行家说储能·2025-06-12 09:48Core Viewpoint - The competition between CATL and Sungrow in the energy storage industry represents a complex decision-making process for battery manufacturers and system integrators, as they must choose between the 587Ah and 684Ah battery specifications, which could impact their future positioning in technology competition [2][3][9]. Group 1: Market Dynamics - The competition between the 587Ah and 684Ah battery routes is expected to remain tight in the short term, with three potential long-term outcomes: Sungrow's 684Ah route could dominate, CATL's 587Ah could maintain leadership, or both could coexist [3][4][5]. - The competition is not merely about battery capacity but involves a deeper struggle for industry chain dominance, with CATL's dual role as both a battery supplier and a competitor to system integrators raising concerns among downstream integrators [9][10]. Group 2: Strategic Considerations - CATL's 587Ah specification is designed for broad applicability, representing a gradual innovation path that balances performance and reliability, while Sungrow's 684Ah approach seeks to redefine battery specifications from a system integration perspective [11][12]. - Other battery manufacturers and system integrators must carefully evaluate their strategic choices based on their strengths and market conditions, as premature alignment with one side could pose risks, while excessive caution might lead to missed opportunities [12][13]. Group 3: Future Outlook - The energy storage industry is entering a phase of convergence, with the new generation of large battery technologies shifting from multiple models to two mainstream specifications (587Ah and 684Ah), indicating a maturation of the industry [16][17]. - The competition is expected to unfold in three stages: a parallel technology validation phase, a cost-effectiveness comparison phase, and a final assessment of comprehensive strength and industry alliances [17][18].