Perhaps not all, but perhaps most technologies go through the following
� Discovery - the idea is theorized and proven to be true or the
realization that the idea is now viable.
� Confirmation - 3rd party scientific confirmation and general scientific
community acceptance that the discovery is valid and can be substantiated
with reproducible results.
� Funding - investors can be found to support and drive the development
� Commercialization - the technology is salable and can be turned into a
product or service.
� Commoditization - the technology becomes manufactured and sold by so many
businesses that the price is driven down to the point where,
� Saturation - can occur which allows the mid to lower levels of society to
be able to afford the technology or service.
The time between discovery and saturation, I think, is what we are dealing
with in the prior posts, and you're probably right about PV solar, 40 years
or more to reach "near" saturation. And the other time frames were probably
irrationally condensed due to my compressed sense of time (getting old you
see), what I think of as fairly recent actually happened in the 80's... The
'00's don't even register as time passed in my head yet.
With today's politicorps running the show, the reeeeaaalllyy beeeg shoow, I
have no doubt that your point about "let the best tech win" is spot on. We
will probably never know what wondrous technologies we've missed out on due
to political/corporate/conspiratorial suppression. Until a product reaches
commercialization, it can be killed and buried at any step along those
early stages above. And even then, there are no promises.
And your continued thought about societal and environmental costs being
ignored with regards to fossil fuels, well, corporoticians will never
rollover on that pork barrel. "End the oil subsidies" Obama cried. Bah!
That lasted about a day. Without true calamity I'm afraid that first world
humanity just won't get it. The energy demand cliff is getting closer and
closer and frankly I think we keep tilting our gaze higher thinking we will
always have "plenty of time" to find alternatives, ignoring the looming
abyss just in front of our feet.
On Sun, Apr 22, 2012 at 2:16 PM, murdoch <murdoch@...> wrote:
> I thought this was worth reading. I have often thought that at EV
> conferences and in EV insight research we should do more to involve
> business historians so they can help us have perspective both on
> recent technology and business lessons and also on other longer-ago
> One or two thoughts here on your points:
> - Solar I think took 40-50 years, not 20 in my view, to get to "near
> public saturation".
> - It would be interesting to make a table and analyze which of these
> ran up against certain factors and to what extent (habitual
> enforcement or non-enforcement of IP by this or that government,
> concerted lobbying by established industries striving to avoid being
> displaced, etc.).
> One of the top principles I think that is on display in following the
> efforts to make and sell and support and advocate for chargeable
> transportation is that it is wrong (in my view) to assume that under
> whatever system the US has that passes for "capitalism", that
> technological innovation and better technologies will necessarily
> result in business progress. In my fallible view, the best technology
> does not always win in the short, intermediate or even longer-term
> over decades.
> Another nearby (but I think separate) principle is that EV technology
> won't be more widely recognized as superior (by widely-recognized I
> include in terms of revenues increasing to EV businesses) unless and
> until the externalized property-damaging costs of fossil fuels are
> acknowledged, recognized, internalized and finally output directly
> into the price of fossil fuels and fossil-fueled-vehicle operation.
> EVs and chargeable-hybrids (CHEVs?) are definitely competitive with
> and superior to ICVs in some ways (reduction of NVH, elimination or
> reduction of emissions, reduction of wear and tear on breaks, reduced
> fuel costs per mile) but I think a missing element in a "fair fight"
> or "level playing field" competition between EV/CHEV and Gasoline and
> Diesel vehicles, in the marketplace for consumer buying-dollars, is
> that as long as the prices of fuel do not reflect all property damages
> and costs.... as long as governments refuse to perform their
> appropriate functions in a so-called free market system of recognizing
> and addressing property damaging activity where it occurs...., then
> Gasoline and Diesel Conventional IC Vehicles have a totally
> inappropriate and wrong (by free market or level playing field
> definitions) advantage.
> [Default] On Wed, 18 Apr 2012 14:45:52 -0700, MarketMole
> <marketmole@...> wrote:
> >It's taken 20-25 years, a generation, to finally get to the point where
> >electric vehicles are talked about as main stream media topics; where it's
> >normal now to see EVs and hybrids driving the streets. That's a hell of a
> >long development cycle for a technology. But, better than the computer
> >(about 35-45 years.) And better than the original ICE motor vehicle (also
> >about 35-45 years.) But longer than the WWWeb, about 10 years and solar
> >(about 20 years). And longer than the shortest so far, mobile
> >communication, which is less than about 10 years. All of these numbers are
> >pure estimations of course and roughly range from the beginning of general
> >public knowledge and use to near public saturation.
[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]