This is a great article. The US tried the leapfrogging strategy with pv thin films when they decided in 2010 that tech was going to be the direction that public policy would support instead of supporting crystalline silicon. For example, through ARRA only “precommercial” innovative, tech technologies were able to apply for loan guarantees. A few years later, Sivaram’s Solar book doubles down on argument, with perovskite thin films.
Thank you!! Yeah, I heard a little bit about the actual contents of Taming the Sun--I can't say I disagree with shooting for the moon and targeting pre-commercial technologies but where Tesla succeeded is in building a strong demand channel whereas a lot of these other pre-commercial "leapfrog" technologies are in labs that are totally institutionally separate from the manufacturing lines that might scale them up or the demand channels that might create offtake. Yet even now there are lots of think tanks that define "commercial viability" as a function of a product's lab-tested readiness rather than as its ability to enter the supply chain, as it were.
Thanks for writing this. It was such a weird piece and also a piece that contradicted itself in ways and lacked certain engineering fundamentals. For instance it probably doesn't matter much what technology is in batteries, only that the specs are understood: capacity, wattage, voltage, charge times, etc. China is ahead not only in advanced chemistries and fast charge times but also in finding ways to deploy cheaper cells where that can make sense. If the US wants to compete they need to scale up production so all the weird bottlenecks can be sorted out and so the wider industry knows they can rely on US-manufactured battery cells for their products. Pontificating about the relative virtues of solid state vs non solid state batteries is a waste of everyones time in this regard.
I really appreciate this framework for breaking down the qualities of batteries distinct from their particular chemistries. I'm not a tech guy so it's definitely useful for me. I think the threat of critical mineral supply chain bottlenecks is still real, but it's nothing that can't be addressed with sensible long-term stockpiling and--as you rightly pointed out--scaling up production to work out the bottlenecks and the production kinks! You can't have the state manage an industry that doesn't exist!
Yeah, chemistries can of course be a feature too depending on supply chain constraints or ethical concerns. Cobalt has been an issue and then there was a big push to develop batteries without cobalt. But then you still need to have a supply chain to be able to roll out your new cobalt free batteries, otherwise it just ends in the lab.
Another thing is also that a lot of forecasts for price and performance are crucial in planning products using those batteries. If you know batteries will be 30% cheaper with 20% more capacity in 3 years that will give you 3 years to make a car design that takes advantage of that battery. Or if you know batteries are coming out that are much faster to charge you might think about designing a car with less range because it can be charged quickly anyways. Crucially by offshoring your battery supply chain you risk hearing about these things too late to be able to take full advantage in your new products.
20 footnotes is crazy work tbh
gotta keep the quips somewhere
This is a great article. The US tried the leapfrogging strategy with pv thin films when they decided in 2010 that tech was going to be the direction that public policy would support instead of supporting crystalline silicon. For example, through ARRA only “precommercial” innovative, tech technologies were able to apply for loan guarantees. A few years later, Sivaram’s Solar book doubles down on argument, with perovskite thin films.
Thank you!! Yeah, I heard a little bit about the actual contents of Taming the Sun--I can't say I disagree with shooting for the moon and targeting pre-commercial technologies but where Tesla succeeded is in building a strong demand channel whereas a lot of these other pre-commercial "leapfrog" technologies are in labs that are totally institutionally separate from the manufacturing lines that might scale them up or the demand channels that might create offtake. Yet even now there are lots of think tanks that define "commercial viability" as a function of a product's lab-tested readiness rather than as its ability to enter the supply chain, as it were.
Thanks for writing this. It was such a weird piece and also a piece that contradicted itself in ways and lacked certain engineering fundamentals. For instance it probably doesn't matter much what technology is in batteries, only that the specs are understood: capacity, wattage, voltage, charge times, etc. China is ahead not only in advanced chemistries and fast charge times but also in finding ways to deploy cheaper cells where that can make sense. If the US wants to compete they need to scale up production so all the weird bottlenecks can be sorted out and so the wider industry knows they can rely on US-manufactured battery cells for their products. Pontificating about the relative virtues of solid state vs non solid state batteries is a waste of everyones time in this regard.
I really appreciate this framework for breaking down the qualities of batteries distinct from their particular chemistries. I'm not a tech guy so it's definitely useful for me. I think the threat of critical mineral supply chain bottlenecks is still real, but it's nothing that can't be addressed with sensible long-term stockpiling and--as you rightly pointed out--scaling up production to work out the bottlenecks and the production kinks! You can't have the state manage an industry that doesn't exist!
Yeah, chemistries can of course be a feature too depending on supply chain constraints or ethical concerns. Cobalt has been an issue and then there was a big push to develop batteries without cobalt. But then you still need to have a supply chain to be able to roll out your new cobalt free batteries, otherwise it just ends in the lab.
Another thing is also that a lot of forecasts for price and performance are crucial in planning products using those batteries. If you know batteries will be 30% cheaper with 20% more capacity in 3 years that will give you 3 years to make a car design that takes advantage of that battery. Or if you know batteries are coming out that are much faster to charge you might think about designing a car with less range because it can be charged quickly anyways. Crucially by offshoring your battery supply chain you risk hearing about these things too late to be able to take full advantage in your new products.