The demand for more sustainable transport options has brought about a surge in the demand for energy-storable solutions in electric vehicles (EVs). Lithium-ion (Li-ion) batteries have proven to be the mainstream energy storage component; however, Li-ion batteries present significant limitations including safety risks, limited thermal stability, rigidity, and high production costs. This paper investigates these limitations and implements a framework for FLEXBATT (Flexible, Lightweight, Efficient, and eXtended Battery Architecture for Thin-film Technologies), which considers a Flexible Thin-film Solid-state Battery (FTSSB) paradigm of next-generation potential energy storage solution of EVs. FLEXBATT provides enhanced safety with the use of solid-state electrolytes, improves energy efficiency with ultra-thin flexible electrodes to reduce internal resistance, and allows for multiple EV designs using a flexible form factor to expand EV designs of exploration. FLEXBATT provides novelty in form factor flexibility whilst allowing for increased thermal stability, non-flammability, and long-life operating cycles, but does not provide these same capabilities with current Li-ion solutions. The main contributions from this research included increased safety in solid-state design, advancements in energy efficiency with reduced internal resistance, and adaptability for real-time flexibility in EV systems. The proposed FLEXBATT framework was tested by simulation based electro-thermal and performance analysis under common operating conditions. Results of comparative simulation shows that the proposed architecture has the ability to increase the energy efficiency, cycle stability, thermal safety and internal resistance characteristics as well as structural flexibility compared to the conventional lithium-ion battery systems. The results have shown the validity of the computational framework for assessing the feasibility of future generations of flexible battery architectures, and can guide future experimental material development and prototype testing.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
S et al. (2026) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: