Four tech trends from 2025 that will shape the future – because they have to
- Reference: 1767028213
- News link: https://www.theregister.co.uk/2025/12/29/four_tech_trends_2025/
- Source link:
Structural battery composites
SBCs are, as they sound, materials that can create structural components in devices, vehicles, and buildings, while also acting as energy storage. Instead of an electric vehicle having a frame and a battery pack, [1]the frame is the battery and the battery is the frame . Either way you think about it, one of the two biggest components has been eliminated. While lots of work has been done on carbon fiber and lithium composites, the technology has much greater potential for using different electrochemicals, as energy densities can be less without compromising functionality.
There are huge benefits to be realized. You're making one thing, not two, saving energy, reducing environmental impact, simplifying supply chains, and reducing costs. The geopolitical risks of relying on lithium from a small number of countries can be significantly reduced, and power storage – an essential component of the decarbonized energy future – extended into whole new fields.
Next-generation nuclear power
Although fusion power generation gets the headlines, there are still huge challenges before it becomes a significant energy source. Fission nuclear power has been feeding grids since the mid-1950s. Now two trends are combining to revitalize an industry starved of research for decades.
[2]Generation IV reactors use novel coolants such as helium, liquid metals, and salts, operating at much higher temperatures than water-cooled plants but at much lower pressures. This simplifies the engineering and maintenance with increased efficiency, as well as increasing safety and sustainability. Seventy years of experience, good and bad, meets decades of advances in materials science.
The other component to nuclear power's renaissance is the small modular reactor concept, or SMR. Small nuclear plants also sport a mid-1950s vintage, when they started powering submarines, and they've been in service ever since. The modular aspect is new, making reactors out of standard components built on factory production lines. This shift away from massive, multibillion-dollar, decades-long nuclear projects fundamentally changes the economics and resilience of the sector.
Accessibility – not just a good idea, it's the law
European regulation on privacy, security, and interoperability has attracted most of the attention and ire from elsewhere, but another piece of legislation came into force in 2025. The [3]European Accessibility Act (EAA) mandates all member states to make products and services equally accessible to all, with inaccessible systems banned from 2030. This means a new approach to design and implementation online and off is going to happen.
By enforcing equality of access for navigation, interaction, and consumption across the EU, the idea is that the cost of implementing accessible systems will come down, markets and jobs will become more open to more people, and everyday life will become better for more people. As it stands, accessibility is a hot mess, inconsistent, expensive, and often seen as an optional roadblock to innovation.
The EAA will enforce an economic, sustainable, industry-wide approach to meeting the new standards. It'll take a while, there will be pushback and spotty take-up, but the libraries and frameworks will get built. The industry will suddenly find it can do it after all, and life will be better and more accessible for all, no matter how able they are.
Cyber Security Mesh meets Zero Trust
These two ideas are on the long path from concepts through to philosophies into implementable standard-based realities. Cyber Security Mesh Architecture (CSMA) is the idea that different components in an environment have different security needs, and different tools can both manage those and talk to each other about access patterns, behavior, requests, and so on. This is by way of establishing precise security policies, auditing, and monitoring.
Zero trust is the philosophy that nothing on a network, neither user nor device, can be assumed safe, but a verification pathway must be always available. This only works if the whole chain of access and delivery follows this idea – if an authentication service reports a user as verified but itself can't check, then that's a focus for attackers. CSMA provides possibilities for multiple independent verification paths for zero trust and can implement the policies to manage those, while zero trust gives CSMA the fundamental mechanism to provide a cohesive perception of who and what is active across a system.
[4]
These are evolving and to some extent overhyped concepts, but they offer a vision of intrinsically secure systems that can resist and minimize both socially engineered and technical vulnerability target attacks, and the overwhelming damaging effects if they succeed. How multiple syndicated authentication systems, biometrics, behavioral analysis, and multiple-factor authentication will evolve alongside these ideas is another matter, but they will because they must. The days when a hacker can phone up IT, get a password changed, and cause billions in economic damage have to stop. That's not a trend. That's survival. ®
Get our [5]Tech Resources
[1] https://www.zmescience.com/science/news-science/batteries-that-double-as-structure-could-change-how-your-ev-phone-and-laptop-are-designed/
[2] https://www.ansto.gov.au/news/small-modular-reactors-can-be-built-generation-iv-reactor-designs
[3] https://studionoel.co.uk/european-accessibility-act-2025#:~:text=28%20June%202025%3A%20The%20key,the%20Act's%20impact%20and%20implementation
[4] https://pubads.g.doubleclick.net/gampad/jump?co=1&iu=/6978/reg_onprem/systems&sz=300x50%7C300x100%7C300x250%7C300x251%7C300x252%7C300x600%7C300x601&tile=2&c=2aVMIEhdzBnmiQlgA9oJ08wAAAdc&t=ct%3Dns%26unitnum%3D2%26raptor%3Dcondor%26pos%3Dtop%26test%3D0
[5] https://whitepapers.theregister.com/
Re: Structural Batteries
are IMHO a bad idea. In the real world, batteries need protection from all sorts of things especially H2O.
Electrons and H2O does not mix well.
Granted that there are some battery chemistries that can survive being shot at with bullets unlike a certain Muskmobile. Bullet damage at least in most of the world is not a prime threat. Impact from foreign objects and water are far more important. Taking away protection from that is IMHO, asking for trouble in most circumstances
As for other things...
I'd like it for ads and technical blurb for simple things like WI_FI extenders and the like tell us what level of WI-FI they support. It is no use having a new, shiny laptop or tablet that supports WI-FI 6 only to find that your network is WI-FI limited security. I find that most private and even public nets (like Libraries and Cafe's) are woefully insecure and use ancient tech.
PEople upgrade their Broadband/Fibre but often do little wrt their WI-FI.
Re: That's not survival. It is an unnecessary nightmare.
...the frame is the battery and the battery is the frame.
Err, no.
As Tron says above if the battery and the frame are one and the same then when the battery dies, as it will, so does the frame.
That is literally built in obsolescence.
Re: That's not survival. It is an unnecessary nightmare.
Instead of reduce, reuse, recycle this gives replace, replace and replace.
Re: That's not survival. It is an unnecessary nightmare.
Obsolescence is the end goal. They've learned from cellphones that if you glue the battery in well enough nobody will bother replacing it, this is the natural evolution of that line of thought.
Next stop will be container based housing, where you can enjoy the dubious benefit of being able to quickly swap out your entire home when the faucet leaks.
Re: That's not survival. It is an unnecessary nightmare.
I could see structural batteries in things like high end phones and tablets to make them a tiny bit smaller or have a slightly larger battery. Phone cases aren't really that strong anyway.
It doesn't make much sense in cars though. The structural parts of a car are designed for strength and the trend there is for stronger steels to reduce weight. You aren't likely to be able to create a battery material which can match high strength steel when it comes to strength and durability. You also have the problem of getting electric power from all over the frame to the motor power pack. A car is big enough that you can always find places to put the battery.
Cars are big objects so it's always going to be worth while having the frame be the best possible frame and the battery be the best possible battery and so have these as separate components.
It's when you get to small objects like phones where small size is important that combining functions makes sense.
Accessibility – not just a good idea, it's the law
Sounds good. But as someone who has seen the past 30 years squander all the possibilities tech has offered to the less able in the name of profit, I ain't holding my breath.
When was the last time you every heard of anyone being PROSECUTED for their shitty websites that break screen readers and assistive apps to fill in webforms ????
Yes, that's right: it's never happened.
I mean the UK is famous for it's treatment of the disabled. But I can't say Europe is much better either.
That's not survival. It is an unnecessary nightmare.
the frame is the battery and the battery is the frame.
So instead of protecting the battery, you now have to protect the entire frame or face serious issues from minor collisions? That doesn't sound like a plan. And replacing a battery for a fast energy top up, or when it loses charge capacity, becomes impossible.
Next-generation nuclear power.
Nope. Because humanity never learns from its mistakes and always does everything on the cheap.
Accessibility or banned.
Expect lots of stuff to be banned because it cannot match a fixed level of accessibility. This is not a good idea. One size fits all laws do not work.
Cyber Security Mesh meets Zero Trust.
A piece of your kit will fail, and you will get locked out forever. Power will be handed to an ever smaller number of tech providers who can afford to implement it. Your government will have every piece of personal data that exists on you, including biometric.
It is better to move stuff offline that does not need to be on it - infrastructure and intranets. Use distributed systems so people hold their own data and there are no centralised honey pots of data to steal. Use less, simpler tech. Walk away from AI, the cloud and SaaS that make you less resilient. And start treating malware as a terrorist weapon, taking down those that use it.
MFA just complicates access and denies it to people who cannot cope with it. More of your data gets snaffled by the state.
All the ideas laid out in the author's piece will be disasters as they are rolled out. Some have good intentions, but the unintended consequences will be dreadful.