Involt Supercaps
2017-2019
Purpose
I founded Involt with the conviction that incremental improvements in lithium-ion batteries were not enough. The technology was marching forward, but its fundamental limits were clear: short cycle life, long charging times, high degradation with depth of discharge, and persistent self-discharge issues. I wasn’t saying batteries had “hit their ceiling” on cost, but I could see their performance ceiling looming. What the world needed wasn’t just slightly better batteries—it was a step change.
That step, for me, was a high-energy-density supercapacitor with low self-discharge. Unlike chemical batteries, supercapacitors didn’t degrade with every charge–discharge cycle. They promised hundreds of thousands of cycles, instant charge capability, and a safer, cleaner bill of materials. Involt was my attempt to engineer this leap and prove that energy storage can be redesigned at its core.
Potential
When I looked around in 2017, the timing seemed perfect. Electrification was accelerating everywhere—EV adoption, solar, wind. Global demand for energy storage was climbing at double-digit rates each year. And yet, even with aggressive forecasts, lithium-ion could not deliver both low cost per cycle and high durability. The mismatch was obvious: renewables were scaling faster than batteries could evolve.
I believed Involt could fill that gap. If we could shrink supercapacitors, raise their energy density, and keep their inherent strengths—cycle life, speed, and safety—the potential was huge. We weren’t just eyeing niche applications; the roadmap stretched across industrial machines, mobility, and grid storage. Even in the earliest prototypes, the numbers spoke volumes: 100,000+ cycles versus ~1,500 for lithium, charging speeds up to 5× faster, and a 10× reduction in cost per cycle.
Process
We started with coin-sized prototypes—tiny button cells designed to go head-to-head against commercial lithium equivalents. In these tests, we achieved 2.0 mAh capacity at the same size while sustaining 100,000 cycles. Against the backdrop of lithium’s 1,500 cycles, the results were remarkable. For me, that was the first real validation that the idea wasn’t just theory—it could work.
Scaling was the next frontier. I built electrodes in Singapore, working hands-on with the materials, and partnered with academic labs for assembly. We mapped out an 18-month plan: moving from coin cells to large-format devices, engineering complete cells, and preparing for pilot projects. At the same time, I was constantly pitching stakeholders—making the case that Involt wasn’t just a “better battery company,” but a fundamentally different energy storage platform. It was a constant balancing act between lab breakthroughs and investor expectations.
Precaution
From day one, I knew the toughest question was energy density. Supercapacitors had always been dismissed as “too bulky” compared to lithium. Could we really shrink them 10× and maintain the advantages? Could we compete with lithium-ion’s entrenched supply chains and manufacturing ecosystems? These weren’t small doubts—they were existential.
Rather than deny them, I leaned into them. We focused on applications where density mattered less than cycling or charging speed: electric buses, forklifts, trains, grid storage. At the same time, I explored pivots—hybrid applications that blended battery density with capacitor performance. Convincing stakeholders to take that bet was challenging. Those conversations taught me a lot about the tension between technology vision and market timing.
Performance
The technology proved itself. Involt prototypes matched lithium in size while outperforming it by orders of magnitude in lifetime, speed, and safety. They were made from activated carbon—a cheap, abundant, and environmentally friendly material better known for water purification than energy storage. For me, that was the breakthrough: a safer, cleaner, and more sustainable path forward, achieved without rare or toxic metals.
But technology is only part of the story. Startups live or die on timing, capital, and stakeholder alignment. After multiple attempts to convince backers to support pivots and broader applications, it became clear we wouldn’t secure the buy-in needed to scale. We made the difficult but principled decision to wind down the company. Importantly, we returned about two-thirds of the investment back to investors. It wasn’t the ending I had once imagined, but it was the right one. Involt left me with lessons in integrity, market timing, and the reality of challenging a dominant technology. It shaped how I approach every venture that came after—not as small iterations, but as bets on rewriting the rules.