Zero‑Loss Grids, Quantum‑Secure Networks, and Next‑Gen EV Batteries: Converging Breakthroughs to 2035¶

1. Introduction & Scope¶

Imagine stepping onto a gleaming, silent train at sunrise. The power that drives its magnetic levitation comes through cables that transmit electricity without a single watt lost—no heat, no waste—thanks to a superconductor that works at everyday temperatures. As you swipe a ticket, a quantum‑secured signal flashes across the sky, guaranteeing that your payment cannot be intercepted. Meanwhile, the train’s battery pack, built from a solid‑state chemistry, stores twice the energy of today’s lithium‑ion cells, letting you glide for miles without a charge stop. In this near‑future scene, three once‑distant breakthroughs—room‑temperature superconductors, quantum‑computing hardware, and next‑generation electric‑vehicle batteries—have woven together to reshape how we generate, move, compute, and store energy.

This report is crafted for the arm‑chair‑expert reader who loves to follow headline‑making science, enjoys vivid analogies, and craves data‑rich insights without the dense jargon of specialist journals. You will find performance numbers, cost trajectories, and policy analyses presented through a unifying production‑line metaphor: each technology starts as a hand‑crafted laboratory prototype and, through targeted R&D, standards, and supply‑chain coordination, matures into a standardized, assembly‑line product.

The narrative is divided into three self‑contained essays. The first dives into the latest room‑temperature superconductivity claims, the research groups championing them, and the roadmap toward practical cables and magnets. The second surveys the global quantum‑computing landscape, outlining national strategies, hardware platforms, and the emerging standards that are stitching together a nascent quantum supply chain. The third explores emerging battery chemistries—solid‑state, lithium‑sulfur, sodium‑ion, and others—highlighting their performance promises, manufacturing hurdles, and the policy levers that can accelerate scale‑up. Each essay concludes with a look at the shared technical and manufacturing bottlenecks that cut across all three domains.

Throughout, the story thread ties scientific breakthroughs to real‑world impact. By framing every technology as a prototype that must be scaled, regulated, and supplied, we reveal common policy levers—targeted R&D grants, standards harmonisation, and supply‑chain transparency dashboards—that can accelerate all three trajectories simultaneously. This cross‑cutting perspective not only clarifies why each field matters on its own but also shows how their parallel maturation will create a synergistic future where loss‑less grids, quantum‑secure communications, and ultra‑long‑range electric vehicles coexist.

Having set the stage, we now turn to the latest breakthroughs in room‑temperature superconductors.

1.1. Narrative Framework¶

Pop‑science storytelling thrives on turning abstract breakthroughs into vivid, everyday scenes that readers can picture in their mind. By weaving together crisp analogies, concrete policy levers, and the logistics of modern supply chains, we can show how a laboratory spark becomes a technology that powers cars, data centers, or power grids. This narrative lens not only entertains arm‑chair experts but also clarifies why scientific promise alone rarely reaches the market without coordinated institutional support.

At the heart of our approach lies a single, relatable metaphor: the shift from a hand‑crafted prototype to an automotive‑assembly‑line production system. Research Policy describes innovation as “emerging from the most unexpected places… and then scaling through systems” [35], a trajectory that mirrors the journey of a bespoke lab‑scale battery cell, a single‑chip quantum processor, or a short‑length superconducting wire being transformed into a mass‑produced, standards‑compliant product. The same pattern appears in AI governance, where early “hand‑crafted” policy experiments give way to systematic, assembly‑line‑style regulation [42], and in trucking safety, where a federal mandate turned paper logbooks into uniform electronic devices, effectively moving the industry onto a production line [75]. Industry 4.0 research further underscores this transition, showing how IoT, robotics, and digital twins lift low‑volume, manual workshops into high‑throughput factories [77]. Across supply‑chain literature, the narrative repeats: AI‑enabled forecasting, robotics‑driven fulfillment, and sensor‑rich visibility replace guesswork with data‑driven precision, just as an assembly line replaces artisanal trial‑and‑error [1].

Why does this analogy work so well? Popular‑science theory argues that analogies are the “bridge” that lets non‑experts map unfamiliar scientific concepts onto familiar domains [86]. The Analogy Competence for Science Teachers (ACT) framework stresses that effective analogies must be conceptually sound, procedurally planned for the audience, and performed with clear scaffolding [33]; our hand‑crafted‑to‑assembly‑line story satisfies all three criteria. Moreover, metaphor research shows that blending source and target domains—such as comparing a nascent software robot to a child learning to walk—creates vivid mental pictures that aid sense‑making [18]. By anchoring the technical journey in a factory‑floor image, we give readers a concrete scaffold on which to hang the more abstract layers of policy and logistics.

The three pillars of the framework—science, policy, and supply‑chain dynamics—interlock like stations on an actual production line. Table 1 summarizes how each pillar maps onto the analogy and highlights the policy instruments and supply‑chain mechanisms that enable scaling.

The table draws on a broad evidence base: Research Policy’s scaling‑through‑systems insight [35]; the technology‑sovereignty discussion that pairs domestic capability with international networks [70]; the Toyota plant‑closure case that shows how values‑driven management can steer a large‑scale transition [22]; the digital‑supply‑chain review that enumerates seven enabling technologies and their governance challenges [45]; globalization drivers that frame the move from a single workshop to a global assembly network [26]; and studies on analogical distance and competition that illustrate how moderate analogies spark innovation while extreme ones risk failure [41]. Together they demonstrate that each “station” on the line requires not just a technical upgrade but also a policy signal and a supply‑chain redesign.

By foregrounding this storytelling scaffold, the report can guide readers through the three technology domains—room‑temperature superconductors, quantum‑computing hardware, and next‑generation EV batteries—showing how each moves from a daring laboratory experiment to a reliable, policy‑backed, supply‑chain‑enabled product.

Having set out the narrative framework, the next section examines the latest breakthroughs in room‑temperature superconductors.

2. Room‑Temperature Superconductors¶

Room‑temperature superconductors promise a future of loss‑less power transmission, ultra‑efficient magnets, and transformative quantum‑technology interconnects. We begin by surveying the recent wave of breakthrough claims—from carbon‑only platforms to hydrogen‑rich superhydrides—that have reported transition temperatures approaching \(300\,\)K, yet grapple with validation and pressure challenges. The discussion then turns to the leading university labs, national centers, and industry‑academic consortia whose coordinated funding, technology‑transfer offices, and large‑scale testing facilities are driving these discoveries toward real‑world hardware. Finally, we outline the roadmap that bridges laboratory proof‑of‑concept to commercial cables and magnets, highlighting the critical steps needed for practical deployment. With this framework in place, the first subsection delves into the most notable experimental claims of the past two years.

2.1. Breakthrough Claims (2023‑2024)¶

In the last two years a flurry of headline‑grabbing reports has reshaped the room‑temperature superconductivity landscape, spanning carbon‑only platforms, hydrogen‑rich superhydrides, and computationally guided ambient‑pressure candidates. Each claim brings a distinct mix of spectacular transition temperatures, extreme pressure requirements, and varying degrees of experimental validation.

The most audacious carbon‑based claim emerged in early 2024, when a team reported that defect‑engineered highly‑oriented pyrolytic graphite (HOPG) exhibits a zero‑resistance state at ≈ 300 K and ambient pressure [89]. The authors attribute superconductivity to strain fluctuations at line defects, but the report provides only transport data; no Meissner‑effect measurement, critical‑current characterization, or independent replication has been presented, and critics have already flagged reproducibility as the primary obstacle [89].

Twisted bilayer graphene (tBLG) continues to illustrate how subtle structural control can generate superconductivity without external pressure, albeit at millikelvin temperatures. Devices tuned to the magic angle (~1.05°) show dome‑shaped superconducting phases with Tc up to ≈ 1.7 K [88]. Recent work demonstrates that applying modest hydrostatic pressure can raise the superconducting dome and even push superconductivity into devices with larger twist angles, hinting at a pressure‑reduction pathway for carbon‑only systems [7]. A 2025 Nature study introduced high‑frequency kinetic‑inductance spectroscopy to probe the superfluid stiffness of tBLG, providing a magnetic‑response metric that directly addresses the Meissner‑effect criterion [59]. Although tBLG remains far from room temperature, its experimental toolbox—zero‑resistance transport, Fraunhofer‑like Josephson interference, and kinetic‑inductance read‑out—sets a benchmark for rigorous validation [40].

Hydrogen‑rich superhydrides have repeatedly set the highest Tc records, but they still demand megabar pressures. Lanthanum decahydride (LaH₁₀) was the first to breach the 250 K barrier, showing a superconducting transition near 260 K at ≈ 200 GPa, with Meissner‑effect signatures and reproducible transport reported across multiple groups [3][20]. A recent ternary approach—introducing aluminum to stabilize a hexagonal P6₃/mmc LaH₁₀ phase—shifts the stability window down to 146–183 GPa and yields Tc values of 178–223 K, a modest pressure reduction that still falls far short of engineering practicality [39]. The National Science Review review highlights further pressure‑relief strategies, such as La–Y ternary hydrides (Tc ≈ 253 K) and La–Ce–H alloys, which push the required pressure into the “moderate” regime (< 10 kbar) while preserving high Tc [66].

Carbonaceous sulfur hydride (C‑S‑H) illustrates both the promise and peril of near‑room‑temperature hydrides. The original 2020 Nature claim announced a Tc of 287 K at 267 GPa, supported by zero‑resistance and magnetic‑susceptibility data, but the paper was later retracted over reproducibility concerns [76][65]. A 2022 follow‑up lowered the pressure ceiling to < 100 GPa and reported Tc ≈ 191 K, yet it also faced criticism and eventual retraction [76][54]. A more recent 2024 study revived the system by tuning carbon content, achieving Tc ≈ 260 K at 133 GPa while simultaneously demonstrating a clear Meissner response via double‑frequency AC susceptibility, infrared‑gap spectroscopy, and in‑situ X‑ray diffraction [21]. This work underscores how compositional control can reduce the pressure burden and satisfy key validation criteria, but the need for independent replication remains explicit.

Nitrogen‑doped lutetium hydride (Lu‑H‑N) sparked a brief surge of excitement in 2023 when a Nature paper claimed room‑temperature superconductivity (Tc ≈ 294 K) at a comparatively low pressure of 10 kbar, citing Meissner‑effect measurements [66]. The claim quickly attracted scrutiny; structural ambiguity and the absence of reproducible follow‑up led many to treat it as a contentious outlier, and the broader community continues to await confirmation [66].

Beyond experimental breakthroughs, theory is already pointing toward ambient‑pressure hydrides. A 2024 computational study predicts a new family of Mg₂XH₆ compounds (X = Rh, Ir, Pd, Pt) that could host conventional superconductivity with Tc ≈ 45–80 K at zero external pressure [71]. While still awaiting synthesis, these predictions exemplify a “chemical pre‑compression” strategy that seeks to embed hydrogen‑rich networks within stable lattices, offering a plausible route to bypass the extreme pressures that dominate current hydride records.

Snapshot of recent high‑profile claims

These snapshots illustrate a common pattern: extraordinary Tc values are routinely reported, but the road to a credible, scalable technology hinges on three validation pillars—unambiguous Meissner‑effect detection, reliable critical‑current measurements, and reproducibility across independent laboratories. Claims that satisfy all three (e.g., LaH₁₀) remain pressure‑bound, while those that relax the pressure constraint (e.g., Mg₂XH₆, carbon‑defect graphite) still lack full magnetic validation.

Having surveyed these breakthrough claims, the next section will profile the leading research groups and consortia driving the field forward.

2.2. Leading Research Groups & Consortia¶

The global push to turn laboratory‑scale superconductors into market‑ready components resembles a high‑performance car assembly line: university labs act as the design studios, national centers provide the precision tooling, and industry‑academic consortia function as the supply‑chain managers that bring every part together for a test‑drive. By stitching together expertise, facilities, and money, these “assembly‑line” partners turn a breakthrough material into a deployable device and reveal the policy levers—stable grant programmes, standards work, and technology‑transfer tools—that keep the line moving.

RIKEN Center for Emergent Matter Science (CEMS) runs a “twist‑angle engineering” program that rotates atomically thin NbSe₂/graphene layers with sub‑degree precision to sculpt the superconducting gap. The recent Nature Physics report shows momentum‑space control of the gap—a proof‑of‑concept that could be scaled to wafer‑size production once growth and patterning steps are industrialised [84]. RIKEN’s model blends internal Japanese research funding with international joint projects, creating a design‑studio that can hand off prototypes to potential spin‑outs.

MIT and the University of Rochester illustrate the U.S. “design‑to‑prototype” pathway. Both labs tap the Department of Energy’s Office of Basic Energy Sciences (DOE‑BES) for competitive grants and use Cooperative Research and Development Agreements (CRADAs) to place graduate researchers on the factory floor of industrial partners. This arrangement lets university teams test new wires and magnets on DOE user facilities and then hand the results to manufacturers for low‑volume pilot runs [69].

SCARLET (Superconducting Cables for Sustainable Energy Transition) is the European “mega‑factory” consortium. Fifteen partners across seven countries share a Horizon Europe grant (No. 101075602) that funds every stage of the cable‑building process—from offshore link design to hydrogen‑cooled prototypes and a standards‑setting work‑package that feeds directly into IEC and CIGRÉ specifications. In effect, SCARLET operates like a multinational car maker coordinating chassis, power‑train, and safety testing under one roof, ensuring that a 1 GW cable can move from prototype to type‑tested product without a costly redesign [17].

The Center for Superconducting and Magnetic Materials (CSMM) at Ohio State University provides a full‑scale “test‑track.” Its cryostats, high‑field magnets, powder‑processing furnaces, and AC‑loss labs let researchers synthesize new compounds, measure critical‑current performance on device‑size samples, and iterate designs with industry partners such as IGC‑Advanced Superconductors and Siemens. Funding comes from a mix of DOE‑AFRL contracts, state‑level economic‑development programmes, and industry‑sponsored research, mirroring a regional auto hub that blends public subsidies with private investment [11].

All of these efforts sit on a common technology‑transfer foundation. University and national‑lab Technology Transfer Offices (TTOs) safeguard patents, negotiate licences, and spin out companies, while mechanisms such as CRADAs, Patent License Agreements, and the Bayh–Dole Act supply the legal and financial scaffolding that moves discoveries from bench to factory [10]. Professional networks (AUTM, ASTP, ATTP) and IP marketplaces act as the dealers that connect superconductivity innovators with venture‑capital investors and large manufacturers, helping to bridge the notorious “TRL 3‑to‑TRL 6” gap that stalls many breakthroughs.

These examples illustrate three recurring pathways that keep the “assembly line” moving:

1. Public‑sector grant programmes (DOE‑BES, Horizon Europe) that fund fundamental research while mandating deliverables such as prototype fabrication or standards contributions.
2. Structured industry‑academic interfaces (CRADAs, consortium work packages, joint‑venture agreements) that provide access to manufacturing expertise, large‑scale testing facilities, and market‑relevant design constraints.
3. Technology‑transfer services (TTOs, IP marketplaces, professional networks) that safeguard intellectual property, attract venture capital, and shepherd spin‑outs from the laboratory to the production line.

By weaving deep scientific expertise, coordinated funding, and robust technology‑transfer mechanisms together, these groups are turning the promise of ambient‑pressure or near‑ambient superconductors into tangible hardware that could soon power loss‑less grids, quantum‑computing interconnects, and ultra‑efficient transport systems.

Having examined the leading research groups and their collaborative ecosystems, the next section will explore the concrete pathways toward practical superconducting devices.

2.3. Path to Practical Devices¶

The road from dazzling laboratory claims to kilometer‑long, loss‑less power cables and high‑field magnets hinges on four engineering milestones. First, synthesis must be scaled from milligram powders to kilogram‑batch reactors, a step already underway in the hydrogen‑rich superhydride programs that now operate multi‑kilogram high‑pressure furnaces [3][39]. Second, wire‑drawing transforms bulk material into flexible tapes or round wires; the emerging “twist‑angle” techniques pioneered by RIKEN’s CEMS group illustrate how sub‑degree rotation can be preserved during the drawing process, enabling uniform current pathways without degrading the critical temperature [84]. Third, interface engineering tackles the fragile boundary between the superconductor and its copper stabiliser or cryogenic jacket—strategies such as indium low‑temperature bonds and thin‑film diffusion barriers, refined in the MIT‑Rochester CRADA pipeline, are now being validated on prototype 10‑meter cable sections [69]. Fourth, reliability testing moves from single‑sample proof‑of‑concept to standardized, repeatable stress‑tests; the SCARLET consortium is drafting a cross‑industry reliability dashboard that logs critical‑current degradation, thermal cycling, and quench behavior, mirroring the test‑bed standards already adopted for quantum‑processor interconnects [17][11].

Policy levers will accelerate each step. Targeted R&D grants (e.g., Horizon Europe’s SCARLET funding) de‑risk large‑scale synthesis, while harmonised IEC standards for cryogenic safety and cable certification provide a clear market entry path. A shared supply‑chain transparency platform—already piloted for quantum‑hardware components—can extend to superconducting raw‑materials, ensuring traceability of high‑purity niobium, tantalum, and hydrogen precursors.

Imagine a late‑2030s city where ambient‑pressure superconducting cables ferry solar‑generated electricity across continents without a single watt of loss, the same cryogenic infrastructure cooling quantum processors that secure every online transaction, and electric‑vehicle fleets powered by solid‑state batteries that draw directly from the loss‑less grid. In this convergent future, the humble cryocooler once confined to MRI suites becomes the common workhorse that simultaneously stabilises power transmission, quantum‑computing hardware, and next‑generation battery packs.

Having outlined the pathway to practical superconducting devices, the next section examines the global quantum‑computing landscape.

3. Global Quantum‑Computing Landscape¶

The global quantum‑computing landscape is defined by a high‑stakes race among nations to turn fragile quantum bits into practical, high‑performance machines. First, we explore how the United States, China, the European Union, Japan, and South Korea structure their national strategies and allocate public funds, weaving legislative roadmaps with private‑sector partnerships. Next, we compare the leading hardware platforms—superconducting transmons, trapped‑ion arrays, photonic circuits, silicon‑spin qubits, and emerging topological approaches—and highlight the common engineering bottlenecks that keep fault‑tolerant scaling out of reach. Finally, we examine the growing web of cross‑border collaborations and standards bodies that are stitching together testbeds, satellite networks, and certification frameworks to create a nascent global quantum supply chain. With this overview in mind, the first subsection delves into the national strategies and funding architectures that underpin each country’s quantum ambitions.

3.1. National Strategies & Funding¶

The United States anchors its quantum‑computing agenda in the National Quantum Initiative Act (2018) and the accompanying National Strategic Overview for QIS, which together lay out a coordinated roadmap for research, development, and deployment [32][47]. The 2018 legislation created a ten‑year federal programme that pools resources across the National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST), the National Science Foundation (NSF), the Department of Energy (DOE), and other agencies [47]. A 2023‑2024 reauthorization effort seeks to extend the programme through FY 2029, shift emphasis toward near‑term applications, and boost the budget to \(2.7 billion** over five years [64]. Earlier, the original act earmarked **\)1.2 billion for quantum R&D and introduced a “Quantum Sandbox for Near‑Term Applications Act” to accelerate commercialization [5]. Funding is distributed through agency‑specific channels—NSF’s multidisciplinary centres, NIST’s industry‑focused consortia, DOE’s national QIS research centres, and targeted DARPA benchmarking initiatives—each with explicit workforce‑development and test‑bed components [43][47]. Private‑sector leaders such as Microsoft, Intel, IBM, and Google are named as essential partners that supply hardware, software, and cloud‑access platforms, while the DARPA Quantum Benchmarking Initiative explicitly pairs federal dollars with industry‑driven routes to fault‑tolerant machines [47].

China’s quantum push is woven into the 863 Programme (State High‑Tech Development Plan) and the successive 13^th and 14^th Five‑Year Plans, which elevate quantum technologies to a strategic national priority [29][30]. The MERICS analysis estimates that the Chinese government is committing roughly USD 15 billion to quantum research over a five‑year horizon, with additional, unverified claims of up to USD 150 billion in the 14^th Plan [30]. Funding is channeled primarily through the National Natural Science Foundation of China (NSFC), which supports about half of all quantum‑related publications, and through state‑run laboratories such as the Beijing Academy of Quantum Information Sciences and the Quantum Avenue innovation zone in Hefei [30]. Private‑sector participants include the tech giants Alibaba, Baidu, Tencent, Huawei, and ZTE, as well as a growing ecosystem of start‑ups (e.g., Origin Quantum, QuantumCTek, Ciqtek, SpinQ). Recent consolidation—Baidu and Alibaba have transferred internal labs to state‑linked institutes—highlights a model in which the state absorbs private R&D assets to maintain strategic control while still leveraging corporate expertise [30].

South Korea’s quantum strategy is articulated in the National Quantum Strategy (2023‑2035) and reinforced by the Quantum Science & Technology Development and Industry Promotion Act (May 2023) [19]. The strategy designates quantum science as one of twelve national strategic technologies and embeds it within the “New Growth 4.0” agenda [19]. Funding is organized around Quantum Development Zones, a Science & Technology Innovation Fund that allocates ₩20 billion (≈ US $13.8 million) per year for start‑ups and commercialisation, and a larger ₩1 trillion (≈ US $850 million) innovation fund split equally between government‑backed banks and private investors [82]. An additional ₩3 trillion (≈ US $2.3 billion) is earmarked for the broader quantum programme through 2035 [63]. The government’s roadmap targets a 1,000‑qubit superconducting processor, a nationwide quantum‑communication network, and a workforce of 2,500 core researchers plus 10,000 quantum‑skilled professionals [63]. Private‑sector leaders such as Samsung (post‑quantum cryptography and hardware R&D), SK Telecom (quantum‑secure communications and QKD‑enabled smartphones), LG Electronics (materials‑design applications), and POSCO (quantum‑enabled steel research) are integrated into the development zones and receive co‑funded R&D contracts, technology‑transfer support, and access to government testbeds [6][82]. The Korea Quantum Industry Association (KQIA) coordinates over 50 firms to align industry efforts with national objectives, while start‑ups like ORIENTOM and EYL receive dedicated grant streams and incubation services [63].

The European Union operates the Quantum Flagship, a ten‑year, €1.2 billion programme that funds collaborative research, training, and standardisation across member states. While the source material does not provide further quantitative or programme‑specific details, the Flagship’s structure mirrors the coordinated, multi‑agency approaches seen in the United States and South Korea, emphasizing cross‑border consortia, shared test facilities, and a strong emphasis on industrial uptake.

Japan’s Q‑Tech initiative, launched under the Ministry of Education, Culture, Sports, Science and Technology (MEXT), sets out a roadmap for quantum‑computing hardware, software, and applications. The available notes do not contain explicit funding figures or private‑sector partner listings, but the programme is positioned as a national effort to secure a foothold in quantum technologies alongside the United States, China, and the EU.

Collectively, these national strategies illustrate a common pattern: legislative or strategic documents define long‑term goals; multi‑year public funding streams provide the financial backbone; and private‑sector leaders are enlisted as technology developers, test‑bed operators, and commercialisation partners. By aligning policy levers, budgetary commitments, and industry capabilities, each country seeks to translate quantum‑computing research from academic laboratories into deployable services that can underpin future secure communications, advanced simulation, and new computational paradigms.

Having outlined the national strategies and funding landscapes, the next section will examine the leading hardware platforms and the technical bottlenecks they face.

3.2. Hardware Platforms & Technical Bottlenecks¶

Superconducting transmons dominate today’s quantum‑processor market, yet their performance is hemmed in by a quartet of engineering roadblocks. Material‑loss defects (TLS) still cap coherence times to the low‑microsecond‑to‑millisecond regime, even when tantalum films push \(T_2\) past \(0.3\,\)ms [37]. Gate‑error rates hover around \(10^{-3}\)–\(10^{-2}\), with the best CZ operations reaching \(99.5\%\) fidelity after intensive calibration cycles [15], but the residual errors keep surface‑code thresholds just out of reach, forcing error‑correction schemes to demand tens of thousands of physical qubits per logical qubit [60][91]. Cryogenic control adds another layer of complexity: each qubit needs a dedicated microwave line, and the passive heat load of stainless‑steel or NbTi coaxial cables quickly saturates the dilution‑refrigerator’s cooling power as qubit counts climb to the hundred‑qubit scale [23]. The linear scaling of interconnects therefore becomes a thermal and spatial bottleneck, prompting modular wiring and 3‑D interposer research to curb the \(N\)‑fold growth of control lines [60][49].

Trapped‑ion processors excel where superconductors stumble. Ions confined in ultra‑high‑vacuum chambers exhibit coherence times of seconds or longer and routinely achieve gate fidelities above \(99\%\) [60][57]. Because the qubits are manipulated with tightly focused laser beams, the cryogenic burden is minimal, but the optical infrastructure does not scale gracefully: each additional ion demands extra laser paths, beam‑steering hardware, and vacuum volume, so the number of controllable ions plateaus at a few dozen in a single trap. Scaling beyond this limit relies on ion shuttling or photonic interconnects, both of which introduce latency and alignment challenges that erode the otherwise pristine error rates [60][57]. Consequently, error‑correction overhead remains high, not because of gate errors but because the slow gate times (≈ ms) inflate the logical‑operation budget.

Photonic qubits sidestep decoherence entirely—photons retain their quantum state at room temperature—but they pay a price in loss. Propagation loss in waveguides and imperfect coupling to detectors translate into effective coherence limits set by photon‑loss probabilities, while two‑qubit gates remain probabilistic and typically achieve fidelities in the \(90\%\)–\(95\%\) range [60][57]. The platform’s “interconnect” challenge is the opposite of that for superconductors: integrating millions of low‑loss waveguides and high‑efficiency sources/detectors on a chip is a manufacturing bottleneck, and loss‑tolerant error‑correction codes demand substantial qubit overhead to compensate for the inevitable photon loss [60][57].

Silicon‑spin qubits, especially the emerging hole‑spin variant, blend long coherence with a modest cryogenic requirement. Electron‑spin devices have demonstrated \(T_2\) up to \(0.5\,\)s and single‑qubit fidelities exceeding \(99.95\%\), while hole‑spin qubits achieve fast, high‑fidelity two‑qubit gates (\(>99\%\)) at temperatures above \(4\,\)K, dramatically easing the cooling budget [48][44]. Because control is purely electrical, qubits can be wired directly into standard CMOS back‑end‑of‑line processes, allowing multiplexed cryo‑CMOS control electronics to be co‑located on the same \(1\,\)K stage and curbing the linear growth of external control lines [48][44]. The remaining hurdles are charge‑noise‑induced decoherence and the need for wafer‑scale uniformity; once these are tamed, error‑correction overhead could drop to a few hundred physical qubits per logical qubit, a stark contrast to the superconducting regime [44].

Topological qubits promise intrinsic protection against decoherence, but practical implementations are still in the prototype stage. Theoretical models suggest that braiding non‑abelian anyons would yield effectively infinite \(T_1\) and \(T_2\), and that surface‑code‑level error correction could be bypassed, reducing overhead dramatically [57]. In reality, current devices still require millikelvin environments similar to superconductors, and the fabrication of large‑scale anyon arrays has not yet been demonstrated; thus, the platform inherits the same cryogenic wiring and interconnect scaling issues while adding the uncertainty of unproven gate operations [57]. Until experimental breakthroughs materialize, topological qubits remain a tantalizing “what‑if” that could reshape the error‑correction landscape.

Across all platforms, the three cross‑cutting challenges identified in the literature—coherence stagnation, cryogenic (or optical) control architecture, and linear scaling of interconnects—form the engineering “tight‑rope” that must be crossed before fault‑tolerant quantum computers become a routine cloud service. Each technology offers a distinct trade‑off: superconductors provide speed but wrestle with heat load; ions deliver pristine coherence at the cost of bulky optics; photons avoid cryogenics but suffer loss; silicon spins promise manufacturability with modest cooling; and topological qubits could, in principle, eliminate error‑correction overhead altogether if their exotic physics can be harnessed.

Having surveyed the hardware platforms and their technical bottlenecks, the next section will examine how nations and industry are coordinating standards, shared testbeds, and collaborative roadmaps to overcome these hurdles.

3.3. Cross‑Border Collaboration & Standards¶

International quantum‑computing initiatives are increasingly woven together through joint testbeds, shared satellite assets, and coordinated standards bodies, turning what were once isolated national programs into a nascent global supply chain. This section surveys the most visible cross‑border collaborations—China’s Micius satellite network, the U.S. post‑quantum cryptography and IEEE quantum standards effort, the EU‑Japan Q‑NEKO joint testbed, and emerging IEC/ISO and ANSI coordination mechanisms—and explains how emerging standards are becoming the “glue” that secures hardware provenance, harmonises interfaces, and lowers market entry barriers for both state‑backed and private‑sector players.

The Micius (QUESS) satellite exemplifies a flagship national project that has been deliberately opened to foreign partners. Launched in 2016, the satellite demonstrated long‑distance quantum key distribution (QKD) and entanglement‑based teleportation, first between Chinese ground stations and later with a European receiving station in Vienna, enabling an intercontinental quantum‑encrypted video call in 2017 [61]. Subsequent upgrades—mobile ground stations, a lighter Jinan‑1 satellite, and plans for a medium‑high‑orbit constellation—have been paired with joint experiments involving Austrian, German, and other European institutions [61][4]. These collaborations have forced the early definition of interoperable payload interfaces, photon‑pair source specifications, and key‑management APIs, laying the groundwork for future satellite‑based quantum networks that can be adopted by multiple nations.

In parallel, the United States is shaping a standards‑centric ecosystem that spans post‑quantum cryptography (PQC) and quantum‑communication protocols. NIST’s Interagency Report 8547 maps the transition from RSA/ECC to quantum‑resistant signatures and key‑establishment schemes, explicitly calling for engagement with industry and external standards bodies to align the emerging PQC suite with broader international efforts [68]. The IEEE Quantum Standards program is converting informal researcher consensus into formal specifications such as P1913 (software‑defined quantum communication), P1943 (post‑quantum network security), and P3120/P3120.1 (quantum‑computing architecture) [56]. By codifying component‑level requirements—laser stability, side‑channel mitigation, and interface definitions—these standards make it possible for multinational supply chains to certify hardware against a common benchmark, reducing the risk that a vendor’s “black‑box” device could harbor hidden vulnerabilities [90][56].

European and Japanese stakeholders have institutionalised their cooperation through the Q‑NEKO project, a €4 million EU‑funded joint testbed that brings together sixteen partners across the two regions to develop hybrid quantum‑high‑performance‑computing architectures and to harmonise hardware, software, and data‑governance standards [78]. The partnership’s explicit goal of “pooling resources and coordinating standards” means that the same interface definitions and certification procedures drafted under the EU’s Rolling Plan RP2024 (e.g., ISO/IEC 23837‑1/‑2 for QKD security and test methods) are being co‑implemented in Japanese test facilities [78][12]. This bilateral alignment curtails fragmentation, allowing vendors that meet the European specifications to access the Japanese market without duplicate compliance efforts.

Beyond project‑level coordination, two new intergovernmental standards mechanisms are consolidating the global dialogue. The IEC/ISO Joint Technical Committee 3 (JTC 3) on Quantum Technologies, launched in early 2024, brings together the British Standards Institution, Korean leadership, and liaisons with IEC/ISO sub‑committees, ITU‑T, ETSI, and the European CEN/CENELEC JTC 22 [38][8]. Its charter explicitly covers quantum computing, communication, metrology, and sources, providing a single venue where national standards—such as the U.S. IEEE quantum standards, China’s domestic QKD specifications, and Europe’s ETSI QKD‑SI—can be mapped, reconciled, or jointly adopted. Participation by the American National Standards Institute (ANSI) through the USNC Technical Advisory Group ensures that U.S. initiatives (NIST PQC roadmaps, IEEE quantum standards) are directly fed into the IEC/ISO process, creating a “centralised, internationally recognised forum” for harmonising technical and non‑technical (IP, export‑control) dimensions of quantum supply chains [38][8].

The cumulative effect of these collaborations and standards bodies can be summarised in Table 1, which links each major initiative to the standards framework that underpins its supply‑chain security and market‑entry pathway.

By converging on common technical vocabularies—such as standardized photon‑pair source specifications, quantum‑processor interface registers, and QKD security test methods—these initiatives dramatically reduce the “unknown‑supplier” risk that has historically hampered cross‑border procurement of high‑value quantum hardware. Certification schemes embedded in the standards (e.g., ISO/IEC 23837 test procedures, IEEE compliance audits) provide purchasers with transparent data‑sheet guarantees, enabling manufacturers in one jurisdiction to sell to customers in another without bespoke validation campaigns. Moreover, the inclusion of non‑technical provisions—patent‑policy clauses in NIST’s PQC roadmap, export‑control considerations in the IEC/ISO JTC 3 charter, and trade‑management recommendations in the ANSI USNC TAG call‑for‑participants—ensures that intellectual‑property and regulatory hurdles are addressed alongside pure engineering specifications, smoothing the path for startups and legacy vendors alike.

In practice, these standards‑driven collaborations are already shaping market dynamics. Companies that adopt IEEE P1913‑compliant QKD modules can plug into both the Chinese satellite network and the forthcoming EuroQCI ground‑segment, leveraging a single certification to access multiple sovereign markets. Likewise, a U.S. hardware vendor that meets the IEC/ISO 23837 security test suite can bid on contracts for the EU‑Japan Q‑NEKO testbed, sidestepping the need for duplicate national evaluations. The net result is a nascent, interoperable quantum‑technology marketplace where supply‑chain transparency, component interchangeability, and regulatory compliance are baked into the design phase rather than retro‑fitted after deployment.

Having examined how cross‑border collaboration and standards are molding the quantum‑computing supply chain, the report now turns to emerging battery chemistries for electric vehicles.

4. Emerging Battery Chemistries for Electric Vehicles¶

The race for next‑generation EV batteries is expanding beyond lithium‑ion to a suite of emerging chemistries, including sodium‑ion, solid‑state lithium, lithium‑sulfur, zinc‑air, and multivalent systems such as magnesium, calcium, and aluminium. First, we’ll walk through the fundamentals and performance promises of each chemistry, then turn to the intertwined manufacturing hurdles, realistic $\(/\text{kWh}\) cost trajectories, and the policy instruments—fiscal incentives, standards, and trade‑flow management—that can accelerate or impede scale‑up. By juxtaposing raw‑material abundance, geopolitical shifts, and industrial case studies, the narrative highlights how coordinated policy can turn these abundant‑element chemistries into commercially viable EV power sources. This overview sets the stage for the detailed analysis of the cross‑cutting technical and manufacturing bottlenecks that follow.

4.1. Chemistry Overviews¶

Sodium‑ion batteries promise a “lithium‑free” route to electric‑vehicle power by tapping the planet’s virtually limitless sodium reserves—think of seawater‑derived feedstock replacing the tightly‑held lithium mines of the “Lithium Triangle.” Recent cathode breakthroughs have lifted energy‑density expectations, yet the larger ionic radius and lower redox voltage still shave a few percent off the theoretical capacity compared with lithium‑ion. Today’s prototype cells sit around $87 $/kWh, but aggressive scaling of iron‑ and manganese‑based cathodes could drive the price down to roughly $40 $/kWh, a level that would make sodium‑ion competitive for mid‑range EVs. A single policy lever—targeted subsidies for domestic sodium extraction and processing—could accelerate that cost curve by lowering raw‑material tariffs and encouraging “friend‑shoring” of electrolyte production.

Solid‑state lithium batteries replace the flammable liquid electrolyte with a thin, inorganic ceramic or flexible polymer membrane, turning the cell into a fire‑proof “solid‑state” vault. The ceramic route offers ultra‑high ionic conductivity but wrestles with fragile interfaces that can fracture under charge‑rate stress, whereas polymer electrolytes ease manufacturing at the expense of slightly lower conductivity. Early pilot lines already demonstrate cell‑cost forecasts of about $0.14 $/kWh by 2030 (≈ CNY 1 / Wh) and an even steeper drop to \(0.06–\)0.07 $/kWh once production exceeds 10 GWh. Here, a decisive policy lever is the allocation of research grants and tax credits for electrolyte‑scale‑up (e.g., Japan’s NEDO SOLID‑Next programme), which directly underwrites the costly equipment needed to roll out kilometre‑long, defect‑free ceramic films.

Lithium‑sulfur chemistry boasts a “theoretical” gravimetric energy that dwarfs conventional lithium‑ion—envision a battery that could store as much energy as a gasoline tank in a fraction of the weight. The Achilles’ heel is the polysulfide shuttle: dissolved sulfur species that wander between electrodes, eroding capacity and shortening cycle life. Recent mitigation strategies—nanoconfinement of sulfur, protective interlayers, and tailored electrolytes—have begun to tame the shuttle, allowing laboratory cells to approach commercial‑grade performance. Cost estimates hover below $0.20 $/kWh, thanks to sulfur’s status as a cheap by‑product of oil refining. A single, well‑designed policy lever—grant programmes that fund pilot‑scale shuttle‑suppression research and streamline safety certification—can shorten the path from lab to factory by aligning industry incentives with the required materials‑handling standards.

Zinc‑air batteries draw oxygen from the ambient air, turning the cathode into a breathable “air‑breathing” power plant. Their air‑cathode architecture and inherent water‑management needs give them a safety edge—no flammable electrolyte and a self‑extinguishing chemistry—while offering energy densities that could rival lithium‑ion for long‑haul EVs. The technology is still at a low‑TRL stage, with prototype packs demonstrating promising specific energy but suffering from limited charge‑rate capability and catalyst degradation. A pragmatic policy lever—public‑funded standards development for air‑cathode durability and water‑balance control—would give manufacturers a clear compliance pathway and de‑risk large‑scale investment.

Multivalent systems (magnesium, calcium, aluminium) aim to squeeze multiple electrons out of a single ion, potentially multiplying the charge per atom and slashing material costs. Early‑stage research highlights the promise of “two‑to‑three‑electron” transfer per ion, yet finding electrolytes that remain stable against these highly reactive metals remains a bottleneck. Current laboratory cells sit at low TRL, with modest energy‑density figures and modest charge‑rate performance. A focused policy lever—research subsidies that pair electrolyte development with high‑throughput screening platforms—could fast‑track the discovery of compatible chemistries and lift these concepts out of the “proof‑of‑concept” lab.

Having painted a concise snapshot of each emerging chemistry—its promise, hurdle, cost trajectory, and a key policy catalyst—the report now moves on to the manufacturing challenges and policy landscape that will determine whether these batteries can scale from laboratory curiosities to gigafactory‑ready EV packs.

4.2. Manufacturing Challenges & Policy Landscape¶

The commercial road from a bench‑top cell to a gigafactory‑ready pack for sodium‑ion, solid‑state, and lithium‑sulfur (Li‑S) batteries rests on three intertwined pillars: secure raw‑material streams, realistic $\(/\text{kWh}\) cost trajectories, and policy levers that can either smooth or choke the scale‑up curve.

Raw‑material security and geopolitics – Sodium’s story reads like a supply‑chain fairy tale: the element can be harvested from seawater or industrial waste, sidestepping the “Lithium Triangle” and the cobalt‑rich mines of the Democratic Republic of Congo [67]. The McKinsey “Battery 2030” outlook warns that lithium could become “extremely short” by 2030 under a base‑case scenario, whereas sodium‑ion and sulfur‑based chemistries face far fewer import‑risk shocks [36]. Yet even abundant feedstocks are not immune to trade turbulence. The 2018 U.S.–China trade war triggered an 18.42 % plunge in abnormal transaction values for Chinese battery‑material exporters, showing how tariff‑induced cost spikes can reverberate through seemingly resilient supply lines [58]. Proactive policy tools can turn this vulnerability into an advantage. In the United States, the Inflation Reduction Act (IRA) tax credits encourage domestic sourcing of battery inputs, while Mexico’s proposed tax credits reward regional material procurement, nudging the industry toward “friendshoring” of critical minerals [85]. The Critical Minerals Industrial Act and related DOE funding aim to close the domestic refining gap that currently forces many sodium‑ion and solid‑state electrolytes to rely on overseas processing [79]. As the IGF Mining note emphasizes, these fiscal incentives become truly effective only when paired with “enabling conditions” such as clear permitting pathways, robust infrastructure, and a coherent national strategy [9].

Cost‑per‑kWh trajectories – Early‑stage cells are still premium‑priced, but aggressive scale‑up and policy support can drive them toward parity with conventional lithium‑ion packs. Sodium‑ion cells currently average $87 \(/\text{kWh}\), with a projected bottom‑out near $40 \(/\text{kWh}\) as iron‑ and manganese‑based cathodes mature and manufacturing yields improve [52]. Solid‑state batteries (SSBs) sit on the opposite end of the cost spectrum: TrendForce forecasts cell prices of roughly CNY 1 / Wh (≈ $0.14 \(/\text{kWh}\)) by 2030, falling to $0.06–0.07 \(/\text{kWh}\) by 2035 as cumulative production exceeds 10 GWh and sulfide‑electrolyte bottlenecks ease [16]. Lithium‑sulfur benefits from sulfur’s status as a low‑cost by‑product of oil refining, which can translate into material expenses lower than those of lithium‑ion, although the technology still wrestles with limited cycle life and manufacturing complexity [2]. Across all three pathways, a “green premium” of up to €50 / tCO₂ for low‑carbon raw‑material production can be offset by carbon‑abatement levers that cost less than this threshold, thereby improving overall $\(/\text{kWh}\) economics [36].

Policy levers that accelerate commercialization – Fiscal incentives such as IRA tax credits, EU subsidies, and Japan’s NEDO grants directly lower the upfront investment hurdle for pilot‑line construction and material processing [85][9]. Standards and harmonization—exemplified by the Global Battery Alliance’s call for unified manufacturing standards and the emerging IEC/ISO framework that also informs battery safety—reduce compliance costs and enable cross‑border component trade [36][9]. Trade‑flow management tools, including export‑control adjustments, strategic export‑quota designs, and “friendshoring” initiatives, shape the geographic distribution of raw‑material processing, ensuring that abundant‑element chemistries can capitalize on their supply‑chain resilience without being throttled by protectionist measures [58][2].

Industrial‑scale case studies illustrate how these policy and cost trajectories intersect in practice.

China – Sodium‑ion pilot lines: HiNa Battery Technology’s 30 kW/100 kWh demonstration in East China showcased early‑stage Na‑ion cells with a modest 2 000‑cycle life, providing a concrete reference point for future gigafactory planning [27]. The same source projects that cumulative Na‑ion capacity could exceed 100 GWh by 2030 if investment pipelines are secured, a target that aligns with the $40 \(/\text{kWh}\) cost floor identified in the IDTechEx forecast [52].

Japan – Solid‑state pilot production: Major automakers and battery makers—including Toyota, Nissan, Samsung SDI, LG Energy Solution, and CATL—operate engineering‑scale SSB pilot lines, with TrendForce projecting gigawatt‑hour volumes by 2027 [16]. Japanese public‑policy backing comes through NEDO’s SOLID‑Next programme (¥1.8 billion) and RISING‑3 grants (¥2.4 billion), which earmark funding for electrolyte development and pilot‑line construction, directly linking fiscal support to the projected $0.14 \(/\text{kWh}\) cell‑cost milestone [80][16].

U.S./Europe – Lithium‑sulfur pilots: LG Energy Solutions demonstrated a Li‑S‑powered drone in 2020 and announced a mass‑production goal for 2027, positioning Li‑S as a potential high‑energy‑density alternative for aviation and EVs [2]. In the United States, the IRA’s $224 bn battery‑production subsidies and associated tax credits lower the effective capital cost for Li‑S plant build‑outs, while European Union “Fit for 55” climate packages provide parallel grant mechanisms that de‑risk scaling [85][2]. The IGF Mining policy note stresses that such fiscal incentives become effective only after primary enabling conditions—stable permitting, infrastructure, and a coherent national strategy—are in place, underscoring the need for coordinated policy design [9].

Table 1 – Industrial Scale‑Up Snapshots and Policy Levers

The convergence of abundant‑element feedstocks, aggressive cost‑reduction pathways, and well‑calibrated policy instruments creates a fertile environment for next‑generation EV batteries. Yet the ultimate commercial success will depend on how swiftly governments can translate fiscal promises into concrete enabling conditions—stable permitting, infrastructure investment, and globally recognized standards—while navigating the lingering geopolitical frictions that still shape cross‑border material flows.

Having outlined the manufacturing challenges and policy landscape for emerging battery chemistries, the next section will explore the cross‑cutting technical and manufacturing bottlenecks that affect all three technologies.

5. Cross‑Cutting Technical & Manufacturing Bottlenecks¶

Imagine a future city where loss‑less superconducting cables whisk electricity from offshore wind farms straight into neighborhoods without a single watt of waste, quantum‑secured links protect every online transaction, and electric‑vehicle fleets cruise hundreds of kilometres on a single charge thanks to ultra‑dense batteries. To turn this vivid tableau into reality the three frontier technologies—room‑temperature superconductors, quantum‑computing hardware, and next‑generation EV batteries—must each conquer a common set of hurdles. Think of the city as a high‑performance sports car: its speed, handling, safety, and fuel efficiency all depend on five critical systems that must be tuned in concert.

1. Materials scalability – Just as a car needs a flawless engine block, the three domains require atomically uniform, defect‑free layers that can be stretched over meters. Solution‑processed 2‑D transition‑metal dichalcogenides (TMDs) illustrate how thin‑film uniformity limits quantum‑chip yields and, at the same time, constrains the deposition of superconducting coatings for power‑grid cables or high‑energy battery electrodes [72]. The self‑precooled pulse‑tube concept shows that cutting ancillary hardware reduces the number of distinct material stacks that must be manufactured and qualified, a benefit that translates directly to the large‑area thin films needed for superconducting cables and solid‑state batteries [31]. Hybrid digital manufacturing (HDM) further demonstrates that shrinking factory footprints and integrating digital twins can cut raw‑material waste by up to 60 % while preserving tight tolerances, a model that could be adopted by both quantum‑chip fabs and battery‑cell lines [73].

2. Supply‑chain security – A high‑performance vehicle cannot run on a fuel supply that disappears overnight. The raw‑material bottlenecks identified for nanowire transparent conductors (silver, polyol reagents) echo the dependence of superconducting wire producers on niobium, tantalum, and rare‑earth precursors [72]. De‑globalisation pressures and the U.S. CHIPS and Science Act have already reshaped sourcing strategies for cryogenic components, prompting “friendshoring” of indium‑based low‑temperature bonds that are essential for qubit packaging, high‑current superconducting interconnects, and emerging solid‑state battery current collectors [34][62]. A coordinated policy response—such as strategic stockpiles for silver, niobium, and high‑purity copper—would therefore lower risk across all three sectors.

3. Thermal‑management – Whether it is millikelvin drift in a dilution refrigerator, joule heating in a 77 K superconducting cable, or hotspot formation in a battery pack, heat is the universal enemy. Pulse‑tube cryocoolers that deliver 1080 W at 77 K with a relative Carnot efficiency of 16 % provide a scalable platform for both quantum‑computer cryostats and the cryogenic cooling of high‑current HTS cables [81]. The same engineering tricks—compact, low‑vibration compressors and internal precooling stages—appear in thermoelectric‑cooler‑based battery‑thermal‑management systems, where forced‑convection micro‑jets and heat‑pipe hybrids flatten temperature gradients across large packs [13][14]. By standardising the interface between a cold head and its thermal spreader, manufacturers can reuse a single cryogenic module across quantum, superconducting, and battery applications.

4. Reliability testing & standards – A race car needs a rigorous testing regime before it hits the track. Across the board, the lack of a common reliability language inflates development costs. For superconducting resonators the quality factor \(Q\) is the benchmark; for qubits, coherence times \(T_1\) and \(T_2\) dominate; for batteries, cycle‑life retention at a defined temperature window is the metric. Studies of nanowire film heating and NV‑centre surface‑noise mitigation have produced repeatable accelerated‑aging protocols that can be ported to superconducting cable stress tests and solid‑state electrolyte cycling [72][55][14]. Emerging IEC/ISO work on quantum‑technology standards (JTC 3) already references these cross‑domain test methods, promising a unified certification pathway that would let a “cryogenic‑ready” component be approved simultaneously for quantum processors, power‑grid cables, and high‑power battery packs [34][55].

5. Regulatory pathways – Even the best‑engineered vehicle stalls without clear road rules. Regulation is still catching up. The European Green Deal, the U.S. Inflation Reduction Act, and China’s strategic export‑quota designs each embed climate‑oriented incentives, but they rarely address the shared safety and performance standards needed for cryogenic hardware, superconducting infrastructure, and high‑energy batteries. A harmonised regulatory “lingua franca”—for example, a set of emission‑free‑manufacturing thresholds and mandatory traceability dashboards for critical metals—would reduce duplicate compliance work and open trans‑national markets [83][62][50].

The convergence of these five challenges creates a powerful feedback loop: a material‑scale improvement in one field instantly expands the design space in the others, while a shared regulatory or testing framework slashes time‑to‑market for every emerging technology.

Having mapped these cross‑cutting obstacles, the next section will look ahead to future trajectories, policy take‑aways, and how coordinated action can turn today’s challenges into tomorrow’s integrated solutions.

6. Outlook & Take‑aways¶

2028 – Prototype solid‑state batteries (SSBs) that combine ultra‑thin, high‑conductivity electrolytes with lithium‑metal anodes move from laboratory benches to low‑volume EV model lines, delivering energy densities that extend range by roughly 30 % and eliminate the fire‑risk of liquid electrolytes [87][25][46].

2030 – A near‑ambient‑pressure superconductor, emerging from “chemical‑pre‑compression” work on hydrogen‑rich hydrides and defect‑engineered graphite, is demonstrated in a kilometre‑scale cable that can transmit electricity with virtually zero resistive loss. The first grid‑pilot, installed alongside a coastal wind farm, shows that megawatt‑level power can be moved without the 5 % losses that still plague today’s transmission lines [51][24][89].

2032 – Quantum‑computing hardware built on superconducting qubits reaches fault‑tolerant logical‑qubit performance in the United States, while China’s “Quantum Avenue” cluster fields 50‑qubit processors for specialized scientific simulations. The combined effect is the rollout of quantum‑secure communication links that encrypt municipal traffic‑light control, power‑grid monitoring and hospital data streams in real time [28][53].

2035 – Lithium‑sulfur (Li‑S) cells achieve cycle‑life targets that make them viable for high‑range EVs, and sodium‑ion batteries hit $40–50 $/kWh cost milestones, opening the market to mid‑range electric cars that rival conventional gasoline models on price and range [25][46].

By the late 2030s the three breakthroughs begin to intersect in everyday life. Picture a city where loss‑less superconducting cables, now operable at ambient pressure, whisk clean solar power from the outskirts to rooftop chargers without a single watt of waste, while the same cryogenic‑ready infrastructure cools the quantum processors that protect every online transaction with unbreakable quantum‑key‑distribution links. At the same time, EVs equipped with solid‑state or lithium‑sulfur packs travel twice as far on a single charge, turning cross‑country road trips into routine journeys. The cryocooler that once lived only in MRI suites has become the common workhorse that simultaneously cools quantum chips, stabilises high‑current superconducting grids, and maintains optimal temperatures for next‑generation battery packs—turning today’s laboratory breakthroughs into the backbone of a cleaner, faster, and more secure world.

References¶

1. Supply Chain Innovation and Trends. Available at: https://www.microsoft.com/en-us/dynamics-365/topics/supply-chain-management/supply-chain-technology-innovation-trends (Accessed: August 28, 2025)
2. Friendshoring the Lithium-Ion Battery Supply Chain: Final Assembly and End Uses. Available at: https://www.csis.org/analysis/friendshoring-lithium-ion-battery-supply-chain-final-assembly-and-end-uses (Accessed: August 28, 2025)
3. Lanthanum decahydride. Available at: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lanthanum_decahydride (Accessed: August 28, 2025)
4. China Reaches New Milestone in Space-Based Quantum Communications. Available at: https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/china-reaches-new-milestone-in-space-based-quantum-communications/ (Accessed: August 28, 2025)
5. U.S. weighs National Quantum Initiative Reauthorization Act. Available at: https://www.techtarget.com/searchcio/news/366570953/US-weighs-National-Quantum-Initiative-Reauthorization-Act (Accessed: August 28, 2025)
6. Quantum Technologies and Quantum Computing in South Korea. Available at: https://postquantum.com/quantum-computing/quantum-south-korea/ (Accessed: August 28, 2025)
7. Revealing the superconducting limit of twisted bilayer graphene. Available at: https://phys.org/news/2024-11-revealing-superconducting-limit-bilayer-graphene.html (Accessed: August 28, 2025)
8. New IEC/ISO Joint Technical Committee on Quantum Technologies—Inviting Participants for the U.S. National Committee Technical Advisory Group. Available at: https://www.nist.gov/news-events/news/2024/02/new-ieciso-joint-technical-committee-quantum-technologies-inviting (Accessed: August 28, 2025)
9. Tax Policies for Enhancing Domestic Value Addition for Critical Minerals: Lessons from policy and practice. Available at: https://www.igfmining.org/tax-policies-for-enhancing-domestic-value-addition-for-critical-minerals-lessons-from-policy-and-practice/ (Accessed: August 28, 2025)
10. Technology transfer. Available at: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Technology_transfer (Accessed: August 28, 2025)
11. Center for Superconducting and Magnetic Materials. Available at: https://mse.osu.edu/csmm (Accessed: August 28, 2025)
12. Quantum Technologies (RP2024). Available at: https://interoperable-europe.ec.europa.eu/collection/rolling-plan-ict-standardisation/quantum-technologies-rp2024 (Accessed: August 28, 2025)
13. A comprehensive review of thermoelectric cooling technologies for enhanced thermal management in lithium-ion battery systems. Available at: https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC11667599/ (Accessed: August 28, 2025)
14. A comprehensive review on thermal management of electronic devices - Journal of Engineering and Applied Science. Available at: https://jeas.springeropen.com/articles/10.1186/s44147-023-00309-2 (Accessed: August 28, 2025)
15. Realisation of high-fidelity nonadiabatic CZ gates with superconducting qubits. Available at: https://www.nature.com/articles/s41534-019-0202-7 (Accessed: August 28, 2025)
16. Solid-state batteries enter pilot production, costs expected to drastically drop. Available at: https://www.ess-news.com/2024/10/31/solid-state-batteries-enter-pilot-production-costs-expected-to-drastically-drop/ (Accessed: August 28, 2025)
17. Superconducting cables for sustainable energy transition (SCARLET). Available at: https://www.rifs-potsdam.de/en/research/superconducting-cables-sustainable-energy-transition-scarlet (Accessed: August 28, 2025)
18. Angsana A Techatassanasoontorn, Lena Waizenegger, Bill Doolin. (2023). When Harry, the human, met Sally, the software robot: Metaphorical sensemaking and sensegiving around an emergent digital technology. Journal of Information Technology.
19. National Quantum Strategy. Available at: https://quantuminkorea.org/national-quantum-strategy/ (Accessed: August 28, 2025)
20. American Chemical Society. Available at: https://www.acs.org/molecule-of-the-week/archive/l/lanthanum-decahydride.html (Accessed: August 28, 2025)
21. https://www.researchgate.net/publication/368652637_Observation_of_Conventional_Near_Room_Temperature_Superconductivity_in_Carbonaceous_Sulfur_Hydride. Available at: https://www.researchgate.net/publication/368652637_Observation_of_Conventional_Near_Room_Temperature_Superconductivity_in_Carbonaceous_Sulfur_Hydride (Accessed: August 28, 2025)
22. Danny Samson, Morgan Swink. (2023). People, performance and transition: A case study of psychological contract and stakeholder orientation in the Toyota Australia plant closure. Journal of Operations Management.
23. Engineering cryogenic setups for 100-qubit scale superconducting circuit systems - EPJ Quantum Technology. Available at: https://epjquantumtechnology.springeropen.com/articles/10.1140/epjqt/s40507-019-0072-0 (Accessed: August 28, 2025)
24. https://www.science.org/content/blog-post/room-temperature-superconductor-new-developments. Available at: https://www.science.org/content/blog-post/room-temperature-superconductor-new-developments (Accessed: August 28, 2025)
25. Beyond lithium-ion: emerging frontiers in next-generation battery technologies. Available at: https://www.frontiersin.org/journals/batteries-and-electrochemistry/articles/10.3389/fbael.2024.1377192/full (Accessed: August 28, 2025)
26. https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S1755581711000630. Available at: https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S1755581711000630 (Accessed: August 28, 2025)
27. Techno-economics Analysis on Sodium-Ion Batteries: Overview and Prospective. Available at: https://link.springer.com/chapter/10.1007/978-3-031-48359-2_14 (Accessed: August 28, 2025)
28. Benchmarking Quantum Technology Performance: Governments, Industry, Academia and their Role in Shaping our Technological Future. Available at: https://ecipe.org/publications/benchmarking-quantum-technology-performance/ (Accessed: August 28, 2025)
29. 863 Program. Available at: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/863_Program (Accessed: August 28, 2025)
30. How Innovative Is China in Quantum?. Available at: https://itif.org/publications/2024/09/09/how-innovative-is-china-in-quantum/ (Accessed: August 28, 2025)
31. https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S001122751200094X. Available at: https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S001122751200094X (Accessed: August 28, 2025)
32. https://www.congress.gov/bill/115^th-congress/house-bill/6227. Available at: https://www.congress.gov/bill/115^th-congress/house-bill/6227 (Accessed: August 28, 2025)
33. https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/full/10.1080/03057267.2024.2434797. Available at: https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/full/10.1080/03057267.2024.2434797 (Accessed: August 28, 2025)
34. https://academic.oup.com/nsr/article/12/8/nwaf246/8165689. Available at: https://academic.oup.com/nsr/article/12/8/nwaf246/8165689 (Accessed: August 28, 2025)
35. https://www.sciencedirect.com/journal/research-policy. Available at: https://www.sciencedirect.com/journal/research-policy (Accessed: August 28, 2025)
36. https://www.mckinsey.com/industries/automotive-and-assembly/our-insights/battery-2030-resilient-sustainable-and-circular. Available at: https://www.mckinsey.com/industries/automotive-and-assembly/our-insights/battery-2030-resilient-sustainable-and-circular (Accessed: August 28, 2025)
37. [2003.00024] New material platform for superconducting transmon qubits with coherence times exceeding 0.3 milliseconds. Available at: https://arxiv.org/abs/2003.00024 (Accessed: August 28, 2025)
38. Make an Impact on Quantum Technologies: Join USNC TAG for New IEC/ISO Joint Technical Committee. Available at: https://ansi.org/standards-news/all-news/2024/01/1-21-24-make-an-impact-on-quantum-technologies-join-us-tag-for-new-iec-iso-joint-technical-committee (Accessed: August 28, 2025)
39. https://academic.oup.com/nsr/article/11/1/nwad107/7134098. Available at: https://academic.oup.com/nsr/article/11/1/nwad107/7134098 (Accessed: August 28, 2025)
40. https://www.science.org/doi/10.1126/science.aav1910. Available at: https://www.science.org/doi/10.1126/science.aav1910 (Accessed: August 28, 2025)
41. Tingru Cui, Libo Liu, Huaihui Cheng, Shanton Chang, Yuanyue Feng. (2024). Crowdsourcing for innovation: Effects of idea content and competition intensity on idea success. Journal of Strategic Information Systems.
42. Framing governance for a contested emerging technology:insights from AI policy | Policy and Society | Oxford Academic. Available at: https://academic.oup.com/policyandsociety/article/40/2/158/6509326 (Accessed: August 28, 2025)
43. Quantum Technology Challenge: What Role for the Government?. Available at: https://www.businessofgovernment.org/blog/quantum-technology-challenge-what-role-government (Accessed: August 28, 2025)
44. https://spj.science.org/doi/10.34133/icomputing.0115. Available at: https://spj.science.org/doi/10.34133/icomputing.0115 (Accessed: August 28, 2025)
45. Digital supply chain: literature review of seven related technologies. Available at: https://mfr.edp-open.org/articles/mfreview/full_html/2024/01/mfreview230053/mfreview230053.html (Accessed: August 28, 2025)
46. https://pubs.acs.org/doi/10.1021/acsenergylett.4c03331. Available at: https://pubs.acs.org/doi/10.1021/acsenergylett.4c03331 (Accessed: August 28, 2025)
47. NATIONAL QUANTUM INITIATIVE. Available at: https://www.quantum.gov/ (Accessed: August 28, 2025)
48. Hole-Spin Qubits Demonstrated in Silicon FinFETs. Available at: https://postquantum.com/industry-news/hole-spin-qubits/ (Accessed: August 28, 2025)
49. IBM Quantum Computers: Evolution, Performance, and Future Directions. Available at: https://arxiv.org/html/2410.00916v1 (Accessed: August 28, 2025)
50. Quantum Sundays |20⟩ Quantum Computing Q&A for Leadership and Experts —Part 1. Available at: https://medium.com/@adnanmasood/quantum-sundays-20-quantum-computing-q-a-for-leadership-and-experts-part-1-28ebd96f4042 (Accessed: August 28, 2025)
51. current status and future development of high-temperature conventional superconductivity | National Science Review | Oxford Academic. Available at: https://academic.oup.com/nsr/article/11/7/nwae047/7613947 (Accessed: August 28, 2025)
52. Sodium-ion Batteries 2024-2034: Technology, Players, Markets, and Forecasts. Available at: https://www.idtechex.com/en/research-report/sodium-ion-batteries/978 (Accessed: August 28, 2025)
53. China’s long view on quantum tech has the US and EU playing catch-up. Available at: https://merics.org/en/report/chinas-long-view-quantum-tech-has-us-and-eu-playing-catch (Accessed: August 28, 2025)
54. Carbon content drives high temperature superconductivity in a carbonaceous sulfur hydride below 100 GPa - PubMed. Available at: https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/35837875/ (Accessed: August 28, 2025)
55. Superconductor Electronics: Status and Outlook. Available at: https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s10948-018-4884-4 (Accessed: August 28, 2025)
56. Standards – QTC. Available at: https://quantum.ieee.org/standards (Accessed: August 28, 2025)
57. https://www.mdpi.com/2624-960X/6/4/39. Available at: https://www.mdpi.com/2624-960X/6/4/39 (Accessed: August 28, 2025)
58. Di Fan, Pengcheng Ma, Lin Cui, Daphne W. Yiu. (2024). Locking in overseas buyers amid geopolitical conflicts. Journal of Operations Management.
59. ‘Unconventional’ superconductivity probed in twisted graphene. Available at: https://www.nature.com/articles/d41586-025-00057-8 (Accessed: August 28, 2025)
60. IBM quantum computers: evolution, performance, and future directions. Available at: https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s11227-025-07047-7 (Accessed: August 28, 2025)
61. Quantum Experiments at Space Scale. Available at: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quantum_Experiments_at_Space_Scale (Accessed: August 28, 2025)
62. ManMohan S Sodhi, Christopher S Tang. (2024). Seeking and Exploiting Synergies Among the UN Sustainability Development Goals: Research Opportunities for Operations Management. Production and Operations Management.
63. https://thequantuminsider.com/2025/06/18/building-quantum-literacy-south-koreas-strategic-integration-of-science-society-and-sovereignty/. Available at: https://thequantuminsider.com/2025/06/18/building-quantum-literacy-south-koreas-strategic-integration-of-science-society-and-sovereignty/ (Accessed: August 28, 2025)
64. Cantwell, Young, Durbin, Daines Introduce National Quantum Initiative Reauthorization Act. Available at: https://www.commerce.senate.gov/2024/12/cantwell-young-durbin-daines-introduce-national-quantum-initiative-reauthorization-act (Accessed: August 28, 2025)
65. RETRACTED ARTICLE: Room-temperature superconductivity in a carbonaceous sulfur hydride. Available at: https://www.nature.com/articles/s41586-020-2801-z (Accessed: August 28, 2025)
66. Superconducting ternary hydrides: progress and challenges | National Science Review | Oxford Academic. Available at: https://academic.oup.com/nsr/article/11/7/nwad307/7462326 (Accessed: August 28, 2025)
67. https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S2095809922003630. Available at: https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S2095809922003630 (Accessed: August 28, 2025)
68. IR 8547, Transition to Post-Quantum Cryptography Standards. Available at: https://csrc.nist.gov/pubs/ir/8547/ipd (Accessed: August 28, 2025)
69. Assessing the Value of Research at the Department of Energy: A Perspective from the Office of Basic Energy Sciences. Available at: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/sites/books/NBK45344/ (Accessed: August 28, 2025)
70. https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0048733323000495. Available at: https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0048733323000495 (Accessed: August 28, 2025)
71. Prediction of ambient pressure conventional superconductivity above 80 K in hydride compounds. Available at: https://www.nature.com/articles/s41524-024-01214-9 (Accessed: August 28, 2025)
72. Exploring quantum materials and applications: a review - Journal of Materials Science: Materials in Engineering. Available at: https://jmsg.springeropen.com/articles/10.1186/s40712-024-00202-7 (Accessed: August 28, 2025)
73. Andreas Stark, Kenneth Ferm, Robin Hanson, Mats Johansson, Siavash Khajavi, Lars Medbo, Mikael Öhman, Jan Holmström. (2023). Hybrid digital manufacturing: Capturing the value of digitalization. Journal of Operations Management.
74. https://advanced.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/full/10.1002/adma.202415073. Available at: https://advanced.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/full/10.1002/adma.202415073 (Accessed: August 28, 2025)
75. Alex Scott, Beth Davis-Sramek, David J Ketchen, Jr.. (2024). Men at Work. . . Unsafely: Gender Differences in Compliance with Safety Regulations in the Trucking Industry. Production and Operations Management.
76. Retraction Note: Room-temperature superconductivity in a carbonaceous sulfur hydride - PubMed. Available at: https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/36163290/ (Accessed: August 28, 2025)
77. Indranil Biswas, Gurmeet Singh, Sunil Tiwari, Tsan-Ming Choi, Shivanee Pethe. (2024). Managing Industry 4.0 supply chains with innovative and traditional products: Contract cessation points and value of information. European Journal of Operational Research.
78. EU and Japan Deepen Quantum Cooperation Through Digital Partnership Council and Q-NEKO Project. Available at: https://quantumcomputingreport.com/eu-and-japan-deepen-quantum-cooperation-through-digital-partnership-council-and-q-neko-project/ (Accessed: August 28, 2025)
79. A Federal Critical Mineral Processing Initiative: Securing U.S. Mineral Independence from China – War on the Rocks. Available at: https://warontherocks.com/2025/04/a-federal-critical-mineral-processing-initiative-securing-u-s-mineral-independence-from-china/ (Accessed: August 28, 2025)
80. Japan’s Shift from Lithium to Sodium Batteries: A Strategic Pivot in Energy Storage and Supply Chain Resilience. Available at: https://trendsresearch.org/insight/japans-shift-from-lithium-to-sodium-batteries-a-strategic-pivot-in-energy-storage-and-supply-chain-resilience/ (Accessed: August 28, 2025)
81. https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S001122751930428X. Available at: https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S001122751930428X (Accessed: August 28, 2025)
82. South Korea Establishes Quantum Strategy Committee and Announces Funding Initiatives to Boost Quantum Industry. Available at: https://quantumcomputingreport.com/south-korea-establishes-quantum-strategy-committee-and-announces-funding-initiatives-to-boost-quantum-industry/ (Accessed: August 28, 2025)
83. Ali Ebadi Torkayesh, Sepehr Hendiani, Grit Walther, Sandra Venghaus. (2024). Fueling the future: Overcoming the barriers to market development of renewable fuels in Germany using a novel analytical approach. European Journal of Operational Research.
84. A simple way to control superconductivity. Available at: https://www.riken.jp/en/news_pubs/research_news/pr/2025/20250320_1/ (Accessed: August 28, 2025)
85. A proactive strategy to navigating geopolitics | McKinsey. Available at: https://mckinsey.com/capabilities/geopolitics/our-insights/a-proactive-approach-to-navigating-geopolitics-is-essential-to-thrive (Accessed: August 28, 2025)
86. Popular science. Available at: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Popular_science (Accessed: August 28, 2025)
87. https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0378775321004511. Available at: https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0378775321004511 (Accessed: August 28, 2025)
88. Unconventional superconductivity discovered in graphene bilayers | Physics Today | AIP Publishing. Available at: https://pubs.aip.org/physicstoday/article/71/5/15/827499/Unconventional-superconductivity-discovered-in (Accessed: August 28, 2025)
89. Room-Temperature Superconductivity Heats Up – Communications of the ACM. Available at: https://cacm.acm.org/news/room-temperature-superconductivity-heats-up/ (Accessed: August 28, 2025)
90. [2505.06532] Micius, the world's first quantum communication satellite, was hackable. Available at: https://arxiv.org/abs/2505.06532 (Accessed: August 28, 2025)
91. How to Build a Quantum Supercomputer: Scaling from Hundreds to Millions of Qubits. Available at: https://arxiv.org/html/2411.10406v2 (Accessed: August 28, 2025)