Silicon and Li-Metal is where the research is headed. The real...

Silicon and Li-Metal is where the research is headed. The real question is how fast can industry adopt this technology, from what we have seen silicon content in current cells is around 5%, other 95% is graphite. The target is obviously 100% silicon and 0% graphite, but there is no cell in the lab that can do this with good enough cycle life.

Currently more silicon means less cycle life, that is a fact that will hold for foreseeable future. But what is the target cycle life? If you have a car that falls apart after 20 years, there is no point in giving it a battery that holds one million miles. Energy density is another concern, but currently I don't see it as a major bottleneck for cars, maybe more true for more energy consuming trucks.

The big factor is cost, silicon promises less cost (less material needed), but industry must adopt it and process must be scaled, until then there is no real cost benefit compared to graphite.

This is the mobility aspect of batteries, but what about grid energy storage? Graphite will be king here for decades, because of cycle life, silicon won't touch it.

Tu summarise, yes it's true silicon and li-metal will be used more and more, but the overall battery production will expand so much and so hard that there will co-exist many different flavours of li-ion, because for every application the most cost effective chemistry will be chosen.

Ask your self why Toyota still uses NiMh in their hybrids. It's simply because it works for target application, and costs of production is so low when you establish manufacturing and supply chain. That is also why there will be great expansion of LFP cells and almost all "econo" cars will use this technology, even though it's way behind NMC/NCA in energy density.