Hmm, there’s no discussion of what the energy density is compared to lithium-based battery chemistries. In articles about new battery designs, that usually means it’s pretty bad. This will have limited value if you need 10x battery volume/mass for equivalent energy storage, primarily only for grid-scale systems, which the article specifically mentions near the end:

The development arrives as the international race to develop iron-based flow batteries accelerates, with the technology increasingly viewed as the most viable successor to lithium-ion for large-scale grid storage.

I’m guessing these batteries are heavy and bulky compared to an equivalent LiPo. Probably safer than the molten sodium grid storage systems, so that’s good.

On the other hand, while lithium may be trading at 80x the price of iron on the market, you’re going to need a lot more iron than you would lithium for each unit of equivalent energy storage, plus it’s going to take up more space (real estate). The eventual storage system will probably be somewhat cheaper than an equivalent lithium system, but won’t fit everywhere, especially developed urban areas due to larger space requirements, and definitely won’t be 80x cheaper, even if the iron/lithium price ratio remains the same. It won’t replace lithium batteries in mobile applications (vehicles, electronics, etc) or anywhere that physical space is at a premium.

The article is written to sound overly positive about this protoype, with a sensationalized headline, while not mentioning the drawbacks, and just hoping that the reader is to too ignorant to notice.

*Edit: Also, the picture attached to the article is bunk. Flow batteries require a pumping system to circulate the electrolyte fluid, which comes with a long-term.maintenance cost:

[…] all flow batteries include auxiliary components such as pumps and valves, which do require a regular maintenance cycle.