Interesting fact presented in the beginning of the article: all the government funded research/companies went belly up.
Food for thought: Is it because of the sheer difficulty of such ventures? Or is it because the money went to the wrong hands?
Food for thought: Is it because of the sheer difficulty of such ventures? Or is it because the money went to the wrong hands?
To say all government funded energy storage companies went belly up is an exaggeration. Many still survive, although you will note a strange anti-correlation between government funding and survival. In my opinion a lot of money did go in the wrong hands. The main problem is that the government is totally confused as to its actual funding strategy -- you need significant, continuous supplies of capital to develop and commercialize hard technology -- every time it fluctuates you impose major stresses and delays.
In at least a few cases, the problem was that the government provided support, and thereafter withdrew it. This was most problematic for the DOE Government Loan Guarantee program -- after Solyndra (a major recipient) went belly up, the government called on their debt in a series of energy storage companies, particularly A123 and Beacon Power. That was the bankruptcy trigger.
On the other hand, it is not exactly like those companies were doing so well anyway. They were fragile, though they might have had a bright future.
Is it possible Tesla paid their DOE loan back early to prevent any volatility from that liability hanging out there?
edit - oh, I do have one thing to ask, how do you think your tech compares with Gravitypower http://www.gravitypower.net/ and Isentropic http://www.isentropic.co.uk/ ?
edit 2 - and when can I expect to be able to buy a small one, say enough storage for my house? Or are you only doing the grid-scale?
Gravity Power: I hope they have a good idea for how they can make and seal a giant concrete piston and boreshaft. I think engineered pumped hydro has a major edge on these guys -- and energy cache.
Isentropic: potentially lower cost than us (gravel's not too expensive), but significantly more loss channels, so a tougher efficiency problem. Serious loss channel potential in the thermal gradient, plus both heat stores need to be pressurized in their main design.
Wouldn't trade places with them, but maybe they'd say the same.
We might eventually do a ~10kw version for homes or a ~100kw version for cars but that is very speculative / in the future.
I am modestly excited by Ambri, Aquion, and Tesla.
Also I think you should consider doing a MVP (minimal viable product) with less efficiency but fully functional (as I understood from your blog you're struggling now with improving efficiency) and test it in real life, I think there are a lot of off the grid users in US who would like to test it, because real usage is very different than testing it in lab. You'll be able to test a lot of hardware components and be prepared for larger adoption.
Luckily, the market is decently easy to figure out by discussions and logic.
(also, hello from Oakland!)
We patented using wind towers for air storage.
Cosmin Laslau, Lux’s energy storage specialist, said there are profound differences between the past failures and Tesla’s new lithium-ion production effort. “Most importantly, the likes of A123 built Li-ion capacity first, and then waited forlornly for demand and partnerships that never came,” he said. “Tesla has taken the opposite approach: It started by creating the demand, unearthing a niche for luxury EVs powered by massive battery packs.”
Keeping R&D alive is difficult, especially in a competitive market. You need to keep momentum going. One way to help success rate is through economies of scale. If you know or have a hunch you can sell huge volumes, then you can more safely put money towards the infrastructure that will bring down cost per unit - whether that's for a full vehicle, or individual parts like batteries for a vehicle.