Clean Energy's Bad Ideas

2GreenEnergy reader Rebecca asks:

When you’re approached by budding inventors or experienced ones, how do you manage to filter out those who are true and honest from those who are a sham?

Good question.  It’s not something that can be done with absolute certainty, but I like to think I’m reasonably adept at it.

I was a math and science guy back in the day; I majored in physics in college; of course, that was when we still believed the Earth was the center of the universe.  🙂   My first job other than manual labor (mostly caddying, golf course maintenance and painting houses up until that point) was tutoring freshman calculus and physics to undergraduates when I was in graduate school.  I made $6 an hour — more than twice the minimum wage at the time — an utter fortune!  Once out in the workforce, I was a business consultant to most of the large technology companies for almost 30 years: IBM, H-P, Sony, AT&T, Oracle, Microsoft, 3Com, Unisys, ABB, BASF, Pioneer, Magnavox, Mitsubishi, Xerox, Litton, Computer Sciences Corp., Pacific Telesis, Silicon Graphics, Fujitsu, Digital Equipment, Agilent, National Semiconductor, Philips Electronics, 3M, and hundreds of smaller enterprises were all clients at one time or another. 

So neither the science nor the business side of these ideas scares me. I also turn to a small team of advisors when I can see that something is over my head, or involves some extremely specific piece of science that I’ve never come across.

And I really do encounter a lot of “shams,” as you put it.  At least once a month, I’ll see somebody trying to raise money to build a prototype of something that is quite clearly theoretically impossible.  From talking to these people, I can see that some are cold, calculating frauds, where others simply lack an education in high school-level science, and honestly believe that what they’re telling me is the truth.  And for every one of these complete non-starters, I see dozens of what I call “bad ideas” – concepts that are theoretically possible, but that will obviously never represent a scalable, cost-effective energy solution, despite the predictable protestations of the inventor.

As I said, I think of myself as hard to fool.  But doesn’t everybody?  Did you know that over 80% of drivers consider themselves “better than average” behind the wheel?  There’s a word for that: “delusional.” I know I have made mistakes in the past, and I’m sure I’ll make more in the future.

Thanks for the excellent question.

 

 

 

 

Tagged with: , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,
9 comments on “Clean Energy's Bad Ideas
  1. Rebecca says:

    Thank you Craig, and nice post!! =)

  2. shankar says:

    categorising what you have stated about ideas:
    1. clean energy’s bad ideas – which are theoretically impossible. there may be some things which appearing theoretically impossible may turn out to become practical, feasible and possible. electricity from sunlight for ex. landing on the moon. it is possible most could be efforts to make money in a fraudulent manner. people like craig could see through such instances which need to be shunned.
    2. clean energy’s bad ideas -theoretically possible but lacking scalability and cost effectiveness. these probably need patient open minded hearing before brushing off their ideas as useless. some, otherwise brilliant can be deficient in articulation.

    as for lacking in high school level science: during my 60 years of professional life as mechanical engineer, i used to come across quite a few with minimum education coming out with outstanding innovative solutions to problems. i always used to marvel at how and from where they got the ideas.

    regards – shankar

    • Craig Shields says:

      Oh, you’re absolutely right; an education is not required to produce good ideas. But the lack of an education often produces bad ideas. I’ve spoken with more people than I can count who want to recharge their EV batteries with a fan/generator on the roof, so some other obvious violation of the first law of thermodynamics. Then they argue with me when I gently try to explain why it won’t work.

  3. Pranab Jyoti Ghosh says:

    The answer is pretty simple. First, get some basic idea about the invention idea. Then ask for the details against a signed NDA (if unpatented) and if patent applied, whole details of the application. After that, you can judge all by yourself.
    Craig isn’t that adept as he thinks himself. Once he turned down my idea regarding extraction of atmospheric heat and converting that into electricity, but recently I have got a partner from UK with whom I have applied for a patent there. Even after that, the idea has been scrutinized by an experienced businessman, who will be future investor/buyer and who specializes in patents and copyrights.
    Problem is, those who think themselves as adept or wise enough, often throw away the child along with the dirty water when the stuck to “theoretically impossible” kind of mentality. They just decided to close their eyes tightly when evidences were put before them.

    • Craig Shields says:

      I’ll be surprised if that idea becomes successful. As I said, I’ve made mistakes, but I don’t think this is one of them.

    • Nick Cook says:

      “the idea has been scrutinized by an experienced businessman”
      If it’s patentable it probably needs to be scrutinized by an experienced scientist or engineer too

  4. james beyor says:

    Craig. it seems to me there is a double-speak in what you say, ;like one step backwards and two steps forward. Mayme, may be not, could but but, might be but can’t be, and visa vers. How about this. Inventors have a sense of something or there would be no such thing as an invention, usually predicated on something already in or midst, but not quite there as far as full potential. We at Vortex Technologies and innovations see what is marginal and deduce possible problems as give us solutions. Something goevernments and religions can not do without challaenging the bases for wehich they teach, govern and hand credentians for. IE, THE BOX. No one says the box does not work, however faiuling in its systemic social debillitaion for which JOBs seem to pop up.. The new word GREEN, is a new tax loop for some, and to the governments of the world a new safe fear tactic. We are entering the realm of the safty experts and the safe fear gardians. This new world changes the names of the same things that are, were and still are, major problems especially in America where fear keeps the locals in line and justice is all or nothing capitol balme. Yes, other countries enslave there people unwillingly, as in the usa, we believe we aren’t agree with that, and thus its not. Right? Wrong, dead wrong and it is on our doorsteps. we can not longer afford to profile our citizens with capitaol balme as a biusiness yet call it justice and make a living by degradation. We are less than fifty years invested in the sacrifiical lamb…GREEN, and still, fear devowers us by the same-old, same old things. The quest for being on the “same page” is garbage and is what is currently tauted as the “mandamus” of all true principle when we are still forced to bow like cures to the whipping post of archaic, in-the-box reason…that, because we can say…green, we are then green. Agreements are again failed to produce sufficent logic for us to sustain a civilied society. Another Inqusition is on its way. Or intent based tomorrows have evaported to an unending continuation of the same… called…today. The future is always NOW. Wake up people.
    This year we [Vortex Technologies and Innovations} will unveil a new 800 Sea Drive propulsiuon system with two moving parts, wake free dynamics, torque rich and 98% fuel efficency as not proeller, no heavy drive shafts and no heavy transmissions are needed or involved. carbon emissions reduced by 30% or more the first year. Hoaxs? Of course it is to anyone who can not see more than the EDUCATION they purchaced or dady gave them. This new system is being built by in the USA, by the Chinese because American companies refuse to help in a cost effective way. As we are new and funds are tight prototyping costs money and time. The Chinese are there for me [US] and they even help in designing special gears and bearings in a varity of never before made parts, all seperate from the each other of course in the R and D protocall stages. They are curtious and very willing to give smart advice and are not charging us for it. Where did our spirit go, America?
    I can’t even get a straight answer from any american company and realize i should not bother to ask. Simple questions are meet with a certain vain-disdain… “what do you want.” That is not the business prowess i was taught nor do I respect.
    If this country goes down, it is we [wee] the little people, that let it do so. We trust the men and women in the high places which look down at the low places with the arogance of having made it to the top. A view obscuered by GREED, a view that is way to old to discard as not being a major problem in this country. A fault, an error, a trap, a problem apparent to many reality based thinkers and yet so oblivious to most.
    So….inventors with great ideas, keep them coming. A failed idea is as good as the dream that made it viable or fail. We have many “half-way-there” working devises like the propeller and the jet drive. Vain glorius approaches at PUSHING a boat at a very high cost and disturbing nature in the act while poluting the environment. Speed kills in more ways than one. We are going to change that. We, who can see the future with skill and patient testing our product to insure a multiplicity of function is our goal. Everything was once just an idea. An idea is no more than an event in progress that can sustain itself only by necessary proof and its prime objective. Belief is not enough. Lets us share new ideas that can be the main souse of all new technologies with open arms. James

  5. Aku says:

    Wow,Craig .. you really explained the process very well. Thanks Rebecca for asking the question very precisely.

    Won’t take up much space here…. But I do feel that trust is the main ingredient, which makes the process of sharing knowledge work smoothly. And to cultivate this trust both the inventor and the investor must give feasible proof. (More the inventor. Because no one like to horde funds…and then find out the device was rigged =D)

    And much so, most inventors should try to physically meet the people they are dealing with. Obviously the best and clearly demonstrated ideas do get accolades even over the internet.

    But the main point here is to have a hub for ideas and innovations, where a transparent(for invn and invs) business process ensures the benefits to inventor, investor and the world.

  6. parwez khan says:

    I am parwez khan it’s my original idea and I’ve don some experiment ,energy conversion from air pollution or internal energy from air,if who to give me 100000us$.for perfect working model.then i will do involve participate in this invention..