Recently, there's been significant news in the US tech industry: the well-known battery company backed by Bill Gates has declared bankruptcy.
This development seems unexpected during the golden age of battery development, but why couldn't it sustain itself?
Some argue that battery technology isn't particularly complex, so why can't Americans succeed in the battery field?
This case is quite typical and fundamentally reflects the failure of US manufacturing, not only in the battery sector but also in many other areas.
Recently, Ambri, known as the "father of liquid metal batteries", announced bankruptcy.
This company once had ambitions to replace lithium batteries and quickly become a star in the battery industry, attracting over $1 billion in investments, including from oil giant Total, the US Department of Energy, and a fund backed by Bill Gates.
However, after 14 years of establishment, it declared bankruptcy during the peak of the new energy era.
Why did this company go bankrupt?
On the surface, there are two reasons, but fundamentally, there's only one.
Firstly, there's the technology roadmap.
Currently, lithium-ion batteries have achieved large-scale commercialization. Despite some apparent flaws, they are considered a transitional technology.
Although lithium-ion batteries have many flaws, such as low energy density, small capacity, short cycle life, and susceptibility to overheating, they are still the easiest technology to commercialize.
Considering the flaws of lithium-ion batteries, researchers worldwide have been exploring other solutions, such as Japan's hydrogen fuel cells and Ambri's liquid metal batteries in the US.
Ambri's liquid metal batteries, developed by MIT, overcome many of the drawbacks of lithium batteries and have advantages like large capacity, low cost, easy manufacturing, and long cycle life.
However, despite these obvious advantages, Ambri failed.
In addition to the difficulty of implementing the technology roadmap and the high comprehensive cost, there's another issue: cost.
Ambri explained the burning through of funds, stating that although the cost of battery products is lower than lithium batteries, the cost of building factories is very high.
In reality, the technology roadmap and cost are only surface reasons. The real reason for Ambri's bankruptcy is strikingly similar to why Tesla almost went bankrupt years ago.
Although Tesla launched a mature product and controlled costs, it couldn't achieve large-scale production until it established a Gigafactory in Shanghai, China.
If Ambri had also moved production to China in the past two years, perhaps it could have succeeded like Tesla.
This isn't to say that China is superior to the US, but because China has a complete, efficient, and low-cost industrial chain and a large number of skilled technical workers.
The same goes for the lithium battery field. It's not inherently complex; the key lies in controlling the entire industry chain from mining and processing to battery production, as well as nurturing a large number of skilled technical workers.
Therefore, Ambri's case reflects the common problem of US manufacturing, namely the inadequacy of industrial chains and production efficiency.
Today's US lacks these foundational conditions, while China has become the leader in global manufacturing by integrating technology with the global industrial chain, division of labor, and assembly production.
Chinese-made products are of good quality and cheap, selling well worldwide, but this is not accidental; it's the result of a series of measures such as a complete industrial chain, low-cost production, and skilled technical workers.
In contrast, products produced by developed countries like the US relying on technology-integrated industrial chains are often expensive and prone to problems.
This is why US manufacturing fails and how Chinese manufacturing truly beats the world.
Comments