

A Battery Breakthrough that Proved Too Good to Be True - jcklnruns
http://www.technologyreview.com/view/522361/the-sad-story-of-the-battery-breakthrough-that-proved-too-good-to-be-true/

======
thrownaway2424
Technology Review among all publications is the most guilty of hyping
vaporware battery technology, especially, it must be said, if it is being
developed by MIT people (not that Envia was). Here's the press release TR
breathlessly and noncritically paraphrased in 2011.
[http://www.technologyreview.com/news/422627/startup-
boasts-b...](http://www.technologyreview.com/news/422627/startup-boasts-
better-lithium-batteries/)

~~~
selmnoo
So, then journalists should be mercilessly and ruthlessly critical of all they
are covering? ARPA-E judges are pretty smart folks, if they were fooled by
this thing what makes you think a journalist on some tech news site is going
to be able to vet this technology and determine if it's the going to be the
next big thing or not?

The point I really want to discuss is the negativity of your comment. We like
to come down hard on people dismissing new projects for being incomplete,
unpromising, and so on when it comes to social sharing apps. Why not also be
kind to failures in the cleantech area? The area where it's actually really
tough to innovate, the area where improvements would definitively make this
earth better than how it's currently heading.

ARPA-E's own stated mission is to fund ideas that are so far out that most
institutions wouldn't fund them, "too early for private-sector investment"
(their words). ARPA-E itself only expects 10% of the projects it funds to be
successful. So then _what_ good reason is there to cry about some specific
project failing? It doesn't spell the end of ARPA-E, this is just the nature
of the game. This is not some tragedy of news journals failing, nothing is
wrong here, just move on. More will fail yet still, but one just might be that
breakthrough that we're looking forward to.

~~~
thrownaway2424
I mention it because the author of this article tried to point out how he was
a skeptic in 2012. But the same publication was not exercising skepticism in
2011.

~~~
laumars
After reading your comment, I went back to read the authors 2012 article and
even that doesn't demonstrate _that_ much scepticism. The title and sub
heading reads as follows:

 _" A Big Jump in Battery Capacity

If Envia can overcome some key problems, its technology could cut the cost of
electric-car batteries in half."_

Which, to me, is just as hyped up as the other articles he's criticizing. In
fact the most sceptical parts of that article were just him saying "it's not
ready yet", which isn't so much scepticism but more anticipation.

I'm a little disappointed with the author for this. I don't like the way how
the press always have to sensationalise everything, but I accept that it
happens. However to post the kind of snide remark as he did regarding others
hyping technology, yet to do the exact same thing yourself in the very article
you're citing as evidence of your own scepticism, well it's just pathetic in
my opinion.

------
seunosewa
[http://gigaom.com/2013/12/03/court-documents-reveal-doe-
back...](http://gigaom.com/2013/12/03/court-documents-reveal-doe-backed-envia-
isnt-the-breakthrough-battery-startup-it-appeared/) <\-- original link

~~~
mdwe
Yes, this is a substantially more detailed article than the original tech
review link - it actually details what the claimed deception is.

------
mda
As far as I remember all battery breakthroughs in last 20 years were sad
stories.

~~~
tonyarkles
That's maybe a bit pessimistic. We have come a long way (NiCd 40-60 Wh/kg,
NiMH 30-80 Wh/kg, LiIon 150-250 Wh/kg), we're just still a long way from
fossil fuels (~12,000 Wh/kg for gasoline). I think the biggest trick is to set
expectations properly and wait it out as battery technology continues to
evolve.

[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Energy_density](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Energy_density)
[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rechargeable_battery](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rechargeable_battery)

~~~
kyrra
Poking around, on the Lithium-air battery wiki page, they have this quote:

> The energy density of gasoline is approximately 13 kW·h/kg, which
> corresponds to 1.7 kW·h/kg of energy provided to the wheels after losses.

Any clue what the energy provided to the wheels is for electric cars like a
Tesla? I'm wonder what the energy loss is for electric cars from stored form
to actual power at the wheel.

~~~
plorkyeran
The Tesla Roadster was 88% efficient. I don't remember the exact value for the
Model S, but it's in the same general range. This huge difference is the main
thing that makes electric cars viable.

~~~
Zoomla
Also, electric cars can be powered by coal, nuclear, hydroelectric, etc... or
whatever the grid is powered by.

------
Edmond
If reporters understood the law of conservation of energy they'll be more
skeptical of energy solution claims, regardless of which form it takes.

------
lettergram
I honestly think the best advancements aren't going to be battery technologies
for mass transit(at least for the next hundred years or so). Which lead me to
read about a group working on creating Biodiesel from algae[1]. Turns out they
can have our waste (sewage) fed into vats with algae and providing the algae
with nutrients to grow. They then dry/squeeze out the algae and due to the
high amount of lipids produce oil and in turn it into oil (although low
quality).

The amazing part about this process is algae converts carbon to oxygen more
efficiently than plants, and can only introduce as much carbon as it removes
from the atmosphere. Therefore process would actually produce the same amount
of carbon emissions as it reduces.

Battery power is slow growing and will take many years (perhaps hundreds)
based on the current rate to reach the efficiency of oil... So this seems like
a better alternative to me.

[1]
[http://algae.illinois.edu/Projects/BiodieselProduction.html](http://algae.illinois.edu/Projects/BiodieselProduction.html)

------
gus_massa
One of the original press coverage: (~2 years ago) "GM Bets On Cheaper
Electric-Car Batteries With Envia, Invests $17 Million"
[http://www.greencarreports.com/news/1054345_gm-bets-on-
cheap...](http://www.greencarreports.com/news/1054345_gm-bets-on-cheaper-
electric-car-batteries-with-envia-invests-17-million)

------
transfire
Another shill company designed fail.

Meanwhile the real breakthroughs wither on the vine (e.g.
[http://gizmodo.com/this-graphene-coated-silicon-power-
cell-s...](http://gizmodo.com/this-graphene-coated-silicon-power-cell-signals-
a-batte-1452245250))

~~~
jessaustin
Are you saying this isn't an investment opportunity, or that structural
problems with the capital markets will mean that this investment opportunity
will be ignored?

------
CapitalistCartr
Batteriy and solar panel breakthroughs: stories of the week.

------
ARothfusz
Imagine that it had worked. And imagine that the allegations were true: they
had stolen the cathode from one company and purchased a sample of an anode
from another, and that, together, they consistently stored 400 Wh/kg. Would
all the intellectual property rights have stopped production anyway? Or are
there circumstances when one or more governments would waive the IP rights and
say "the world needs this technology to save itself from air pollution -- just
make it and we'll sort out payments later"?

~~~
bhousel
Why would intellectual property rights prevent anyone from buying parts from
different suppliers and putting them together?

~~~
nickff
You are correct, patent exhaustion allows you to use any patented product as
you wish, subject only to separate explicit contracts the customer has agreed
to.

~~~
marshray
So if I buy a laser pointer with a patented on/off switch, I can use it to
exercise my cat without fear of infringement of 5,443,036?
[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Method_of_exercising_a_cat](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Method_of_exercising_a_cat)

~~~
nickff
Perhaps I should have been more clear, and stated that the use of a patented
product is not restricted by said patent; it is however subject to any
separate contracts or obligations which the customer would be required to
abide, had they not purchased the good.

I must say that it depresses me to see frivolous patents like the one
mentioned above, though it no longer surprises me.

------
deweller
I Want to Believe!

