Sign up here to get Human-Centered Change & Innovation Weekly delivered to your inbox every week.
Sign up here to get Human-Centered Change & Innovation Weekly delivered to your inbox every week.
Every once in a while innovations come along that offer profitable opportunities for the inventors and business minds that turn them into innovations, but offer even greater possibilities for humanity if widely adopted. I read an article in Fast Company recently that struck me as one of those opportunities. It profiles a mechanic name Jonathan Goodwin and his fuel efficiency exploits.
Traditionally, a potentially market transforming technology will use a skimming price strategy and come into the marketplace priced high and gradually reach lower price points as volume builds and development costs are recouped. This is fine with something like the iPhone or high definition television, but it strikes me that on the other hand there is a loss to society with this price strategy with certain innovations. This includes things like life-saving drugs (AIDS, Cancer, etc.), but also other technologies like Mr. Goodwin’s innovation in internal combustion engine design. The article mentions a $5,000 device he co-developed that sells through SAE Energy that can, in general, yield a 100% increase in fuel economy while simultaneously producing 80% fewer emissions.
In general, Mr. Goodwin’s engineering feats can double and possibly quadruple the fuel efficiency of vehicles by replacing their gasoline engine with a high efficiency diesel engines, introducing hydrogen into the combustion process, and marrying the engine to a hybrid propulsion system using regenerative braking and batteries. Many examples are given in the article, from creating a 18mpg H1 Hummer (it used to get 9mpg) to a 100mpg Lincoln Continental.
Obviously if X number of people spend the $5,000 for the diesel engine modification and get their payback in one to two years, that is a great benefit to society. But, if a charity like the Sierra Club or even Bill Gates bought the rights to this innovation and worked with an overseas manufacturer to drive the costs of production lower and produced then in mass quantities at a sustaining profit instead of an enriching profit, how low could they be sold for? $3,000? $500? $100?
Social capitalism is an incredibly powerful opportunity for right-minded charities. If a charity did grab onto this and focused on cutting production costs as a way to increase access instead of increasing profits, they could still profitably produce the technology (providing resources to sustain the effort and possibly to fund other efforts) and their success would increase the pressure on the Big Three to take action and possibly could open up a licensing revenue stream if the technology was incorporated into new vehicles as well.
The public relations for a charity taking on such a challenge and approach would be substantial. In addition to delivering on their mission in a tangible way, donations to a charity engineering such a feat would skyrocket. This is a man on the moon kind of opportunity for a charity or philanthropist. Who has the vision and the gusto to grab this bull by the horns and drive it forward?
In the United States, diesel engines predominantly reside in trucks and buses, not automobiles. The article mentions that his company, SAE Energy, is in negotiations with DHL on an 800-vehicle dual-fuel conversion that could get them a 70-cent a gallon offset and reduce their fuel costs by 50%. If we as a society were to take that a step further, what would the impact on society be if instead Mr. Goodwin was recruited to help convert all buses (and possibly trucks) via conversion subsidies to be paid for with an increase in the national gas tax (no matter how big)?
Really, it would be in the interests of national security to do such a thing. There would also be a secondary benefit of such a strategy – public transit ridership would increase as a result of the gas tax increase and fuel consumption would decrease (along with the number of cars on the road). Our nation would be much more secure if we cut our fuel consumption for transportation in half, especially if at the same time the percentage being supplied by home grown Biodiesel and Ethanol went up. And if we get reductions in emissions at the same time? What are we waiting for?
Sign up here to get Human-Centered Change & Innovation Weekly delivered to your inbox every week.
In contrast, easyHotel offers hotel rooms in central London from 25gbp.
Sign up here to get Human-Centered Change & Innovation Weekly delivered to your inbox every week.
Sign up here to get Human-Centered Change & Innovation Weekly delivered to your inbox every week.
Sign up here to get Human-Centered Change & Innovation Weekly delivered to your inbox every week.
Where would our technology industries be without the early adopters?
Our technology industries thrive on those people and companies who are willing to pay high prices for the latest in entertainment technology or business solutions. Personally, I don’t have the time to beta test new technologies, either as public betas or as newly released products, so I am very happy that the early adopters are so eager and ready to do so.
Because it interests me and because it is part of my job to identify where we are headed, I stay up on the latest technology; but, when it comes to parting with my hard-earned cash, there has to be a rational reason to do so.
Case in point, digital television. Starting in 2009, all television signals will be digital, so there is this big push in the marketplace to sell people hi-definition digital-capable televisions. At the same time there is a standards war underway in the Digital Video Disc marketplace between Sony and Toshiba for control of the next generation movie distribution platform. Sony has the lead, and whoever is ahead in the market share race after this winter holiday selling season, will be the victor (this is likely to be Sony).
So, my television is going to be obsolete soon, along with my DVD player. My innovation side is happy about this, while the rational side of me is going to hold out until the very last moment in order to get more for less. I’ll be very interested to see what I can get in two years for how little. I just hope that some steadfast entrepreneurs figure out a profitable way to gather a significant portion of the old tube televisions being replaced and ship them to other countries instead of the landfill.
What do you think? Have you already justified the purchase of a digital television to yourself (or significant other) or do you refuse to throw out a perfectly good television?
Sign up here to get Human-Centered Change & Innovation Weekly delivered to your inbox every week.