Fraudulent Concepts in Cleantech
Whenever I bash a cleantech concept as being fraudulent or asinine, I do so at the risk of push-back from the promoter or one of his fans. A few months ago, I disparaged the inventor of the Eco-Gen Joulebox (see video below) in a blog post, suspecting that I’d hear from someone. I just got the following response, and replied to it at the bottom.
I have been following their business and tech for almost a year…I personally flew to LA from Canada twice to view their 20 Kwh Joule Box demo unit operating at their location in Van Nuys CA. Both trips I spent 3 days at Eco-Gens office / warehouse and was accompanied by associates. On the second trip last November 2018 I was joined by a group from Australia and one from Ontario Canada with their engineer(s). The engineers were very impressed with the demonstrations which we video taped in detail (segments) but have not put up on line (I could send out-for detailed reference).
I suppose I am leading up to the question that someone else asked – Why Mr. Craig Shields have you not gone to Eco-Gens office in LA to view their Joule Box tech demo unit in operation and taken an electrical engineer along?… rather than just disregard the concept / technology as a fraudulent technology. Many people are believing in the Joule Box technology and we would all like to get to the bottom of this “proclaimed” non fossil fuel continuous electrical generating technology.
Think about this for a second. The concept is to take electricity that has been generated by solar and wind, and use it to to drive a motor that generates electricity. It’s already electricity! You’re converting it to mechanical energy then back to electrical????
The more I think about this, it’s more “asinine” than “fraudulent,” since there is nothing theoretically impossible about it. You could use electricity to make light that grows grass, which you could dry with an electric heater, then burn to generate steam to turn a turbine to generate electricity. This won’t be fraudulent, as long as you don’t overstate the outrageously low efficiency of your concept.
I guess I used the term “fraudulent” because the concept can only be sold to people so ignorant that they can’t understand the simplicity of what I’ve written here, and taking advantage of ignorant people is wrong. Whether or not it technically constitutes fraud you’d have to ask an attorney.
Craig,
I’m puzzled !
Over the years, like you I’ve often uttered doubt and even disparaging observations on various weird and wonderful devises arising from time to time. The major difference between is I believe in performing at least a modicum of research into the technical feasibility of the product and background on the people involved before calling something or someone a “Fraud”.
If possible, I visit, or at least send a qualified observer, to examine the product before passing judgment. (that’s the “scientific” method)
That’s why it’s disappointing to observe you call both the people behind the Eco-Gen Joulebox “fraudsters”, along with calling any hapless respondent who, unlike yourself” has taken the trouble to visited Eco-Gen, an asinine or dishonest collaborator.
Even more disappointing is you live close to the company which openly advertises and welcomes inspection of it’s product and facilitates. Eco-Gen Joulebox advertises public demonstrations where the technical design staff are available for discussion.
For you to visit and and interview Eco-Gen Joulebox, would take less than a morning or afternoon of your time. At the minimum, you could email Eco-Gen Joulebox expressing your concerns, and politely invite a written response to your questions.
Yet you would rather condemn these folk without ever contacting them, examining their claims, or possessing any first hand knowledge of their organization or product. Instead you prefer to rely upon your own “assumptions” of what the Eco-Gen Joulebox and the designers are all about.
That’s not just more than a little arrogant and unfair, but downright “unscientific”.
What’s even more despairing is the army of annoyingly vicious self-appointed “vigilantes” infest the internet, inspired by your lunch mob mentality.
One ardent critic, publishing conjecture disguised as fact, cliams the Eco-Gen Joulebox is equipped with a concealed gasoline or natural gas tank and this supplies the power. Naturally, this odious know-it-all, has never visited Eco-Gen Joulebox or examined a unit, but feel perfectly qualified to express and opinion!
Another detractor claims to possess ‘Proof’ Eco-Gen Joulebox is a scam and corruptly received an enormous “secret” government grant ! ( again, this detractor offers no evidence to substantiate his claim, nor has he ever contacted Eco-Gen or seen an Eco-Gen Joulebox).
Titled “Eco-Gen Joulebox” (Scam Alert) is another intriguing headline which stands out when “googling” Eco-Gen Joulebox.
The News Locker story begins boldly enough ;
“On receiving in our comments section the following from Michael Watson, I felt it was worthwhile updating the story again.
These guys are scam artists and dangerous. Stay FAR AWAY from them. A friend of mine who owned several commercial properties in Massachusetts was approached by them in 2016 via a local distributor. He almost bit after their sales pitch. They promised him the joule box was fully insured, had a full warranty and could be installed in under 90 days….”
Mysteriously, and without explanation, the rest of the story is unobtainable as is the original story, only a notice ” It looks like the source deleted the news from their website.” remains.
The next claim against the Eco-Gen Joulebox not only get the product, company and individuals involved incorrectly but persists even when corrected.
Like you Craig, I too have doubts about the feasibility of the Eco-Gen Joulebox, but I certainly wouldn’t express a definitive opinion until I took the time to assure myself of my facts we accurate and accuracy Eco-Gen had been provided a right of reply.
Hi Craig, I am broadly with Marcopolo on this one. There is nothing inherently flawed in the physics or engineering as far as I can see.
The concept seems to be to store spare solar power using hydrogen and a hydrolysis unit then generate power by burning the hydrogen later. That all works, though with rather poor cycle efficiency and doubtful return on investment. When I was at University, the cycle efficiency of hydrolysis followed by a fuel cell generator was around 40%, with a version using an engine closer to 20%. (Less than half the efficiency of storing energy in a battery assuming you don’t have a use for the heat in CHP operation).
This unit in my view may have a niche in very remote areas needing days to weeks of storage for a critical application as long duration hydrogen storage is less problematic than doing the same with a battery, though even there, I could see its lunch getting eaten by new flow cell battery technologies.
I would suggest arranging a visit – if they will have you, asking some challenging questions about cycle efficiency, economics, and the market niche of the product, then if they demonstrate a technically viable product however inefficient, withdrawing the fraudulent claim.
Meh.
It’s a battery. It would be fraudulent if they billed themselves as a power generator, because they are not. But if they were upfront about being a battery… then you simply evaluate them based on the battery needs vs levelized cost of energy storage as compared to competing battery technology.
I really don’t see this as something which is likely to be competitive unless there are significant subsidies for hydrogen related technologies that are factored in. But such subsidies are in play in some states and in some countries.
Overall, it’s a niche battery. I doubt it’s cost effective enough to be market viable without subsidies, and I don’t have sufficient interest to gain a clearer picture.
I’m sitting this argument out.
🙂
Yeah, I get that it’s a battery. So why not discharge it directly into the load?
I actually know these guys; I have visited their place years ago, now that I think about it; they’re next to the Van Nuys airport. A friend if mine describes their ringleaders, Chaz Haba, as a “tech charlatan.” Good moniker.
Craig,
Very scientific ! You may have once visited some guys whom you don’t quite remember, in addition and you know a guy, who knows a guy, who describes someone ” their ringleaders,(sic plural) Chaz Haba, as a “tech charlatan.”.”
Wow ! With accuracy and forensic research like that, you should offer your services to Robert Mueller !
I can find no connection anywhere between Chaz Haba, and the manufactures of Eco-Gen Joulebox.
That is except both live in California. By using the term emotive term ” ringleaders” you imply a criminal conspiracy, without offering any proof or evidence. It’s obvious you are simply passing off at the best gossip and speculation as evidence, based on nothing more than an assumption borne of nothing more than your own prejudices.
As it so happens, I know a little about Chaz Haba, having run across him over the years. At 82 years old Chaz has a checkered past in technology development. It’s quite true Chaz was one of the early pioneers with Fairchild, and employed by Dr. Robert Noyce and Gordon Moore at the inception of Intel.
Chaz is basically a salesman with a good working knowledge and deep fascination with technology. Like most marketing people, Chaz tends to get involved with early start-ups, that often fail or never live up to early promise, especially during the fever of a boom.
Chaz in an early exponent for the potential of Lithium batteries to be used as storage for renewable energy, and in electric vehicles.
Most of these underfunded, over hyped, pioneers was always obvious with hindsight. Some were also the creation of less than scrupulous promoters and scamsters.
However, most were just naive and “ahead of their time”. Investors lost money on a plethora of failed projects, but that’s the nature of investing in tech start-ups.
Unfortunately, tech start-up tend to attract naive investors who lack the ability to properly gauge the risk factors and later blame the promoters for dishonesty, when in reality the promoters were just as naive (or delusional)as the investors.
Chaz Haba is one such promoter. His early attempts to build an electric car were naive and under-capitalized, as was his attempts to build neighborhood Lithium battery stations to store renewable energy.
Chaz shared the vision, but lacked the capital backing, timing and organizational ability of Elon Musk. That doesn’t make him a ““tech charlatan.”” or fraudster, just a dreamer.
10 year ago I was often attacked for refusing support and actively criticizing the claims made by Li-ion Motors, Coda, Aptera Motors and Vectrix.
Both Aptera and Li-ion were associated with Chaz Haba. The fact that subsequent events vindicated my criticism, provided me no joy, as I would have loved to see the project become practical reality.
It was with great reluctance, and only after extensive research and first hand knowledge did I publish my criticisms.
However, I still can’t find any connection between Chaz Haba and the individuals connected with the Eco-Gen Joulebox.
My concern about Eco-Gen is the company’s flawed business plan,lack of expertise, capitalization and real world sales.
But those reservations are a long way from calling people fraudsters, scammers, (or even “ringleaders) , based on no more evidence than vague, inaccurate gossip and a desire to be a vigilante.
My concern also if you are this careless and lacking in factual research in this regard, what does it say about about your credibility on other issues ?