Is Al Gore lying to Charlie Rose about Energy Storage?

Charlie Rose is a sort of journalist well known for his interviews of interesting people. He recently interviewed Al Gore on November 4, 2009. This is interesting to eestorians because Charlie Rose is a limited partner at Kleiner Perkins. That means he gives his money to Kleiner partners who then invest it in companies like EEStor. As we know from SEC records, Kleiner invested $3mil in EEStor. Based on the valuation of Zenn Motor Company and Dick Weir's statement that KPCB owns "twenty something percent" of EEStor, that $3Mil is now worth $300Mil even before EEStor has revealed 3rd party validation of their claims. That is a 100X return on investment and if you own shares in a Kleiner fund, you may have access to information about investments that show that much progress. Based on how Kleiner loves to tout it's success, it's very likely you do have access to that information, if you are an investor like Charlie Rose. Naturally, any time you talk with one of the key partners, you might want to inquire how your dollars are performing with that stupendous return they keep mentioning when asking you for further investment in new funds. (can you imagine looking at the EEStor returns to date and having Kleiner report something like 'Oh, that? You won't have access to any of it. We made such a silly mistake there. Every time

I'm asked about that, I wish I could find a bag for my head.' Yeah right!)

Enter the interview with Al Gore.

As you see in the above youtube video, Al Gore starts pontificating about solar technology and then abruptly turns to the "extremely important" topic of energy storage. Rose then inquires not about where we are in terms of energy storage development but rather, oddly, about "where are we in terms of dramatic developments in battery capacity?" Such wording makes one want to ask Charlie Rose the same question. Also, notice specifically, how Rose's eyes glare into Gore when he asks the question much as they do when Rose is sipping coffee in his lovely garden on weekend mornings while he thumbs through his financial statements which document what makes his lavish lifestyle possible. (emphasis mine--focus on the glare of truth on Rose's face, almost like if laser beams were x-raying Gore to see what brand of underwear he has on or if it

it made of hemp).

Gore's response is not quick because he is likely hearing the echo of John Doerr saying, "if we bring you on, you can't spill the beans, man." The pace of his voice slows initially--happy he

caught himself.... exactly like someone keeping a secret. Then, we have unusual body gyrations similar to shifting in one's chair. Gore's eyes shift in several directions (note: Gore is a southpaw). It's difficult to interpret all of these movements because what Gore is hiding, in terms of his EEStor knowledge, is not easily drawn out by the question Rose asked. Had it been a more direct question, we might be able to more easily make sense of Gore's shiftiness.

Here's what we do know. KPCB only has one interesting investment in energy storage--that is EEStor. Gore specifically mentions non lithium chemistries. Any genius out there want to show me a non-lithium chemistry that beats lithium? No? Class dismissed then. Conclusion: Al Gore was not fully truthful when he answered Charlie Rose because he knows EEStor is en route. Outside of politics, we sometimes refer to that as lying. Whether or not we can politely call it lying may best be answered by Charlie Rose. Charlie? Charlie? .......Charles! Come to! Stop drooling on your financial statements.

Note: this posting is dedicated to one of my favorite readers who happens to be a family member and who asked me to write more articles such as the one on EEStor's Carl Nelson.

Don't forget to send a tweet to @algore on twitter.

EEStor, The CEO of Lockheed & The Senate Armed Services Committee Chairman

Michigan Senator Carl Levin & Governor Jennifer Granholm with a TARDEC Official

What does Lockheed Martin officially believe about EEStor Inc.? For most people, including those who work for Lockheed Martin, the answer is elusive. At EEStor's request, Lockheed Martin stopped making public comments about the company approximately 18 months ago. While the agreement is confirmed to still be active, not much more information appears to be available. That is, unless you are Senator Carl Levin from Michigan, the chairman of the US Senate's Armed Services Committee, a committee with legislative oversight over the annual Department of Defense budget (currently well north of $500Bil/yr).

According to multiple sources including someone familiar with most Lockheed legislative affairs, Levin looked into EEStor approximately 6 months ago after a meeting with Ian Clifford, CEO of Zenn Motor Company. Levin's apparent intent was to determine whether or not Zenn's wish to locate a facility in Michigan had merit. To find out, he turned to the most logical source of information on the topic: Lockheed Martin.

If you are Lockheed Martin, a company whose 2008 revenues exceeded $42Bil (of which 85% comes from government contracts), queries from VIP's like Senator Levin are handled with the greatest care by those at the highest levels. So, when Levin made an inquiry into the viability and status of battery startup EEStor Inc. approximately 5 months ago, it was addressed to CEO Robert J. Stevens. This made the retrieval and response of appropriate information, at least briefly, a top corporate priority. According to two sources, the delivery of that information took the form of a phone conference between Levin and Stevens. However, a third source within Lockheed does not think that a phone call actually occurred. Officially, Lockheed Martin refused comment on the matter. Carl Levin's office has also declined comment.

So, what did Stevens say about EEStor to Levin on the call? Unknown. However, afterwards, Levin's office took steps to assist with the submission of an unsolicited proposal from ZMC America Inc. to the Department of Energy. Such proposals are typically submitted in cases where the government is perceived to have a potential benefit or interest in something for which there is no existing acquisition program to address the need. Success for Zenn's proposal would bring yet another electric vehicle project to Michigan, the state that has been the most severely affected by the current recession. Whatever information was relayed from Stevens to Levin, it is logical to conclude it was positive since the proposal submitted to the DOE listed Levin as one of it's backers. But just how positive?

That is a question I have been trying to answer for the past year by contacting, somewhat systematically, various entities within the US federal government, particularly in the Department of Defense. I wanted to see if one could learn anything about EEStor's viability based on what has been communicated by Lockheed or EEStor. The results suggest EEStor continues to fly under the radar yet excite those who are fortunate enough to get a briefing.

According to a government official who spoke on the condition of anonymity because she was not authorized to speak to the media, EEStor's technology is "absolutely going to change the world." The source, who works for a government agency associated with national security, indicated that she has been briefed directly by EEStor in the last 12 months.

"I can't tell you exactly what I have been told that tipped it for me. I will just say that I have become a believer," the source said. Pressed for clarification about what she knows versus what she believes about EEStor, she stated that she believes EEStor will realize it's potential to change the world but she could not speak further on the more fundamental topic of confirming it actually works. However, she added, "Think of the impact of this. There's every reason in the world to be a skeptic. In fact, hey, you know, that's fine. Be a skeptic. They will either deliver product or they won't."

She added, "Dick and Tom have been incredibly closed mouth and covert in how they have done this and I think it's because they didn't have their intellectual property protected. But they've been filing patents. There's been a lot of people bullshitting this on the Internet, no doubt about it. They are past the science and exploration and are making a production line."

Finally, the source explained that the information she was sharing was neither proprietary nor classified but she could neither confirm nor deny whether or not EEStor's technology is associated with secret programs. She would not say who else in the government could provide information about EEStor.

My own research over the past year lead me to have conversations with about two dozen persons who work with batteries or capacitors for the USMC, Air Force, Army, Navy and Department of Energy. My conclusion is that EEStor is NOT widely known among this large group of people. Those who did know of them, learned of it from the Internet. In three cases, the government department I wished to speak with referred me to their public affairs offices but all three declined my request for interview.

A very strong case can be made that, at least at this point in time, Lockheed Martin & EEStor are performing almost no marketing regarding their technology. The only instance of a meeting covering EEStor technology that I could locate was between Lockheed Martin and The US Army Tank Automotive Research, Development & Engineering Center (TARDEC) which is headquartered in Warren, Michigan. No details were shared regarding that meeting but the source seemed to display little emotion so it's probably safe to say TARDEC is waiting just like everyone else.

Also waiting for EEStor information is a sizable number of Lockheed Martin employees who work on projects requiring energy storage. Next week, various vendors (like Maxwell) will join with Lockheed staff from all around the company in Ft. Worth to discuss various types of energy storage. Given the expense & opportunity such an event presents to Lockheed, you may wonder if attendees will be treated to an update on EEStor from Lockheed's Missiles and Fire Control business unit. The answer? No.

Finally, this article wouldn't be complete if it did not also include some tidbits of information that SEVERELY lack credibility and deserve almost no attention. (it's a blog, right?) To my knowledge (and that of a handful of other people researching EEStor like me), there exists a very small group of people within government who will acknowledge EEStor's existence but refuse any further comment. One of those people works for a secret battery testing facility. Another is a senior defense contractor whose work brings him into contact with many of the highest priority weapons programs. A third is a person who believes two generations of the EESU have been delivered to a program he supports (yes, that one seems farthest on the fringe). Nothing of substance could be generated from these random utterances. Lockheed has said if reports of a prototype were true, they wouldn't comment on it. Although at least it would match up with what Lionel Liebman stated over a year ago that Lockheed and EEStor would be working on together in the ensuing year. But, there's not enough evidence to muster a belief in it since it seems to stand in direct contradiction to information Weir shared not too long ago concerning UL testing and work underway with Polarity.

Department of Energy FOIA Requests

Do you know what your Department of Energy is up to these days? You should if you desire to stay informed at this peculiar time in history where our dependence on fossil fuels is so directly tied to our economic security. There's a lot of good intentions out there floating around in the form of stimulus funds geared towards Energy Independence and Clean Tech. But, what are the people who we have entrusted to safe guard our energy interests actually doing?

Find out yourself by filing a FOIA request. If you are a US Citizen, you have a right to access federal agency records such as those at DOE within 20 days of receipt of your request. Here's a link to the DOE FOIA webpage.

I'm a little troubled that a recent FOIA request to learn the list of applicants for some DOE advanced vehicle funds was turned down due to exemption #5 which clearly does not apply. But maybe you will have more luck.

What harm could be brought by simply learning who has applied for stimulus funds? No need to examine the applications themselves which contain possibly proprietary information. But a simple list of who applied doesn't hurt any entity--public or private. Maybe you see it differently...as is your choice.

Here's another hopefully unrelated database: http://www.opensecrets.org/

Now that you know you have all of this power over interesting information, I invite you to make up your own conspiracy theories. Have fun, kids!

EEStor Throws The Blogger a Bone

If you've been following the EEStory for any period of time, you know that for some mysterious reason, EEStor occasionally speaks with me, an anonymous blogger. Possibly, if you ask Dick Weir, he might possibly say it's because he knows that I know that any Marine who risked life and limb for the freedom of insignificant people like me is and always will be a noble sacrifice. You might say I pay my EEStor bills with respect, something very foreign to many who show EEStor disdain at their business choices. In the meantime, I am very certain that EEStor is not at all concerned or interested in educating irrelevant skeptics while they make their way along their path to commercialization. That said, occasionally the stars align and I am able to acquire a few more clues about EEStor's ongoing validation of their technology, something that appears to only be understood by persons who are not simply focused on material science but also those who understand manufacturing milestones.



In that context, I am happy to learn that EEStor's recent permittivity testing took place with a few additional data points. First, the permittivity had a loss of less than 10% across the temperatures it was tested. Secondly, the frequency of the testing was 100Hz. That much was included in the 3rd party testing. Within it's own internal tests, EEStor has shared with me that the loss value is flat from 100Hz up to 100,000Hz. If you recall past blog posts, this is data that persons from Penn State were interested in obtaining to further assess the significance of the announcement.

Ordinarily, I would provide additional commentary by way of recording some interpretations of this additional data from some SME's. But my results from very cursury attempts at this were mixed. So I felt I would simply share the information and let it speak for itself...whatever its significance may be.

Energy Information Administration

Here's a pretty good resource for Official Energy Statistics from the US Government. I may have posted this before but hey, you need it. 

http://www.eia.doe.gov/