No,  The article did not say what the chemistry was at all.  What do you mean 'did I read it'.  I am not going to comment on something I did not read.

Nano means small, very small, super small.  And that is all it means.  The article had only a link to the chemistry.

QuoteNanoelectrofuel batteries are a new take on the reduction-oxidation (redox) flow battery, which was first proposed nearly a century and a half ago.

The link goes to Wikipaedia for more obscurity.

What would be the advantage of small particles?  This can be reasoned out.  They carry energy so how tightly can you pack tiny spheres?  The ratio of the volume of spheres, to the total space taken  up by the spheres approaches a maximum of 74%. If the spheres were filled with gasoline, which they are not, mileage is only reduced by 26%.  But that is not the case.  We do not know what kind of secret sauce is used.

The exact chemistry and materials used by flow batteries varies.  Various designs are being explored and developed to improve the efficiency and practicality of these batteries for energy storage. 

However if there was a new magic secret sauce that was going to suddenly make a technology that has been played with since the 1960's stand up and dance the article would have said so.  To the contrary the article obscures the chemistry and concentrates on NANO.  Nano reduces the energy/volume ratio.  Nano is nothing more than a packaging technology.  This article puts lipstick on a pig.

And you RE are the one with chemistry degrees?  Mine are in electronics and software design.  Between the two of us we should be good at catching the bull.  We are both smart enough.


There is no benefit to reducing energy density by 26%.  Unless it pays your bills.

* 26% ASSumes nano particle shells have no thickness.  In reality the reduction will be much more than 26%.

And what happens if this nano particle stuff gets dumped into a stream.  Instant micro-plastic to make fish swim faster?