<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?><rss version="2.0"
	xmlns:content="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/content/"
	xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/"
	xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom"
	xmlns:sy="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/syndication/"
		>
<channel>
	<title>Comments on: U.S. Government Invests 20 Million in 5 PHEV Lithium-Ion Battery Companies</title>
	<atom:link href="http://gm-volt.com/2007/09/26/us-government-invests-20-million-in-5-phev-lithium-ion-battery-companies/feed/" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" />
	<link>http://gm-volt.com/2007/09/26/us-government-invests-20-million-in-5-phev-lithium-ion-battery-companies/</link>
	<description>Real-time news, information, and discussion about the Chevrolet Volt.</description>
	<lastBuildDate>Sat, 21 Nov 2009 05:07:32 -0800</lastBuildDate>
	<generator>http://wordpress.org/?v=2.8.5</generator>
	<sy:updatePeriod>hourly</sy:updatePeriod>
	<sy:updateFrequency>1</sy:updateFrequency>
		<item>
		<title>By: GM-VOLT : Chevy Volt Concept Site &#187; USABC Battery Contractor Comparison</title>
		<link>http://gm-volt.com/2007/09/26/us-government-invests-20-million-in-5-phev-lithium-ion-battery-companies/#comment-12356</link>
		<dc:creator>GM-VOLT : Chevy Volt Concept Site &#187; USABC Battery Contractor Comparison</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Sat, 27 Oct 2007 15:07:31 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.gm-volt.com/2007/09/27/us-government-invests-20-million-in-5-phev-lithium-ion-battery-companies/#comment-12356</guid>
		<description>[...] One of our regular GM-Volt.com readers Alex S. has done an academic comparison of the 5 battery companies awarded research grants by the US Advanced Battery Consortium (see previous post). [...]</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>[...] One of our regular GM-Volt.com readers Alex S. has done an academic comparison of the 5 battery companies awarded research grants by the US Advanced Battery Consortium (see previous post). [...]</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Herman W.</title>
		<link>http://gm-volt.com/2007/09/26/us-government-invests-20-million-in-5-phev-lithium-ion-battery-companies/#comment-9222</link>
		<dc:creator>Herman W.</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Sun, 30 Sep 2007 16:27:08 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.gm-volt.com/2007/09/27/us-government-invests-20-million-in-5-phev-lithium-ion-battery-companies/#comment-9222</guid>
		<description>From my vantage point:

1) The amount of funding was reasonable for the size of the firms doing the research to improve their concepts. I think 2x the funding would have been welcome, but 10x would have been wasteful or problematic, at this time. 

2) The various lithium chemistries (LTO, LMO, NMn, etc..) all have great potential when used on either the anode or the cathode.  I think the Gov did a reasonable job spreading the cash among the contenders. Not all the small players and universities got direct funding from this particular source. They still may find R&amp;D dollars.

3) NiCd and NiMH are competant chemistries. But they will not be competitive with Li for PHEV applications.  NiMH is quite capable of satisfying charge-sustaining HEV&#039;s for years to come.  But for PHEV&#039;s, it&#039;s a matter of volumetric energy density (Wh/Liter) which drives the battery selection. Cost, Lifetime, and Mass come in close after that.  Also remember that when a chemistry is tuned for &quot;energy&quot; it trades-off &quot;power&quot; capabilty.. and vice versa.  Li-ion has proven to be quite high performance, and very high cycle life.

4) 20% penetration of PHEV&#039;s by 2017 (10 years) is an aggressive goal. We will see the first major PHEV&#039;s appear by 2010 with incentives attached.  In the mean time we can choose Plug-In retrofits and EV&#039;s.

5) The true cost of gasoline is &gt;$5.50/gal.  If we actually put that on the pumps, things would move along quite a bit quicker. 

Respectfully,
Herman Wiegman</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>From my vantage point:</p>
<p>1) The amount of funding was reasonable for the size of the firms doing the research to improve their concepts. I think 2x the funding would have been welcome, but 10x would have been wasteful or problematic, at this time. </p>
<p>2) The various lithium chemistries (LTO, LMO, NMn, etc..) all have great potential when used on either the anode or the cathode.  I think the Gov did a reasonable job spreading the cash among the contenders. Not all the small players and universities got direct funding from this particular source. They still may find R&amp;D dollars.</p>
<p>3) NiCd and NiMH are competant chemistries. But they will not be competitive with Li for PHEV applications.  NiMH is quite capable of satisfying charge-sustaining HEV&#8217;s for years to come.  But for PHEV&#8217;s, it&#8217;s a matter of volumetric energy density (Wh/Liter) which drives the battery selection. Cost, Lifetime, and Mass come in close after that.  Also remember that when a chemistry is tuned for &#8220;energy&#8221; it trades-off &#8220;power&#8221; capabilty.. and vice versa.  Li-ion has proven to be quite high performance, and very high cycle life.</p>
<p>4) 20% penetration of PHEV&#8217;s by 2017 (10 years) is an aggressive goal. We will see the first major PHEV&#8217;s appear by 2010 with incentives attached.  In the mean time we can choose Plug-In retrofits and EV&#8217;s.</p>
<p>5) The true cost of gasoline is &gt;$5.50/gal.  If we actually put that on the pumps, things would move along quite a bit quicker. </p>
<p>Respectfully,<br />
Herman Wiegman</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Pete K</title>
		<link>http://gm-volt.com/2007/09/26/us-government-invests-20-million-in-5-phev-lithium-ion-battery-companies/#comment-9175</link>
		<dc:creator>Pete K</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Sat, 29 Sep 2007 22:27:12 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.gm-volt.com/2007/09/27/us-government-invests-20-million-in-5-phev-lithium-ion-battery-companies/#comment-9175</guid>
		<description>Hi Lyle,

To start with your last point first(wishing all the power to any other car company making a PHEV out of NiMh) that sums up my point: They won&#039;t HAVE any power because they won&#039;t be allowed to use the NiMh - unless sombody at GM can answer the question asked and tell us that they are allowed to use NiMh of any size they want?

I fully accept that Li-ion has improved energy density over Ni-Mh and while true, it is a separate matter which does not answer Doug&#039;s justified and searching questions - ie the questions actually asked. 

GM must think we&#039;re just lazy or stupid when we don&#039;t persist in demanding an answer but instead accept another 5 year wait on the basis of Li-ion&#039;s higher energy density which we knew about in the first place, when there is a very real chance (however small) that it will not be fit for purpose. 

In fact it&#039;s pretty insulting that they tried to fob you and Doug off with just that argument. It isn&#039;t even an argument. If we just walk away accepting it then we are lazy and stupid and deserve more of the same nothing we have ultimately had from GM in the past. NiMh exists, works and can obviously meet the needs of PHEV: If you put a 600cc motorbike engine under the RAV4 EV&#039;s hood you would have an NiMh PHEV with over twice the Volt&#039;s range right NOW. People are driving around using less elegant towed versions of just this RIGHT NOW. 

So the question again is WHY are all of these engineers pinning their hopes and (without consultation) our hopes on the uncertainty of Li-ion in this application? engineers are a cautious lot. Are you seriusly telling me that nobody out there sees any merit in starting with what works a while developing improved versions for the future in parallel?

Anyway I guess I&#039;m wasting my time - the release year is set, the production line apparently has an address and the battery chemistry has been chosen even though it is completely unproven. Provided the scientists can produce some batteries to put in it, all will be well. I&#039;ll buy first the car if itever arrives, but you won&#039;t catch me buying any shares in the company withthat kind of carefree approach to R&amp;D. I guess I&#039;ll just fall into line with the rest of the lemmings and hope Li-ion works too!

Don&#039;t get me wrong - I am excited by the Volt and I really want it to happen. If I sound confrontational I don&#039;t mean to: I&#039;m just baffled and frustrated that in a world which needs many EVs YESTERDAY (let alone tomorow) we have so few people prepared to question the conventional &#039;wisdom&#039;. 

Meanwhile I&#039;m off to lick the contacts on my pre-historic 60 mile NiCads!

Keep up the good work - I&#039;m on your side!</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Hi Lyle,</p>
<p>To start with your last point first(wishing all the power to any other car company making a PHEV out of NiMh) that sums up my point: They won&#8217;t HAVE any power because they won&#8217;t be allowed to use the NiMh &#8211; unless sombody at GM can answer the question asked and tell us that they are allowed to use NiMh of any size they want?</p>
<p>I fully accept that Li-ion has improved energy density over Ni-Mh and while true, it is a separate matter which does not answer Doug&#8217;s justified and searching questions &#8211; ie the questions actually asked. </p>
<p>GM must think we&#8217;re just lazy or stupid when we don&#8217;t persist in demanding an answer but instead accept another 5 year wait on the basis of Li-ion&#8217;s higher energy density which we knew about in the first place, when there is a very real chance (however small) that it will not be fit for purpose. </p>
<p>In fact it&#8217;s pretty insulting that they tried to fob you and Doug off with just that argument. It isn&#8217;t even an argument. If we just walk away accepting it then we are lazy and stupid and deserve more of the same nothing we have ultimately had from GM in the past. NiMh exists, works and can obviously meet the needs of PHEV: If you put a 600cc motorbike engine under the RAV4 EV&#8217;s hood you would have an NiMh PHEV with over twice the Volt&#8217;s range right NOW. People are driving around using less elegant towed versions of just this RIGHT NOW. </p>
<p>So the question again is WHY are all of these engineers pinning their hopes and (without consultation) our hopes on the uncertainty of Li-ion in this application? engineers are a cautious lot. Are you seriusly telling me that nobody out there sees any merit in starting with what works a while developing improved versions for the future in parallel?</p>
<p>Anyway I guess I&#8217;m wasting my time &#8211; the release year is set, the production line apparently has an address and the battery chemistry has been chosen even though it is completely unproven. Provided the scientists can produce some batteries to put in it, all will be well. I&#8217;ll buy first the car if itever arrives, but you won&#8217;t catch me buying any shares in the company withthat kind of carefree approach to R&amp;D. I guess I&#8217;ll just fall into line with the rest of the lemmings and hope Li-ion works too!</p>
<p>Don&#8217;t get me wrong &#8211; I am excited by the Volt and I really want it to happen. If I sound confrontational I don&#8217;t mean to: I&#8217;m just baffled and frustrated that in a world which needs many EVs YESTERDAY (let alone tomorow) we have so few people prepared to question the conventional &#8216;wisdom&#8217;. </p>
<p>Meanwhile I&#8217;m off to lick the contacts on my pre-historic 60 mile NiCads!</p>
<p>Keep up the good work &#8211; I&#8217;m on your side!</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Lyle</title>
		<link>http://gm-volt.com/2007/09/26/us-government-invests-20-million-in-5-phev-lithium-ion-battery-companies/#comment-9165</link>
		<dc:creator>Lyle</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Sat, 29 Sep 2007 19:05:22 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.gm-volt.com/2007/09/27/us-government-invests-20-million-in-5-phev-lithium-ion-battery-companies/#comment-9165</guid>
		<description>Pete
I have posed NiMh questions to the Volt execs early on, in light of Dougs&#039; comments in those days, and those of others.

Their answer was simply that Li-ion has much higher energy and power density. They show some beautiful powerpoint graphs demonstrating that, email me if you want to see them. Li-ion can power greater acceleration and ranges for less added weight.

At this point I accept GMs decision and that of many engineers in other auto companies, and national laboratories.

If any car company still wants to make a PHEV out of NiMh, all the power to them, but it looks like it wont be GM.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Pete<br />
I have posed NiMh questions to the Volt execs early on, in light of Dougs&#8217; comments in those days, and those of others.</p>
<p>Their answer was simply that Li-ion has much higher energy and power density. They show some beautiful powerpoint graphs demonstrating that, email me if you want to see them. Li-ion can power greater acceleration and ranges for less added weight.</p>
<p>At this point I accept GMs decision and that of many engineers in other auto companies, and national laboratories.</p>
<p>If any car company still wants to make a PHEV out of NiMh, all the power to them, but it looks like it wont be GM.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Pete K</title>
		<link>http://gm-volt.com/2007/09/26/us-government-invests-20-million-in-5-phev-lithium-ion-battery-companies/#comment-9032</link>
		<dc:creator>Pete K</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Fri, 28 Sep 2007 10:45:06 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.gm-volt.com/2007/09/27/us-government-invests-20-million-in-5-phev-lithium-ion-battery-companies/#comment-9032</guid>
		<description>NiMh traction batteries can easily meet the Volt&#039;s stated energy density, weight, lifecycle and cost requirements. Doug Korthof and hundreds of others of Toyota RAV4 EV drivers are proving it daily. NiMh of yesterday (it has got even better enerfgy density and lower unit cost now)is still working in vehicles that have run 150,000 miles, and which can go 2 to 3 times the volt&#039;s battery range on a charge.

Lyle, as you seem to have a sort of &#039;hot-line&#039; to various members of the Volt project for the purposes of this site, will you put the following questions forward, and PERSIST in doing so until answers are given:

1) Is Chevron/Cobasys not allowing the use of NiMh packs above a certain size? Yes or no answer from GM please

2) Is Chevron/Cobasys charging an artificially high price to prevent use of NiMh above a ceratian size? Yes or no answer from GM please.

3) If the answer to questions 1 and 2 is &quot;no&quot; then show us the precise data is using to support it&#039;s stsament that NiMh is unfit for purpose, when the eveidence we all have before us is completely contrary to that.

We ALL deserve to have these questions fully answered before we applaud either the administration that puts a few pennies into battery research that is not required, or the car company that tells us &quot;tomorrow&quot;. We were here 10 yars ago when GM used government money in its EV research. They had the cars and they had the batteries. Can we buy either today? Were we EVER given the chance to? Fine, let the market drive the NEXT battery technology along, but let the market OPERATE and that means let NiMh be BUILT in ANY size pack.

If the US givernment wants to make itself useful what about a federal class action against Chevron to FORCE (in the national interest) permission for any OEM manufacturer to build NiMh in any size it wants? They can invade a country in the national interest so why can&#039;t they force early expiration of a patent?
Today&#039;s NiMh would give nearly 200 mile pure EVs, so the Volt could be built tomorrow.

Does anybody out there think it is unreasonable to require proper answers to the NiMh questions? If not surely we can collectively bear weight to get them answered? 

Then and only then we all return to the really pressing matters such as the noise it&#039;s going to make!

Lyle, will you undertake to help us get those answers?</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>NiMh traction batteries can easily meet the Volt&#8217;s stated energy density, weight, lifecycle and cost requirements. Doug Korthof and hundreds of others of Toyota RAV4 EV drivers are proving it daily. NiMh of yesterday (it has got even better enerfgy density and lower unit cost now)is still working in vehicles that have run 150,000 miles, and which can go 2 to 3 times the volt&#8217;s battery range on a charge.</p>
<p>Lyle, as you seem to have a sort of &#8216;hot-line&#8217; to various members of the Volt project for the purposes of this site, will you put the following questions forward, and PERSIST in doing so until answers are given:</p>
<p>1) Is Chevron/Cobasys not allowing the use of NiMh packs above a certain size? Yes or no answer from GM please</p>
<p>2) Is Chevron/Cobasys charging an artificially high price to prevent use of NiMh above a ceratian size? Yes or no answer from GM please.</p>
<p>3) If the answer to questions 1 and 2 is &#8220;no&#8221; then show us the precise data is using to support it&#8217;s stsament that NiMh is unfit for purpose, when the eveidence we all have before us is completely contrary to that.</p>
<p>We ALL deserve to have these questions fully answered before we applaud either the administration that puts a few pennies into battery research that is not required, or the car company that tells us &#8220;tomorrow&#8221;. We were here 10 yars ago when GM used government money in its EV research. They had the cars and they had the batteries. Can we buy either today? Were we EVER given the chance to? Fine, let the market drive the NEXT battery technology along, but let the market OPERATE and that means let NiMh be BUILT in ANY size pack.</p>
<p>If the US givernment wants to make itself useful what about a federal class action against Chevron to FORCE (in the national interest) permission for any OEM manufacturer to build NiMh in any size it wants? They can invade a country in the national interest so why can&#8217;t they force early expiration of a patent?<br />
Today&#8217;s NiMh would give nearly 200 mile pure EVs, so the Volt could be built tomorrow.</p>
<p>Does anybody out there think it is unreasonable to require proper answers to the NiMh questions? If not surely we can collectively bear weight to get them answered? </p>
<p>Then and only then we all return to the really pressing matters such as the noise it&#8217;s going to make!</p>
<p>Lyle, will you undertake to help us get those answers?</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: ug</title>
		<link>http://gm-volt.com/2007/09/26/us-government-invests-20-million-in-5-phev-lithium-ion-battery-companies/#comment-9001</link>
		<dc:creator>ug</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Fri, 28 Sep 2007 03:00:09 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.gm-volt.com/2007/09/27/us-government-invests-20-million-in-5-phev-lithium-ion-battery-companies/#comment-9001</guid>
		<description>The US government would rather waste money subsidizing corn-based ethanol than bootstrap advanced batteries.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>The US government would rather waste money subsidizing corn-based ethanol than bootstrap advanced batteries.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Neutron Flux</title>
		<link>http://gm-volt.com/2007/09/26/us-government-invests-20-million-in-5-phev-lithium-ion-battery-companies/#comment-8949</link>
		<dc:creator>Neutron Flux</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Thu, 27 Sep 2007 17:55:34 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.gm-volt.com/2007/09/27/us-government-invests-20-million-in-5-phev-lithium-ion-battery-companies/#comment-8949</guid>
		<description>The US government (read both parties)have too many vested friends in the oil industry &amp; too many of their own dollars tied up in it to allow any uncontrolled competetion to oil. I worry the governments pitance of contribution shows its true colors. Like saying they are againt terror but fighting tooth &amp; nail every attempt to secure the borders that are wide open allowing terrorists to cross in daily. If there is any way to delay this tech getting to market, the bought &amp; paid for by big oil Congress &amp; Executive will pursue it. I would like to see made public, the details under which these few dollars, from my taxes, are handed out to descern if there is any Government interference as clearly they are not putting their money where their mouth is &amp; are more keen on dragging out the war &amp; filling their friends pockets at our grandchildrens expense than to rid our country of its energy dependance &amp; entrenched in the quagmire called the middle east. The two party system has run its course &amp; now they are running this country into the ground. I would just as well have no government dollars &amp; strings as to have only 20 million towards investment in what appears to be already developed technology. How about 1 billion towards developing cost effective manufacturing processes for mass producing this battery tech to give the US a leading edge for a change and return jobs they have been exporting for 8 years in an attempt to destroy the middle class &amp; break the Unions. How much money has the government poured into &quot;tech&quot; projects to help the oil indistry under Bush &amp; Cheney, I E Catrina bail out et al? That comparison will tell the real story of where the Governments vested interest lies, &amp; it isn&#039;t with the American people or Lithium Ion batteries!</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>The US government (read both parties)have too many vested friends in the oil industry &amp; too many of their own dollars tied up in it to allow any uncontrolled competetion to oil. I worry the governments pitance of contribution shows its true colors. Like saying they are againt terror but fighting tooth &amp; nail every attempt to secure the borders that are wide open allowing terrorists to cross in daily. If there is any way to delay this tech getting to market, the bought &amp; paid for by big oil Congress &amp; Executive will pursue it. I would like to see made public, the details under which these few dollars, from my taxes, are handed out to descern if there is any Government interference as clearly they are not putting their money where their mouth is &amp; are more keen on dragging out the war &amp; filling their friends pockets at our grandchildrens expense than to rid our country of its energy dependance &amp; entrenched in the quagmire called the middle east. The two party system has run its course &amp; now they are running this country into the ground. I would just as well have no government dollars &amp; strings as to have only 20 million towards investment in what appears to be already developed technology. How about 1 billion towards developing cost effective manufacturing processes for mass producing this battery tech to give the US a leading edge for a change and return jobs they have been exporting for 8 years in an attempt to destroy the middle class &amp; break the Unions. How much money has the government poured into &#8220;tech&#8221; projects to help the oil indistry under Bush &amp; Cheney, I E Catrina bail out et al? That comparison will tell the real story of where the Governments vested interest lies, &amp; it isn&#8217;t with the American people or Lithium Ion batteries!</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Jim</title>
		<link>http://gm-volt.com/2007/09/26/us-government-invests-20-million-in-5-phev-lithium-ion-battery-companies/#comment-8936</link>
		<dc:creator>Jim</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Thu, 27 Sep 2007 17:28:31 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.gm-volt.com/2007/09/27/us-government-invests-20-million-in-5-phev-lithium-ion-battery-companies/#comment-8936</guid>
		<description>I&#039;d just as soon not get the government involved.  Increasing these numbers dramatically will just give the battery companies more incentive to milk the development time for all it&#039;s worth, and make those 2016 dates (or later!) for real. Let them compete and try to get their products to market as quickly as possible!</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>I&#8217;d just as soon not get the government involved.  Increasing these numbers dramatically will just give the battery companies more incentive to milk the development time for all it&#8217;s worth, and make those 2016 dates (or later!) for real. Let them compete and try to get their products to market as quickly as possible!</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: SteveF</title>
		<link>http://gm-volt.com/2007/09/26/us-government-invests-20-million-in-5-phev-lithium-ion-battery-companies/#comment-8935</link>
		<dc:creator>SteveF</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Thu, 27 Sep 2007 17:25:19 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.gm-volt.com/2007/09/27/us-government-invests-20-million-in-5-phev-lithium-ion-battery-companies/#comment-8935</guid>
		<description>Rashiid you are not alone on feeling that way.    The main reason that I am excited for cars like the Volt to get produced is to get off oil.  Low operational cost and low pollution is secondary compared to true cost of oil for this country.  True freedom will come when we are free of our oil dependence.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Rashiid you are not alone on feeling that way.    The main reason that I am excited for cars like the Volt to get produced is to get off oil.  Low operational cost and low pollution is secondary compared to true cost of oil for this country.  True freedom will come when we are free of our oil dependence.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Don</title>
		<link>http://gm-volt.com/2007/09/26/us-government-invests-20-million-in-5-phev-lithium-ion-battery-companies/#comment-8930</link>
		<dc:creator>Don</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Thu, 27 Sep 2007 16:26:38 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.gm-volt.com/2007/09/27/us-government-invests-20-million-in-5-phev-lithium-ion-battery-companies/#comment-8930</guid>
		<description>Also as far as AltairNano goes ...

They are an idea company. They really do not have the manufacturing expertise or the facilities to produce in large volumes or cost-effectively. Right now this a boutique production shop. Look for them to partner up with a Chinese manufacturer to sub out to as they have some volume to fill. (ABAT being the most likely suspect.) But the companies being supported are the ones with ties to the big players or are big players (3M, JCI-Saft)... a better way to have a bigger impact on the mass market than a boutique shop.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Also as far as AltairNano goes &#8230;</p>
<p>They are an idea company. They really do not have the manufacturing expertise or the facilities to produce in large volumes or cost-effectively. Right now this a boutique production shop. Look for them to partner up with a Chinese manufacturer to sub out to as they have some volume to fill. (ABAT being the most likely suspect.) But the companies being supported are the ones with ties to the big players or are big players (3M, JCI-Saft)&#8230; a better way to have a bigger impact on the mass market than a boutique shop.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
</channel>
</rss>

<!-- Dynamic Page Served (once) in 0.395 seconds -->
