The Donut Battery: Fantasy Land or Real Breakthrough?

Donut Lab is claiming specs that would be unprecedented in 166 years of rechargeable battery history. The Limiting Factor breaks down why the physics don't cooperate.

400 Wh/kg

5 min Charge Time

100K Cycle Life

< Li-ion Cost

The Pitch

Donut Lab has been making the rounds with claims that would, if true, turn the entire energy storage industry inside out. Their battery allegedly hits 400 Wh/kg energy density, charges in 5 minutes, survives 100,000 cycles, uses cheap and non-toxic materials, works in extreme cold, holds up under abusive heat, and comes in at a lower cost than lithium-ion.

That's not a battery. That's a wish list.

Jordan Giesige over at The Limiting Factor just dropped a detailed breakdown of why these claims stretch credulity to its breaking point — and we think it's worth walking through his reasoning, because it matters for anyone paying attention to battery supply chains, Tesla's roadmap, or energy storage as an investment thesis.

The Physics Problem

Here's the fundamental issue: in battery design, every spec is at war with every other spec. This isn't a marketing problem. It's a physics problem.

Want higher energy density? You can increase the voltage difference between cathode and anode materials — but that makes the cell more reactive and kills cycle life. You can also pack more lithium atoms relative to structural atoms — but that makes the cell less durable. Push the cathode to give up too many lithium ions during charging and the crystal layers can literally collapse.

Want faster charging? You can thin out the electrodes to shorten ionic distance and reduce resistance — but now you've got less active material as a proportion of inactive material like current collectors, and your energy density tanks.

The core tradeoff: Only so many atoms fit in a given volume. The more you devote to structural durability, the longer the cell lasts. The more you devote to energy storage, the higher the density. You can't max out both. This is physics, not engineering.

When Giesige plots Donut's claimed performance on a Ragone plot — the standard energy-vs-power comparison chart used across the battery industry — Donut sits far beyond any established battery or supercapacitor technology. The last time the industry saw a leap anywhere near that transformative was when lithium-ion batteries hit the market in the 1990s, and even that advance was along one dimension (energy density), not across the board. Early lithium-ion cells had no better cycle life than what they replaced, and cost 5-10x more.

Donut is claiming they've obliterated every metric simultaneously. That has never happened in the entire 166-year history of rechargeable batteries, going back to the first commercial lead-acid cell in 1859.

The Supercapacitor Angle Doesn't Save It

Some observers have speculated that the Donut battery might actually be some kind of advanced supercapacitor — a pseudocapacitor or carbon nanotube-based capacitor. Giesige addresses this directly, and the physics don't cooperate here either.

Electric double layer capacitors (EDLCs) store energy via static electricity on surfaces, which limits their energy density to roughly 1/20th to 1/30th of lithium-ion. They're fast and durable because they don't move much ionic mass around, but they can't touch battery-level energy storage. Pseudocapacitors do better — maybe 2-5x an EDLC — because they use localized chemical reactions, but they still come in around 1/10th the energy density of batteries because those reactions stay at or near the surface.

Hybrid capacitors combine these approaches, but combining technologies doesn't compound benefits. It just widens the set of tradeoff decisions you have to make. The same fundamental conflicts apply.

We've Seen This Movie Before

Battery startups are structurally incentivized to oversell. They need funding, they need attention, and they're usually run by people who are genuinely excited about their vision. That excitement bleeds into overoptimism.

The most instructive recent example is QuantumScape. In 2020, they claimed 82% more range, 33% faster charging, longer cycle life, and eventually 17% lower cost than lithium-ion. Nobel Laureate Stan Whittingham backed the claims. Six years later, the sample cells look promising but fall short of the original specs, and conventional liquid-electrolyte cells have caught up to their performance. That's not a knock on QuantumScape — their technical work is still impressive — but it's a reminder that there's marketing and then there's a delivered product.

The difference with Donut: QuantumScape and other startups started with lab-scale cells and claimed modest-to-good improvements. Donut Lab is claiming to have obliterated every metric while already producing at commercial volumes. That's a fundamentally different — and far less credible — claim.

The Manufacturing Reality

Even if you set the physics aside and grant Donut every spec they've claimed, there's a second miracle required: manufacturing cost.

Cheap batteries require cheap materials and cheap processing. Despite sodium-ion batteries using cheaper, more abundant materials than LFP, the sodium-ion industry still needs years to reach the scale necessary to compete with lithium-ion on cost. And sodium-ion batteries use nearly the same production equipment and supply chains as lithium-ion.

Donut's battery would need novel cathode, anode, and electrolyte materials — nothing that exists today could hit their claimed specs. Novel materials mean novel manufacturing processes, novel quality control systems, and novel supply chains, each requiring years of development. Exotic materials like solid-state electrolytes or carbon nanotubes blow out any cost budget due to slow, low-volume production processes, even if the raw inputs are cheap.

Then there's the coating process. Donut reportedly uses screen printing to coat their electrodes. CATL and Tesla chose wet slurry coating and dry coating for a reason — they're faster by at least 2x, typically closer to 10x. Screen printing is not a path to cost parity with lithium-ion at scale.

It typically takes about five years of manufacturing hell for a new company to become a reliable, high-volume battery cell producer — even making stock standard lithium-ion cells. Donut would be building multiple entirely new material supply chains from scratch while simultaneously scaling cell and pack production.

Why This Matters for Investors

If you're a Tesla investor — or invested in any company with serious battery exposure — you need a framework for evaluating battery claims. Here's the one we use:

One spec breakthrough? Interesting, and plausible. Worth watching.

Two specs at once? Impressive if true. Probably a few years from commercial reality.

Three or more specs simultaneously? Show me the independent third-party validation, the manufacturing line, and the purchase orders.

Every spec plus cost parity right out of the gate? I'll believe it when I can buy it.

Giesige puts it in perspective: the odds of Donut's battery existing as advertised are about the same as a random company with no track record announcing it's about to manufacture room-temperature superconductors at the price of fridge magnets. Probably worse, actually, since a superconductor is one material — Donut's battery would require several novel ones.

Batteries look like dumb cans. They are not. They're high-technology multi-scale, multi-physics systems optimized over decades — brutally well-organized collections of matter and energy produced at massive scale, with hundreds of tradeoff decisions baked in by tens of thousands of scientists and engineers.

Respect the complexity. Evaluate claims accordingly.

Holding a Concentrated Position?

We help Tesla investors navigate volatility with covered calls, strategic trimming, and a plan built from your financial first principles.

Talk to Rebellionaire

This blog post summarizes and discusses content from The Limiting Factor's video "Is the Donut Battery Real?" by Jordan Giesige. Rebellionaire is a brand of Halter Ferguson Financial, Inc., a registered investment advisor. This content is for informational purposes only and does not constitute investment advice. Past performance is not indicative of future results. Any mention of specific companies or technologies is not a recommendation to buy or sell securities.