Lithium deactivation is inversely proportional to capacity. We could just add extra capacity to make up for it, though. From there, the battery would maintain capacity for a longer time than before.
> We could just add extra capacity to make up for it, though.
At naive face value, "just" adding an extra 30% capacity to offset expected lithium deactivation implies proportional increases in material COGS and package mass/volume, all other factors being equal.
Unless (a) a manufacturer is optimizing for throughput; (b) production is constrained at this initial charge stage; and (c) supply substantially lags demand; this strikes me as a non-starter in most of the consumer space.
Extra 21% capacity. Current practice still burns 9%. Lithium batteries have become very cheap, and I would pay a markup for a 50% longer battery life, assuming it didn't (a) further normalize non-replaceable batteries in consumer electronics or (b) lead to even worse conditions for the quasi-slaves currently mining lithium. Unfortunately, I doubt either of those will hold.
> Extra 21% capacity. Current practice still burns 9%.
On a normalized basis, if current practice yields 91% finished capacity (i.e. 9% deactivation loss), and the new proposed process is expected to yield 70% finished capacity (i.e. 30% deactivation loss), then the question is how much initial material must the new proposed process start with to end with the equivalent finished capacity as the current practice?
