Blog:

The End of Batteries

Posted 05-Sep-2007 by Robby Slaughter (@robbyslaughter)

A startup company in my old stomping grounds of Austin, Texas, claims to have invented a new energy storage technology that will render chemical batteries obsolete. This is a bold claim, and consequently is treated with impressive balance in an article in the Sydney Morning Herald. The practical upshot is that the world may be about to change.

The Two Faces

Earth-shattering innovations that instantly leapfrog society forward tend to arrive in one of two guises. In the case of EEStor's patented concept of "ultracapacitors", we're potentially facing a scientific breakthrough accomplished through a combination of brilliance, persistence, and luck. Founders Richard Weir and Carl Nelson have loads of experience and have been plugging away at this problem, mostly in secret, for over half a decade. Plenty of experts have questioned their claims. All the ingredients are correct for this to be either a watershed moment in technology history or another fizzle of zero significance. There's no chance it will be anything in between.

The rest of the time, we as a society are wowed by incredible ideas precisely because we didn't think of them before. The recently launched iPhone is a good example. It's full of technology we've all seen before, but integrated and marketed in a way that has sent sales and customer satisfaction through the roof. Half a million iPhones were sold in the opening weekend alone, and the iPhone continues to outsell all other smartphones (the Treo, BlackBerry, etc) combined. Sony-Ericsson, Motorola and Samsung must be kicking at themselves. In fact, Nokia's new N800 is being called an iPhone killer given it's similarity to Apple's design.

Roads to Innovation

The upside to inventing a fundamentally new technology, like a superdrug, ultracapacitors, the telephone or nuclear power, is that almost nobody has any idea what you're doing. You have a major competitive advantage precisely because you are so far out in left field. This is also the primary downside to innovating in this manner. Because most people can't fathom the technical feasibility of an ultracapacitor, or the tremendous advantage of a microchip, you're going to have a hard time winning converts. This is a tough road to take.

Alternately, you can do something that everybody knows is possible but no one has really gotten quite right. Amazingly, practically all cellphones are terrible. Despite their incredible sophistication and expense, computers can't even manage to handle a microsecond with no electric power. Some of the most popular video games only require technology that's more than a decade old. These innovations don't require costly laboratory equipment and a roomful of white-coated, clipboard-totting PhDs. They just require using what we already have in a totally new way.

Breathholding Not Recommended

I'm not entirely convinced that EEStor is going to really rock the world. Batteries with 10x the energy density would be fantastic for cars and laptops, but only if they operate at a useful voltage and can be bought for a reasonable price. There's no indication that either of these constraints can be met in the near future. Even so, the design cycle for new cars--the supposed primary benefactor of ultracapacitors--is as long as ten years. This puts us well into the next decade before we even begin to see the possible widespread adoption of electric vehicles based on this technology.

Innovation of all kinds is to be encouraged, whether achieved through an arcane academic breakthrough or a straightforward, why-didn't-we-think-of-that-before, rearrangement of well-established ideas. You can't predict the success of either one, but you can always work to change the world. The chances aren't great that you will succeed, but considerably lower if you never try.

Further Reading:
- Innovation and the Crane Shot
- The Myths of Innovation, by Scott Berkun

Would you like to leave a comment? Read this.

###

Next:
<< Joel is Back

Previous:
The Key to a Tragedy >>