Abstract：
Cost-effectiveness plays a decisive role in sustainable operating of rechargeable batteries. As such, the low cost-consumption of sodium-ion batteries (SIBs) and potassium-ion batteries (PIBs) provides a promising direction for \"how do SIBs/PIBs replace Li-ion batteries (LIBs) counterparts\" based on their resource abundance and advanced electrochemical performance. To rationalize the SIBs/PIBs technologies as alternatives to LIBs from the unit energy cost perspective, this review gives the specific criteria for their energy density at possible electrode-price grades and various battery-longevity levels. The cost ($ kWh-1 cycle-1) advantage of SIBs/PIBs is ascertained by the cheap raw-material compensation for the cycle performance deficiency and the energy density gap with LIBs. Furthermore, the cost comparison between SIBs and PIBs, especially on cost per kWh and per cycle, is also involved. This review explicitly manifests the practicability and cost-effectiveness toward SIBs are superior to PIBs whose commercialization has so far been hindered by low energy density. Even so, the huge potential on sustainability of PIBs, to outperform SIBs, as the mainstream energy storage technology is revealed as long as PIBs achieve long cycle life or enhanced energy density, the related outlook of which is proceeded as the next development directions for commercial applications.
摘要：
成本效益在可充电电池的可持续运行中起着决定性作用。因此，钠离子电池（SIB）和钾离子电池（PIBs）的低成本消耗基于其资源丰富和先进的电化学性能，为“SIB/PIBs如何取代锂离子电池（LIBs）同行提供了一个有希望的方向。从单位能源成本的角度，将SIB/PIB技术合理化为LIB的替代品，这篇评论给出了在可能的电极价格等级和各种电池寿命水平下它们的能量密度的具体标准。SIB/PIB的成本（$kWh-1cycle-1）优势是通过廉价的原材料补偿循环性能不足以及与LIB的能量密度差距来确定的。此外，SIB和PIB之间的成本比较，特别是每千瓦时和每周期的成本，也参与其中。这篇评论明确表明，SIB的实用性和成本效益优于PIB，PIB的商业化迄今为止受到低能量密度的阻碍。即便如此,PIB可持续性的巨大潜力，要优于SIB，随着主流储能技术的揭示，只要PIB实现长循环寿命或增强能量密度，相关展望将作为商业应用的下一个发展方向。
