Can't we just switch to solar power now?

A friend recently asked my opinion of an idea he had for obtaining some otherwise unusable land at little or no cost.

"...then I'll cover the entire property with solar panels. What do you think? Pretty smart, eh?"

He assumed, as many do, that land is the primary cost of solar electricity generation. You need lots of it, true. Huge amounts. However, setting aside the cost of real estate entirely, solar electricity is still the second most expensive form of energy known to Man. What's number one? Nuclear, of course.

What makes it so expensive? Energy from the sun is free, isn't it? No coal or gas to buy? Sure, but all energy is free. You only need to dig it up or pump it out of the ground. The cost is all in collecting it, storing, transporting, and converting it into something we can use. The price on the other hand is determined by the market.

Solar panels for making electricity are still expensive. It's not a question of efficiency, either. You can get more efficient panels, but doubling the efficiency right now more than doubles the price of the panel. Laboratories are developing more efficient panels as we speak, and I can all but guarantee they will be more expensive, too. Will mass production reduce the cost of panels? It hasn't happened yet. Hopefully it will. Supply helps bring prices down, but demand can push them right up again.

When you buy solar panels, you also need voltage regulators and current converters (DC to AC), plus other bits and pieces. Add up all that, then work out how many kilowatt-hours the equipment will return over its service life (typically 20 years). You'll get 5 or 6 hours of peak output per day unless you pay even more for movable panels, increasing the cost even further. You'll still get at most 8 hours of output near the rated capacity. We're even ignoring the possibility of cloudy days! Now that's optimistic.

Therefore for at least 16 hours out of every 24, for the entire lifetime of this considerable investment, you are getting zero return. Nothing! Idle capacity.

When I work out the cost of the energy produced, I get unreasonably optimistic figures around $0.50 per kWh. Don't even think about maintenance costs, business overhead, transmission costs, land costs, or leasing the space on buildings. And forget about decommissioning and disposal - that's somebody else's problem, right? In addition to having invested all your money in solar panels, you'll still need some other way to make electricity at night.

Wind? That's gonna cost you, and it will STILL be intermittent. Batteries? You've got to be joking. The cost of batteries compared to their short service life makes that unthinkable. And don't get me started on the environmental impacts of battery manufacture and disposal.

When we consider the complete picture of Global Warming and Peak Oil, here's what I tell people to do to get themselves ready. Take your electricity bill, your water bill, heating fuel (gas or oil), and the cost of filling up your car. Throw your grocery bill in there, too. Now double each of them. Done that? Good. Now put another zero on the end of each figure.

That's what you'll be paying in another 20 or 30 years. When all resources taken together are that expensive, then solar electricity will start to look good by comparison. And, you might want to start now figuring out ways to heat and cool your home without electricity or fossil fuels. Building smarter buildings is a good start. Insulation. Double-paned glass! Thermal mass. Get used to it.

If I were to invest in solar panels, I certainly wouldn't leave them out in a vacant block. Too much opportunity for vandalism and theft. Put them on the roofs of buildings! The extra shade they provide will be welcome in a few years.

The Value of Third Party Reviews

When I learned the art of R&D from experienced masters, they spoke little on the subject of Third Party Reviews (TPRs). They said little, but they always insisted on having them!

Actions speak louder than words.

The first-party review is when the engineer or researcher checks his or her own work. A second party is either a co-worker, a boss, or the customer, who looks over the work and approves or critiques it.

A Third-Party Review is when an independent outsider with no direct involvement has a look and points out the obvious that the others were too close to the problem to see. It's a matter of perspective!

A TPR is very useful for gaining confidence in the direction that a project is taking. In management, the TPR is recognised as a best-practice. It may even be mandatory before releasing additional project funding or at other key gateways.

TPRs are also valuable for picking up errors that were too obvious to be noticeable to those making them. Cross-pollination with other disciplines is another benefit, and tapping into the creativity and experience of someone outside the immediate field is a third. For these reasons, TPRs are also an Engineering best-practice, apart from management requirements. Even if the boss didn't insist on one, many highly experienced and highly qualified engineers rely on them.

TPRs can encompass an engineering design, analysis, recommendation, or a finding. They can also be useful for checking the validity of a test design, procedure, or data analysis especially if those involved in doing the work are not particularly trained experts in testing.

I did not realize the full value of TPRs until I came in contact with businesses who did not use them routinely. Only then did I see how much time and money they can save, as businesses who did without found themselves struggling and failing at R&D. Is it possible that a technique that is universally accepted and valued is still unknown in some parts of the world?

How to choose a good TPR provider:

It may be someone in the same company with suitable qualifications, but working in a different department.

Retired engineers are often good, if they have kept in touch with current technology.

Engineers from an allied company that is neither a vendor nor a customer nor a competitor can perform the role quite well.

Engineerng consultants usually fill the gap when no other suitable person can be found. But Buyer Beware! Choose a consulting engineer who is highly qualified, highly experienced, and a very good communicator.

And (ahem) humble, too.

But isn't it expensive? Won't the company go broke paying for consultants? Ask someone whose company went broke because they couldn't get R&D results in time. Was the few dollars they saved trying to do it all themselves worth the business? They would be totally embarrassed to know how little money they "saved" by not getting the assistance that might have saved the company. Ask me how much I charge. Go on, ask.

Specialist Project Management for Research

We understand that Project Management is necessarily a distinct activity from Business Management. One is concerned with executing regular business activity in an effective, sustained manner, and the other is concerned with completing projects that have a beginning, a middle and (hopefully) an end. One of these tries to maintain and improve an activity indefinitely, the other tries to bring an activity to a close, hopefully before the deadline and within budget. Although it isn't explicit in the title, excellent Project Management is nothing without excellent Project Leadership as well.

Are there different kinds of Project Management? Yes. Every kind of project whether it be building construction, transport, oil & gas, power generation, resources, or smaller projects like product development, launching a new business or publishing a book each requires a unique kind of project management and leadership.

Here's one that not many people have heard of: Research Project Management. This is an important one not to miss. Project managers who are very good at the other kinds of projects in which the final product is a physical object, a road, bridge, office tower, power plant, uranium mine or latest model automobile, often have difficulty adapting to research where the final product is knowledge.

Research Project Management is a unique discipline compared to the rest. It requires specialized training that other kinds of management or even project management do not receive. It also requires more experience, general knowledge, technical knowledge, insight and communication skills.

Symptoms of a failing R&D project include lack of progress, an endless chain of failed prototypes, vague direction, unexpected setbacks, a poorly understood technology, a frustrated technical team, or an inventor who keeps heading off in new directions.

If you detect any signs of weakness in an R&D project, it may be because the right kind of project management is not involved. The solution does not necessarily require a complete change in leadership, but more often needs only advisement input from someone with the right experience in Research Project Management.

Bursting the Bubble

In this line of work I am occasionally forced to burst someone's bubble when they come to me for an evaluation of an invention. I try to be kind. A few days ago, however, my blundering burst someone's bubble so dramatically and so suddenly that you could almost hear the *POP* and a low hissss as the inventor's ego slowly deflated.

While participating in a panel of evaluators (and under a signed confidentiality agreement), we listened to a budding inventor describe his new idea. Only about 5 seconds into the description I piped up, "Oh, I have one of those at home!" Another panelist reached into his bag and produced something very similar to what the inventor was describing.

He sat in stunned silence (except for the aforementioned *POP* and hisssssss), then he said, "Wow. I've never seen one of these before. Honestly." There was a discernible lack of confidence in the way he walked out of the room, and I felt responsible.

For a moment, at least. Then I remembered that his experience was created in his own mind and by his own actions or omissions. No different from everyone else on the planet.

Why do inventors fear to take that vital first step? Are they afraid of what they will find 9 times out of 10? When an inventor has a new idea, the first thing to do is google it and get a feel for what's already out there. This has several advantages.

1. It saves you from re-inventing the wheel or other similar items that already widely known.

2. Filling a gap in the marketplace is far easier when you know the marketplace.

3. No inventor ever has just one idea, but many have only one idea at a time. The sooner you disposition your present idea, the sooner the next (possibly better) one will come.

Therefore, do not delay in evaluating your idea! Search the internet for it, and you don't find it, begin evaluating its commercial potential. The following document can help:

Invention Evaluation Checklist (pdf, 64 kB)

Getting an independent expert opinion is helpful, too. But be careful of "experts" who will tell you only what you want to hear in order to get you to spend more money. Invention development businesses can be useful for some people, but they are none to discriminating about whose money they take. I have seen some truly pointless inventions come out of these businesses (at the inventor's expense) that will never return the investment.

I would rather burst someone's bubble in the short term and help them move on to something worthwhile than either stand by or actively participate in that person going broke on a bad idea.

So, friend, if I ever need to give you bad news about your invention, I hope you understand that it's because I care.

Why Innovate?

Those of us who are innovators know this already. It doesn't hurt to be reminded of the purpose and importance of innovation to business, though.

In business, everything always changes. Or at least that's the safe assumption. The regulatory environment, the competitive landscape and the maze of technology are constantly shifting. Businesses that decide they do not need to innovate for the future are making an interesting choice: the choice not to exist in the future.

Eventually, if a business stays in one place for long, it becomes irrelevant. Your competition is always looking for new, better, faster, cheaper ways to satisfy your customer's requirements. Your customers are also discovering new needs and opportunities of their own. A business that ignores this constant change can virtually guarantee its non-existence in the future.

If the cost of ignoring innovation seems high, so does the cost of innovating. Many businesses have had the experience of R&D projects that floundered and went nowhere while swallowing vast quantities of dollars and time. The next logical step is an interesting one. Having had that negative experience, the directors often conclude that if that is how innovation is done, then they should steer clear of it from now on.

The correct conclusion should be that there must a better way than that to pursue innovation. Missed milestones, blown-out budgets and vague goals that are never realized are hallmarks of the DIY approach to innovation that so often results in catastrophe. If that is happening in a project, the solution is easy. The solution is experienced Leadership with specific training in the art and science of Innovation.

Businesses invest significant capital in their production assets and in the connections that make the company what it is. Customer relationships, partnerships with complementary businesses, and mutually profitable arrangements with vendors and service providers. The part that is often overlooked is the investment in the company's corporate knowledge.

When smart companies invest in themselves, they look after all three categories: assets, connections and corporate knowledge. The latter is done by actively pursuing new, accurate and valuable knowledge that keeps their business relevant into the future. And that, as I've said previously, is the big secret of what innovation is all about. Creating knowledge, not prototypes.

Why innovate? Because there's money to be made! But only by businesses that can respond to change with vision, agility, and purpose.

Better Ways of Doing R&D

I had a very interesting conversation the other day with one of Perth's most experienced Scrum Masters.

No, This is not a post about Rugby. In this context, a Scrum Master is someone who is trained in the art of R&D using a methodology known as Agile Development. In particular, this is a version of Agile known as Scrum or Sprint methodology.

Why do you need a methodology to do R&D? Because trying things at random without a plan, a map, a purpose and a goal is doing nothing but wasting investor's money. And now you're on notice, because investors read this blog!

The business-school R&D methodology that most large, established companies still use is called "Waterfall" and is primarily characterized by use of the Gantt chart and MS Project or other task management programs. I knew there were serious problems with this methodology when I first started out 25 years ago. The project I was working on then accomplished nothing except create and continually refine a very elaborate Gantt chart. A complete waste of resources. How did it happen?

Hired Management Consultant with MBA: "OK, guys, how long will it take you to design the ABC thingy?"

Engineers: "We don't know. We'll do some research on that and get back to you at next week's meeting."

MBA: "Right. That's officially a Deliverable. Now, You were supposed to complete the 640 gismo last week. Did you do it?"

Engineers: "No, we can't finish that until we do the TTA analysis, so we started on that instead."

MBA: "No problem, I'll just move that task up and change the dependency. Now, how long will that take you to complete? And what does TTA stand for?"

Engineers: "TTA stands for The TTA Analysis. We don't know how long it will take yet. We'll do some research on that and get back to you week after next."

MBA: "Why so long?"

Engineers: "This week we're busy finding out how long the ABC thingy will take."

Folks, this literally never ended. The company went broke before ANYTHING whatsoever was accomplished.

After that experience I began refining my own R&D methodology, shunning Gantt charts and focusing on doing things that create reliable, valuable, and relevant knowledge. When I came across Agile Development recently, I immediately recognized it as an enormously valuable tool and totally compatible with my own methodology.

I'll write more about these methodologies in future posts.

The Big Secret of Innovation Revealed

Hi again! The questions I am getting are mainly along the lines of, "What do you mean by 'fixing innovation'? Can you give an example?" Yes. I can.

Client: I need some help building a prototype. The first two didn't work, and now our budget is nearly wiped out.

Me: Why do you want a prototype? Wouldn't you rather have a finished product?

Client: Of course, but we aren't ready to make the final product yet.

Me: Why not? What's stopping you?

Client: Um... I guess we don't know how yet.

Me: Exactly. So how is a prototype going to help you?

Client: Maybe, after we build it, we'll know how to make our final product.

Me: Maybe? You're leaving something as important as that to chance? Forget the prototype, and let's focus on what's stopping you from building a product: missing knowledge.

The big secret that nobody will teach you in business school or engineering school is that innovation is NOT about building prototypes. It is really about creating knowledge. Sometimes building a prototype is a good pathway to that knowledge, but usually it is either the most expensive and time-consuming path, or no path at all.

So many innovative companies charge ahead building a prototype without understanding why or whether they need to. I advise them to stop and question what's keeping them from building the final product. I know that is seldom possible. The important thing is knowing exactly why.

Then, that obstacle or obstacles can be targeted with a specifically designed R&D program that may or may not involve building prototypes. But it is guaranteed NOT to involve wasting time and money!

Unless a prototype is designed specifically to teach you what you need to know, it is likely to be a pointless exercise. Designing a prototype, a test or a research project to produce specific knowledge requires specialized training and experience. You won't save money doing it yourself or with inexperienced technicians.

Another common prototype mistake is to confuse a research prototype with what we call a "Pre-Production Run" or a "Production Pilot Run." These two are totally different and have specific purposes.

When a company doesn't understand the difference, they often purchase 20 or 100 of each part needed to build a research prototype, thinking that they are certainly going to use them in the production model, and it's cheaper to buy bulk. This is almost always a waste of money. Worse still, it paints the design into an awkward corner by constraining it to re-use these stockpiled components long after they are found not to be ideal.

That's why I'm always repeating, "Before you prototype, get expert advice or it could be your time and money straight down the gurgler!" Visit me at www.p-r-o-system.com.

Welcome

My name is John Jacob, and I fix broken innovation projects.

How? Well, that's what this blog is about. Much, much more on that later. But for a crash course, see www.p-r-o-system.com.

I have been writing an online email newsletter for about a year, which you can read on www.wallingup.com. Those of you who are long-time subscribers know that I have a low opinion of electric cars, and that's what I'd like to rant about today.

About every other week an inventor calls me up to say he's just invented the electric car. I am amazed when this happens. Really? You're phoning me from 1890? That is truly astonishing!

One fellow said he wanted my help attaching a generator to one of the wheels of his car so he can recharge the car's battery as it drives. To quote the Great Dave Barry, I am NOT making this up. How could I?

People assume that because a car is "electric" that it will be good for the environment. I disagree, conditionally. High-efficiency cars today are about as stripped-down as they can get. Just a motor, gearbox and wheels, with someplace none-too-comfortable to sit. Now take that highly optimized car and ADD to it a load of heavy, expensive gear. Three things happen when you do this:

1. The COST goes UP.

2. The weight goes up and therefore performance goes down.

3. The true efficiency goes down.

As evidence I cite a recent Top Gear episode in which they track-tested a Prius against a BMW M5 with a monstrous, ice-cap-melting, polar-bear-snuffing 4 litre V8 engine. The BMW was driven right behind the Prius and so did exactly the same distance, speed and time. The Prius was driven to the limits of its capability, and the BMW had no difficulty keeping up.

The results?

Pious Prius: 17 miles per gallon.

Global-Warming Mobile: 19 miles per gallon.

Electric and hybrid cars offer only one advantage over standard cars: Regenerative Braking. This is the ability to recoup around 50% of the cars' kinetic energy (1/2 m v^2) and put it back into the battery. This allows hybrid/electric cars driven in slow stop & go traffic to vastly outperform standard cars in the same setting. But is this how we really want to drive cars?

If traffic is that dense and the roads that ill-planned, I'd rather get out & walk or ride a bike. Where I want a car is on the freeways and out in the country. And then, I want to drive at least 1000 miles before suffering the inconvenience of having to stop and fill up! What electric car can offer me that?

The only ways to truly make a car more efficient and better performing is to decrease the weight, the air drag and the road friction. The problem is that decreasing drag makes a car less safe because it is also less visible to other drivers, and limits the driver's own visibility, too. Why? Because to get the ultimate low air drag, you are laying almost flat on your back inches from the road surface. Think, "Luge." Also, reducing the tyre friction makes a car less safe because it also reduces the grip that the wheels need for cornering and braking.

Therefore the main game in automotive efficiency without sacrificing safety is all about weight savings. Turbos for example allow smaller, lighter engines to make the same amount of power that bigger, heavier ones used to. Currently, batteries of a given energy storage capacity are vastly heavier than a fuel tank offering the same driving distance. That increased weight may be offset by very expensive carbon-fibre body work (again of questionable safety by comparison to steel), and perhaps by eliminating some of the mechanical hardware found inside and underneath a car.

It is essential then that an electric car, at the very least, have no transmission on board. This is not always the case in today's electrics and hybrids, and it still does not quite compensate for the extra added weight.

Nor does it compensate for the inconvenience of having to charge up or swap out battery packs every 100 or 200 miles.

And don't even get me started on the future environmental impacts of mass-producing all the batteries that will be required, as well as disposing of them after a year or two.

So, if you think you have invented a better electric car, I for one do not want to hear about it unless it directly addresses the issues raised here. If you really want to help, work on battery storage technology instead. Or electronic motor torque control to eliminate the need for gearboxes and brakes. Or chassis-integral suspension for further weight savings. Use your imaginations in areas where it will do some good!