Filed under: Feature | Tags: clean and sustainable technology, cleantech, patent, technology
Bloomberg is reporting that A123 Systems Inc., a maker of lithium batteries for plug-in cars that first sold stock today, is in talks to end a patent dispute with the University of Texas and Hydro-Quebec over technology underlying its products.
http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=20601087&sid=a0Kg.kW9OuMw
Justin Blows
Filed under: Feature | Tags: business, clean and sustainable technologies, innovation, intellectual property, patent, sustainability
A recent Harvard Business Review article, Why sustainability is now the key driver of innovation, is resoundingly convincing: Businesses that embrace sustainability will innovate and flourish.
Traditional business leaders believe becoming environmentally friendly will erode competitiveness but the reality is just the opposite. Companies that embrace sustainability are inevitably taken down the road of innovation, and consequently develop intellectual property that provides invaluable brand and technological differentiation in the marketplace. And consumers love it.
Protecting sustainable innovation, with patents for example, crystallizes the first mover advantage providing significant commercial advantage.
The authors of the article looked at 30 large corporations, and concluded that sustainability is a mother lode of organizational and technological innovations. The article is full of amazing examples.
Hewlett-Packard, for example, realized in the 1990′s the lead in solder would be phased out because of environmental concerns. Rather then lobby for weakened regulations they embraced the inevitable and developed a lead free solder. It was able to meet EU directives on lead-free solder as soon as they were passed providing an advantage over competitors. Its just one example of why its smarter to comply with the most stringent rules before they are enforced. Companies that are in the vanguard of compliance naturally spot business opportunities first.
I think will are now seeing the same opportunities in renewable energy. Governments are starting to tighten the screws with renewable energy targets, feed in tariffs and by pricing carbon, and those that embrace sustainability and innovate will be the winners.
Old & returned equipment used to cost CISCO eight million dollars a year in recycling costs. It realized that most of it still worked and started incorporating working used parts into new units. Reuse is now around 45% and recycling costs have fallen by 40%.
Reuse is going to become more important as we inevitably expend our non renewable resources. But acting now before the crunch is highly advantageous and stimulates innovation creating valuable IP.
FedEx & Kinko’s printing realized that they could significantly reduce greenhouse gas emissions, fuel and logistic costs. Instead of shipping paper document around the US, they offered costumers the option of sending the document electronically to a printer near the final destination for printing. A paper copy then need only be shipped locally. That’s innovation. Save money, save the planet, and win customers.
One notable technology that the article didn’t discuss was hybrid cars. In particular, Toyota stands out from the competition, and I would say they dominate the hybrid car intellectual property landscape. This is an auto company that acted on sustainability concerns and innovated well before governments started acting.
While US giants like General Motors are on their knees, brought their by their gas guzzling dinosaurs, Toyota has been innovating in a technology that addresses concerns about suitability and has crystallised its first mover advantage by patenting hybrid car innovation. Toyota has more patents in hybrid car technology than any one else. It does not appear that the other companies will be able to catch up, at least in the medium term.
Now that governments are turning the screws to increase the fuel efficiency of the car fleet to improve energy security and reducing greenhouse gas emissions, Toyota will reap what it has sown. United States President Obama wants national fuel efficiency to increase by 5% each year from 2012 to 2016. The United Kingdom government has confirmed it will offer from ₤2,000 to ₤5,000 to purchasers of electric and hybrid cars . The Japanese government introduced inducements worth around US$4,000 per purchased car, propelling the Toyota Prius to become the most sold car of any kind in April this year.
As the realities of climate change, resource scarcity, and the costs of pollution bite, traditional business models are collapsing. Those that embrace sustainability will innovate, protect their new IP, and flourish.
Filed under: Feature
Just send me a message via LinkedIn or email justin.blows@griffithhack.com.au
Filed under: Feature
Guidelines for round 1 funding by the Australian Solar Institute are now available at:
http://www.australiansolarinstitute.com.au/funding.htm
Some points to note are:
- $100m from Australian Government from 2009 to June 2012 R&D funding to be split 50:50 between PV and CST, to be reviewed after 12 months
- 60% R&D funding to be allocated through competitive process open to public and private researchers in Australia
- 40% R&D funding set aside for core research projects, of which $15m allocated to Foundation Projects
Eric Lane, the author of the Green Patent Blog kindly submitted the following post on the ongoing battle between Paice and Toyota. For other posts on hybrids click here - Justin Blows.
A U.S. patent historically has provided its owner with an almost absolute right to exclude others from making, using, selling and offering to sell the patented product. That all changed with the U.S. Supreme Court’s eBay v. MercExchange decision in 2006.
In eBay the Supreme Court reversed the U.S. courts’ long-standing practice of automatically issuing an injunction upon a finding of patent infringement and instead held that the traditional four-factor equitable test for injunctive relief must be analyzed in each case.
The timing of the eBay decision couldn’t have been worse for hybrid technology company Paice, LLC (Paice). Back in 2005, Paice sued Toyota in the Eastern District of Texas alleging that the second generation Prius, the Highlander and the Lexus RX400h sport utility vehicle infringed U.S. Patent Nos. 5,343,970 (’970 Patent), 6,209,672 and 6,554,088.
In December of 2005, a jury found that the accused vehicles did not literally infringe Paice’s patents but did infringe two claims of the ‘970 Patent under the doctrine of equivalents. The jury awarded about $4.3 million in past damages.
Having succeeded on infringement, Paice moved for a permanent injunction. Less than a month after the hearing on the injunction motion, but before the district court ruled on it, the Supreme Court handed down the eBay decision.
The court was now bound to analyze the four injunction factors. As a result, the court refused to grant an injunction, instead awarding Paice an ongoing royalty of $25 per infringing vehicle (a figure that was later raised to $98 per vehicle).
As of the date of this writing, two other district court cases between Paice and Toyota over hybrid vehicle technology remain pending in the U.S. district courts.
Denied an injunction by the district court, the court-imposed ongoing royalty affirmed in principle by the Federal Circuit, Paice has pursued Toyota but hasn’t gotten any exclusion satisfaction out of its hybrid vehicle patents.
That may be about to change.
Earlier this month, Paice filed a complaint in the U.S. International Trade Commisson (ITC) asking the ITC to investigate whether Toyota’s importation of the third generation Prius, the Camry Hybrid, the Lexus HS250h and RX450h (Accused Products) infringe the ‘970 Patent.
The ITC is a federal agency that investigates trade and importation issues, including conducting quasi-judicial proceedings involving alleged infringement of intellectual property rights by importation of accused products pursuant to 19 U.S.C. § 1337. It is a popular forum for patentees (though only injunctive relief is available, not monetary damages) because the proceedings progress much faster than those in the federal courts.
According to the complaint (paice_itc_complaint.pdf), Toyota has made judicial admissions in the form of discovery responses and stipulations in the prior district court actions that the drivetrains of the Accused Products are materially the same as those that were found to infringe the ‘970 Patent.
Moreover, Paice asserts, Toyota is precluded from challenging the infringement, validity and enforceability of the ‘970 Patent because those issues were “fully and finally litigated against Toyota” in the district court, giving rise to collateral estoppel.
Paice further asserts that res judicata also precludes Toyota from challenging the validity and enforceability of the ‘970 Patent because the Accused Products are materially identical to the vehicles found to be infringing in the district court case.
According to Paice, that leaves only issues relating to “domestic industry,” which all ITC complainants must prove. Section 337 requires there be an industry in the U.S. relating to the products at issue. This includes an economic prong (demonstrated investment in plant/equipment, labor/capital, research and development or licensing) and a technical prong (demonstrated practice of the asserted intellectual property right).
Paice alleges it meets the domestic industry requirement because of its engineering, research and development activities and its licensing activities in the U.S.
Paice is requesting a permanent limited exclusion order barring entry into the U.S. of the Prius, Camry hybrid and the two accused Lexus models. With this ITC action, Paice is ratcheting up the pressure on Toyota to pay a large sum in settlement and/or licensing fees.
Considering what’s at stake here, I’m surprised the Paice complaint hasn’t gotten more media attention. I don’t think it’s an exaggeration to say this could be the Blackberry case of clean tech and one of the biggest green patent stories we’ve seen so far.
Eric Lane
The ABC is reporting that Paul Carter is to ride around Australia on a motor cycle running on biodiesel. He is a comedian, but the ride is no joke. The bike was built at the University of Adelaide by students.
Filed under: Feature | Tags: clean and sustainable technologies, cleantech, IP, patent, Sydney Cleantech
Last night I attended the Launch of the Sydney Cleantech network. Griffith Hack is a proud supporter of the network.
The turn out was great, with a mix of cleantech start ups, VC’s, service providers and government representatives.
If your in NSW and interested in cleantech, you will probably find the right cleantech contacts through this network.
I was very pleased to hear speakers from several cleantech companies, all of which had a strong appreciation of IP and the need to develop their patent portfolio.
Filed under: Feature
I attended an Energy Users Association of Australia presentation on 9 September 2009. The presentation was given by Dr Perry Sioshansi, who is editor of a book entitled Energy Informer. The presentation ran for about 1 hour and was attended by approximately 60 people from the energy industries and government.
The presentation discussed the political issues surrounding the Waxman-Markey Bill which is a Bill on the Obama climate policies. I am attempting to obtain a copy of the slides of Sioshansi presentation and will post the link when the slides are available.
Sioshansi is Californian and is abreast with the political issues confronting the Obama administration in implementing its climate change policies. It is worth noting that, like most Bills, it has been amended significantly in response to backroom lobbying.
The main points made by Sioshansi about the Bill (and other issues) are summarised as follows.
* The Bill was narrowly passed by the House on 26 June 2009 and is yet to the passed by the Senate. The Bill is scheduled to be passed by the Senate in October, approx 1 month before the climate change discussion in Copenhagen.
* The Bill sets CO2 emissions targets at a level that are significantly higher than recommended by scientists.
* In terms of CO2 emission targets, the Bill appears to have many inconsistencies, however a distillation of the conflicting targets appears to be to achieve 1990 CO2 levels by 2020.
* Industry lobbying groups have had a massive impact in watering down the aims and objectives of the Bill, for instance, the Bill gives free permits and allowances to approximately 85% of industry.
* The Bill allows most industries to not do any thing for the next 10 to 20 years.
* There is significant concern that CAP and Trade scheme, being a market based system, is doomed to fail. The main concern is that a market based system has a history of incorrectly evaluating equity and borrowed money ( eg recent GFC). A better mechnism (in fiscal terms/but not politically with the electorate) is a carbon tax based on emission that is collected by government and distributed as deemed appropriate.
* The Bill does not give the US any credibility in Copenhagen later this year.
* The trump card of Obama is the United States EPA. The Supreme Court has determined that CO2 is a pollutant which gives Obama the power to achieve whatever he wishes in terms of setting CO2 targets, Cap & Trade or Taxes using the EPA, thereby by-passing the House and Senate.
* California is miles ahead of the remainder of the US on CO2 emission reductions practices. California introduced its own State laws in 2006 that set much harder targets ie lower CO2 emissions than the Bill .
If anyone would like to discuss further, please contact me:
Byron BOWMAN
LLB BE (Hons)
Griffith Hack, Senior Associate
P: 03 9243 8300
E: byron.bowman@griffithhack.com.au
Filed under: Feature
Martin Thomas AM FTSE HonFIEAust FAIE comments below on a previous post ‘Opportunities & Challenges for Sustainable Energy Development in Australia’
On the subject of funding I do not agree with the statement that no-one would fund nuclear power in Australia – after all investors will fund anything that makes a profit commensurate with the risk profile. The steps would be as follows:
- Remove political barriers to nuclear power. This is essential. It increasingly defies logic that such barriers can remain in place in a free country.
- Establish honest public debate and disseminate reliable information. Inform the public. (UMPNER sought to do this – but has been suppressed).
- Establish appropriate regulatory regime. We could expect significant framework help from overseas. Effective industry regulation is not new. We already have offers of support from the international nuclear establishment.
- Establish appropriate education and training facilities. There are encouraging signs of growing interest in this domain. Again the international support is available and has been offered.
- Establish an appropriate framework for the sharing of risk. While this is a complex area it is addressed in every area of public infrastructure. Nuclear is no different.
- Establish appropriate low emission technology incentives (as are already in place in Australia for solar energy, wind energy, carbon capture and storage, geothermal energy and other low emission technologies,
- Establish a market and price for carbon.
Having said all that (which was said in the UMPNER report) I can advise that I know of several potential investors. However the above are a sine qua non before they (or the public sector if that is preferred), would waste time and effort in assembling the finance. I note Robert (Wulff’s) point on the traditional role of governments in delivering infrastructure, but I personally prefer the private sector model from the outset. However this is certainly not a show stopper.
30 other countries have raised the capital to fund nuclear power generation – so why not Australia?
Filed under: Feature | Tags: Patents, clean and sustainable technolgies, intellectual property, renewable energy, climate change mitigation technologies, IP
I came across this new & excellent report from Chatham House: Who owns our law carbon future? Intellectual Property and Energy Technologies.
Firstly, let’s get the debate about whether patents are a barrier to the introduction of climate change mitigation technology to the developing world out of the way. The report repeats others that the real issue is not the accessibility of technologies or the price of the patents, but the lack of capital and management in the developing world. Focusing on patents is a distraction from the main issues. Similar arguments have been presented in report after report and I haven’t seen a credible response. Please leave a comment if you have one! Import tarrifs has also been cited as a problem elsewhere.
What jumped out at me was a great discussion on common business strategies for using patents that we may see repeated in the growing renewable energy, or indeed any other cleantech, space, together with examples.
Enforcing patents is one business strategy. The report cites the case of Samsung being sued by Texas instruments in the 1980s damaging its brand and blocking the US market to Samsung. After vastly improving its patenting strategy the tables were turned and by the 1990′s Samsung was suing Texas instruments. But the outcome of litigation is often uncertain.
Some of the multiple business strategies based around licensing may be a far better approach. Some business strategies include:
- prototyping and licensing technologies;
- granting a licence to a spin-out company;
- divestiture licensing when a technology owner exits a business area;
- controlled licensing to ration the flow of licenses to limit expansion of competitors;
- pooling patents from multiple parties and sharing the licensing profits;
- cross licensing technology in exchange to get access to technology you need;
- establishing a technology standard based around the IP brought to the table by multiple parties, each piece of IP being essential to the standard
- licencing to those you outsource production to;
- license to influence the strategic development path of technologies; and
- being a patent troll, that is enforcing your patents even though you have no intention to practise or develop the technology yourself, a somewhat contentious strategy.
The mobile telephone industry, for example, likes technology standards. In the case of the AirBus 380 the aircraft, the industry used patent pools and licensing for production. I can see that these issues are going to be very important for areas such as, for example, clean coal were many large players are going to end up with large patent portfolios.
Filed under: News | Tags: clean and sustainable technologies, clean coal, cleantech, coal tech 2009
Griffith Hack’s IP management consultant Mike Lloyd has just returned from the Coal Tech 2009 conference held in Brisbane, and came back a clean coal converted man:
Coal is sometimes used as the whipping boy in the clean energy debate, but the coal industry and its supporters are showing there are a number of options for dramatically improving its greenhouse gas emissions. Coal is undoubtedly important for Australia, providing about 75% of its power at an internationally competitive price, $43 billion worth of export income and 8% of its GDP. It also produces over one third of our greenhouse gases. Coal is also very important on a international scale, providing a key power source in many countries. Regardless of what its detractors may wish for, coal will be with us for many years to come.
A broad range of technologies are or have been developed to reduce emissions from coal mining and consumption, and some of these look close to being commercial ready. Coal’s relatively high greenhouse gas profile may actually help their adoption. Zero greenhouse gas emissions from clean coal technologies, while possibly being desirable in the long term, may not be necessary to achieve a significant overall reduction in Australia’s greenhouse gases emissions. Instead even a gradual reduction in greenhouse gas emissions from the coal industry may be enough to have a helpful overall impact, and should be achievable in practice.
Nonetheless a big hurdle remains before these technologies are widely adopted. Some of these technologies require multi-billion dollar investments. Many of these investments may be unlikely in the current Australian political uncertainty regarding long term carbon emission pricing. Until these uncertainties are resolved, it will be difficult for the coal users to make either high emission or low emission investments in coal technologies. High emission investments will hobbled by the potential for high carbon pricing – low emission investments will be hobbled by the potential for low carbon pricing and how this will affect their business case. Maybe if the world can achieve a consensus on carbon policies during the upcoming United Nations Climate Change Conference in Copenhagen, Australia’s politicians can in turn agree on the long term policies required to underpin major new investments in this area.
Mike Lloyd
Filed under: Feature
Solar power is gaining ground as a viable, low-carbon alternative to traditional energy sources.
A number of technologies are competing to be the lowest-cost and the most efficient choice: photovoltaics (including silicon-wafer based and thin film) and concentrated solar thermal (CST) power both have advantages and disadvantages depending on the application; other technologies are still in the nascent stages of development.
The economics of the solar-power market will likely improve, McKinsey analysis shows, benefiting from ongoing innovations and cost reductions. The future course of the solar market will depend greatly on which technologies take center stage. This interactive offers a look at the different players and an assessment of their prospects.
For more information on this report by Mckinsey CLICK HERE
Filed under: Feature | Tags: agriculture, clean and sustainable technolgies, climate change, green revolution, peak coal, peak gas
I found this rather disturbing opinion piece at ABC online, by Julian Cribb, which links fossil fuel scarcity, particularly natural gas, with a decline in agricultural output. A lot of emphasis has been placed on substituting natural gas for coal because it is a cleaner fuel with lower carbon emissions, but are we burning our agricultural future? This is an area we definitely need some cleanip! – Justin Blows
In all the debate over the Gorgon gas deal with China there has been not a whisper of discussion of the issue most vital to Australia’s – and the entire world’s – future.
Nowadays not many people seem aware that nearly everything they eat and most of what they drink is produced using nitrogen fertilisers. And nitrogen fertilisers are almost entirely made using natural gas.
Indeed half the world’s people would not be here today were it not for the tripling in global food production achieved largely through the use of this invaluable petrochemical byproduct. Admirers of Brillat-Savarin might plausibly contend the present human race is mostly made of gas.
Today’s high-yielding food crops, to a very great degree, depend on high levels of applied nitrogen: without it, yields collapse. Since the Green Revolution the entire world food supply has become more and more critically reliant on this input.
However, worldwide, natural gas reserves are running out just as quickly as oil which, presumably, is why China wishes to secure such a long term contract for gas from Australia and no doubt many other suppliers.
Last month the International Energy Agency’s chief economist Dr Fatih Birol told Britain’s The Independent newspaper that world oil production will peak within 10 years. The average rate of decline in the world’s 800 major oilfields is now 6.7 per cent a year – almost double what it was two years ago. “One day we will run out of oil. It will not be today or tomorrow, but one day we will run out of oil and we have to leave oil before oil leaves us. We have to prepare ourselves for that day,” he said.
A similar story, though far less well advertised, applies to natural gas which, within a few years of oil, will also reach its peak and start to decline. According to the International Fertilizer Industry Association, natural gas currently furnishes feedstock for 97 per cent of the world’s ammonia-based fertilisers. As gas output dwindles these will become increasingly scarce and unaffordable to most farmers, Australia’s included.
Unless an inexpensive replacement source of ammonia (or hydrogen) for making fertiliser is found, then quite simply, global food output will progressively revert towards what it was in the 1960s, around a third of what we enjoy today. Those who are tempted to deride this statement can easily test the proposition in the privacy of their own back yard or balcony by growing one lettuce or tomato plant in plain sand with a standard N fertiliser, and one without.
In the 1960s we only had three billion mouths to feed (one billion of them actually starving). By the time the gas runs low and global food supplies start their downward plummet, there will be eight billion humans on the planet. According to UN population forecasts this number will be reached in 2025.
Furthermore about five billion of these people will live in cities. Unlike the 1960s, most will have not the slightest capacity or knowledge of how to produce their own food.
A compounding factor is that more and more of the world’s nitrogen fertilisers are already being used to grow biofuels of various kinds – from grain ethanol through to specialist diesel crops and even algae. Biofuels, however green they may be depicted, often use quite high inputs of dwindling fossil energy – and compete against food crops for these. In other words the more crop biofuels we burn in vehicles, the quicker we will exhaust the world’s nitrogen fertiliser supplies, and the faster will food crop yields decline.
Added to these problems is the fact that artificial fertilisers are gradually and, in some cases irreversibly, polluting and changing the biosphere. Human activity currently injects around 150 million tonnes more nitrogen and 10 million tonnes more phosphorus into water and soil than a century ago, significantly disrupting the natural global cycles of these two elements. There is mounting evidence that both aquatic and terrestrial systems are becoming seriously damaged – the plainest sign being the conversion of rivers, lakes and seas from clear to turbid systems, favouring algae over all other forms of life. Scientists consider that over-pollution by nutrients led to the anoxic conditions which resulted in mass ocean extinctions in the past.
There are alternatives to natural gas, of course. Recycling sewage and urban organic waste is one option. Increasing legume rotations, manuring or genetically engineering crops which fix nitrogen from the air are others. But they are either much more expensive, riskier from a health perspective, unproven or else produce far less food than the current gas-based N fertiliser system. Many of them, indeed, are the same systems our great grandparents used to grow food over a hundred years ago when there were fewer than a billion people to feed.
Today’s governments are a long, long way from even asking themselves how they are going to replace the missing fertilisers on a scale sufficient to nourish the human race. One suspects the matter has not even entered their heads.
Except perhaps in China. There the spectre of past famine still haunts and the ageing rulers are uneasily mindful of the consequences both for their people – and for themselves. Clearly anticipating shortages, the Chinese have been chasing natural gas import contracts as far as 40 and 50 years into the future. Sure, they need the natural gas for industry. But they also need it for food – and there is unlikely to be much argument over which comes first.
In the coming 40 years the issue of nutrient availability will be one of the principle determinants of the fate of the human race in this century. It is high time we started thinking about it.
A couple of decades from now Australians will wake up to find that, besides selling a heap of gas, we have also sold the primary means of food production, both our own and the world’s.
Makes you wonder who China will feed first.
Filed under: Feature | Tags: clean and sustainable technologies, cleantech, patent, technology
The World Intellectual Property Organisation (WIPO) has released the Alternative Energy Technology report, based on patent data.
The report investigates patent filing trends for various alternative technologies across the globe. Changes in the price of oil and increasing awareness of the issue of climate change can be considered factors in driving patenting activity, which is generally increasing.
The distribution of applications among different areas of technology appears to be related strongly to the countries’ geographic and resource situation as well as the distribution of research and development budgets and supporting policies.
Japan has focussed strongly on solar, hydrogen and fuel cell technology.
The US has focused on bio energy, geothermal, hydrogen and fuel cell technology.
Germany has focused on wind and solar technologies
Korea has focused on wind power and hydrogen and fuel cell technologies.
China has focused on solar energy and hydropower technologies.
According to this report, around 48 percent of American consumers asked said they would be extremely or very interested in buying a plug-in hybrid electric vehicle (PHEV), according to a new Pike Research survey.
Filed under: Feature | Tags: cap and trade, clean and sustainable technolgies, cleantech, innovation
According this report, Prof. Ross Garnaut, the author of the Garnaut Report on the economics of climate change in Australia believes that giving away free pollution permits to heavy polluters will steal away the support for innovation in clean and sustainable energy technologies:
The biggest disappointment for the public interest has been the potential revenue from the sale of permits has been heavily committed to compensation of various interests and it hasn’t left space for large support for research, development and commercialisation of the new technologies
I think we may already be seeing the effects of the government’s weak position on cap & trade with events like the recent move of the Australian company Solar Systems in voluntary administration. In our solar report, this company was ranked as Australia’s most innovative solar company.
The question must be asked: Is the Australian government’s support for clean energy innovation sufficient to support Australia’s interests?
Filed under: Feature | Tags: clean and sustainable technology, clean ip, expedited examination, patent, South Korea
We received news from EzPat that South Korea will now expedite Examination for Applications related to Green Technology, Effective October 1, 2009:
1. Applications that are financed or certified for being green technology qualify for Expedited Examination.
2. Applications qualifying for Expedited Examination under this green technology stipulation are required to submit appropriate support documentations and follow specific application guidelines for Expedited Examination.
Filed under: Feature
The Official Launch of the Sydney Cleantech Network
on Tuesday 22 September 2009
5:30 until 7:00pm
at the offices of KPMG
Level 15, 10 Shelley Street
(entry also via 7 Sussex St)
Including:
- the formal launch and a presentation on the progress of the cleantech sector in NSW by the Hon Carmel Tebbutt, NSW Deputy Premier and Minister for Climate Change and the Environment.
- 2 minute pitches from growth companies looking for investors, partners or just wanting to announce company developments. Please register in advance if you want to pitch.
There is no charge for attendance but bookings are essential and you will not be able to attend without having pre-registered.
Please RSVP by COB Friday 18 September to scn@auscleantech.com.au
The Sydney Cleantech Network is a collaboration between the following organisations:
· Australian CleanTech – cleantech research, advisory and broking services
· Australian Securities Exchange – listing and carbon markets
· Clayton Utz – legal services
· Macquarie Capital Advisors – advisory and capital raising
· KPMG – accounting, grants and tax services
· New Energy Finance – research and reports
· Griffith Hack – patent attorneys
TO RECEIVE REGULAR COMMUNICATIONS, JOIN THE ‘Sydney Cleantech Network’ GROUP ON LINKED IN AT http://www.linkedin.com/groups?gid=1928638&trk=hb_side_g
Interested in Pitching?
Sydney Cleantech Network events will feature pitching sessions for cleantech companies that are investor ready or have announcements on progress. There will be a limited number companies invited to pitch at each event. If you are interested in pitching at future events, please email pitching@auscleantech.com.au for more information. Each pitch will be limited to two minutes and can use a single slide.
Future Events – diary note
19 November hosted by Clayton Utz
May 2010 hosted by the ASX
11 February hosted by Macquarie
July 2010 hosted by Griffith Hack
25 March hosted by New Energy Finance
For more information, please see the attached invite:
Sydney Cleantech Network Flyer – SEP09-LAUNCH
Filed under: Feature | Tags: BMW, clean and sustainable technology, cleantech, fuel efficiency, patent, thermoelectric, vehicle
Here is an idea I have not heard of before: capturing the heat from a car’s exhaust and using it to generate electricity. Apparently, the company Amerigon Incorporated is developing a method using thermoelectric devices, a technology it specialises in. Lab tests suggest a 12% increase in fuel efficiency can be achieved.
This company appears to be proactive about their IP, with quite a respectable patent portfolio. I am sure a patent portfolio like this will help then achieve their commercial goals.
Filed under: Feature
Federal Minister of Innovation, Industry, Science and Research, Mr Kim Carr, has announced that ten Cooperative Research Centres including the Cooperative Research Centre for Greenhouse Gas Technologies (CO2CRC) of Australia will receive further government funding. The CO2CRC has secured $20million in government funding over five years until 2015.
Dr Peter Cook, CEO of the CO2CRC has said that “This is a terrific outcome for our researchers and their work, much of which is long-term in nature. It is also important for our demonstration projects such as the Otway Project, where a second stage is already in development, and our recently launched demonstrations, now beginning to produce very useful data…. I’m pleased CO2CRC will be around for a good while yet.”
The CO2CRC is one of the world’s leading collaborative research organisations focused on carbon dioxide capture and geological sequestration.
Australia is heavily reliant in using coal as an energy source for electricity generation and for export dollars. Even with the development of the renewable energy sources, Australia’s reliance on coal is not going to disappear in the foreseeable future.
It is vital for Australia’s future, and the environment, that organizations such as the CO2CRC have access to adequate funding so that Australia can meet the clean coal challenge.
Further information on the projects of the CO2CRC can be found at http://www.co2crc.com.au/
