...isn't that 30x? Also, I saw it listed as 500Wh/kg from the article, where was the 400 figure coming from? At 500Wh/kg, it's about 24x the energy density.
Also the NASA paper was published a year ago, and the article linked in OP was published a few months ago. Is there some development that is causing this to surface again now?
Also the NASA paper was published a year ago, and the article linked in OP was published a few months ago. Is there some development that is causing this to surface again now?