# Improved Energy & Power Density @ $54/Kwh



## dragonsgate (May 19, 2012)

PhantomPholly said:


> Nobel Prize winner thinks he's found a way to improve traditional LiIon to boost storage 5x while reducing costs well under $100/Kwh.
> 
> http://cleantechnica.com/2016/02/26/new-energy-storage-solution-could-hit-magic-54-mark/
> 
> Interesting - since he is only replacing the cathode in a traditional battery, substituting this part in the upcoming Tesla gigaplant could keep them price competitive for many years.


Sounds good like so many breakthroughs before but the mention of universities and research to me means they are going to milk it for all they can get in grants and the like before it even comes close to hitting the market or is bought up by the oil companies.


----------



## PhantomPholly (Aug 20, 2008)

dragonsgate said:


> Sounds good like so many breakthroughs before but the mention of universities and research to me means they are going to milk it for all they can get in grants and the like before it even comes close to hitting the market or is bought up by the oil companies.


You know I keep hearing this same tired conspiracy theory, but the fact is that most Universities which develop technology simply license it to all comers - meaning it would be impossible for one or a group of companies to "buy it and suppress it."

The other lame thing about the "evil oil companies" conspiracy theory is that it is entirely based on the idea that they are motivated to kill innovation based on the profit motive. Well guess what? The governments of the world have a LOT more to lose by switching to EVs than do the Oil companies because they stand to lose a LOT more profit (taxes) than the oil companies make in a year - most of which are now will diversified including portfolios of alternate energy (which will take off once one is actually profitable without subsidies). You see, the governments will not only lose their direct taxes on gas at the pump etc. but also the tax revenues from the diminished revenues of the oil companies. And, since we know that government is generally doing exactly the opposite of they SAY they are trying to do, we can easily see revealed that government policies are _slowing_ progress towards alternative energy.

No, more likely is that this technology may simply be a stepping stone to the point where grid storage and EV batteries are truly competitive with natural gas and petroleum, but is not the silver bullet that will suddenly cause all new cars to be EVs. I would be extremely interested, however, to learn whether this technology could be combined with the manufacturing process of 24M. If they are synergistic rather than mutually exclusive, the pairing would be a true breakthrough taking us across the finish line in a couple of years rather than 15 - 20 years.

Battery prices have been on a steady exponential price curve for 60 years; if anything the curve seems to be accelerating. At this point, it is almost impossible that grid storage and EV batteries would NOT be price competitive without subsidies by 2030.


----------



## Moltenmetal (Mar 20, 2014)

Sounds great. But zero details in that useless article. Believe it after I 've seen it.


----------



## fotajoye (Nov 28, 2011)

The popular catch-all conspiracy theory attack dosen't applied in many cases;

http://www.digitaltrends.com/cars/koch-brothers-lobby-against-electric-cars/

another:

http://insideclimatenews.org/news/0...hange-impact-api-american-petroleum-institute

one for oil:

http://www.environmental-watch.com/2013/07/26/the-chevron-conspiracy/ 

one against oil:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Patent_encumbrance_of_large_automotive_NiMH_batteries

One can't help form a feeling of mistrust and suspicion after reading the way oil companies operate through the politics of greed. Too bad they have chosen to fight clean energy instead of helping the Planet's people by investing in renewables and re-inventing their business to help feather down our dependence on fossil fuels...they will lose long term; but, they will damage us all before they do...sad!


----------



## Duncan (Dec 8, 2008)

Hi fotajoye

You don't seem to understand how the patent system works

You apply for a patent - when it is granted you get a 20 year monopoly on that idea

BUT the patent is a public document - everyone can see it
Anything NOT on the patent document is NOT protected

After 20 years anybody can use that idea

Now lets suppose that the Dastardly company of America buys a patent for a really good battery

If it is a really good battery and they won't let people use it then

(1) Non American companies will make them
The USA has tried to stop other countries from "stealing" patents for decades but if there is enough money involved.....
The USA attitude is also a bit hypocritical as when it became a nation the USA refused to recognize other country patents for about 100 years 

(2) People will build on that work to patent an improved version
You can make your patent extremely wide to make that more difficult but that will increase the chance that somebody can find documented "prior practice" that will destroy your entire patent

You can patent and shut down a minor improvement but a Major improvement will simply cause the patent to break


----------



## fotajoye (Nov 28, 2011)

Duncan said:


> Hi fotajoye
> 
> You don't seem to understand how the patent system works
> 
> ...


Thank you for your energy to explain your take on the patent system. In effect you can read 'em, just can't use 'em other than defining what you can't do.

I think much of the problem with innovation is that the patent system allows patents for too long a period and that stifles technical improvements, 20 years, indeed! At one time research results funded by federal funds were published and became public domain; anyone was allowed to use the IP. And, that was during the time when there were huge company Labs doing research, i.e., GE Labs and Bell Labs, etc.

Today, the taxpayer money for research goes mostly to Government Labs and Universities. But, don't forget Universities are businesses and professors are employees and even CEOs of their own companies who are often looking for grants and private investments. Along with this system comes the politics of greed; with patents as the enabling legal process for the politics.

I like the Musk open approach to freeing up IP by making it free. That approach accelerates innovation and forces improvement because everyone's starting at a set knowledge point and are using resources to start improving immediately instead of trying to get around the patent.


----------



## Duncan (Dec 8, 2008)

Yep - the Patent system could do with some improvement,

Up until recently you couldn't patent software - then it was allowed and the patent troll was developed!

There is a good argument for having different patent periods
20 years is a long long time in some industries

In others (like batteries) it may be a bit short - by the time you have developed the manufacturing system and built a factory there may only be a couple of years of patent life left

Musk has a different goal - good

Another system could be an "X Prize" system - develop something and get a heap of money but the "patents" are open
That would almost certainly be a LOT better than the current system for medical drugs


----------



## PhantomPholly (Aug 20, 2008)

fotajoye said:


> One can't help form a feeling of mistrust and suspicion after reading the way oil companies operate through the politics of greed.


You are almost there. Greed is stronger when there is power at stake, and the government has more of each at stake than the oil companies do.



> Too bad they have chosen to fight clean energy instead of helping the Planet's people by investing in renewables and re-inventing their business to help feather down our dependence on fossil fuels...they will lose long term; but, they will damage us all before they do...sad!


You are mistaken - only the government is "fighting" clean energy by promoting anti-growth policies. The salvation of our species will in fact be greed - all of those greedy inventors and investors striving to steal away even a small piece at a time of the trillion dollar energy industry from the status quo.


----------



## PhantomPholly (Aug 20, 2008)

Duncan said:


> Hi fotajoye
> 
> You don't seem to understand how the patent system works
> 
> ...


The bottom line being that NOTHING can be stopped for more than 20 years, after which it is free game.

BTW - the long length of Patent protections? Thank your liberal friends who supported that decades ago...


----------



## aeroscott (Jan 5, 2008)

A patent gives you the right to go to court for damages caused by infringement.
If you hold a patent and do not exploit it , you have no damages if someone 
infringes on it.Patent law was not designed to suppress innovation but to foster it. This is old information that my dad who had some patents told me about 30 or more years ago. Things have changed a lot in patent law , needs to be looked into. 
I like this principle , but the so called conservative courts have made very radical decisions like patenting life (which I understand has been overturned), and what they did to RICO act , I digress.


----------



## aeroscott (Jan 5, 2008)

fotajoye said:


> The popular catch-all conspiracy theory attack dosen't applied in many cases;
> 
> http://www.digitaltrends.com/cars/koch-brothers-lobby-against-electric-cars/
> 
> ...


 It should come as no surprise that their goal is to protect their trillion dollar investment and more importantly control the source of energy . They have proven you can control the world with it. Without control they will have to compete , not as easy as getting the governments to take out competition then blame the same government for over regulation of the completer they just tuck out.
I saw this happen in 1975 in Long Beach as EPA starting shutting down the mom and pop refineries while the magors were killing the environment
and their employees with impunity.


----------



## PhantomPholly (Aug 20, 2008)

aeroscott said:


> A patent gives you the right to go to court for damages caused by infringement.
> If you hold a patent and do not exploit it , you have no damages if someone
> infringes on it.Patent law was not designed to suppress innovation but to foster it. This is old information that my dad who had some patents told me about 30 or more years ago. Things have changed a lot in patent law , needs to be looked into.
> I like this principle , but the so called conservative courts have made very radical decisions like patenting life (which I understand has been overturned), and what they did to RICO act , I digress.


There are so many interpretations of the word "Conservative" that I really don't like any of them. The correct thing for the SCOTUS to do is always and exactly the same thing - adhere to the Constitution both in word and intent. Historically, "conservative" judges have done that more often than "liberal" judges but both sides are imperfect. If you don't like the Constitution there is a process for changing it - asking Judges to re-write it by fiat may seem like a good idea the first time your team gets what they want, but will quickly become a nightmare when the other party gains the upper hand. It was for exactly that reason that the Founders limited their power to "interpreting in case of ambiguity." Most cases brought before the SCOTUS have in fact no ambiguity of the law, just ambiguity of what society wishes the law were...


----------



## aeroscott (Jan 5, 2008)

I'm talking about long standing principles of patent law being changed for the benefit of powerful /very rich . How do you get me trying to change the constitution . What could be simpler then patents will not be issued for living things. This fiat bench is what I'm talking about .
The RICO act was very strong in the beginning the courts have slowly eviscerated it's intent. One judge said that almost all business breach RICO in do coarse of doing business. Racketeering is normal business?
A judge on the U S Supreme Court said the law is only there to protect those that know how use it.


----------



## PhantomPholly (Aug 20, 2008)

aeroscott said:


> I'm talking about long standing principles of patent law being changed for the benefit of powerful /very rich . How do you get me trying to change the constitution .


I was referring to your comment about the allegedly conservative courts which, despite your known and understood bias, have overall been extremely impartial for 250 years. I further pointed out that adhering to the Constitution is not a "conservative" thing, but rather the duty of the court.



> What could be simpler then patents will not be issued for living things.


I absolutely agree people should not be patentable - it makes them into things in direct violation of the 13th Amendment (abolition of Slavery).



> This fiat bench is what I'm talking about .


If you re-read my post, you will notice I agreed with you there about bad rulings - only difference is that you seem to believe (based on the above snippet) that bad rulings are due to a "conservative bench" rather than simply being the product of imperfect humans, and have erred more often on the side of socially liberal ideals (i.e. maximization of freedom, as our founders wanted and in accordance with the word and intent of the Constitution) rather than dogmatic / fundamentalist / bigoted ideologies (which are the most frequently stereotyped negative connotations of "conservatism").



> The RICO act was very strong in the beginning the courts have slowly eviscerated it's intent.


That is because much of its intent was in direct opposition to the tenets of the Constitution.



> One judge said that almost all business breach RICO in do coarse of doing business. Racketeering is normal business?


No, what they meant was that RICO was so broad that ordinary business might, in the hands of an unscrupulous Attorney General or other prosecutor, be erroneously interpreted to be "racketeering." In other words, the law was so broad that it offered the opportunity for abuse. BTW - interpreting the law correctly that way in light of the Constitution would ordinarily be something we construe as a "liberal interpretation" since it allows the accused maximum latitude in having the charge put aside vs conservative "crack down on crime" stereotype. Naturally, neither stereotype is accurate.



> A judge on the U S Supreme Court said the law is only there to protect those that know how use it.


In some respects that has always been true. If you don't know your rights, you effectively have none as you cannot call BS when you are falsely charged. On the other hand, our system of law has stood for 200 years as perhaps the fairest and most equitable in the world - so no matter your thoughts about it you should always weigh them in contrast with the known alternatives.


----------



## aeroscott (Jan 5, 2008)

Please point to specific examples how RICO was overly broad .
The one that I find ridicules is RICO can not be used on government ether local or national . So the local mob moves into the local government and is safe from a RICO action.
RICO deals with taking of property and at least 2 acts, wages are no longer considered property, the courts have decided . So the gangster union steals wages or fires a outspoken group of workers . But no RICO violation because no property was taken, just ones life. And we wounder why the unions have been corrupted.


----------



## PhantomPholly (Aug 20, 2008)

aeroscott said:


> Please point to specific examples how RICO was overly broad .


I'm not a trial lawyer and I'm not going to go digging through cases for you. I was simply trying to help you understand what the judge meant. As far as it not being applicable to government, I agree it should not only apply but should be applied frequently - Bernie Madoff was an amateur compared with our government.



> RICO deals with taking of property and at least 2 acts, wages are no longer considered property, the courts have decided . So the gangster union steals wages or fires a outspoken group of workers . But no RICO violation because no property was taken, just ones life. And we wounder why the unions have been corrupted.


I have no sympathy at all for that line of reasoning. Unions by their nature are all guilty of Racketeering, and should be outlawed. That includes the political unions called "Parties."


----------



## Moltenmetal (Mar 20, 2014)

Patents suck, but just like democracy, they only suck modestly less badly than everything else we've tried.

Before the King granted his first patent (was he a liberal? I highly doubt it!), everything was "trade secret" and held in guilds. Inventions often died with the inventor. The patent solved that problem by granting exclusive right to produce something, for a period which in the day was basically about as long as the inventor was likely to LIVE, in return for public disclosure and public access to that disclosure forever afterward.

Regrettably, public disclosure is far from perfect now: try the invention exactly as indicated in a (properly written) patent and you are very, very likely to end up with a failure unless you know a lot about what you're doing in that area...This is a result of deliberate effort on the part of the people drafting the patent to disclose enough to make the patent defensible, but not enough to permit other people to use it to rip them off. And that's because patents can be incredibly difficult to defend- unless you've got VERY deep pockets to defend it, and are working in an industry where the access to demonstrate that someone has breached your patent is easy enough to get.

You can patent anything other than perpetual motion machines- the patent office just got tired of those. You can patent things that do not work and cannot be made to work- if you want. People do this as a means to get gullible, stupid people to buy their crap- "hey, it's patented so it must work!".

As to the conspiracy theory, it's horseshit- horseshit that preys on a glitch in human psychology, and which is used by scam artists to sell people on horseshit "inventions", particularly "over unity" scams such as zero point energy, cold fusion, magic Tesla motors etc. etc.. 

There's no way a corporation or even a cabal of corporations could keep significant energy inventions out of the public's hands and out of the light of day forever. They might delay something for a while, or put in place a regulatory regime that makes it take longer- and we should expect them to try- but out and out suppression is a fantasy. Look at the history of invention and it's rare indeed that only one person is working on a particular thing- there's always three or four, and for anything really big there's always a fight among them afterward about who was first. The notion of the single brilliant person coming up with a bolt out of the blue that nobody past or future would ever come up with is a fantasy not supported by history or by an understanding of human nature.

I agree with Phantom that the market is what will drive us away from fossil fuels- eventually, in a substantial but not total way. Where we differ is that I think the market needs a price signal for atmospheric carbon emissions to help us get there sooner, whereas he thinks it doesn't. I am also less optimistic about the pace and extent of change than he is.


----------



## PhantomPholly (Aug 20, 2008)

Moltenmetal said:


> Patents suck, but just like democracy, they only suck modestly less badly than everything else we've tried.
> 
> Before the King granted his first patent (was he a liberal? I highly doubt it!), everything was "trade secret" and held in guilds. Inventions often died with the inventor. The patent solved that problem by granting exclusive right to produce something, for a period which in the day was basically about as long as the inventor was likely to LIVE, in return for public disclosure and public access to that disclosure forever afterward.
> 
> ...


Well said!



> The notion of the single brilliant person coming up with a bolt out of the blue that nobody past or future would ever come up with is a fantasy not supported by history or by an understanding of human nature.


Hmmm, this is where ideology taints the facts, ending up with incorrect conclusions because the base assumptions are false. Newton "discovered" the nature of gravity despite the fact that every human being who ever lived before him had the same evidence in front of their noses. He was brilliant, and had a brilliant and original insight beyond what he saw into what it _meant_. The same is true in science today, where thousands of interns and hundreds of doctorates and dozens of pedigreed scientists all buzz around the same facts, yet only one or two emerge with a truly new insight. All too often something SEEMS "obvious" after the fact, and people simply assume that "it would have been invented anyway." Perhaps, but that assumption belies the fact that most of the time millions or even billions of "other people" had the same facts available to them and did not see what seems in hindsight to have been obvious. It wasn't, not at all.

Whatever the motivations or reasons for dismissing genius individuals might have, they are flat wrong - genius determines the direction of human progress, end of story.



> I agree with Phantom that the market is what will drive us away from fossil fuels- eventually, in a substantial but not total way. Where we differ is that I think the market needs a price signal for atmospheric carbon emissions to help us get there sooner, whereas he thinks it doesn't.


Actually you are minimizing our difference. Someone in the middle might say "just don't do anything more." I would say, "eliminate most of the garbage that is already slowing us down.



> I am also less optimistic about the pace and extent of change than he is.


Neither your feelings nor mine will have any impact on the outcome - only hard numbers and facts. As I always do when people tell me they have no confidence in the anticipated progress, I will ask a simple question: 

_*What evidence do you have that the 60 year observed trends are about to mysteriously slow or stop?*_

Seriously, if you know of an impending comet strike or alien invasion, I do want to know about it. Short of that, the inflection point (where the battery/solar combination becomes cheaper than the reigning cost champions) is already inevitable.


----------



## aeroscott (Jan 5, 2008)

PhantomPholly said:


> I'm not a trial lawyer and I'm not going to go digging through cases for you. I was simply trying to help you understand what the judge meant. As far as it not being applicable to government, I agree it should not only apply but should be applied frequently - Bernie Madoff was an amateur compared with our government.
> [QUOTE/]
> 
> aeroscott response
> ...


 Wouldn't it be good to have RICO apply then, instead of restricting RICO. 
I have no sympathy for union racketeering ,but are you saying the union members should not have the rule of law to defend, themselves, corporations and the public from union racketeering?
Your arguments remind me of the lawyers I've been fighting, well crafted on the surface, but little foundation .


----------



## Moltenmetal (Mar 20, 2014)

It's hilarious that you bring up Newton, because Newton proves my point: Newton came up with calculus at exactly the same time as Leibnitz did- but we use Leibnitz's notation, not Newton's, because nobody other than Newton found his to be useful.

Are you saying that nobody would have come up with the concept of gravity and the law behind it, if Newton hadn't been born? Ever? Seriously? The concept might have been delayed ten, twenty or even fifty years, but not forever!

Individual genius matters, but it matters less than some people think. You accuse me of holding my opinion about the importance of individual genius based on ideology, but I'm not the Ayn Rand freak in this discussion- you are. She was enamoured with "genius" and "inventors" and technological development because it reinforced her "ubermensch" ideology. She wrote about these things in a way which made it brutally clear just how little she actually understood about any of it.

Most inventions and discoveries are not bolts out of the blue made by single brilliant individuals, and most significant inventions are subject to more than trivial contention among inventors who are contemporaries of the successful one. That contention among contemporaries isn't trivial, and isn't just because lawyers smell money. Exceptions to that rule are rare indeed. And my observation on this is based on the actual history of science and technological development- I encourage you to do a little reading.

As to the pace of technological change, I've been in the business of chemical technology development for over 25 years, so I have at least 25 years worth of first-hand observations in that rather broad field. You on the other hand, seem to build your opinions in the area of energy technology by reading investment-spam material for the most part- at least, that's always the source of the links you post to support your claims.


----------



## aeroscott (Jan 5, 2008)

Well put Moltenmetal. PBS did a special questioning the originality of my great hero Leonardo Da vinci, seams he built on others work much more then previously though.


----------



## PhantomPholly (Aug 20, 2008)

aeroscott said:


> Wouldn't it be good to have RICO apply then, instead of restricting RICO.


Yep. All I want for Christmas is Hillary in prison.



> I have no sympathy for union racketeering ,but are you saying the union members should not have the rule of law to defend, themselves, corporations and the public from union racketeering?


Every individual should have full protection of the law. Unions attempt to shield themselves from the law in order to allow them to use force or threat of force to get what they want. The first I approve of, the latter is unethical and is at the root of many of our society's problems. "Equal protection under the law" means that no person nor group gets "special exceptions" from their obligation to follow the law. It is my strong belief that our entire Federal Government is in violation of our laws simply by conspiring to declare themselves exempt.



> Your arguments remind me of the lawyers I've been fighting, well crafted on the surface, but little foundation .


I wasn't making an argument. You simply sounded like you didn't understand the words the judge said, so I clarified the words. That is not making a case either for or against what he said, it is simple clarification. You have since clarified your original statement, saying you understood all along but simply disagree. That's fine, but to then try to claim that I am somehow obligated to defend the judges position is nonsense. Also, to claim that I am like a crafty lawyer making a specious argument is nonsense - you are over thinking what I said and trying to ascribe some dark motivation to it. That my friend is paranoia...


----------

