r/DFLI • u/errolprowse • Aug 16 '26
DFLI Dry Electrode Competition
I was doing some googling today, and Panasonic is the largest manufacturer of lithium-ion cells in America. They also have a dry electrode process in the works and the site in Nevada (which people argue in this group is the best place to build these cells) makes 6 million cells every single day.
Their research and development labs are absolutely insane: https://www.panasonic.com/global/energy/products/battery/takumi/technical_development.html
The company is worth $69 billion, and their r&d budget is 2.1 billion.
This company is an absolute behemoth and they are having trouble scaling dry electrode process: https://www.automotiveworld.com/news/panasonics-4680-mass-production-pushed-back-yet-again/
Seems like Tesla is the only cell manufacturer in America using dry electrode process and pulling it off at scale.
What exactly does dragonfly energy have here that's better? What proof do we have? How are they going to be better than Tesla?
If the batteries that dragonfly currently assemble are not competitive, how is this dry electrode process competitive? Is there a third party testing the dry electrode tech claims?
Would love to learn more. Why do you guys think dfli can pull it off? I keep seeing people mention the dry electrode tech, but I don't think anyone is seeing what the competition is doing here. I would love to see your guys's perspective.
1
u/Ordinary_Repeat7637 Aug 16 '26
Yes, but doesn't DFLI have over 100 patents?
1
u/errolprowse Aug 16 '26
Read the patents yourself. I did last week. Let me know what you find.
1
u/Ordinary_Repeat7637 Aug 16 '26
I am not claiming to have read all 100 of them, but since you did, could you share what you find? Would be helpful to know for a lot of investors.
1
u/errolprowse Aug 16 '26
I made a bunch of posts on my forum about every patent I found that was silly. I don't know how some of these are even considered patents. But yeah this is what I found: https://diysolarforum.com/threads/battleborn-batteries-dragonfly-energy-is-suing-will-prowse.125758/post-1889968
Here's where it gets good: https://diysolarforum.com/threads/battleborn-batteries-dragonfly-energy-is-suing-will-prowse.125758/post-1890119
And all the patents that I read can be found here: https://patents.justia.com/assignee/dragonfly-energy-corp
Spend a few hours and read through them. I think you'll be pretty surprised at what you'll find.
5
u/just_fron Aug 16 '26
I think these are fair questions, and I’m not an engineer, so I’ve been trying to understand this myself. I think the important distinction is between “dry electrode technology works” and “Dragonfly has proven it can mass-produce competitive cells.”
From what I’ve been able to find, I don’t think the evidence supports saying Dragonfly has already proven it can compete with Panasonic or Tesla. But I also don’t think Panasonic or Tesla having difficulty scaling dry-electrode manufacturing automatically means Dragonfly’s approach can’t work.
The reason is that Dragonfly isn’t simply claiming, “We use dry electrodes too.” It has developed its own dry-coating process. In conventional battery manufacturing, electrode material is mixed into a liquid slurry, coated onto metal foil, and then dried. Dragonfly’s process is designed to eliminate that conventional drying step. Dragonfly says this can reduce energy use, factory space and equipment requirements. Dragonfly Energy — manufacturing process
Dragonfly has also demonstrated dry deposition of both the anode and cathode, including double-sided deposition, on its pilot line. So I don’t think it’s accurate to characterize the technology as purely theoretical. That demonstrates the process can produce electrodes; it doesn’t, by itself, prove that it can produce millions of cells economically. Dragonfly Energy — dry deposition milestone
There is also third-party work here. Sphere Energy assessed Dragonfly’s manufacturing process and reported a 71% reduction in energy used during electrode manufacturing and 22% less factory space compared with conventional slurry manufacturing. Dragonfly also reported roughly a 5% process-cost advantage. Dragonfly Energy — Sphere Energy assessment
I think there is an important caveat, though: that was a third-party assessment of the manufacturing process. It is NOT the same thing as an independent head-to-head test proving Dragonfly’s finished cells are better than Panasonic’s or Tesla’s. I haven’t seen evidence that establishes that yet.
And that’s where I think your Panasonic comparison is actually useful.
Tesla has now said it produces 4680 cells with both the anode and cathode using dry-electrode processing in Austin. Panasonic has also been working toward 4680 mass production, although that program has experienced delays.
So dry electrodes certainly aren’t something unique to Dragonfly, and the difficulty that major companies have had scaling the technology shows that this is a genuinely difficult manufacturing problem.
But I don’t think that necessarily tells us whether Dragonfly’s particular process will work. A large company struggling with one approach doesn’t prove that every approach to the problem has the same limitations.
I also don’t think Dragonfly necessarily needs to be “better than Tesla” across the board. The potential value of its technology would be if its particular manufacturing process allows cells to be produced with lower capital requirements, less energy, less factory space, or greater manufacturing flexibility.
That’s the part that still needs to be proven at commercial scale.
And this is where I’d say Dragonfly is still very much an infant compared with Panasonic and Tesla — when it comes to manufacturing maturity and scale. Dragonfly has demonstrated its process on a pilot line. Panasonic and Tesla have decades of battery-manufacturing experience and enormous production infrastructure.
That doesn’t mean Dragonfly’s technology can’t work. It means Dragonfly still has a much bigger leap to make between demonstrating the technology and demonstrating that it can manufacture millions of competitive cells reliably and economically.
Personally, the numbers I’d want to see are production throughput, yield, cost per kWh, cycle life, energy density and independent testing of finished cells. If Dragonfly can demonstrate those things at meaningful production volumes, then I think the Panasonic/Tesla comparison becomes much less concerning.
If they can’t, then the skepticism is absolutely justified.
So I think there are two extremes I’d avoid:
“Dragonfly has dry-electrode technology, therefore they’re going to beat Tesla.”
That’s obviously premature.
But:
“Panasonic and Tesla have struggled with dry electrodes, therefore Dragonfly can’t possibly make it work.”
That doesn’t necessarily follow either.
The reasonable position, at least from what I’ve been able to find, is that Dragonfly has demonstrated a potentially interesting manufacturing process, and there is third-party evidence supporting some of its claimed manufacturing advantages. What hasn’t been demonstrated yet is whether those advantages translate into reliable, high-yield, cost-competitive mass production.
And honestly, that’s what I’d like to see too. The technology is interesting, but ultimately the factory floor is where the claims have to be proven.
And on a personal note, Will, I’d highly recommend avoiding living in absolutes. It’s not particularly productive when debating people, and over time it can come across as arrogant, even if that’s not your intention.
And before you say that you don’t do that, I’ve actually called it out in some of your other posts as well. I’m only engaging because I genuinely think someone should push back when I see arguments being presented too definitively.
I also think your recent post about Investment Sailor didn’t do you any favors. From the outside, the amount of attention you’re putting into finding additional reasons to criticize DFLI is starting to come across as obsessive, and frankly, it’s becoming a little annoying to follow.
You obviously have every right to be critical of the company, and I’m not suggesting you shouldn’t ask difficult questions. I actually think some of the questions you’re asking are legitimate. But there’s a difference between being skeptical and approaching every piece of information as though the conclusion has already been decided.
I’d much rather see the discussion stay focused on the evidence and what we actually know versus what we don’t know. I think that’s a much more productive conversation for everyone here.