Archive for the ‘Nanomaterials’ Category
Friday, February 12th, 2010
In a highly anticipated speech, the U.K.’s chief scientist, John Beddington recently told participants at the Oxford Farming Conference (OFC) that in order to deal with rising human population, the world and the U.K. must turn to genetically-modified (GM) crops and nanotechnology. In addition to decades of opposition to GM foods, activists in the U.K. have opposed nanotechnology in food, and the House of Lords recently issued a scathing report on food industry secrecy (see the January 22, 2008 LRNJ and the January 12, 2010 LRBJ – client registration required). The statements were nothing new from Beddington, but still highly controversial in a country where environmentalists such as Prince Charles have decried GM and nanotechnology because of, as the Guardian put it, ”the risk of upsetting delicate ecosystems in nature.”
Astute observers will note that upset ecosystems are precisely the reason that Beddington was calling for new food technologies. The ongoing debates over food, fuel, and climate are highly intertwined and show that there will inevitably be tradeoffs between environmental ideals. Despite organic foods’ ostensible wholesomeness, they cannot be produced in sufficient quantity to feed the world’s burgeoning population. Despite biofuels’ upward pressure on food prices, they can be an environmentally superior alternative to petroleum if they do not come from crops grown on former forest land. And despite environmentalist fretting about GM crops, these crops have never been shown to harm humans who consume them or the plants and animals in the environment. As the climate debate evolves post-Copenhagen, look for the role of biofuels and GM plants to shift to a more positive tenor as more thought-leaders and activists bow to these realities – much as, for instance, some environmental groups have swallowed their initial distaste to embrace nuclear power in the face of climate change worries.
Posted in Biosciences, Nanomaterials |
Thursday, February 4th, 2010
The economic downturn has hit key nano-enabled product segments hard, particularly automotive, construction, and electronics. The output of these three sectors is immense, accounting for 10% of the U.S. GDP in 2008, and 9% worldwide. Plus, because all are big end markets for nanomaterials and their intermediates, the disruption within them has rippled back up the value chain.
As a result, Lux Research has lowered its previous projections for nano-enabled product revenues by 21%: We now expect nanotechnology to generate $2.5 trillion in 2015. Hardest hit will be two nanomaterials and two types of nanointermediates.
Among materials, carbon nanotubes and ceramic nanoparticles will see the biggest impact from the recession, due largely to their out-sized applicability in the struggling automotive and construction sectors. The relatively diverse applications for ceramic nanoparticles will enable them to recover more quickly. Among nanointermediates, nanocomposites and coatings will take the biggest whack. However, both should return near previously projected revenue levels by 2015.
Source: Lux Research report “The Recession’s Ripple Effect on Nanotech” (client registration required). To learn more about this graphic and related intelligence from Lux Research, click here.
Posted in Nanomaterials |
Friday, January 22nd, 2010
We recently discussed the use of nanotechnology in oil and gas, as well as other industries in a recent panel session at the First Kuwait Small to Medium Oil Industries Conference. Hosted by Sheikh Ahmad Al-Abdullah Al-Ahmad Al-Jaber Al-Sabah, the Minister of Oil, Minister of Information, and the Chairman of the Kuwaiti Petroleum Corporation, the conference intended to not only expand the role of small and medium-sized businesses in Kuwait’s oil industry, but in other industries as well.
By fostering entrepreneurship and development of new technology, Kuwait hopes to diversify its oil-dependent economy by exploring new markets driven by science and technology, and by reducing reliance on a few large organizations in favor of a more balanced ecosystem comprised of businesses of all sizes. To help advance these goals, the Sheikh announced an $87 billion program.
The audience itself posed challenging questions to many of the local speakers, revealing that there is an undercurrent of frustration with the centralization of power in the economy – the same centralization that the Sheikh’s program would address with funds for smaller businesses. Regarding the vision of a new, technologically-powered economy, one woman asked, ”Where is the strategy? Where are the leaders?” Another demanded to know “Whatever happened to privatization?”
In one particularly heated exchange, a financier asked a representative of Kuwait’s PIC Corporation, ”Why are you (PIC) subsidizing Dow Chemicals with cheap feedstock instead of using local companies and supporting our private sector?” The PIC manager replied, “If you can show me one local company, anywhere in the Gulf, that has run hundreds of polyethylene plants and who invented the technology, I will work with them. But there are none.”
The growing momentum behind opening and diversifying the economy was striking – and it poses opportunities and threats for the downstream petrochemical industry in particular. For example, as petrochemical giants like Dow and BASF try to maintain their hold on downstream processing and refining, they would do well to contemplate what happened to international oil companies (IOCs) like ExxonMobil and BP who had invested expertise and capital to pursue upstream exploration and production. Then, as national oil companies (NOCs) developed their own R&D expertise, they were able to increase pressure on and ultimately oust the IOCs, keeping the lion’s share of oil revenue to themselves.
Societal pressure is now on to repeat the performance in downstream industries, and retain more of the value of end products like polyethylene as well. While this transition will take years to unfold, it will not take decades: clients should pay close attention to Kuwait, Qatar, and other Gulf states that are rapidly evolving their economies using advanced nano-, bio-, water, power, and solar technologies as their roadmap.
Posted in Biosciences, Nanomaterials |
Friday, December 18th, 2009
Nanocyl recently announced that it plans to increase its multi-walled carbon nanotube (MWNT) capacity from 40 tons/year to 400 tons/year by July 2010.
Thus, Nanocyl joins the scale-up race started by other competitors profiled in our Nanomaterials Journal, including Showa Denko, CNano, Bayer MaterialScience and Arkema (client registration required). Assuming its plans materialize, Nanocyl aims to expand global production capacity further to approximately 2,200 tons in 2011, almost 2.5 times greater than this year’s capacity.
Don’t be fooled into thinking the MWNT market is expanding at such a rate, because none of the suppliers listed are operating at 100% utilization. In fact, we typically hear single-digit percent utilization is the norm. This imbalance of demand and supply brings joy to the ears – and pockets – of customers who incorporate MWNTs, since prices should start to fall from the $200/kg range – for standard grade MWNTs – to expected lows of approximately $50/kg. The producers, of course, are betting that this price drop will ultimately broaden the application base and allow them to drive up utilization and eventually become profitable. But it’s still quite possible that the markets will continue to develop slowly, and weaker manufacturers will get burned.
Stay tuned as we monitor the MWNT space, and keep a lookout for an upcoming Nanomaterials State of the Market report devoted to carbon nanotubes in early 2010.
Tags: Arkema, Bayer MaterialScience, CNano, Nanocyl, Showa Denko
Posted in Nanomaterials |
Friday, December 11th, 2009
We recently met with Takao Inoue of the newly formed Innovation Network Corporation of Japan (INCJ) in Tokyo. Formed through the support of Japan’s government, INCJ aims to encourage development of emerging technologies, as well as the adoption of an “open innovation” model among Japanese corporations. The vision is to enable industrial giants from Sony to Toyota to develop new products more rapidly by accessing inventions from universities, start-ups or other large corporations. Inoue explained that INCJ has been given 90 billion yen ($1.0 billion) to invest, with commitments for up to 900 billion yen ($10.2 billion) over the next 15 years. The Japanese government committed to providing 90% of the funds, with the balance coming from private firms, such as domestic leaders like Panasonic and Tokyo Electric Power, and overseas player like General Electric. INCJ plans to pursue investments in “environment and energy, life sciences, electronics, machinery and components and advanced materials,” with additional areas possible in the future.
As part of its role, INCJ will serve as an early-stage venture capital (VC) or angel investor. It will provide funds to secure promising intellectual property from universities and government labs, and back start-ups and spin-outs – filling a gap in which traditional Japanese VCs have been unwilling to invest more than small sums. However, Inoue-san noted, INCJ’s mission isn’t limited to early-stage investments. It will also provide larger investments to fill capacity expansions and project finance needs – a role that’s missing in the West as much as Japan. Such projects require larger sums than VCs are willing to offer, or impose too much technological risk to entice traditional private equity investors.
It’s still early days for INCJ. The firm was established in June, and won’t make its first investments until early 2010. But clients should watch to see if it can maintain its political and private support, and succeed in bridging gaps in Japan’s existing financing model, which make the country poorly suited to fund emerging technologies in energy, environment and materials.
Posted in Alternative Power, Biosciences, Nanomaterials, Solar, Water |
Friday, November 6th, 2009
We recently attended the Rusnanotech 2009 conference in Moscow, a massive forum and exposition put on by Russian state-owned technology investment fund Rusnano.
The event opened with a flourish: Russia’s President Dmitri Medvedev gave an opening address, in which he announced his government’s firm intention to remake the Russian economy more innovative and technology-based. His vision was of a Russia in which emerging technologies in energy, information technology, infrastructure, and medicine played a stronger role. This vision would unfold even as the economic crisis that dealt such a blow to Russia’s resource extraction industries begins to abate.
“Our post-crisis economy must be based on knowledge, on new technology, not on the raw material potential of Russia,” Medvedev declared. Medvedev touted Rusnano’s plans to spend 318 billion rubles ($10.9 billion) through 2015 to help that vision become a reality. Also, the President didn’t shy away from citing what he views as the obstacles to high technology in Russia, including conservatism of incumbent firms — “business has not been proactive enough” — concerns about corruption, and the need for legal frameworks to support entrepreneurship and guarantee a long-term market for new technologies.
Medvedev and Rusnano’s CEO Anatoly Chubais both cited Rusnano’s goal of boosting the output of nano-enabled products in Russia to 900 billion rubles ($31 billion) — by which point we anticipate $2.5 trillion in nano-enabled products worldwide.
However, Rusnano takes a much broader view of its mission than its “nano-focused” brand would imply. Indeed, clients should view Rusnano’s role as supporting emerging technology in Russia in general, not just as what’s usually defined as “nanotechnology.”
Witness, for instance, its investment in polysilicon producer Nitol (see the May 1, 2008 LRSJ and September 10, 2009 LRSJ — client registration required). This will likely prove solid moves given the solar industry’s demand for low-cost polysilicon, and Nitol’s access to cheap electricity that can allow cost-effective production. But it doesn’t qualify as something that we, or most observers, would consider nanotech.
Walking the exhibition floor at the event, we spoke to a diverse range of firms seeking investments from Rusnano. Among them was the solar division of Konti, which offers bifacial crystalline silicon solar cells like those made by Sanyo (see the September 24, 2009 LRSJ — client registration required). Konti is seeking funds to expand from 5 MW of production to 60 MW by 2012.
Another firm seeking Rusnano investment was Russian Superconductor, a project of Atom Invest, the investment arm of Rosatom. The firm was using its parents’ support for work on superconductors for power cables and fault current limiter, much like those pursued by American Superconductor (see the June 3, 2009 LRPJ — client registration required).
All told, Chubais noted, Rusnano has approved €1.2 billion ($1.8 billion) worth of investment in 36 projects, which have pulled in a total of €2.1 billion ($3.1 billion) including other private investments.
There’s clearly some distance to go before Russia becomes a high-tech powerhouse, but its goal of 900 billion rubles of products is certainly achievable, especially under the broader umbrella of technologies Rusnano pursues. On the positive side of the ledger is the vast sums Rusnano deploys. It plans to invest €3 billion ($4.5 billion) through 2015. That has clearly attracted a lot of interest and activity in these technology areas. On the other hand, changing the business culture to a more entrepreneurial one will be a slow process, and excessive bureaucracy continues to gum up the works for innovation in Russia. Even for emerging technology events like Rusnanotech: One invited speaker at the event lamented the need to collect 20 different signatures just to get her travel expenses reimbursed.
Nonetheless, Russia’s commitment to emerging technologies looks real. President Medvedev emphasized, “we can’t just relax and give up on nanotech as global economy recovers, and go back to just supplying energy.” Clients should expect Russia to increasingly become a global player in areas like nanotech, solar, power, and medicine. The question is whether it will be a minor one, or whether it could ultimately rival major movers like the nations of Western Europe.
Posted in Alternative Power, Nanomaterials, Solar |
Monday, October 19th, 2009
Click on image for high-res version
Nano-Coatings on the Lux Innovation Grid
Projected to reach nearly $20 billion in 2015, nano-coatings lead the growth in nanointermediates – itself the fastest expanding segment of the nanotech value chain.
The nano-coatings space is diverse: As crowded as this grid appears, it only represents polymer and hybrid nano-coatings, a fraction of the overall sector. Not only is the represented space clearly over-populated, the suppliers occupying it are poorly differentiated.
Unsurprisingly, a shakeout appears due, and the Lux Innovation Grid reveals which companies are most exposed.
It visually ranks suppliers according to three metrics: technical value, business execution and maturity.
The strength and value of a company’s technology determines position on the vertical axis, ranging from 1 (Low) to 5 (High). A company’s ability to perform and achieve success is ranked horizontally from 1 (Low) to 5 (High). Finally, the maturity or completeness of a company’s development is reflected by its dot size, from 1 (Immature) to 5 (Developed).
Source: Lux Research report “The Wizards of Nanointermediates: Assessing Catalysts, Coatings, and Composites on the Lux Innovation Grid.” To learn more about this graphic and related intelligence from Lux Research become a client.
Posted in Nanomaterials |
Friday, October 16th, 2009
When A123Systems went public last month, shares started at $13.50 and topped $20 by the close of the first day of trading. The opening price far exceeded the company’s initial price range estimate of $8 to $9.50 a share, and vindicated the company’s decision to postpone its IPO last year (see October 29, 2008 LRPJ: client registration required).
According to a Reuters article, the 50.9% increase makes the A123Systems IPO the second-most successful American IPO this year (the most successful was OpenTable, an online restaurant reservation company that rose 59.5% in its debut in May).
From the perspective of A123System’s VC and corporate investors, however, its exit does not live up to the hype that led to over $350 million of investments to date. A recent peHUB post (registration required) indicates that at best investors made out with around a 7x multiple (Alliance Bernstein), while suffering returns as low as 3x at the low end (Sequoia Capital and GE) – even assuming the stock price stays high long enough for venture investors to realize those gains (typically six months after IPO). Our sources would call peHub’s analysis into question, indicating that many early investors made out with greater than 10x returns. However, given the capital required to take the company to exit, A123Systems was certainly not a grand slam like the internet and software firms most investors are familiar with, and it represents a continuation of the lack of success that VCs have had in the storage arena. (See the Lux Research State of the Market Report “Alternative Power and Energy Storage Financing: Can VCs’ Good Times Last?” client registration required).
The real question for investors
At this point, the most important question is: What are the prospects for A123Systems going forward?
The company’s cash position should be in good shape for the foreseeable future, thanks to the IPO (the company priced 28.1 million shares, raising $378 million), and a recent $249.1 million grant from the U.S. Department of Energy (DOE). However, while we’re not stock-pickers, it’s hard to escape the impression that the market’s valuation of the company at around $2 billion relies on misplaced optimism about the company’s prospects in the burgeoning electric vehicle market. For starters, A123’s main automotive partner, Chrysler, has well-documented problems and a poor plan for electric vehicles. Moreover, the lithium-ion-powered electric vehicle market will only be a runaway success if oil prices skyrocket, while if oil prices remain constant global lithium-ion sales for passenger vehicles will be barely more than $500 million by 2020. (See the Lux Research State of the Market Report “Unplugging the Hype around Electric Vehicles.” (client registration required)
On the other hand, A123Systems has many viable markets for its high-power lithium iron phosphate cells beyond light electric vehicles. Southern California Edison has applied for a $25 million grant from the DOE for a 32 MWh battery system from A123 to provide backup for 4,500 MW of wind generation in the Tehachapi region.
Elsewhere, AES, a major power producer, placed an order for 68 MW of grid batteries. Additionally, while passenger cars are a long way off, hybrid buses powered by A123’s batteries (in partnership with BAE Systems) are an increasingly common sight on the streets of New York City. And not to be overlooked is A123’s long-time breadwinner – its relationship with Black & Decker for cordless power tool batteries, which has accounted for a good chunk of the company’s nearly $90 million in revenue over the past 12 months.
In short, A123Systems has a winning technology that has found niches in several fast-growing markets – just not the one that most investors seem to be banking on.
Posted in Alternative Power, Nanomaterials |
Monday, September 28th, 2009
Last week, JA Solar and Innovalight jointly announced a partnership to develop Innovalight’s cell design “using silicon ink technology and conventional silicon wafers,” which has already shown 18% cell efficiencies. As we outlined in the latest Innovalight briefing (see the February 19, 2009 LRSJ), this technology is likely a take-off on Sanyo’s “heterojunction with intrinsic thin layer” (HIT) cells. In these cells, Sanyo adds thin layers of intrinsic (undoped) and p-type (positive-charge-carrying) amorphous silicon (a-Si) on one side of a high quality n-type (negative-charge-carrying) monocrystalline (c-Si) wafer, and intrinsic and n-type a-Si layers on the other. In doing so, it makes the crystalline silicon wafer into a multi-junction solar cells, increasing the range of light it can absorb and convert into electricity – achieving cell efficiencies up to 22%. Though the details of its approach are unconfirmed, Innovalight may print p-doped, n-doped, and intrinsic silicon nanoparticles onto monocrystalline wafers, followed by an annealing process to complete the cell structure. The partnership with JA Solar is a boon for Innovalight, which struggled to commercialize applications based on its silicon nanoparticles since 2002. While the development and qualification process will be long for the new cell design, JA Solar’s participation is the best vote of confidence thus far of Innovalight’s technology.
Also last week, Kaneka – a leading thin-film silicon module producer – announced that it will invest ¥1.5 billion ($16.4 million) in a three-year agreement with leading European research institute IMEC to develop solar cells based on a “hybrid” of crystalline silicon solar cells and amorphous silicon, with the target of 20% cell efficiency within three years. Once again, the announcement strongly suggests that Kaneka and IMEC will pursue a cell concept similar to Sanyo’s HIT cells. The participation of IMEC suggests that Kaneka will also pursue nanoparticle (or non-vacuum deposition) routes to a HIT-style cell structure. With Sanyo’s HIT cell patents expiring in the next several years, the HIT cell concept offers an attractive option for crystalline silicon cell developers to boost their efficiencies with a well-known design. As competition in the crystalline silicon module market intensifies throughout 2010 and 2011, clients should expect lots of cell developers to pursue alternative crystalline silicon structures – including the HIT cell, emitter wrap-though, and back contact cell designs – “behind the scenes” in the effort to gain market share in the high-efficiency, high-power-density residential and commercial rooftop markets.
Posted in Nanomaterials, Solar |
Sunday, September 20th, 2009
We recently attended the 2009 Nano Korea Conference in Seoul. Like similar conferences in Japan, the U.S., and Europe, Nano Korea consisted of several presentation tracks and exhibitors. In general, the presentation tracks were very academic in nature, including talks by Professor Rodney Ruoff from the University of Texas on graphene for energy storage and composite applications, and Seokwoo Jeon from the Korea Advanced Institute of Science and Technology (KAIST) on carbon nanotubes for electronic applications. In terms of exhibitors, most were based in Korea, and most were focused on the sale of carbon nanotubes, ceramic and metal nanoparticles, or transparent conductive films. For example, we met with R&D Head Young Choi of Hanwha Nanotech, which makes multi-walled carbon nanotubes (MWNTs); Marketing Director Deog-Won Kim of Top Nanosys, which develops single-walled carbon nanotube (SWNT)-based transparent conductive films; and President Inyeon Lee of NanoM, producer of metal nanoparticles. Overseas Marketing Department Foreman Yoon-Mi Park of Advanced Nano Products, which employs 19 and was founded in 2000, told us that the company generated $9.6 million selling silver and metal oxide (such as titanium dioxide, zinc oxide, indium tin oxide, and antimony tin oxide) nanoparticles and dispersions for electronics and solar cell (dye sensitized and sputtering targets) applications. Furthermore, large companies in attendance included LG Chem, which was pushing nanoparticle-based inks, and Samsung Electronics, showcasing work on memory, logic semiconductors, and hard drives.
Clients interested in the Korean market should plan to attend next year; however, don’t expect as much of an international flavor as found at Japan’s International Nanotechnology Exhibition and Conference (see the March 9, 2009 LRNJ) or the U.S.’s Nano Science and Technology Institute (NSTI) Nanotech Conference and Expo. In the next few weeks, look for several briefings on the companies we met at the conference, including Top Nanosys, Bioneer, NTBase, Hanwha Chemical, NanoM, Sangbo, Daejoo, Jeio, Inktec, Applied Carbon NanoTechnology, QD Solution, and Kumho Petrochemical.
Posted in Nanomaterials, Solar |
|
|
