Neat story in the NYTimes about forcing innovations through awards (like the X Prizes ) and open-source-style collaboration (featuring InnoCentive as an example). I’m not a huge fan of McCain, but I think his somewhat-derided prize for a better battery idea was a good one.
It is my understanding that, right now, the biggest problem with the Chevy Volt isn’t the function of the battery or any other mechanical issue, but cost. The batteries themselves cost $10K and GM can’t afford to subsidize the cost of the batteries for the sake of a cheaper car. I think everyone recognizes that cheaper batteries are possible, but few are willing to take on the project without a greater incentive. $300 million will bring people out of the woodwork.
Neat factoid about InnoCentive:
InnoCentive began in 2000 as e.Lilly, an in-house innovation “incubator†at the pharmaceutical giant Eli Lilly, Mr. Spradlin said, with the company posting problems that its employees had been unable to solve. From the beginning the results were good, he said. “Most of our companies tell us they have a one-third or better solve rate on their problems and that is more cost-effective than anything they could have done internally.â€
Really? I would think that $300 million could be used in way better places. I mean, the market is clearly there for whoever does invent the battery of the future–and whoever gets that patent will likely earn more then $300 mil out of it. Why add more incentive, when youcould instead use it to incentiveize a field that doesn’t have built-in prizes?
Because history has shown us time and again that incentives are a winning strategy. It encourages people to take novel approaches to solving problems.
Our government hands out grants all the time to study things that will improve existing technology, including batteries. I don’t see how this is any different. (And, indeed, as the article states, the NRC recommended the tactic to NSF as a way to spur innovation.) I’d like to see benchmarks along with this proposition, but it is a legitimate approach. (Besides, this is a no-lose proposition. If you get a better battery, you win. If not, you don’t pay.)
So, to get back to your first point…If the market were clearly there for the battery, it would exist, wouldn’t it?
OK, that’s not quite fair. Sure, whoever makes a better battery will reap financial rewards. The $300 million carrot, however, will prime the pump and get folks seriously looking at the problem. Keep in mind that it would likely cost more than $300 million (the price of two Dark Knights, btw) to build such a battery (or at least one that could be mass-produced).
Most of the teams who went for the Ansari X Prize spent much, much more than the $10 million award in developing their rockets…some spent that much never to see a single test fire.
You can say that the $300 million could be spent better elsewhere, but I can’t argue that. If the goal is to use the power of government to reduce our reliance on oil as fuel, then this is a legitimate use of a $300 million carrot, one that will likely produce results.
Aside from that. What the hell, man. I don’t hear from you for months and you come out of the woodwork to bitch about about a blog post? Dude!