Is energy technology being supressed?

[richlevy]

From here

She details the series of events which ultimately resulted in Chevron Oil gaining control of the patents covering most large-format NiMH batteries. While she does not accuse Chevron explicitly, the implication is clear; Chevron, and the combined strength of the oil/automotive industrial complex, now controls the production of these batteries and they are going to squash the technology flatter than Los Angeles’s “Red Cars,” the streetcars which used to transport Angelinos everywhere until automotive interests allegedly bought them and dismantled the system.

I went on to ask about the cost of Li-Ion batteries versus the cost of NiMH. Frank speculated about near-term cost trends, assuming both were mass-produced in similar quantities. “The present thinking is that they will be comparable in cost per kW*h but they [Li-Ion] are one half the weight.”
However, Frank has not dismissed NiMH batteries entirely. He acknowledges that they make more sense in PHEVs than BEVs because PHEVs do not rely solely on their battery packs to determine the ultimate range. He also praised the durability of NiMH batteries. “The metal hydride batteries I have are over ten years old and they still work. Lithium chemistry is too new to tell.”

So we've allowed an oil company to get a stake in a competing technology, not to license it but hoard it. NIMH batteries weigh more, but they are proven and cheaper than Lithium Ion. But someone who wanted to build electric cars would find the patent locked.

The intellectual property laws were designed to allow creators to receive fair compensation and more importantly to encourage innovation and the dissemination of technology into society.

I believe that the patent expires in 2015. One can only hope that someone doesn't wave a large check in front of the guy who own the L-Ion battery patent.

[busterb]

Ask Dick and George about this?

[Elspode]

I can't wait for solar cell technology to become so efficient that BP buys out the patent rights and tosses it into the ocean.

[Undertoad]

Is energy technology being suppressed? The article doesn't come to that conclusion. Thanks for wasting 10 minutes of my time Rich. Have a nice day.

[Flint]

Originally Posted by Undertoad

Is energy technology being suppressed? The article doesn't come to that conclusion.

It's not a conclusion, it's a question: "Is energy technology being supressed?" . . . Assmunch.

[smoothmoniker]

The auto industry didn't kill the Los Angeles Red Car, economics did. The only years they ran a profit were during WWII, when gas was rationed and the ridership was near capacity all the time. The rest of the time, Pacific Electric ran them at a loss basically as promotion for their real estate developments in outlying areas.

But, of course, it's much sexier to misremember it as part of a great corporate conspiracy.

[tw]

An underlying problem exists in Rich's summary. A previous technology demonstrates the problem. McPherson developed the McPherson strut suspension in 1946 - in GM. GM stifled that innovation. McPherson had to go to England where his innovation resulted in those fabulous handling English road cars. But GM kept the superior suspension out of America until even GM conceded in 1981 - Chevy Citation.

We do have a problem with patent laws. They are geared to protect corporate profits. But if a corporation does not implement that innovation, can that company stifle it? A better patent law would grant that patent back to its inventor if the corporation does not implement it or market it. Then McPherson could have continued to refine and market his superior suspension system in America.

[lumberjim]

i always assumed this was going on. is anyone surprised here? goddamn munny.

[xoxoxoBruce]

If a large (wealthy) corporation, were to try to tie up patents beneficial to the public at large; and some public spirited person (company) were to use the patented technology making only slight changes, the corporation could sue for patent infringement.

But, wouldn't that put the corporation on the front page (insert blog), smack in the face of public ire? Or have we become such slaves to the lawyers, we'd just shrug and suffer?


"I'm as mad as hell, and I'm not going to take this anymore!"

[Clodfobble]

Originally Posted by xoxoxoBruce

But, wouldn't that put the corporation on the front page (insert blog), smack in the face of public ire? Or have we become such slaves to the lawyers, we'd just shrug and suffer?

Nah, we don't even pay attention when we're getting screwed anymore.

The CEO of Hoover is on record stating that it was a huge blunder not to have purchased the Dyson bagless vacuum technology when it was first offered to them, so that they could have stuck it on a shelf and never let it see the light of day.

[Cicero]

When did every fucking thing become a conspiracy?!?

[Shawnee123]

Yesterday about 3:47 pm.

[Cloud]

how the hell should I know?

I think the more pressure and innovation that can come from grassroots research and implementation, the better. (Mother Earth News, anyone?) But it doesn't seem outlandish to me that oil companies are getting into the alternative energy sphere. It would be short-sighted of them not to.

[tw]

Originally Posted by Cloud

I think the more pressure and innovation that can come from grassroots research and implementation, the better.

Learn why the Silicon Valley could be so successful. One factor that destroys innovation is money men. People who could not understand because spread sheets cannot measure innovation. In the Silicon Valley, a solution to ignorant money men was venture capitalists; people who took risk because they recognized innovation. Another example was destruction of innovation in Xerox PARC by Xerox bean counters. 'Must reading' for anyone who would understand by first learning from history - "Fumbling the Future".

Another technique opposed by business school types was to work with your 'enemies'. These bean counter types (like a mental midget president), instead, invent enemies. The enemy was not that other corporation. The enemy is the unknown. An early example of how that enemy was attacked was the Compaq EISA consortium with 50 other companies (including every other major PC manufacturer except IBM) to replace the ISA bus. (Same business model eventually created the PCI bus.) Yes, that EISA bus did not make it. But the Silicon Valley (and its suburbs) were learning how to innovate.

Ironically, what drove these new innovation concepts occurred when Estridge (father of the IBM PC) was driven out by MBAs; replaced with a great hater of innovation - Cannavino. Read "Big Blues".

[tw]

Originally Posted by Cloud

But it doesn't seem outlandish to me that oil companies are getting into the alternative energy sphere. It would be short-sighted of them not to.

Energy companies have long been a driving force of innovation. Personal stories from a top Exxon executive demonstrated how Exxon innvations were opposed by GM executives. UPS, at one point, was so frustrated with their replacement engines from GM as to negotiate with Shell for new engines. Apparently that threat was enough to finally get GM to stop dumping defective engines as replacement parts.

A major problem with Lithium batteries (NiMH is already obsolete technology where innovation is ongoing) is its membrane. Remember, lithium batteries approach the energy density of a hand grenade - 40 watts-hours per kilogram. So Exxon has developed a new membrane that has higher temperature tolerances.

Largest problem in Lithium batteries is safety. But in 2002, industrial consumers scoffed at the problem saying Sony and Sanyo are too reliable to let problems happen. Surprise. June 2006. Then the Panasonic factory in Osaka Japan completely burned down in Sept 2007.

One of many examples of battery companies addressing these problems is Boston Power - again possible only due to venture capitalists - not understood by bean counters in banks and Wall Street.

Appreciate why Japanese and Chinese companies dominate the battery market. The so called 'bunny battery' was developed in WWII to solve battery life expectancy of walkie-talkies. In 1990 and that battery is still the standard battery? Yes, because battery companies were owned by bean counter dominated companies such as Sara Lee. Innovation was not permitted. What made 24 hour HBO possible in the early 1980s? Lithium batteries were developed for spacecraft by Japanese companies - using technologies stifled elsewhere - provided the lithium replacement for NiCads.

Current rechargeable Lithium battery life expectancy is 300 power cycles. Some lower tech batteries still don't do that. Lastest technology now claims to do 800 to 1000 recharge cycles. None of this comes from the big American battery manufacturers dominated by bean counters who therefore cannot innovate.

List who in this post is doing innovation and who stifles it.