The Energy Collective

The world's best thinkers on energy and climate

  • Home
  • Post Here
  • Columns
    • Electricity Markets & Policy Group
    • Full Spectrum
    • Energy and Policy Developments
    • Game Changers
    • Energy for Human Development
    • Seeking Consensus
    • Green Growth
    • New Energy Voices
  • Fuels
    • Oil
    • Wind
    • Nuclear Power
    • Coal
    • Natural Gas
    • Solar Power
    • Renewables
    • Biofuels
    • Geothermal Energy
    • Wave & Tidal
    • Hydro Power
  • Environment
    • Carbon and De-carbonization
    • International Climate Conferences
    • Sustainability
    • Climate
    • Public Health
    • Water
    • Recycling
  • Grid
    • Smart Grid
    • Electricity
  • Tech
    • Cleantech
    • Green Building
    • Storage
    • Rare Earth Minerals
  • Business and Economy
    • Cap-and-Trade
    • Agriculture
    • Efficiency
    • Green Business
    • Utilities
    • Finance
    • Green Jobs
    • Subsidies
    • Risk Management
  • Politics
    • Environmental Policy
    • Energy Security
    • Communications and Messaging
    • China
  • Transport
  • Help
    • FAQ
  • Account
    • Login
    • Register

The Road to Electric Vehicles Runs through Apple

October 13, 2012 by James Greenberger

Print Friendly, PDF & Email

Earlier this week Clifton Yin and Matthew Stepp of The Information Technology & Innovation Foundation published an article entitled “Shifting Gears: Transcending Conventional Economic Doctrines to Develop Better Electric Vehicle Batteries”.  The article contains an excellent discussion of the need for the vehicle electrification and the advantages of electric vehicles relative to competing technologies.  It also contains an accurate and sobering analysis of the poor prospects for vehicle electrification in light of the current state of advanced battery technology.  The full article may be read by clicking here.

Yin and Stepp talk about how best to encourage the development of improved battery technology.  They discuss and discount what they call the neo-Keynesian approach (i.e., subsidies) and the neoclassical economics approach (i.e., using and manipulating market price signals, such as by imposing a carbon tax) as ways to promote more rapid progress in battery technology.  Instead, Yin and Stepp advocate what they call the emerging doctrine of innovation economics:  “facilitating innovative actions and support[ing] complex innovation systems with a variety of policy tools in order to move the economy in a strategic direction.”

Innovation economics is, of course, not a new idea.  It is the concept that led, among other things, to the creation of the ARPA-E program at the U.S. Department of Energy.  Basically, the idea is that new technologies need to be appropriately supported at every step of their development up through the value chain.  The original concept may be developed at a government-funded laboratory or university.  From there it moves to a government-funded incubator program, such as ARPA-E.  After graduating ARPA-E, it moves to another government program focused on more mature technologies, such as the grant programs administered by EERE.  And then perhaps on to a venture-backed company or a corporate R&D program before its final debut in the marketplace.  At each stage the technology is evaluated and the winners and losers vetted by those running the applicable stage of the process.   

The problem with innovation economics, however, is that it is entirely theoretical. No successful commercial product in the battery industry has ever been launched through such a process and, to my knowledge, there is no prospect of such a successful launch happening anytime soon.

For battery technology to develop to the point where mass adoption of PHEV’s and BEV’s will be possible, there must be a real, existing market for advanced batteries that will allow the technology to be market tested and to mature.  For the past several years the federal government has spent billions of dollars trying to develop such a market in the automobile industry.  The problem is: that may be the wrong industry.

While the ultimate goal of advanced battery technology may be to power light vehicles and to liberate them from their near total dependence on petroleum-based fuels, it is far from clear that the best path to that goal lies through developing batteries for the automotive market.  Automobiles are a poor platform for developing new technology.  Product development cycles in the automobile industry can stretch for more than a decade.  That is far too long for any company focused on developing new technology to survive without cash flow from a commercial product.  The bankruptcy courts are filling quickly with advanced battery companies that tried to survive the automotive product development cycle but failed.

That is not to disparage the technological expertise of automobile manufacturers.  The Chevy Volt, by way of example, is truly an engineering marvel.  But properly understood, it is not new technology.  The Volt is an intricately engineered package of mature, proven technologies.  In the case of the battery, the Volt uses technology that was developed over two decades in the consumer electronics industry.  That is why LG Chem, a South Korean company with years of experience in consumer electronics, has the contract to manufacture it.

The key to advancing battery technology, and to making sure that the United States is a center for battery manufacturing, is not to develop an elaborate, government-funded R&D infrastructure.  The key is to make sure that U.S. battery companies have a market for their products.  Equally important, that market must be one with a short product development cycle, where new technologies can be brought to market quickly and successful technology developers can be rewarded in the marketplace in sufficient time to produce a reasonable return on investment.

Such a market for advanced battery technology already exists.  It is called the consumer electronics or, in its more current iteration, mobile applications market.  Product development cycles in the mobile apps market typically run about three or four years, as opposed to ten to twelve in the automobile industry.  That means that three or four generations of new battery technology can be developed, vetted and market tested in the mobile apps industry for every one generation of new battery technology rolled out in the automotive industry.  Faster battery product development cycles match precisely to the enduring strength of American industry:  technology innovation.  Where American industry has struggled in the battery space is not in developing new technology; it has struggled in getting that new technology to market.

The difficulty of U.S. manufactures getting new battery technologies to market is explained by the fact that no major manufacturing of mobile apps devices takes place in the United States today.  (The manufacturing of military mobile apps is an exception, and potentially an important one as the line between military and civilian mobile apps devices becomes thinner by the day).  The consumer electronics/mobile apps business was effectively outsourced to Asia thirty years ago and U.S. battery companies have been shut out of its supply chain ever since.  If we want to make progress in advanced battery technology—and if we want battery-powered electric vehicles anytime soon–we need to bring the mobile apps device industry back to the United States.

The best and most effective thing that the federal government can do to promote vehicle electrification in the United States is to provide U.S.-based battery makers with a vibrant market that can quickly commercialize new battery products as they come out of the development pipeline.  The auto industry may not initially be the best market to do that.  But the mobile apps device industry may be.

The road to the electric vehicle will lead eventually to General Motors.  But in order to get there it may first need to detour through Apple, Google and HP.  Bringing manufacturing of mobile apps devices back to the United States would have advantages well beyond its positive impact on advanced battery technology and vehicle electrification.  The U.S. advanced battery industry would welcome a discussion about how best to make that happen.

Related posts:

Wanted: 20,000 All-Electric Vehicles. Call Jeff @ GE. Energy Innovation 2010: Rethinking Energy Innovation Hey, These Guys Are Serious EV Rebates vs. Tax Credits

James Greenberger

Executive Director of NAATBatt International

Filed Under: Storage, Transportation

  Subscribe  
newest oldest most voted
Notify of

The Energy Collective Columns

Full Spectrum: Energy Analysis and Commentary with Jesse JenkinsEnergy and Policy Developments with John Miller
Game Changers column badgeEnergy for Human Development Column
Seeking Consensus with Schalk CloeteGreen Growth with Silvio Marcacci
New Energy VoicesMore coming soon...

Latest comments

  • Levis on Fracking May Have Political Support, It Still Needs a ‘Social Licence’ The Kremlin took an active role in preventing the exploitation of shale gas in Eastern Europe. Why (April 26, 2018 at 11:02 PM)
  • Jarmo on The Dangers of Green Technology-Forcing Bas, The Netherlands energy consumption is about 900 TWh annually. Global wind generation in 2016 w (April 26, 2018 at 10:30 PM)
  • Bas Gresnigt on The Dangers of Green Technology-Forcing There is much more very low priced wind & solar ongoing. Also in western USA where fossil is (April 26, 2018 at 10:21 PM)
  • Robert Bernal on The Dangers of Green Technology-Forcing Nice to hear from you. I still believe in the safety of the MSR, however I also believe that we shou (April 26, 2018 at 10:16 PM)

Advisory Panel

About the panel

Scott Edward Anderson is a consultant, blogger, and media commentator who blogs at The Green Skeptic. More »


Christine Hertzog is a consultant, author, and a professional explainer focused on Smart Grid. More »


Elias Hinckley is a strategic advisor on energy finance and energy policy to investors, energy companies and governments More »


Gary Hunt Gary is an Executive-in-Residence at Deloitte Investments with extensive experience in the energy & utility industries. More »


Jesse Jenkins is a graduate student and researcher at MIT with expertise in energy technology, policy, and innovation. More »


Jim Pierobon helps trade associations/NGOs, government agencies and companies communicate about cleaner energy solutions. More »


Geoffrey Styles is Managing Director of GSW Strategy Group, LLC and an award-winning blogger. More »


Featured Contributors

Rod Adams

Scott Edward Anderson

Charles Barton

Barry Brook

Steven Cohen

Dick DeBlasio

Senator Pete Domenici

Simon Donner

Big Gav

Michael Giberson

Kirsty Gogan

James Greenberger

Lou Grinzo

Jesse Grossman

Tyler Hamilton

Christine Hertzog

David Hone

Gary Hunt

Jesse Jenkins

Sonita Lontoh

Rebecca Lutzy

Jesse Parent

Jim Pierobon

Vicky Portwain

Willem Post

Tom Raftery

Joseph Romm

Robert Stavins

Robert Stowe

Geoffrey Styles

Alex Trembath

Gernot Wagner

Dan Yurman

 

 

 

Follow Us

32-linkedin 32-facebook 32-twitter 32-rss

Content for personal use only. Distribution prohibited. Republication in part or in whole is strictly prohibited. © All rights reserved Energy Central © 2018

Recent Comments

  • Levis on Fracking May Have Political Support, It Still Needs a ‘Social Licence’
  • Jarmo on The Dangers of Green Technology-Forcing
  • Bas Gresnigt on The Dangers of Green Technology-Forcing

Recent Posts

  • Scott Pruitt Might Be On His Way Out as EPA Administrator, But Clean Energy Advocates Shouldn’t Be Celebrating If That Happens
  • Will Higher Oil Prices Boost The Global Economy?
  • Federal Financial Interventions and Subsidies in U.S. Energy Markets Declined Since 2013

Useful Pages

  • Terms of Use
  • Comments Policy
  • Privacy & Cookies
  • Help
  • About and Contact Us
Copyright © 2018 Energy Central. All Rights Reserved
This site uses cookies, for a number of reasons. By continuing to use this website you accept the use of cookies. Find out more.