows that no company is in the stage where it can only cuts profits.

In my opinion the battery game is just starting, although it may seem to be different.

But, if you were back in the 1987, would you bet on TSMC against giants like Motorola?

8. What is High Yield Battery Fab

So finally after a long diagnosis I can write on what we are working on.

To put is simple: we sit very deeply in tech, preparing the blueprints of the most efficient cell manufacturing plant in the World.

The aim is to build cell manufacturing platform, where every aspect of the manufacturing:

• Cell design
• Supply Chain
• Process
• Equipment
• Logistics
• Site design
• Automation
• Digitization
• Technical cleanliness

Is summarized and included in the standardized documentation.

This will allow to replicate the factory with ease, whereas today every project is completely separate entity.

Our main KPIs are:

• BOM cost
• Process Yield
• OPEX cost

We build detailed models of production, so that the investment process can be more predictable.

So what we created during last year?

1. Interactive cell technology model consisting of:

• Cell specification with over 200 parameters
• Cell process models
• Cell defects forecast
• Cell formation protocol model
• other minor modules

A tool has been developed in which cell or process parameters, raw material and component prices, and other variables can be adjusted, providing an instant Bill of Materials (BOM) for the cell, along with the mass and cost ratio of each component.

Parameters such as capacity and energy density are generated, aiding in the design of the battery pack.

The output speed of the manufacturing line can also be set in parts per minute (ppm), resulting in parameters like web speed and mixing batch size, which assist in equipment selection.

The model calculates how many cell formation trays need to be procured and how many chambers are required to maintain operations.

Various scenarios can be quickly checked, and design changes or material replacements can be experimented with efficiently.

Most importantly, the tool allows for real-time recalculation of cell costs, for example, each time a new raw material price is received.

2. Interactive financial model connected with the technology model

• Headcount
• Production simulation with yield improvement roadmap
• Scrap generation simulation
• Cell and recycling revenue simulation
• Utilities cost
• Equipment cost and payment scheduling
• Others

All of this combines into:

• Cash flow statement
• Income statement

Which can instantly recalculate revenues, margins, EBITDA, EBIT, Equity etc.

Combining those two models allows to see the financial impact of the different design ideas, raw material prices or ramp up scenarios.

It's quite difficult to describe but it's lie a digital twin of the factory, just without 3D visualization.

We were playing with the models for a long time, and on the basis of that, but also thanks to the feasibility study we selected two cell designs to work with:

1. High energy NMC based cell with energy density over 300 Wh/kg
2. Ultra high energy, low current NMC based cell for the BESS (this is still in a quite early stage of designing, however this design will wipe all the BESS competition when it's done)

Apart from modeling, analytical work, and sourcing we start to work on the cell prototypes, although it goes with quite slow pace, as it requires a lot of funds and the project is bootstrapped.

We have just moved into the location which will serve as our R&D facility.

Until the dryroom is done, we are not able to work with the target materials, therefore we experiment with the mechanical design on the substitutes and make mock-ups.

We have also secured cans for the prototypes, which was extremely difficult as those are special cans.

We have done all the lab equipment (winding and grooving machines) by ourselves. This does not necessary mean that we won't procure the equipment, but I wanted to build equipment expertise within the team, so that we can more actively participate in the design of the machines.

Simultaneously we design and build our own BMS, which prototype will be ready till end of the year. This is caused by the fact, that many partners want to build BESS with us, based on the 3rd party cells, using our advanced models.

As we design equipment and the BMS, we were selected as a partner for setting up module grading and 100% discharging line for the recycling facility. So far we have LOI for that, and awaiting the contract signature.

We also closely cooperate with Royal Bees Recycling and Maciej Mikulicz in particular in order to design the cell to be maximum recycling friendly.

For the BESS cells we also draw plan to implement recycling-as-a-service approach.

To sum up, we are currently following three main workstreams:

1. Cell design -> cell prototyping -> pilot line
2. BMS design -> BMS prototyping -> BESS design and manufacturing (3rd party cells)
3. Selected equipment design

Or main main goal is of course workstream No. 1, but to finish the design we need approx. 2 $M and to build pilot line (which is designed to be profitable) we need approx. 28 $M, and as for now we rather continue bootstrapping than losing control over the company.

And that would be it.

I don't know If I was able to express the idea with clarity, but when you work every day on the project, surrounded by all those tasks, and there is no corporate team helping you, it is difficult to put all this ongoing chaos into clear article.

Anyway, I hope now you know what made Rafal Biszcz disappear - he is fighting to build something which is considered impossible. Wish him luck ;)