Energy Density Is the Wrong Scoreboard for Robots | Anders Teigland, TioTech

What we talked about.

In this episode of the Sunny Ray show, host Sunny Ray talks with Anders Teigland of TioTech, a Norway-based battery materials company, about why energy density may be the wrong scoreboard for robots. Teigland traces the company's path from short-haul electric shipping in Norway, where oversized batteries were used to get lifetime and fast charging, to a titanium dioxide anode material that aims to be cheaper and better than LTO. He explains why robots running around the clock value cycle life, uptime, and safety over raw energy density, and walks through the cycle math behind that claim. The conversation covers the challenges of nano materials in battery production lines, scaling from 100 tons per year at pilot to a 2,000 ton offtake, and why the West should compete on value rather than on Chinese cost structures. Teigland also discusses fundraising, communicating with investors, and what robot power systems might look like in ten years, including more hybrid designs.

Robots run around the clock, so Anders Teigland argues battery lifetime and uptime, not energy density, decide who wins.

The questions, and the answers.

Why titanium dioxide when graphite already dominates the anode?

It started with short-haul electric ships in Norway, where batteries were oversized by 50 to 60 percent to get lifetime and fast charging. LTO solves that but costs too much and has low energy density. With our titanium background, we made a nano structured anode that is cheaper and better. I call it the Goldilocks argument.

When did you decide energy density was the wrong scoreboard for robots?

It came from talking with OEMs and end users who care about 24/7 uptime, high safety, and batteries lasting 10 years or more. We identified lead acid as our main competitor, for example in forklifts. Warehouses and robots operate similarly, and robotics also tests faster than EVs, which speeds up our innovation cycle.

Can you walk us through the math on why uptime and lifetime beat energy density?

High energy cells are rated roughly 500 to 2,000 cycles. Running three cycles a day means about 1,000 cycles a year, so maybe two years of life. We can deliver 10,000 to 20,000 cycles, so you get 10 to 15 years. Replacing batteries every two years is hard to balance on a balance sheet.

What is the least sexy question you get asked at a conference?

It is the one about yields, unit economics, and the business case. I love the materials, but people also focus too much on competing with China. I do not think the West can match their cost structure, since China does the 80 percent solution at 20 percent of the cost. We need to compete on other parameters.

What have you learned about raising money as a materials company?

It has taught me about communication. I have to talk about consequences for society, end users, and industries, not just how good we are at making nanoparticles. Our batteries are the most boring in the world: you can puncture them and nothing happens. That loosens design constraints, though optionality costs.

What does the next 90 days look like for TioTech?

Fundraising is the date that matters. We want to close a round before the Christmas holidays. There are also a few deliveries coming up, and in January we might announce some cool collaborations and global expansion plans.

If your batteries outlive the robots, who gets the bill, the robot or the battery?

It is a good question, and it comes down to the design phase, working with AI and optimization companies. Ideally whatever breaks is replaceable. I think the bill will probably come down to the battery in that regard.

What does a robot's power system look like in 10 years, and where can people learn more?

I think we will see many more hybrid systems, which puts more demand on the power side of the battery, where we operate. Robots will also replace some of the most dangerous jobs, which is a good thing. You can check out tiotech.com and follow me on LinkedIn.