Why We Need Electric Cars, Part I
The most important part of the innovative process, arguably, is finding the right problem to solve. The competition between visions for our automotive future indicate that not everyone is trying to solve the same problem, and as a result we seem to be wasting a great deal of effort on low-quality solutions.
If we can all agree that the problem we are trying to solve is ‘How Do We Eliminate Our Dependence on Oil,’ or something similiar, it seems there are three distinct (and often non-complementary) problem restatements:
1. How might we move to a sustainable biofuel-based economy (develop new biofuels that allow us to keep our current internal combustion engine vehicles)?
2. How might we move to a sustainable electron-based economy (develop sustainable energy sources for power generation, and new batteries that allow practical transition from ICEs to full-electric vehicles)?
3. How might we move to a sustainable hydrogen-based economy (develop cost-effective ways to generate and transport hydrogen, and new cost effective hydrogen fuel cells to power our vehicles)?
Each has associated challenges and opportunities. But there are definitely discriminating factors that would, if we all got on the same sheet of music, allow us to prioritize scarce investment.
First off, let’s look at problem 3). The big advantage to hydrogen is that, if we can ever find a way to generate and use it cost effectively, it’s everywhere, it’s good for the environment, and it’s pretty efficient. But the negatives are pretty overwhelming, because right now, calling a spade a spade - hydrogen is a panacea. No path to the hydrogen economy exists that doesn’t include the phrase “…and then something magic happens.” Because right now the technology gaps are DECADES away from being filled. We’re talking order-of-magnitude drops in cost and increases in portability. Some day, hydrogen might be practical, but we can prepare for that by choosing another path today - more on that later.
The biofuel solution is getting a lot of press. Ethanol, biodiesel, and the like are favored by many for one overriding advantage - it allows us to keep our current ICE-based vehicle infrastructure intact. Detroit et al can build the same cars, and we can get our fuel from the same gas stations. But this solution leaves the baseline problem intact. We don’t have a problem because our cars use gasoline - we have a problem because ICEs ARE DAMNED INEFFICIENT. From the oil well to the wheels of your car, the total system efficiency is about 14%. If our ICEs were even 20 percent efficient, we’d use a third less gasoline that we do now. Plus, keeping the ICEs means we keep all the existing maintenance problems which result from a mechanical system with thousands of parts. This is why I regard biofuels as a short-term solution that tides us over to the best of the three - the electron economy.
Electricity is everywhere. It is more ubiquitous than gasoline - there might be a gas station every few miles on American main roads, but there’s an outlet every few FEET in every America neighborhood. We rely on it for everything BUT transportation. And the only reason we do that is because gasoline is energy dense, portable, and, even at today’s prices, cheap. In contrast, even the best batteries have been too expensive and take too long to charge to make electric cars a viable alternative for anything other than short, slow commutes in the city.
Taken on its own, gasoline coming out of the pump is cheaper, per unit energy, that electricity coming out the socket. But burned in an ICE, gasoline becomes more expensive by a factor of 3 or more. Electricity used in an electric car has a cost equivalent, as compared to gasoline, of about 80 cents per gallon.
Electricity is generated by a more diversified portfolio of energy sources - coal, natural gas, oil, nuclear, hydroelectric and even small amounts of wind and solar. But because the plant-to-wheels efficiency of the electric car is in the neighborhood of 30-35% - inefficiencies are distributed fairly evenly across the process - it takes a lot less energy to make the electric car move than it takes for a gasoline equivalent.
At the same time, solar thermal and solar photovoltaic technologies are maturing and will result in an even further drop in non-renewable energy usage. These technologies have been around for a while but are just now becoming cost effective enough to be competitive. States offer incentives to businesses and homeowners for installing solar electricity. And there is a new technology on the horizon that might make us more of a CARBON-based economy.
Researchers at Lawrence Livermore Labs and elsewhere are developing a technology called direct carbon fuel cells. This type of fuel cell uses ash-free carbon from coal, coke, charcoal, or just about any other source of carbon you can think of and generates electricity directly, at a conversion efficiency up to a whopping EIGHTY PERCENT. This is a huge innovation, one that has the potential to change the way we generate and use electricity forever. This is another reason to support the electron economy - the woody biomass that would otherwise be used for cellulose ethanol could go to making charcoal for use in DCFCs. Between coal and biomass, we could provide all of our electrical needs domestically when DCFCs become practical. And the CO2 byproduct can be easily sequestered and used elsewhere.
To summarize: of the three paths, the electron economy has the most potential and the liabilities are the easiest to mitigate. Biofuels can serve as a bridging factor that help us achieve energy independence, but when DCFCs become practical the majority of biofuel feedstocks should be shifted to carbon production.
Part II will discuss improvements at the other end of the plant-to-wheels energy chain - innovations in battery technology.
Sphere: Related ContentPatenting Life
I’ve been deluged with articles about the J. Craig Venter Institute and their desire to, well, patent life itself. Curiously, there is no news release on their website about this but, here is the crux of the matter:
Craig Venter of Synthetic Genomics Inc., says his 500-strong research team has figured out exactly which genes provide the bare essentials for life — and he wants the commercial rights to their use.
Why?
His team plans to cobble together synthetic versions of these 381 essential genes to create the world’s first artificial living being — a bacterium called mycoplasma laboratorium. The custom-made organism could then be programmed to convert sunlight into eco-friendly fuels, such as hydrogen or ethanol, the firm says.
Let me get this straight - the primary use for the genes that ‘provide the bare essentials of life’ is to make…car fuel?
Anyway, the main point here isn’t the end application - it’s the act of patenting use of a gene sequence. What’s the analogy? You can’t copyright individual words but you can assemble words into verse and copyright a song. But you have no rights over the use of the song - anyone can record and profit from it, as long as they pay you a royalty. The patent is different - the owner has exclusive control over that particular technology. But the innovative potential for this particular gene sequence is broad enough to warrant some kind of open source arrangement, as long as the originator gets paid in some way when someone else profits. In other words, no patent please.
But of course the bigger issue is the implication of patenting life forms, and that’s a bit too big a topic for me to tackle today.
Sphere: Related ContentNew Addition to Arsenal - Morphological Analysis/Matrix
Using a morphological matrix, you can generate scads of ideas for improving and modifying things. Over on the Arsenal page.
Another Electric Car - Altairnano Phoenix
Last week, Altairnano unveiled its all-electric SUV, dubbed Phoenix, in Reno, Nevada. Altairnano’s contribution is the development of a fast-recharge lithium battery - they farm out the construction of the vehicle to an unnamed Korean manufacturer. Debuting with an SUV has pros and cons - SUVs are in demand, but a Prius sized vehicle would have been cheaper. Interesting quote:
“I’m definitely buying one,” said John Koehler of Chicago after a test drive. Koehler, a physician, said he traded his Lexus for a hybrid Toyota Prius and “cut my gas cost in half.” He sees the Phoenix as his next step.
“You have to look at the lifetime cost,” he said. The higher price (presumed; specifics haven’t been announced) of an electric car will be canceled, Koehler believes, by lower operating expenses. That it’s easier on the environment is a bonus.
If you don’t know what the “specifics” of the higher price is, how do you know if you’ll save over a gas-powered vehicle? This guy sounds like he’ll make do with less to save gas - he traded in a Lexus for a Prius, after all. Most do a more apples to apples comparison. An electric SUV will have to compare favorably, life-cycle cost-wise, to an identically sized and featured gas SUV (and that includes air conditioning).
Also:
With eventual public sales in mind, though, company officials said Altairnano is already talking with Pacific Gas & Electric, California’s largest utility, about a web of “rapid charge stations.” With conventional 480-volt, three-phase service, they could top off batteries during a coffee stop (recharging at home, with the same 220 volts that runs the clothes dryer or stove, would take about five hours).
For the forseeable future, you’ll have to charge this one at home. How many vehicles would have to be on the road before PG&E invests in these “stations?”
This one is definitely a push in the right direction, but whenever I see the phrase “specifics haven’t been announced” I know that sticker shock awaits.
Sphere: Related ContentWho Speaks For Innovation?
I began writing this post last week but wasn’t sure where I was headed - now my thinking has crystalized. It all started with the Business Week article regarding the effect of Lean Six Sigma (LSS) on 3M’s innovation processes. Something about the 3M situation bothered me. After I wrote about the Institute for Systems Biology, my perspective on innovation practices changed substantially, but it wasn’t until I considered the two organizations side by side that the source of my 3M frustration surfaced.
Placed side by side, the two organizations are hard to compare. ISB is a young, non-profit R&D group, whereas 3M is a huge established corporation. ISB produces research and the technologies that result are spun off to other companies - 3M develops, markets and manufactures their own products. The only thing they seem to have in common is the need to innovate. If ISB doesn’t produce revolutionary results on a regular basis they will have a hard time securing funding. If 3M doesn’t produce new and improved products, they’ll lose market share. Market leaders create new products - nearly 50% of today’s gross revenue comes from products released within the past 5 years. So being innovative goes hand in hand with being a market leader.
The problem 3M is experiencing seems to come from the fact that, as a manufacturing company, 3M’s operations are process-intensive. ”Innovation,” as it pertains to coming up with ideas for novel new products and solutions, is but a small part of what they do in the big scheme. This makes a company like 3M an extremely attractive target for the LSS crowd. Processes for manufacturing, marketing, etc. can be improved, streamlined, made more effective. As I’ve posted before, improvement is innovation too, but I’m narrowing the context of ‘innovation’ in this post to mean ‘doing different, breakthrough change.’
Regarding innovation, ISB doesn’t suffer that disadvantage. ISB can focus 100% of its efforts on producing novel research, partially due to the fact that systems biology is literally virgin territory. They have built themselves from the ground up as an innovative organization, and in doing so increased the probability that their research will generate revolutionary results.
How well would LSS go over at ISB? What would LSS think of ISB? Maybe LSS would take inventory of research notes et. al. and render judgement on the ‘efficiency’ of their process - ‘you’ll be more efficient if it only takes you X ideas to produce those results.’
And this is the crux of my problem - there is no ‘novel breakthrough innovation’ version of LSS - a process that can be implemented anywhere and produces results. Too many believe that breakthrough innovation is the result of random, accidental creatitity. What we have are bits and pieces of a system floating around in the various ’skunkworks’ and idea labs of corporate America, with nothing to tie them together. In contrast, LSS is a system that can be taught, and in turn has taken a life of it’s own - complete with a culture of “LSS Illuminati.” As a result, LSS carries an air of legitimacy. There are no “Breakthough Innovation Illuminati” to counter the LSS proponents, and I believe that is what 3M is experiencing right now. Who speaks for innovation? Who speaks for creative thinking processes?
Over the weekend I concentrated on the ‘bits and pieces’ of what would constitute the framework of a breakthrough innovation ’system.’ This represents my current collective thinking on the topic, it might evolve. I don’t think you could assemble anything as exacting as LSS, but you can increase the probability of successful breakthrough innovation in this manner. You can invision this as an ‘Department of Innovation’ or a ‘Advanced Business Initiatives’ group that interfaces with various other departments. The components:
1. The people need to be innovators as I have described them here. All four major values - creativity, collegiality, pragmatism, and observation - have to be present. And just like at ISB, they should be a cross-disciplinary group - the more diverse their backgrounds the better. It also might be helpful to establish an internal facilitator ‘guild’ - people with facilitation skills to lead problem solving sessions as needed.
2. Again, taking a cue from ISB - their workplace should be as open as possible, encouraging constant collisions, small group meetings, anything to spur collaboration. “All of us are smarter than one of us.”
3. Once you have the people and the workplace, establish productivity goals. The individuals, as well as the the group itself, should have some sort of “innovation quota.” The concept of establishing an innovation quota is not new - Thomas Edison, according to creative thinking expert Michael Michalko, had a strict personal quota of producing a minor product every ten days and a major product every six months. The results of his personal quota-based innovation system are undeniable - he held 1,093 patents at the time of his death. In order to meet this quota, he had to proliferate ideas. A company might decide they wanted the group to produce a significant product improvement every month, and a major breakthough new product every six months. The best way to proliferate ideas is through focused, facilitated sessions - another benefit of cultivating a facilitator guild. If your innovation function is geared to producing results, it is less likely to be vulnerable to LSS-type analysis.
4. Once the goals are in place, start gathering the low hanging fruit. The group should be adept in ’strategic transfer.’ Strategic transfer jumpstarts revolutionary innovation. A large part of their time should be spent identifying technologies and products in other worlds that can be adapted to theirs. They need to be experts in the lateral connections creative thinking technique. They should also seek access to the ‘failed idea museum’ of other companies - fortunes have been made off the failed ideas of others. The harvest: many ideas for improvements and several for breakthrough adaptations.
5. Finally, the group needs to be pushed into the creative stratosphere to generate revolutionary breakthroughs internally. Part of the innovation quota must involve cultivating crazy, off the wall ideas - the more abstract the better. It is through these ideas that novel, revolutionary innovation occurs. What separates idea from reality is the ability to determine the essence of the crazy idea and how to convert it into a practical solution. Facilitators can make this process more effective.
As I said, this is a framework. Again I invite comments - what is of value, what have I missed?
Sphere: Related ContentVolt! Volt! Volt!
Electric cars have been springing up here and there the last few years but none have received as much publicity as the GM Volt. One of my newsfeeds deals with electric cars and whenever there’s a Volt press release I get the equivalent of newsfeed spam - ‘Volt! Volt! Volt! Volt!’ Not nearly as much attention given to the Tesla Roadster, which actually exists.
I suppose it’s newsworthy that GM has taken the lead amongst the major car manufacturers in the plug-in hybrid electric vehicle (PHEV) market, and that they seem committed to actually producing something. Now, I doubt that this particular car will be built. But the concept will lead to something practical. Here’s what I think of their concept thus far:
- The electric-only range is 40 miles, and the gasoline-assisted range is over 600 miles. The former is a sweet spot for local driving - you hardly ever need to gas up if you can run on electric only going to work, the store, etc. The latter is a sweet spot for distance driving. In other words, GM hit the mark in the functionality department. It would be better with an electric-only range of 80 miles but beggars can’t be choosers.
- An electric-only range of 40 miles or more will rewrite the concept of ‘city driving fuel economy.’ As people learn the benefits of local electric-only driving, we’ll see real-world fuel economies in the 200-300 MPG range.
- They need to stop worrying about batteries, unless they are concerned more about cornering the market on advanced battery tech. Right now nanotech-enhanced lithium batteries are here and will experience economy of scale cost reduction the next few years.
- I am still frustrated having to wait until 2010 for a viable PHEV - I hope someone else gets their act together earlier. Toyota could EASILY produce a PHEV version of the Prius - just modify the control system and make the battery bigger.
Trip Report - Visit to the Institute for Systems Biology
This one sort of goes along with my post on synthetic biology.
A few weeks ago I accompanied two of my scientist colleagues on a trip to the Institute for Systems Biology in Seattle. We’re developing a concept for a new laboratory and wanted to get some ideas. One of my colleagues has a professional relationship with an ISB co-founder, Leroy Hood. You may recognize the name - Dr. Hood is the godfather of DNA sequencing. The ISB focuses on several bioscience/biotech areas: predictive/preventative/personalized medicine, immunity, systems biology of disease, model organisms, technology development, and computational biology, with an occasional foray into areas like bio-energy.
We met with some of the engineers and architects responsible for the lab fit-out, and took a tour of the facility (you can take a virtual tour yourself). It was, in a word, amazing. Not so much for what we saw, but for what we DIDN’T see.
We didn’t see territorialism, or turf battles, or professionally-aligned fiefdoms. ISB is a cross-disciplinary collaborative organization. Everything about it - from the way the professionals interact to the facility layout itself - challenges the fundamental assumptions of a research organization.
The most obvious departure from the norm was the seamless integration of labs, offices, and meeting spaces. Labs were truly open - no scientist or group ‘owned’ a lab, the lab areas were as open as the office cubicles. The lab and offices were layed out to encourage ‘collisions’ - the architecture forced interaction and discussion. Meeting areas, especially smaller ones, were plentiful. As we toured from floor to floor, the entire facility practically screamed ‘highly collaborative environment!’
And cross-disciplinary collaboration is what ISB is all about. Focusing on the relatively young field of systems biology (which sprung from the results of the Human Genome Project), ISB integrates biologists, mathematicians, computer scientists, and physicists in a highly collaborative fashion, maximizing unique perspectives and thinking in the problem solving process.
ISB is the best illustration of the reversing assumptions tool that I have encountered.
- Assumption - scientists work with scientists in their common discipline. Reversed - scientists collaborate with professionals from diverse, unrelated fields.
- Assumption - scientists control labs designated for their team. Reversed - laboratories are unassigned, opened for all to use.
- Assumption - innovations in biology are the result of research performed primarily by biologists. Reversed - novel, breakthrough innovations in systems biology are the result of the cross-disciplinary collaborative approach.
How do you create an organization like this from scratch? It helps to have highly creative thinkers like Dr. Hood and his colleagues in charge. But another striking thing we noticed about the organization - the vast majority of scientists were young, 10 years or less out of school. We got the feeling that the scientists were ‘trained’ to collaborate and innovate ‘the ISB way’ from day one.
The visit to the ISB shifted my thinking on how a research organization should operate, and how to optimize the organization and facility structure to maximize the potential for breakthrough innovation.
Sphere: Related ContentThe 3 or 4 or So Definitive Traits of Innovators
I really wanted this to come out as seven traits. Seven is the magic number for ‘definitive’ lists - seven days to create the world, seven wonders of world, seven habits of highly successful people, etc. I came up with three. Every time I tried to make it more, a new trait would invariably cluster around one of the three original. Then I came up with one that is probably a subtrait of Trait #1 but is important enough to call it out separately. So now I have four. I would like to add three, and that’s what comments are for so fire away. But for the time being, The 3 Or 4 Or So Definitive Traits of Innovators are:
1. Innovators Are Creative Thinkers
Innovators know how to get to the root of things by manupulating and challenging the problem at hand. Innovators know their creative styles and their own strengths and weaknesses. Innovators proliferate ideas. Innovators use creative thinking tools and techniques to change perspective and make novel connections. Innovators challenge assumptions. Innovators can come up with practical ideas, or wild and crazy ideas, depending on what’s needed. Innovators develop action plans to implement their ideas.
This trait defines the innovator’s relationship with self as an IMAGINEER.
2. Innovators Collaborate
Innovators share ideas with other creative people. Innovators learn from others. Innovators allow others to build upon their ideas, and build upon the ideas of others. Knowing the limits of their own creative styles, innovators seek others with complementary styles. Innovators operate in a collegial environment. Innovators value the perspective of those outside their discipline. Innovators play nice with others and find value in others’ thinking.
This trait defines the innovator’s relationship with others as a COLLEAGUE.
3. Innovators Think Positively
Innovators know there’s a time for idealism and a time for realism. Innovators assess their own ideas, and others’ ideas, on the positive aspects first and foremost. Innovators don’t eliminate or criticise ideas based on the negative aspects. Innovators know that all ideas have pros and cons, and seek to mitigate the cons to make ideas more useful. Innovators integrate ideas to mitigate cons. Innovators use the positive thinking process as a means of prioritizing solutions and actions.
This trait describes an innovator’s relationship with self and others as a PRAGMATIST.
4. Innovators Observe Things
Innovators are aware of the world in which they live - nature, industry, society, technology. Innovators see trends and technologies in other areas that can be applied to theirs. Innovators think laterally and adapt ideas from parallel worlds. Innovators maintain awareness of the past and present, and look to the future. Innovators see the Big Picture, yet respect the need for detailed action.
This trait defines the innovator’s relationship with the world as a SEER.
There you have it. What do you think is valuable? What do you think is missing? What should be different?
Sphere: Related ContentElectric Motorcycle Prototype
On the one hand we’ve got electric cars, on the other hand, this electric motorcycle conversion. Pretty cool. The motorcycle is an ideal platform for an electric vehicle because of its low curb weight and the consequential reduction in battery size. This particular prototype carries an 8 kwh battery pack, which can carry it 100 miles at speeds up to 100 mph. That’s a miniscule 80 wh/mile energy usage (the Prius takes 175 wh to go a mile, but only uses its battery below 25 mph).
An approach that incorporates aspects of both cars and motorcycles is the VentureOne, my odds on favorite if they ever get past the concept stage.
It’s a three wheeler, and as such gets classified as motorcycle by your local DMV. Yet it’s actually a series plug-in hybrid. Here are the specs for the three models:
With an $18K price tag I think the E50 is the ’sweet spot’ commuter vehicle - running all electric you’d never need to use the diesel engine for day to day driving.
The VentureOne is a great example of making novel combinations to produce a unique product.
Sphere: Related ContentDoes ‘doing better’ prevent you from ‘doing different?’
This article in Business Week focuses on 3M’s internal struggle between Lean Six Sigma (LSS) - a continuous improvement program which utilizes rigorous statistical analysis - and breakthrough innovation practices. Money quote:
Efficiency programs such as Six Sigma are designed to identify problems in work processes—and then use rigorous measurement to reduce variation and eliminate defects. When these types of initiatives become ingrained in a company’s culture, as they did at 3M, creativity can easily get squelched. After all, a breakthrough innovation is something that challenges existing procedures and norms. “Invention is by its very nature a disorderly process,” says current CEO George Buckley, who has dialed back many of McNerney’s initiatives. “You can’t put a Six Sigma process into that area and say, well, I’m getting behind on invention, so I’m going to schedule myself for three good ideas on Wednesday and two on Friday. That’s not how creativity works.”
The central issue seems to be: ‘we can either spend our time wringing every last bit of efficiency and effectiveness out of our current processes and product lines, or we can innovate new products. Pick one.’ Because the processes for breakthrough innovation are viewed by LSS analysis as wasteful, since it takes a lot of idea generation to come up with one successful revolutionary product.
Coincidentally, I have been offered the opportunity of becoming a LSS Black Belt. I have been on the fence because I don’t think LSS processes play to my creative style. There are many, though, who gravitate to the detailed statistical analysis required to implement LSS. Adaptors would eat up LSS. Innovators would not. And I think this article reflects that. The biggest weakness of LSS is that is that it doesn’t create, it improves. Give LSS a problem that requires novel creativity and you’ll be disappointed. Worse, aim LSS at the ideation process and render it totally ineffective.
I think 3M is allowing the adaptors to bog down the innovators with LSS. If, instead, they left the innovators alone to concentrate on breakthroughs and let the adaptors focus on making improvements, everyone would be a lot happier. Let’s divide a new product’s life cycle up into two parts - 1) novelty and 2) ubiquity. During the novelty phase, there are no competitors since the product is unique. As time goes on, others copy the product and improve upon it. LSS is better suited for the ubiquity phase, since to stay competitive the once-novel product, and the processes that manufacture and distribute it, must be improved. And there’s no reason why this couldn’t involve two totally different sets of people - innovators to come up with new products, and adaptors to perform LSS later in the process. Just keep them out of one another’s hair.
Sphere: Related Content