Archive for the ‘Nanomaterials’ Category
Thursday, August 19th, 2010
Last month, we gave a presentation on nanotech investment trends during the Institute of Food Technologists’ (IFT) International Food Nanoscience Conference in Chicago. Specifically, we shared research indicating that although venture capital (VC) investments in nanotechnology decreased from 2008 to 2009, VC investments in nanotechnology for health care and life sciences actually increased (see the report 2009 Nanotech Venture Capital: Healthcare and Life Sciences Provide Life Support*).
The rise in investments encompassed targeted delivery technologies for pharmaceutical, food, and nutraceutical applications, as well as nanotechnology innovations for food packaging. We also presented our assessment of how countries within the European Union ranked – both, against each other and on a global scale – based on the amount of nanotechnology-related activity within countries there, and how successful they were at commercializing their nanotechnology innovations (see the report Nanomaterials State of the Market Q1 2009: Cleantech’s Dollar Investments, Penny Returns*).
Following the presentation, the audience was particularly interested in how much large food corporations were investing in nanotech applications such as Aquanova’s encapsulation of nutraceuticals and vitamins (see the June 29, 2010 LRTJ*). Kraft Food’s Fellow Vijay Arora confirmed our thoughts, stating that large corporations such as Kraft are “closely monitoring” technology developments in additives and functional foods, but that food packaging innovations are likely to be the “lower hanging fruit.” Additionally, Vijay stated it’s unlikely that nanotechnology targeting food applications will ever be profitable or popular unless there is a step-value improvement in solubility and bioavailability – particularly given the negative public perception of food nanotechnology. His statements were in line with the theme resounding throughout the day: innovation is ahead of regulations, and unless regulatory agencies decide how to handle food nanotechnology, negative public perception will continue to persist.
That said, we advised the audience (consisting of food scientists and technologists working in industry, government, and academia) to adopt an open innovation methodology wherein regulators, researchers, and non-governmental organizations work together. Collaborative efforts will help illuminate the real risks associated with food nanotechnology and put perceptual risks at bay (see the report Nanotech’s Evolving Environmental, Health, and Safety Landscape: The Regulations Are Coming*).
Tags: Kraft
Posted in Nanomaterials, Targeted Delivery, Uncategorized |
Thursday, August 5th, 2010
 Environment and energy, or “cleantech,” applications have become a target for more and more companies developing nanointermediate products, such as batteries for electric vehicles. Developers targeting this segment incorporate nanomaterials like lithium titanate and lithium iron phosphate nanoparticles into battery electrodes.
In a recent report*, Lux Research summarized the opportunities of this space, and applied its proprietary assessment tool, the Lux Innovation Grid, to compare the field of competitors and identify its most likely winners. The Grid scores each company on three attributes – technical value, business execution, and maturity, and then assigns a relative position on the Lux Innovation Grid’s four quadrants.
Overall, the report found little technological differentiation between firms targeting this segment. A123Systems, alone, pulls away from the pack due to its solid business execution. Like many of its competitors, the company develops nanostructured lithium iron phosphate battery electrodes for the automotive market. But A123Systems was the only nanotech company to go public in 2009, and signaled one of the year’s most successful IPOs in any technology category.
Electrovaya, which scored highest in technical value, is developing nanostructured polymer electrolyte technology for three different battery cathode chemistries. A relatively strong revenue-to-employee ratio of $41,538 and a strong partnership list that includes Tata Motors also help distinguish it from the competition.
Alone in the Long Shot quadrant is K2 Energy Solutions that, despite two recent battery-development deals, hasn’t yet landed a large partner in the lucrative automotive sector. The aforementioned deals include a $30 million grant from the Chinese government for a joint venture with DLG battery, and another with an undisclosed customer in personal mobility (e.g. scooter and e-bikes).
Also, Altair Nanotechnologies’ status has changed for the worse since Lux issued its report in March. With a Q1 burn rate five times its 2009 annual revenues and a stock price below $0.40, Altair is in danger of being delisted from NASDAQ by the end of 2010. Although an updated score for Altair is as yet unavailable, its position on the Grid has likely drifted into Long Shot territory.
* Source: Lux Research report “The Governing Green Giants: Makers of Cleantech Nanointermediates on the Lux Innovation Grid” (client registration required)
Tags: A123Systems, ABAT, Altair Nanotechnologies, Electrovaya, Ener1, High Power Lithium, K2 Energy Solutions, Valence
Posted in Alternative Power, Nanomaterials |
Friday, June 25th, 2010
We presented at the recent RadTech 2010 conference, a showcase for UV-curable coatings, inks, and adhesives. All technologies involved offer lower energy needs, faster throughput, lower volatile organic compound (VOC) releases, and/or lower-temperature operation by avoiding the need for heat-curing or long drying times. Many RadTech attendees were seeking new market opportunities for their technologies; and for many, solar headed their lists.
The photovoltaics section of the event featured a talk from Joshua Oliver of Sartomer, a division of oil giant Total, and a leading supplier of monomers, oligomers, and other raw materials for UV-curable products, including some used in solar applications. Joshua discussed the potential of UV-curable materials as encapsulant and barrier films, but explained that most UV-curable polymers can’t provide the barrier properties needed for solar applications. He added, however, that Sartomer found mixing UV-curable elements into a polymer similar to ethylene vinyl acetate (EVA) leads to a material that compares favorably to EVA in performance and durability after curing. Even so, UV-curable materials will have uphill battle to get into solar, however, unless they can eliminate the need for lamination altogether, as module manufacturers will be loath to add an additional curing tool to their lines.
Also on hand was transparent conductive film producer, Cambrios, which uses a UV-curable polymer as an overcoat to protect the silver nanowires that form its conductive layers. Teresa Ramos presented results showing that Cambrios could achieve sheet resistance as low as 50 ohm/sq with 96.6% light transmission, or 15 ohm/sq at 93.5% transmission, which signifies a performance improvement over incumbent transparent conductor indium tin oxide (ITO). Teresa noted that 10 ohm/sq to 20 ohm/sq is needed for inorganic thin-film PV users. However, when she discussed how Cambrios had achieved uniform properties over large areas – scaling up to large areas is one of the key challenges for non-active solar materials (see the report “Driving Down Solar Costs: Non-active Material Opportunities)” – the data were from films with 225 ohm/sq and 91% transmission. While Teresa was cagey in response to questions about its cost metrics (another critical factor for adoption) and commercialization plans, it appears that Cambrios still has some way to go before being able to address solar applications. That said, it remains a strong contender for transparent conductive films in display applications (see the March 22, 2010 LRNJ).
Tags: Cambrios, Sartomer
Posted in Nanomaterials, Solar |
Thursday, May 13th, 2010
Amidst an uncertain economic climate, top corporate executives, entrepreneurs, investors, and academic luminaries traveled to Boston last month to share the ideas, insights and innovations that helped establish them as today’s business and technology leaders.
The event was the fifth annual Lux Executive Summit, where leading innovators – from IBM to Mitsui to DSM – meet, discuss and learn about the technologies that will drive growth and profits for years to come. This week, Lux Populi highlights some of the insights and observations from the Lux Executive Summit by analysts from each of Lux Research’s Intelligence services.
Biosciences: Pulp/paper producers protest penetration into biofuels
Amidst a lively debate about ethanol’s potential to displace petroleum in the U.S., Samhitha Udupa pointed out to Robert Gelman, a researcher at Ashland, that several of the technology developers that Lux has briefed were struggling with pretreatment processes to breakdown and separate components of lignocellulosic biomass (comprising lignin, hemicellulose, and cellulose). Pretreatment is widely recognized as the most expensive step in cellulosic fermentation, and enzyme giants like Novozymes spent many years designing cheaper enzymes. Interestingly, Gelman vehemently asserted that firms, like Ashland, with experience in pulp and paper have long been experts at separating components of wood, an abundant lignocellulosic feedstock.
So why aren’t more pulp and paper players stepping up to take advantage of a huge unmet need in a soon-to-be high-volume industry?
According to Robert, he had the same thought years ago, and pursued the idea with “many” (emphatically) of his higher-ups, but was met with great skepticism. He asserted that pulp and paper producers are “dinosaurs more interested in reliving ‘Blazing Saddles’ than in exploring adjacent applications for their valuable technologies.” While the cellulosic ethanol industry continues reinventing the wheel – or parts of the wheel – in an effort to bring down costs, pulp and paper producers continue to… produce paper and pulp.
* * *
Green Buildings: Dow says many buildings are actually getting less efficient
Mike Kontranowski, Strategic Marketing Manager of Dow Building Solution’ Thermax brand of rigid insulating board, presented a sobering analysis of the direction of building efficiency during the Summit. Although buildings of all types have become more energy efficient on a per square foot basis for the past 50 years, many buildings constructed over the past decade have bucked the trend and have begun regressing on energy efficiency. This reversal comes despite newfound interest in “green building” among governments, occupants, and the building owners themselves, and despite the plethora of insulation, window, equipment, and other devices that yield far greater efficiencies. More surprisingly, many of the buildings are LEED (Leadership in Energy & Environmental Design) certified, because energy efficiency is only one of many metrics that accrue points needed for certification.
The proximate cause of the backslide in efficiency is a switch to less expensive aluminum wall studs in place of wood or block in recent years. Because aluminum is such a good conductor of heat, walls that are otherwise well-insulated – with insulation batts installed between the studs – see an overall insulating R-value of the wall drop in half, from 11 or more to 5. Thermal images of walls are particularly poignant, showing relatively small amounts of heat escaping from between the studs, while the studs themselves were lit up like Christmas trees.
Fortunately solutions exist even for this problem, including new insulating sheathing technologies from Dow and Owens Corning that cover the exterior of the studs. In addition, aerogel companies, such as Aspen Aerogels and American Aerogel, are developing insulating tapes designed specifically to envelop the studs themselves and lend substantial insulating value. Although, adoption of these technologies isn’t likely to surge in the near term, expect renewed regulatory efforts and impending financial programs like the PACE bonds may accelerate their roll-out further on (see the May 3, 2010 LRGJ – client registration required), and may reverse the unfortunate regression in thermal insulation in modern structures.
* * *
Nanomaterials: Best practices for building a business around nanotechnology
During a panel discussion at the Summit, CTO Seth Coe-Sullivan of QD Vision, President Donald Cho of Finetex EnE, and President Adrian Burden of Bilcare Technologies discussed best practices for building a business around nanotechnology. Common tips included:
- Secure funding early
- Protect intellectual property
- Integrate environmental, health, and safety (EHS) plans with business strategy
- Develop a strong team top-to-bottom
- Developing nanointermediates instead of just nanomaterials, and
- Focus on a small number of target markets
While the trio hit most of the best practices that we’ve touted before, one of the most critical steps for a start-up is forming partnerships early with large corporations (see “Open Innovation and Its Discontents: Solving the Emerging Technology Funding Problem”). With these tips in mind, clients should check each box when engaging start-ups and benchmark the potentials against strong players like QD Vision, Bilcare, and Finetex.
With regard to Finetex, its VP Donald Cho told Lux analyst Jurron Bradley that it supplies nanofiber filters to GE for its turbines to filter the incoming air. While gas turbines may not represent a large opportunity for filter companies, the partnership is a strong vote of confidence for the product and pushes Finetex further in front of its competition. Finetex’s revenues from nanofiber sales are still a modest $1.5 million, but it sports an extensive partner and customer list, which speaks well for its future. Clients looking for a nanofiber supplier, especially for textile and filtration applications, should engage Finetex, but those considering running their own production lines should look to Elmarco for equipment.
* * *
Power: Toyota, Compact Power, and BYD offer contrasting views on the future of Li-ion
Three panel speakers in energy storage provided three very different visions for the future of lithium-ion (Li-ion) batteries and electric vehicles. The panel included Bill Reinert, National Manager for Toyota Motor Sales’ Advanced Technology Group, Prabhakar Patil, CEO of Compact Power (a subsidiary of LG Chem, and battery supplier for the Chevy Volt), and Micheal Austin, VP of BYD America.
Reinert, the most conservative of the three, lamented that at today’s Li-ion battery prices, even a plug-in hybrid vehicle (PHEV) with as little as a 10-mile all-electric range (AER) is still too expensive. While Patil agreed that Li-ion batteries were very expensive today, he felt that costs would drop by a factor of two to four in the next five years to 10 years. Austin, by far the most bullish of the three, claimed that BYD is already producing Li-ion batteries at $500/kWh, as well as the electric vehicles (both all-electric vehicles – EVs – and PHEVs) and grid-storage systems that use them.
Our view aligns most with that of Toyota’s Reinert. Our cost estimates for automotive Li-ion packs to the automaker range between $700/kWh and $900/kWh, which is too expensive for any PHEV to compete with a NiMH-powered standard hybrid without serious subsidies. While we agree with the low end of Patil’s estimates – namely the claim that large-format Li-ion prices will drop by a factor of two over the next decade (see the report ”Unplugging the Hype around Electric Vehicles” - client registration required.) – we don’t ever see them dropping by a factor of four, due to high materials costs. Moreover, while BYD might indeed have a very cheap Li-ion cell in China, it is unclear whether such a cell could satisfy Western safety standards, and it seems like its batteries are still too expensive for a tough Chinese auto market, as BYD’s electric vehicle sales in China have been disappointing so far (see the April 28, 2010 LRPJ – client registration required). While BYD and Nissan (with its Leaf EV) have taken Toyota’s mantle as the environmental visionaries of the large automakers, the hybrid stalwart has a firmer grasp of the relevant battery economics.
* * *
Solar: Summit panelists dish on solar industry outlook
Conference invitees attending the Summit’s solar track caught perspective from the industry’s leading lights at two separate panel discussions. First up was the “Top Dogs” panel, wherein Satcon CEO Steve Rhoads and Enphase Energy Founder Raghu Belur discussed the relative merits of centralized inverters versus panel-level microinverters. In addition, Yingli Solar Managing Director Rob Petrina discussed Yingli’s market entry strategy for the U.S.
Overall, all three were incredibly positive about the prospects for the U.S. market in 2010 and 2011 as it begins to soak up demand from Germany. Further, Rhoads and Petrina stressed that the Chinese market is not to be overlooked, especially given the quick pace at which plants can be installed. For example, Satcon cited a total development, engineering and construction time of only a few months for its 38 MW of projects with GCL in China, compared to the 12 to 36 months more typical of U.S. installations
Later that day, Craig Cornelius, Managing Director at Hudson Clean Energy Partners, moderated a panel of “Solar’s Emerging Leaders.” The panel included Dave Pearce, CEO of CIGS start-up NuvoSun; Kurt Barth, founder of CdTe up-and-comer Abound Solar; and Cynthia Christensen, Director of Marketing for Stirling Energy Systems (SES), a developer of a unique variation on solar thermal. The three discussed some of the challenges of overcoming the “bankability” and “warrantability” concerns for new technologies. They suggested the use of third-party insurers and funding initial installations off the company’s own balance sheet were generally accepted best practices in the market downturn. Indeed, SES noted how it spun off a separate project development subsidiary, funded by the same investors, to allow it to focus on technology developments. Clients should watch Abound and SES carefully for their first installations this year, while NuvoSun’s progress with its partner Dow Chemical will determine that company’s future success.
* * *
Water: Top dogs and rising stars discuss opportunities and challenges in the hydrocosm
Two separate panel discussions at the Summit generated insightful commentary on topics ranging from regulation in the hydrocosm, the need for innovation in the field, new market growth opportunities, and the impact of the current low cost of water.
The first panel provided perspective from “top dogs” representing every part of the membrane water treatment system, beginning with David Moll from Dow Water & Process Solutions (the membrane), Bill Musiak from Norit X-Flow North America (the modules), and Jeff Fulgham from GE Water Process & Technologies (system development and other facets).
The panel discussed markets for residential treatment systems, food and beverage processing, wastewater, and two areas of particular excitement: the produced water market and wastewater reuse, all of which we agree are significant growth areas.
We were glad to see the panel unanimously confirm the importance of the wastewater treatment market, which we recently covered in Technologies Turn Waste into Profit (client registration required). The panel also shared our interest in ultrafiltration membranes and the produced water market. Lux Research discussed membranes in a recent report Filtering Out Growth Prospects in the $1.5 Billion Membrane Market (client registration required), and will discuss specifics of the produced water market in an upcoming Water State of the Market Report (SMR) later this year.
The Summit also brought together “rising stars” in the water market, namely Amir Peleg from TakaDu Ltd, Emily Landsburg from Blackgold Biofuels, G.G. Pique from Energy Recovery Inc. (ERI), and Marc Bracken from Echologics Engineering Inc.
The current low cost of water was of particular focus for panelists who discussed how to grow a business given this fundamental truth in the water market. The low cost of water effectively reduces the drive for innovation and new products, since customers are not motivated to alter current water treatments and use patterns.
G.G. and Amir both noted that there is a need for national water policy to push the agenda of innovation, among other benefits. Marc from Echologics noted that repairing the aging water infrastructure is often a pain point for customers because, irrespective of the cost of water, it must still be transported efficiently. Emily noted that Blackgold Biofuels’ business actually helps water utilities stretch their revenue by providing a cash stream from the waste buildup in the pipe infrastructure. In addition to the cost/revenue discussion, the panelists emphasized the need to collaborate, and for solutions that form a “treatment train” instead of claiming to be silver bullet.
Tags: Abound Solar, American Aerogel, Ashland, Aspen Aerogels, Bilcare Technologies, Blackgold Biofuels, BYD America, Compact Power, Dow, DSM, Echologics Engineering, Elmarco, Energy Recovery Inc. (ERI), Enphase Energy, Finetex EnE, General Electric, IBM, Mitsui, Nissan, Norit X-Flow, NuvoSun, Owens Corning, QD Vision, Satcon, Stirling Energy Systems, TaKaDu, Toyota Motor Co., Yingli Solar
Posted in Alternative Power, Biosciences, Green Buildings, Nanomaterials, Solar, Water |
Friday, April 30th, 2010
 The heyday for nanotech venture capital (VC) likely saw its peak in 2008, when overall investment reached $1.4 billion. Last year, the sector raised only $792 million, signifying a 42% decline from 2008. The value of nanotech-related deals in the manufacturing/materials and energy/environment sectors took particularly sharp dives, sinking 78% and 69% respectively from the previous year.
But as venture-backed nanotech went on life support, it was kept alive by investment in healthcare and life sciences, which increased last year at the same rate that overall nanotech VC dropped – 42%. This segment attracted $404 million last year – or 51% of all deals; and based on responses from the top VCs in the nanotech space that we interviewed, it’s likely to stay one of VCs’ favorite sectors, along with energy and environment, for the near future.
Source: Lux Research report 2009 Nanotech Venture Capital: Healthcare and Life Sciences Provide Life Support.
Posted in Nanomaterials |
Friday, April 9th, 2010
In late March, the U.S. President’s Council of Advisors on Science and Technology (PCAST) announced a report assessing the impact of the U.S. National Nanotechnology Initiative (NNI) since its formal launch in 2001. The report also makes recommendations for future changes.
Lux Research’s Director Michael Holman participated in the Nanotechnology Advisory Working Group that drafted the report, which PCAST members presented to President Obama last month. While Working Group deliberations were confidential, the final report offers some insights into how nanotechnology leaders in the U.S. government, industry, and academia view the field today.
Overall, while nanotech is arguably in the trough of the hype cycle, support for nanotech still runs high in the U.S. Drawing on input from industry and government, the report recommends that the government boost support for the NNI – though it also suggests some changes be made.
Most significantly, it recommends government place less emphasis on basic research in favor of projects that help to bring that research to market. The suggestion echoes Lux Research’s observation that nanotechnology has undergone a phase change from discovery to commercialization (see the Introduction to The Nanotech Report, 5th Edition from 2007 – client registration required). While it calls for basic research to continue, the report also asks that “the NNI increase its emphasis on nanomanufacturing and commercial deployment of nanotechnology-enabled products.”
The document’s heart is in the right place on this issue, but its use of the misbegotten term “nanomanufacturing” could send policymakers off on the wrong path. In many cases, the barriers to commercialization – at least those that government can and should address – have less to do with developing appropriate manufacturing technology than helping technology developers (whether in academic labs, at start-ups, or in corporate R&D facilities) to learn how to integrate their inventions into practical applications. If that’s done well, the private sector can and will manage manufacturing scale-up (perhaps with financing assistance from federal loan guarantees). Thus, the government should place less emphasis on manufacturing and more on applications development and other so-called “translational research.” The report takes a more positive step toward in this direction in its call for “Signature Initiatives,” which include application-focused research programs in areas like solar energy or cancer treatment.
On the balance, the report makes a persuasive case that the NNI has helped to boost research in the physical sciences in the U.S. by supporting overall funding levels and fostering useful interdisciplinary collaborations through programs like the National Science Foundation (NSF) Nanoscale Science and Engineering Centers (NSECs). Given the importance of physical sciences research for looming challenges in areas from energy to disease, this aid is all to the good.
Nanotechnology still has considerable momentum – not among jaded business people perhaps, but at least in political and academic circles, and among the general population. Add to this the breadth of technologies it can bring under its umbrella, and it continues to make sense to use the NNI as a leading banner for the physical sciences – for now. In the long run, however, application-focused research should guide efforts like the mooted “Signature Initiatives,” encouraging researchers to cast a broader net in their search for solutions, rather than focusing on nano-enabled ones. As a result, the NNI should ultimately be scaled back to a smaller program focused on basic research at the nanoscale, while broader initiatives – outside the NNI and focused on key challenges – should lead application-oriented research.
Posted in Nanomaterials |
Friday, March 12th, 2010
Fresh off its impressive $14 million Series B round in 2009, advanced materials start-up Novomer picked up further momentum after it announced a development agreement with investor DSM, a materials science company based in the Netherlands. Novomer’s catalyst technology enables production of plastics, polymers and other fine chemicals from renewable feedstocks like CO and CO2. As we’ve stated before (see the April 6, 2009 LRNJ and the August 31, 2009 LRNJ – client registration required), the company is a leader in a relatively unpopulated field: Other than U.S.-based Empower Materials (see the March 16, 2009 LRNJ - client registration required), Norway-based Norner Innovation (see the March 30, 2009 LRNJ - client registration required), and a few players in Asia, there are very few developers of carbon-dioxide-based polymers outside of university labs.
Novomer and its new partner, DSM, plan to focus on creating carbon-dioxide-based polymer coatings and inks for food and beverage, automotive, and industrial applications. The match between Novomer and DSM makes perfect sense, as their technologies and needs complement one another. Namely, Novomer’s carbon-based polymer production technology dovetails neatly with DSM’s deep experience in developing and selling petroleum-based versions of the polymers. This new agreement and its amenable licensing business model make it safe to predict that Novomer is starting to pull away from its competitors. Clients with needs for environmentally friendly polymers should engage.
Tags: DSM, Novomer
Posted in Biosciences, Carbon, Nanomaterials |
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 |
|
|
