I've had some time to digest the recent discovery that Polarity has publicly announced it's supplier relationship with EEStor and ZMC. My potentially shocking conclusion is that unlike any other partner that has been discovered and at least in one major way, Polarity adds the most credibility to EEStor. More than Mort Topfer. More than Kleiner Perkins. And yes, more than Lockheed Martin. Why? Quite simply because the stakes are much higher for a smaller firm like Polarity for whom a significant portion of their revenue is based on Military contracts. I believe Polarity is gambling much more than any of these other entities who can easily take risks to reputation on projects like EEStor's. Not so with Polarity for whom, at this stage in their development, reputation is everything. To take a credibility hit by associating with a fringe science entity just does not wash with maintaining much less growing a business performing services for the Military. Note the Secret Clearance they maintain on their facility. Familiarize yourself with the process to obtain such a designation (you'll probably get an untrusted certificate). I'm not saying every government action is rational. I'm simply saying it's highly unlikely that anyone wishing to grow a business in that environment would take unnecessary risks to reputation. Have a look at this excerpt from the facility clearance FAQ:"4. HOW DOES A FACILITY BECOME ELIGIBLE TO BE CONSIDERED FOR A CLASSIFIED BID OR QUOTATION?
A: The same process used in the case of an unclassified procurement is involved. The facility must qualify as a bidder to a Government procurement activity or to a prime contractor or subcontractor performing on a Government contract. If the bid or potential subcontract involves access to classified information, the procuring activity or cleared prime contractor submits a request to clear the prospective bidder. Personnel from the Facility Clearance Branch at Defense Industrial Security Clearance Office (DISCO) evaluate the request and assure that the request is valid. Part of this validation includes confirmation that the facility has a reputation for integrity and lawful conduct in its business dealings. Further, the contractor and its key managers must not be in a “barred” status from participating in Government contracts."
Additionally, they seem pretty capable of keeping secrets as I've attempted on two occasions to obtain an interview. On both occasions I was referred to EEStor. I also asked ZMC for comment and was pointed back to Polarity and/or EEStor. EEStor had no comment.
On an unrelated note: a Washington Post poll reveals most people support President Obama's handling of Energy policy...even the idea of cap n trade! Not so sure about that myself.
2 comments:
A company will build whatever the customer wants given the money...
Cap'n'Trade. Gads, I wish that the dems would re-think this through. I am all for doing what we can to quit importing Oil as well as lowering our CO2 emissions. BUT, this bill will likely do the exact OPPOSITE. The reason is that it will force our energy costs upwards, and will likely encourage nations like China, India, Brazil, and even Mexico to push for more cheap energy. The only form of cheap energy will be Coal.
Instead, I would rather that we do a cap, and then allow ALL OF THE CURRENT single point emitters to have their current emissions via stock. No tax on it. But, yearly the amount decrease (basically, like what Poppa bush wanted back in the 80's).
The big change would be that we should put a VAT on ALL GOODS. The vat should be a slowly increasing tax based on emissions, and all goods are then charged a percentage based on CO2 from their location (not based on what went into it). If we do it in this fashion, it will reward nations like France that have lower emissions, and strongly hit those that continue to grow their emissions (china and india come to mind).
Post a Comment