Category Archives: Advanced Materials

3D Printed Silicon Carbide: Ceralink’s Novel Production Process for Jet Engine Material

Posted on by

We recently caught up with Holly Shulman, founder of advanced ceramics developer Ceralink. The company recently developed a method for producing silicon carbide/silicon carbide composites using powder bed inkjet 3D printers from ExOne (see the report “Building the Future: Assessing 3D Printing’s Opportunities and Challenges” — client registration required) as part of a Phase II Small Business Innovation Research (SBIR) grant from the U.S. National Science Foundation (NSF). During the process, a 3D printer deposits a layer of carbon powder, then uses an inkjet printer to deposit an organic binder pre-mixed with additional powder. This method produces a carbon preform which Ceralink converts to silicon carbide by burning away the binder and adding liquid silicon under high pressure – a process known as reaction bonding. The resulting material consists of silicon carbide fibers embedded in a fully dense silicon carbide matrix. Holly said that the material offers lighter weight, higher temperature performance, and higher wear resistance than nickel alloys and titanium alloys for aerospace jet engine components.

Jet engines contain numerous high-value components with complex shapes designed to reduce weight, three factors that favor 3D printing production methods. Using 3D printing methods, additional shape complexity adds no additional cost (as the printer can add material equally well to produce any shape), and reduced weight results in faster production times (as 3D printers throughput outputs material at a fixed rate), not more machining. As aerospace continues to demand lighter weight and higher performance, process development must continue in tandem with materials development. The ability to 3D print an increasingly wide range of materials to achieve required properties will continually test the limits of both the available equipment and process innovation. By incorporating chemical modification post-processing steps into the production process, Ceralink is expanding the range of printable materials using existing printers and materials powders. While bringing Ceralink’s materials to market will involve extensive additional testing and qualification, its development strategy will likely prove a useful tool to 3D printer manufacturers, materials developers, and end users looking to raise the industrial utility of additive manufacturing technologies.

Share this
Facebook facebook   Twitter twitter   Email email   Linkedin linkedin  

Bringing Reality to the Hype, the Total Graphene Market Set for a Modest $126 Million in 2020

Posted on by

Graphene has been touted as the next wunderkind material for the better part of this millennium, due to its exceptional mechanical, electronic, and thermal properties. However, one look at the rocky history of carbon nanotubes shows that a research and patent boom along with impressive technical performance is far from a guarantee of commercial success, as major challenges like high costs, processing issues, and competing emerging material classes loom large. What’s more, a slew of recent capacity expansion announcements threaten to throw the space into oversupply. At times when the hype bandwagon is easy to jump on, assessment of the leading developers, the current value proposition on offer versus application needs, and progress in scale-up always provide a data-driven dose of realism.

Our results reveal that the aggregate graphene market will grow from a base of $9 million in 2012  to only $126 million in 2020. Composites and energy storage will duke it out for GNP supremacy, while conductive opaque inks and anti-corrosion coatings also provide meaningful volumes. Despite the hot pursuit by start-ups and multinationals alike, adoption of graphene-based transparent conductive films (TCFs) will be delayed by a slew of technical and economic challenges, growing to just $6 million in 2020. As graphene developers continue to wrestle with the material’s exceptional properties but bevy of commercialization hurdles, savvy developers will move down the graphene value chain into graphene intermediates and products in order to garner wider profit margins and larger potential revenues. In addition, to succeed financially and avoid getting downtrodden by a looming oversupply situation, developers need to focus on ‘drop-in’ opportunities where value proposition exists versus incumbent carbon materials. In the long run, if the multifunctional capabilities of the material – including modulus, electrical and thermal conductivity, transparency, impermeability, and elasticity – can be combined in an economic and scalable manner, it could serve as an enabling platform for novel uses ranging from tissue engineering to flexible optoelectronic devices.

The focus needs to remain on a mix of creative R and disciplined D. The material in its current commercial state, don’t buy the hockey sticks the beneficiaries of hype are pitching.

Source: Lux Research report “Is Graphene the Next Silicon … Or Just the Next Carbon Nanotube?” — client registration required.

Share this
Facebook facebook   Twitter twitter   Email email   Linkedin linkedin  

Steven Chu steps down at U.S. Department of Energy, leaving a mixed legacy

Posted on by

Last week brought the widely expected news that Steven Chu will be stepping down as Secretary of the U.S. Department of Energy (DOE). Chu has been a hero to scientists and clean energy advocates, but on his watch the DOE has made some questionable decisions, particularly from a commercialization and business standpoint. That said, Chu has also laid the groundwork for a strong legacy of energy innovation – if those initiatives produce results, he may justly be regarded as one of the most important DOE Secretaries since the department was created in 1977.

Unfortunately for Chu and DOE, the name “Solyndra” will appear in the first paragraph of most appraisals of his term – the DOE’s ill-fated $535 million loan guarantee (client registration required) to the Silicon Valley solar panel maker became a rallying cry for opposition to the Obama administration’s clean energy investments. Other recipients of DOE loan guarantees and other largesse, including A123 Systems (client registration required), Beacon Power (client registration required), EnerDel, and Abound Solar (client registration required), have also filed for bankruptcy. While there was a case for deploying government funds when private investors largely stopped lending during the financial crisis, the DOE loan guarantee program mixed investments in reliable projects, like solar power plants using established technologies, with funds for firms like Solyndra that faced steep technical and market risks. It was highly likely that several would fail, but DOE either underestimated the risks or wasn’t well prepared for the political fallout (or some combination of both), and arguably hurt the cause of government support for new energy technologies – previously a point of bipartisan consensus.

Chu’s DOE also showed commercial naïveté in its claim that it could help bring 1 million electric vehicles to U.S. roads by 2015 – and President Obama personally cited Chu’s assurances in defending the administration’s focus on electric vehicles. While the DOE target included plug-in hybrids (PHEVs) like the Chevy Volt, as well as all-electric vehicles (EVs), only around 250,000 such vehicles will realistically be in operation in the U.S by the end of 2015 (see the report “Small Batteries, Big Sales: The Unlikely Winners in the Electric Vehicle Market” — client registration required). Anemic sales to date of PH/EVs also belie such optimism, and just before Chu stepped aside, DOE began publicly backing away from the goal – suggesting that DOE’s EV enthusiasm may not have been the best use of its resources.

What’s more, DOE has largely been on the sidelines of the most important energy story of Obama’s first term – the phenomenal boom in domestic gas and oil production, driven by technologies like hydraulic fracturing. To some extent that’s only right – by the time the technology (which had benefitted from DOE support in decades past) was ready for prime time, the industry hardly needed further help from DOE. However, given the impact this production will have on the energy and climate picture in the U.S., and the remaining technology and policy needs to help access these resources safely and make the best use of them, it’s surprising how little focus they’ve received (barely meriting a mention in Chu’s review of his term in his resignation letter).

Despite these stumbles, history may well look kindly on Chu’s tenure, because programs he’s championed have the potential to create a generation of impactful new technologies and keep the U.S. a center of innovation in energy. Through the network of 46 Energy Frontier Research Centers, and especially the new Advanced Research Projects Agency – Energy (ARPA-E), the DOE is funding research on really novel technologies with a breadth, depth, and purpose beyond its previous basic science efforts. ARPA-E, in particular, is well-positioned to help fill a void left by venture capitalists that are (wisely, by their financial standards) increasingly reluctant to invest in early-stage energy technologies. If these programs help shepherd along impactful energy technologies that that come to the market over the next decade, they’ll have a greater impact than even a successful Solyndra would have, and will validate Chu’s initiatives.

Given the ups and downs of Chu’s tenure, who should Obama tap to replace him? Some favor another academic, like Shirley Jackson of Rensselaer Polytechnic Institute, or Ernest Moniz of the MIT Energy Initiative, to continue to build DOE’s innovation efforts. Others argue that DOE’s commercial blind spot argues for a businessperson like Duke Energy CEO Jim Rogers. While a course correction is needed, and energy business acumen at DOE would be welcome, a utility executive may not be the best steward of Chu’s innovation legacy (and may sit uneasily atop what’s still largely a scientific agency). A business leader with more innovation experience could serve admirably – GE CEO Jeff Immelt has been floated, though seems unlikely to serve. Otherwise, given the controversies DOE has weathered and the need to defend its budget in an era of sequestration and discretionary spending cuts, a more seasoned politician might also be a wise choice to follow Chu. Someone like former (moderate) Republican governor and EPA administrator Christie Todd Whitman or past North Dakota Senator Byron Dorgan could serve to consolidate Chu’s gains in long-term innovation, but would still be inclined to pivot the agency more toward the pressing issues of the day.

Share this
Facebook facebook   Twitter twitter   Email email   Linkedin linkedin  

CFRP Innovators Should Ready Themselves for a Fall in Best-In-Class Carbon Fiber Costs

Posted on by

Due to the high cost and other technical hurdles for these advanced composite materials, their use has been restricted to high-end niche applications. Nevertheless, CFRPs are dropping in cost and starting to progress beyond sporting goods and defense applications and into the commercial realm of aerospace, wind, and automotive uses. Aerospace and wind dominate on a volume and revenue basis today, but material costs remain an issue for CFRPs to win the big automotive volumes.

Opportunities exists throughout the automotive value chain to drive cost out of CFRPs, starting with the fiber itself. Ambitious automotive targets include reducing fiber cost to half of today’s $21.2/kg requiring innovations among different steps of the synthesis process to be combined. The industry’s best shot at achieving the carbon fiber price reduction necessary for high-volume applications like automotive, is the employment of polyolefin-precursor carbon fiber combined with atmospheric pressure plasma oxidation and microwave-assisted plasma carbonization, which will yield a pilot-scale cost of $10.5/kg in 2017.

How will this impact the total CFRP market? It will reach $36 billion in 2020, growing at a CAGR of 13% from its base of $14.6 billion in 2012, with demand for carbon fiber rising from 35,000 MT to 110,000 MT. Within this aggregate, aerospace and wind will continue to duke it out for supremacy. In contrast, while the foreseeable innovations that will advance high-volume automotive uses are there, their later in the decade realization pushes substantial volume beyond 2020. The opportunity is clear for innovative materials companies to position for predicted CFRP cost reductions and experience growth in the 10 year timeframe or deliver enabling technology that can bring this date forward.

To learn more about this topic, join us for the upcoming webinar, “Stronger, Lighter, Cheaper, Better: Harnessing the Power of Carbon Fiber” on Tuesday, October 30, 2012 at 11 am EDT

Share this
Facebook facebook   Twitter twitter   Email email   Linkedin linkedin  

Battery electric vehicles will face serious competition in the race to reach 54.5 mpg

Posted on by

The U.S. government has announced much stricter fuel efficiency standards for the future, requiring a 54.5 mpg average for cars and light-duty trucks by 2025. This would nearly double the fuel efficiency that vehicles must currently achieve by law. The standards will scale according to vehicle footprint: 61.1 mpg will be required of an average compact car by 2025, while large pickup trucks will be allowed 33.0 mpg. The announcement also includes special provisions for large hybrids, and for vehicles powered by electricity, natural gas, and fuel cells. Among these is the ability of alternative-fuel car-makers to sell credits earned by exceeding the standards. Major carmakers were involved in discussions with the government prior to its decision, and mostly support the 54.5 mpg target. However, in order to boost fuel efficiency, they will incur significant research and production costs, which will be passed on to car buyers.

There are multiple reasons why battery electric vehicles (BEVs) will not benefit significantly from the mandate. First, 54.5 mpg will be achievable even with the smaller batteries of micro-hybrids, mild hybrids, full hybrids (HEVs), and plug-in hybrids (PHEVs),
especially when coupled with the use of lightweighting technologies (client registration required). The shift to BEVs is driven more by strict policies like California’s zero-emission vehicle standard, however strict regulations such as that remain few and far between. Secondly, the ability of BEV companies like Tesla to sell credits to others is not a business model: credits can boost revenues modestly, but will not save a company or make a vehicle line profitable. Furthermore, the final version of the standard allows competing natural gas vehicles to qualify for the credit, as well. Finally, as the incumbent internal combustion engine powered vehicle approaches 54.5 mpg, it will erode two key selling points of the electric car – lower fueling costs and lower total cost of ownership.

Therefore, clients looking for winners from the new standards should track three other spaces. The first are incremental improvements to today’s vehicles, including turbochargers, efficient transmissions, and lightweight materials. Next, in the hybrid space,
manufacturers of small and medium-size lithium-ion packs will see increased volumes due to growing adoption of HEVs, PHEVs, and potentially micro- and mild hybrids (see the report “Every Last Drop: Micro- And Mild Hybrids Drive a Huge Market for Fuel-Efficient Vehicles” — client registration required). Finally, leaders in natural gas and fuel cells stand to benefit: in the U.S., Honda is the only carmaker offering a commercially-available compressed natural gas passenger vehicle. The company is also a frontrunner in fuel cell development, along with Toyota, GM, Daimler, and Hyundai.

Share this
Facebook facebook   Twitter twitter   Email email   Linkedin linkedin  

RocTool’s Latest Concoction, Overmolding Now an Option

Posted on by

We recently caught up with Mathieu Boulander, VP of Business Development at molding process developer RocTool. The company recently announced the addition of overmolding to its Integrated Internal Induction Technologies (3iTech) for forming mixed composite and plastic parts. Introduced in 2009, 3iTech uses induction to locally heat the surface of a magnetic steel mold. Heating a smaller volume makes it more practical to operate at higher temperatures, enabling faster cycle times, improved surface quality, and thinner parts, while eliminating the need for preheating and pre-consolidation. The new “hybrid” technology is a two-step process: a thermoplastic composite is compression-molded and an unfilled plastic is subsequently injection-overmolded. The result is a multi-material part that does not need to be trimmed or surface-finished.

RocTool faces a few strong competitors in this emerging area: FiberForge’s (Client registration required) automated tape-laying system has a long list of existing technology partners, heavyweight Teijin has incorporated a proprietary welding process (Client registration required), and Cutting Dynamics’ unique hydroforming process is also notable. However, each uses either thermoforming, pressure forming, or hydroforming – processes limited in design capabilities when used alone. RocTool’s integrated overmolding greatly expands design flexibility, while maintaining reasonable cycle times of two to four minutes; and the company’s 40 licensees – including Flextronics, SABIC (Client registration required), Engel, and Azdel – are evidence that the composites industry considers these benefits desirable and cost-effective. The one caveat is that the finished part will not entirely be continuous fiber-reinforced composite, which could mean cost savings for some applications but reduced performance for others. Although consumer electronics is currently its primary application focus, BMW has been a partner since 2005, and the improved cycle times and design flexibility offered by RocTool’s novel process technology may help it find further traction in automotive lightweighting (see the report “Under the Hood: Mapping Automotive Innovations to Megatrends.” Client registration required).

Share this
Facebook facebook   Twitter twitter   Email email   Linkedin linkedin  

Automotive Partnership Ecosystems Emerging Today Dictate Success Tomorrow

Posted on by

The automobile is at a turning point, unprecedented in its 100+ years of history. Rising gas prices, stricter fuel economy standards, a progressively more environmentally conscious customer base and forward-looking business models are all breaking the traditional automotive ecosystem. In response, OEMs are evolving their partnership webs in order to endure and compete.

This week’s graphic comes from a recent Lux Research report in which analysts examined the growing web of cross‐cutting industry relationships to see how automakers compared on the Lux Partnership Grid. Companies were scored on two metrics, partnership strength and technology diversity. Based on these scores, each automaker fell into one of the four quadrants in the graphic above.

Lone Wolves represent OEMs that are continuing business as usual, and have little footprint in the emerging technologies that threaten the status quo. The Dilute ecosystem quadrant encompasses automakers with a few partnerships scattered across a variety of technologies. The Siloed ecosystem includes OEMs that are putting their faith in a few, or in some cases one technology, while the Expansive ecosystem hosts OEMs who average nearly 16 partnerships apiece, representing an average of eight unique technologies.

A review of the partnership grid reveals multiple trends:

  • Small companies tend to cluster in the Lone Wolves region, while large corporations partner ambitiously in a variety of areas so they group more in the Expansive quadrant. One exception is Fiat-Chrysler, which has only three, unsubstantial partnerships to its name.
  • Daimler, GM, and Toyota lead the pack. All have formed strong partnerships in pursuit of technical diversity, placing them squarely in the Expansive ecosystem. Daimler has developed partnerships that span multiple key emerging technologies, including a JV with Toray to make carbon fiber reinforced plastics (CFRP) (Client registration required), a JV with Evonik (Li-Tec) to make Li-ion batteries (Client registration required), and participation in Europe’s Clean Energy Partnership for establishing fuel cell vehicles and hydrogen fueling infrastructure.
  • Meanwhile, General Motors (GM) has emerged from a low point in its corporate history to emerge as a future looking company by partnering in a variety of technologies, and investing in companies at a variety of stages. It has invested in battery start-ups like Envia Systems (Client registration required) and Sakti3 (Client registration required), and in the fuels space with ethanol companies Mascoma (Client registration required) and Coskata (Client registration required). In the materials space, GM also sees value in CFRP, forming a JV with Japanese materials company Teijin.
  • Lastly, Toyota is leveraging its leadership in hybrids, to position itself for advances elsewhere, such as advanced electrification (via its investment in Tesla). It also retains activity in hydrogen powered fuel cell vehicles and infrastructure, where it teamed with Air Products and Shell to install the first pipeline-fed hydrogen station in the U.S. In materials, Toyota has partnered with Toray to source CFRP initially used for the hood and roof of one of its Lexus models. As with Daimler and GM, these activities will prepare Toyota to profit from an ever changing landscape where the vehicle of tomorrow may not look like anything conceived today, but will no doubt carry key technologies in the areas of energy storage, increased connectivity, and new materials.

Source: Lux Research report “Under the Hood: Mapping Automotive Innovations to Megatrends.”

Share this
Facebook facebook   Twitter twitter   Email email   Linkedin linkedin  

XG Sciences’ Capacity Expansion Threatens to Throw Graphene into Oversupply

Posted on by

Last week at the Lux Executive Summit in Boston, we caught up with Mike Knox, CEO of leading graphene nanoplatelet (GNP) developer XG Sciences registration required). XG has enjoyed a slew of partnership announcements as of late – Hanwha Chemical in December 2010, Posco in June 2011, and Cabot (Client registration required) in November 2011 – which will no doubt play a significant role in its expansion and commercialization efforts. Mike said the company is currently moving into a new East Lansing, MI, facility, which he expects to come online by July 1 of this year, increase production capacity to 80 tons per year, and reduce costs to $40-$50 per kilogram. He added that this expansion will not change XG Sciences’ business model or target applications, as the company still aims to sell GNP dry bulk powder, dispersions, and masterbatches into composite and energy storage markets.

With fellow GNP supplier Angstron Materials (Client registration required) already on the books to increase capacity from 25 tons per year to 100-300 tons per year for 2012, XG’s expansion efforts threaten to push the market for GNPs into an oversupply situation, much like its carbon cousin multi-walled nanotubes (MWNTs). (See the report “Carbon Fiber and Beyond: The $26 Billion World of Advanced Composites.” Client registration required). Such a scenario and concomitant cost reduction may benefit industrial users. But leading MWNT suppliers like Bayer MaterialScience (Client registration required) can attest to the fact that oversupply is an anathema for a developer’s ability to become profitable. The reason is because low capacity utilization hinders the ability to recoup capital equipment investment expenses.

Even so, XG’s proficiency in leveraging its portfolio of strategic partners to increase commercial traction will be critical to its long-term success. Interested investors should stay tuned and submit feed questions, as we will soon be reaching out to XG for an updated briefing.

Share this
Facebook facebook   Twitter twitter   Email email   Linkedin linkedin  

Advanced Structural Materials Vie for Dominance in Automotive Components

Posted on by

The transportation sector commands nearly one-third of global energy demand, which translates into a vast swath of energy saving opportunities. The most promising avenue to tap these opportunities is to enhance operating efficiency with lighter structural materials – including advanced high-strength steel (AHSS), aluminum (Al), magnesium (Mg), and carbon-fiber reinforced plastic (CFRP).

This week’s graphic comes from a recent Lux Research report, in which analysts conducted decision-tree analyses of where these materials are most likely to flourish in automotive (shown here) and aerospace over the next decade.

Material selection depends on the performance requirements of a component’s location and functional role in the automobile. These roles generally fall into one of three categories: body and exterior, interior, and powertrain.

For example, body and exterior applications rely heavily on AHSS and Al, and will continue to rely on them in the future. Both materials are sturdily entrenched in primary structure applications, including the front rails and crash boxes, pillars, door beams, and chassis. All of these parts must meet extremely rigorous safety standards for high ductility and elongation, and AHSS and Al meet these standards.

Al shines in exterior automotive components that must deliver top aesthetics, a Class A surface finish, and resistance to corrosion. While technical improvements are expected across all materials, Al is the current and future leader for the roof, hood, decklid, body panel outers, outer bumpers, fender, and door outers.

AI also leads the pack for non-primary structural body components that do not require a Class A finish, including floor panels, roof panels and rack, and the structural inners of the body panels, door, trunk, hood, and decklid. AHSS is also well-established in this category. But, CFRP is gaining due to its extremely high specific stiffness, which allows for construction of thinner components.

Opportunities await Mg in the interior of the vehicle, where semi-structural components – including parts of the seat, the instrument panel support beam, and the backseat head panel – are not in the primary crash path, and therefore do not require the same ductility and inspection requirements as exterior parts. But, the familiarity and lower pricepoints of AHSS and Al will make these current frontrunners difficult to overtake.

Lastly, for powertrain components demanding high thermal stability, Al leads the way, but Mg is hot on its tail. The battery box, engine cradle, engine mounts, and transmission tunnel all need to withstand hot engine temperatures without losing their strength and structure. AHSS and Al are the current frontrunners. But Al’s lighter weight gives it the edge. While high performance thermoplastics allow them to survive higher temperatures, they are generally too expensive for the auto industry’s taste. Mg’s comparatively higher price tag has given it a slow start as well. But its adequate high temperature performance, light weight, and anticipated processing improvements and cost reductions will increase its traction in this segment in the years to come.

Source: Lux Research report “Structural Navigation: Optimizing Materials Selection in Automotive and Aerospace.”

Share this
Facebook facebook   Twitter twitter   Email email   Linkedin linkedin  

The Lux Top 10

Posted on by

During the fourth quarter of 2011, Lux Research analysts profiled 262 companies across 12 different emerging technology domains in the fourth quarter of 2011.Here are the 10 they thought were the most compelling. Some, such as Proterro, stand out for their disruptive potential. Others, such as Diamon-Fusion, made the grade with well-executed business strategies. The competition for a Top 10 spot will only get hotter as we expand our portfolio of coverage domains to include Energy Electronics and a broadened green buildings portfolio.

1. Diamon-Fusion International – Positive – Advanced Materials

With its transparent silicone film used to coat silica-based substrates, Diamon-Fusion is one of the few startups in the protective coatings space with a strong track record in both technology and business execution.

2. Proterro – Wait-and-see – Bio-based Materials and Components

Proterro is commercializing a strain of photosynthetic organism that produces sugars at levels ten times more productive than sugarcane and in a configuration that could deliver the holy grail of “five cent” sugars (i.e. five cents per pound). But it will need funding and downstream partners to scale its potentially breakthrough technology beyond a lab prototype.

3. Topell Energy – Positive – Alternative Fuels

Working with German utility RWE, Topell Energy scaled its first commercial torrefaction facility in 2011 to convert wood waste into bio-coal pellets. Topell is a leader in the torrefaction space and is positioned to capitalize on healthy incentives in the EU for coal/bio-coal co-firing.

4. Spirae: Wait-and-see – Smart Grid

With the growing grid penetration of renewable energy sources and the inherent difficulty in managing their fluctuating inputs, Spirae could be in a prime position to support utility infrastructure with its comprehensive control and management system – if it can prove its concept on a large scale and secure long-term utility contracts.

5. eIQ Energy – Positive – Solar Systems

One of the few DC/DC optimizer companies staying with stand-alone hardware, eiQ partners with engineering, procurement, and construction companies that can realize its technology’s value in the strong commercial market segment.

6. Pervasive Displays – Wait-and-see – Printed Electronics

Using a technology honed for the One Laptop Per Child Program, Pervasive Displays produces low-power electrophoretic display modules that target application developers for warehouse signage and electronic shelf labels. While Pervasive has power advantages from its control functions, it will need to drive its costs down to compete with more established competitors and access a broader market.

7. Kurion – Positive – Water

A high-risk but high-profit U.S. nuclear contamination control company that rapidly scaled to clean up the Japanese Fukushima radioactive cooling water problem. The work generated massive windfall profits when no one else on the planet was prepared to deal with the problem.

8. Hycrete – Wait-and-see – Green Buildings

Hycrete’s water barrier technology improves the durability of concrete infrastructure at prices significantly cheaper than the incumbent membrane-based approach. But it will need to establish partnerships with well-known infrastructure or chemical companies in order to gain market access in the conservative infrastructure segment.

 

9. Citic Guoan MGL – Wait-and-see – China Innovation, Electric Vehicles

In the sea of Chinese lithium-ion battery developers, state-owned MGL stands out for its traction in China’s electric and hybrid-electric bus market. Its strong government relationships could provide ready channels to market for would-be foreign technology partners. But competition with other domestic firms such as China Aviation Lithium Battery Corporation (CALB) will be fierce.

10. Ablynx – Wait-and-see – Formulation and Delivery

Ablynx engineers its “nanobodies” – therapeutic proteins derived from antibodies in camel blood – to specifically deliver small molecule drugs to a target site. Despite stiff competition in the saturated antibody field and a multitude of emerging targeting strategies (such as DNA aptamers), Ablynx has snagged more than its share of heavyweight partners (Boehringer Ingelheim, Merck Serono, Norvartis, Pfizer), and is generating tens of millions in revenue to assist in its own healthy development pipeline.

Share this
Facebook facebook   Twitter twitter   Email email   Linkedin linkedin