Hello, EEStor — are you there?
Michael Kanellos’ blog over at News.com asks a question on many minds these days: What’s going on with EEStor? Kanellos says he’s attempted to contact the company several times for an update but with no luck. “The facilities, though, are supposed to be state-of-the-art,” writes Kanellos. “The place looks like a lab set up by DARPA, I’m told. That’s where a lot of the money from Kleiner, Perkins apparently is going.”
I spoke last month with Ian Clifford, CEO of Toronto-based ZENN Motors (which has a 4 per cent investment in EEStor and a technology licensing agreement). He said EEStor is “still bullish” about being on target with its development. “They’ve got their nose to the grindstone, working to get permeativity testing completed. Then, I guess, they’ll do their announcement.”
Apparently Kleiners is still actively involved and invested. Beyond that, nothing much to report. Still no EEStor Web site. No releases. Quiet, quiet, quiet. A good sign? A bad sign? Who knows?
The link to my original Toronto Star article on EEStor back in March 2006 has expired, but you can find a copy of it here. Here’s a link to an update on EEStor that I did for Technology Review back in January of this year.
Tyler Hamilton is senior energy reporter and columnist for the Toronto Star, Canada's largest daily newspaper. In addition to this Clean Break blog, Tyler writes a weekly column of the same name that discusses trends, happenings and innovators in the cleantech market. This blog is a personal project started in April 2005. It is not an official blog of the newspaper. Tyler can be reached at tyler@cleanbreak.ca
August 3rd, 2007 at 3:45 pm
I’ve been following EEStor and Zenn in the news for several months and have several questions about the device. I haven’t seen any information beyond your 2006 Toronto Star article.
My biggest question, at this point is:
Has a prototype of any kind been demonstrated to Zenn or Kleiners? I assume $3M is chump change for Kleiners, so it’s really not a huge risk for them, but is a substantial investment for Zenn if it doesn’t pan out.
August 4th, 2007 at 11:14 am
Consider: 1) There were recently several announcements from universities regarding research and/or development in the field of super capacitors. None claimed energy densities approaching the one attributed to Eestor.
2) Oil companies are investing hundreds of billions of dollars into search and production of oil, undeterred by the potential threat of Eestor technology.
Hope that all of them are wrong and Eestor actually has a breakthrough technology.
August 4th, 2007 at 9:26 pm
I hope that the oil companies are wrong about this one too. I don’t think that they are very nimble, in any case, and EEStor is under their radar.
Stephen
August 6th, 2007 at 6:26 pm
1) The two US University studies that I’m aware of (Arizona and Georgia) did not state capacities above EEStor’s claims, but they were in line with the claim. EEStor would have reason to claim results at the high end of the “theoretical” spectrum. The University studies don’t have that same pressure to state their claims at the high end.
2) If a capacitor were to be produced, it will have little or no short term impact on the oil companies. We’re not talking about a new form of energy, just a “new” form of energy storage. Where will you get the energy in the first place? Personally, I believe that this could provide a platform for more efficient hydrocarbon engines, not the wholesale replacement of hydrocarbon to pure electric. There is no publicly acceptable suitable replacement to hydrocarbon for wide scale use. Period.
The oil companies don’t have anything to fear from EEStor. Right now, if you go by the theory that the oil companies know as much as we do, it’s a theoretical technology that might fall flat. If a EEStor type storage device does become available, their core business remains intact, and they have several years (I’d say around 10) to adjust as needed.
My viewpoint on this is, the EEStor capacitor doesn’t change anything, it simple accelerates the inevitable. Existing technology is capable of making this work, but a capacitor with the same or better storage capacities would make the transition to these technologies that much faster.
You’ll see series hybrids with or without an EEStor type capacitor. But, if a EEStor type capacitor becomes available, you’ll see series hybrids (and like technologies in all fields) overnight.
Take a look at http://arc.typepad.com/customercrossroads/2007/07/idea-city-wra-1.html
Did she actually see a working “small model” EEStor capacitor? The question may be moot.
August 7th, 2007 at 1:31 pm
Yeah, I noticed the ZNN price had floated down a dollar and thought it was time for another post, Tyler.
August 7th, 2007 at 1:44 pm
Ye have so little faith. Thanks for the shot of confidence.
So you’re suggesting I never mention the word EEStor anymore? Fact is, News.com was the one who did the update. I merely saw it and am providing a link. FTR: I invest in a cleantech fund (PZD) but not in individual stocks, nor would I consider such a speculative stock as ZNN. I, like most people following the company, am interested in its technological potential and impact on the world’s energy markets. I remain hopeful yet highly cautious. So get your mind out of the gutter.
August 9th, 2007 at 10:45 pm
Exactly!! I’ve read & heard several interviews with Ian Clifford and I keep waiting for someone to ask this most fundamental question. The $2.5M invested by Zenn is a lot of their total capital, so I’d hope they wouldn’t fork that over without some sort of demonstration. If EEStor doesn’t have a prototype by now then they certainly aren’t going to be in production anytime soon (if ever).
The doubters are legion and their concerns are quite public, so even a small-scale demo would prove them wrong. Part of me thinks that EEStor is keeping so quiet so they can have a huge coming-out event. Of course, another part of me fears that they’re just mad scientists (or another Pons & Fleischman).
August 10th, 2007 at 4:54 pm
Tyler,
Do you know if Zenn has evaluated a prototype? There seems to be quite a bit of skepticism about the ability of the material that’s used as the dielectric in the EEStor device to live up to the performance that’s described in the EEStor patent.
Thanks
August 10th, 2007 at 5:00 pm
I wish I could answer that. After speaking with EEStor for the piece I did for Technology Review, I got the impression they had a prototype internally, but I’m not so sure this is something that ZENN has seen and I’m not sure if it’s a prototype of a final energy storage unit or a major component within. I’m just getting impatient. But the bottom line is, it doesn’t matter how many skeptics or impatient people like me are out there complaining about the company, its delays or its lack of public profile. Fact is, if what they have works it works; if it doesn’t it doesn’t. All this chatter, which I admittedly contribute to, is just that and doesn’t influence the final outcome. Just have to sit tight, I guess.
September 2nd, 2007 at 2:39 pm
Another article about EEstor.
http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,295441,00.html
September 7th, 2007 at 9:06 pm
Pons and Fleischmans’ results were independently reproduced many times over, so it’s more likely MIT were the mad scientists than they were (controlling their on interests in Tomakak fusion). I’d go and read the information for yourself instead of believing scientific pop culture that there were no results. A lot of people are curious whether there was some unknown variable in the room that could have help cause the results they produced. Considering that there is now a resurgence of interest in cold fusion, I would keep my mouth shut about something so controversial if you’re taking the mainstream view, because then you just make yourself look like a follower with no personal insight whatsoever.
I really dislike arrogant flat-world thinkers. Ok, I’m done.
September 11th, 2007 at 9:58 pm
The comment about DARPA at the top of this page may be more relevant than intended. Has it not occurred to anyone that the EEStor technology has huge military implications. For example – and EEStor capacitor could easily be used in a satellite – charged by solar energy – to power a massive directed energy weapon — a little “death star” that could wipe out a whole village or military base. Or how about portable laser weapons? Etc-etc. Maybe there is a reason for all this secrecy.
September 12th, 2007 at 12:13 pm
Visualize if you will a windmill slowly churning away in the back yard, your car with a removable battery pack, and another being charged overnight.
This technology would make windmills and solar totally practical.
October 14th, 2007 at 10:44 am
There is a provision in the patent law (35 U.S.C. 181 ) which provides that if a patent application shows a potential for a weapon or other government security interest, it is sent to DOD and other agencies for review. If it is found to be sensitive, the application is withheld from publication or patent.
That always gets the conspiracy people nuts. But IMHO, we dont need publicly available “doomsday bomb” plans.
October 14th, 2007 at 10:00 pm
The U of Arizona work had to do with double layer capacitors, whose rated voltage, according to a communication from the inventor, would be only a couple volts. Thats a long way from the 3000 needed. Remember the energy is related to the voltage squared. So if you want to get the same energy on a 3 volt part, you need a million times more capacitance.
The Georgia Tech study was on using nano-sized barium titanate to mix into epoxy-like materials for embedding capacitance in circuit boards. It has a permittivity of about 50, quite good for that system, and a long ways away fromt the 20,000 claimed by the EEStor patent.
I am not deminishing the importance of these efforts, they just are not in the same energy storage arena we are discussing.
November 24th, 2007 at 12:15 pm
The energy is not proportional to the voltage squared. That is EEStors problem. Energy is equal to 1/2CV2 only for linear dielectrics. Barium titanate is highly nonlinear, and the energy is approximately proportion to V, not V squared for a high field application like energy storage. EEStor only calculates energy storage — never measures it, so they don’t have to face this reality. By the way — this creates a factor of several hundred difference between their calculated energy density, and the actual (which I have measured in the lab, and has been verified many times since)
November 24th, 2007 at 12:17 pm
The energy is not proportional to the voltage squared. That is EEStors problem. Energy is equal to 1/2CV2 only for linear dielectrics. Barium titanate is highly nonlinear, and the energy is approximately proportion to V, not V squared for a high field application like energy storage. EEStor only calculates energy storage — never measures it, so they don’t have to face this reality. By the way — this creates a factor of several hundred difference between their calculated energy density, and the actual (which I have measured in the lab, and has been verified many times since)