1) Moving large amounts of energy around a large land mass (like the lower 48 states) in a way that would compete with electrical. (Proponents point out that a great deal of this piping infrastructure is already in place.)

2) Storing large amounts of energy locally in a way that would compete with molten salt, batteries, and pumped storage hydro-electric reservoirs, compressed air energy storage (CAES), and

3) Storing small amounts of energy in portable devices, potentially solving the battery cost, energy-density, and charging infrastructure issues in electric transportation.

Yet it seemed that, for all this technical and economic merit, precious few people had any familiarity with the subject at all. But, in response why “thinking out loud” here, I got a phone call this morning from a bright young man in Indiana, Daniel Miller, who led me to the a great deal of information on the website of The Leighty Foundation. And here’s a real treasure trove from Iowa State University, which hosts an annual meeting on the subject.  Interested readers will be kept out of trouble for quite a while coming up to speed on this fascinating idea.

Related posts:

This, of course, is solid advice.  But unfortunately, not everyone is a position to swing for the fences; some technologies, while not really transformational, are nonetheless worthwhile and need to be brought to market.   Examples would include marginal improvements in the efficiency of solar panels.   I suppose one could also say that plug-in hybrids fit that description.  When battery energy densities and cost curves advance pass a certain point, fewer and fewer electric vehicle customers will be concerned about extending their range by lugging around big, heavy, and expensive internal combustion engines.   20 years from now, I predict that we’ll regard plug-in hybrids the way we do eight-track tapes or floppy discs today. 

But what a joy it is to promote a technology that really changes the way billions of people live and work.  I happen to be talking to some people who are sitting on what appears to me to be a real game-changer in renewable energy:  relatively inexpensive, unobtrusive, and benign to its local environment. 

Maybe what I like about bringing a technology like this to market is that it’s so easy; there are far fewer errors that can be made along the way.  Thus my advice to them: 

It seems to me that there are only two basic mistakes we can make here:

a) Losing control of the technology; in particular, letting it fall into the hands of someone who suppresses it.  I don’t think I’m being at all paranoid in making this point; the energy industry is rife with examples of this. 

and

b) Waiting for a certain preferred business model to take form, while excellent opportunities for perfectly valid but different business models come and go before us.

The beauty of the energy market is its enormous size — measured in trillions of dollars. In this case, I recommend entering it by “making (this solution) too cheap to steal.” One-tenth of one percent of the market is still billions of dollars.  That will make everyone quite happy, won’t it?  Let’s just go get it.

Related posts:

I am no adherent of Shai Agassi’s dubious scheme, but it does show the willingness of power companies to support EV. development.

As long as think has come up, here are my thoughts on Better Place.

1) I know the world is clamoring for electric vehicles, and that’s a good thing. But rushing headlong at Better Place seems very strange to me. At a minimum, it’s monopolistic. The state governments, e.g., California, are handing this guy a monopolistic position that is sure to be abused. By contrast, the cell phone companies (who are still making money hand over fist) must compete with one another. I suppose you have to give Agassi credit that he is able to talk his way into this position, but I find it outrageous.

2) Having said this, I really don’t think it’s the right solution for the United States anyway. I know I can be accused of optimism, but I see the entire “chicken-and-egg” or “Catch 22″ of EV production, battery supply, battery energy density, battery cost, charging infrastructure, and consumer acceptance/demand unravelling roughly in sync with one another over the coming decades. Will there be “fits and starts?” Of course.

Related posts:

In early 1900’s many cars were EVs and then they lost out to gasoline engines due to better cost and performance. 1970’s a large EV wave came in with the fuel crisis that caused gasoline prices to increase greatly…again gasoline won out as fuel prices dropped. Now again we get another EV wave due to high gas prices. Now why will EV win a niche in developed countries? The key enabler is lithium-ion technology that can get the power (he means “energy”) density up for a range that is usable for some consumers and the pack cost will result in economics that work when scale is large enough (500k per year per battery plant).

Yes. And depending on whom you ask, this is really happening quickly. I interviewed an extremely senior engineer and businessman the other day who reminded me that Moore’s Law very much applies to both the cost and energy density of Li-ion batteries. I’d like to think this is true — and it appears that it may, given the last couple of years.

Related posts: