17 hours ago·12 min read
|
The only thing wrong with the U.S. economy is the failure of the Republican Party to play Santa Claus.
-Jude Wanniski, March 6, 1976
The Republican Party has been running a long con on America since Reagan's inauguration, and somehow our nation's media has missed it — even though it was announced in The Wall Street Journal in the 1970s and the GOP has clung tenaciously to it ever since.
And over the next few weeks as President Biden's Covid Recovery bill moves through Congress, a new generation of Americans will have an opportunity to watch it play out in real time.
The GOP discovers a long con that works
It's always succeeded in the past; in fact, Republican strategist Jude Wanniski's 1974 "Two Santa Clauses Theory" has been the main reason why the GOP has succeeded in putting our last two Republican presidents, Bush and Trump (despite losing the popular vote both times) in the White House. It's also why Reagan's economy seemed to be so "good."
Here's how it works, laid it out in simple summary (although the backstory, detailed further below, is even more mind-blowing):
First, when Republicans control the federal government, and particularly the White House, spend money like a drunken sailor and run up the US debt as far and as fast as possible.
This produces three results — it stimulates the economy thus making people think that the GOP can produce a good economy, it raises the debt dramatically, and it makes people think that Republicans are the "tax-cut Santa Claus."
Second, when a Democrat is in the White House, scream about the national debt as loudly and frantically as possible, freaking out about how "our children will have to pay for it!" and "we have to cut spending to solve the crisis!"
This will force the Democrats in power to cut their own social safety net programs, thus shooting their welfare-of-the-American-people Santa Claus.
They've been successfully doing it for forty years
Think back to Ronald Reagan, who more than tripled the US debt from a mere $800 billion to $2.6 trillion in his 8 years. That spending produced a massive stimulus to the economy, and the biggest non-wartime increase in the debt in the history of the United States. Nary a peep from Republicans about that 218% increase in our debt; they were just fine with it.
And then along came Bill Clinton. The screams and squeals from the GOP about Reagan/Bush's "unsustainable debt" of nearly $3 trillion were loud, constant, and echoed incessantly by media from CBS to NPR.
Newt Gingrich rode the wave of "unsustainable debt" hysteria into power, as the GOP took control of the House for the first time lasting more than a term since 1930, even though the increase in our national debt under Clinton was only about 37%.
The GOP "debt freakout" was so widely and effectively amplified by the media that Clinton himself bought into it and began to cut spending, taking the axe to numerous welfare programs ("It's the end of welfare as we know it" he famously said, and, "The era of big government is over"). Clinton also did something no Republican has done in our lifetimes: he supported several balanced budgets and handed a budget surplus to George W. Bush.
When George W. Bush was given the White House by conservatives on the Supreme Court (Gore won the popular vote by over a half-million votes and even won the Florida recount) he reverted to Reagan's strategy and again nearly doubled the national debt, adding a trillion in borrowed money to pay for his tax cut for GOP-funding billionaires, and tossing in two unfunded wars for good measure, which also added at least (long term) another $5 to $7 trillion.
There was not a peep about the debt from any high-profile in-the-know Republicans then; in fact, Dick Cheney famously said, essentially ratifying Wanniski's strategy, "Reagan proved deficits don't matter. We won the midterms [because of those tax cuts]. This is our due." Bush and Cheney raised the debt by 86% to over $10 trillion (although the war debt was kept off the books until Obama entered office).
Then comes Democratic President Barack Obama, and suddenly the GOP is hysterical about the debt again. So much so that they convinced a sitting Democratic president to propose a cut to Social Security (the "chained CPI"). Obama nearly shot the Democrats biggest Santa Claus program. And, Republican squeals notwithstanding, Obama only raised the debt by 34%.
Trump took us back to a Republican president, and once again deficits be damned. Between their tax cut and the nearly-trillion dollar spending increase, in the first year-and-a-month of Trump's administration he spent more stimulating the economy (and driving up debt by more than $2 trillion, when you include interest) than the entire Obama presidency.
And now Republicans are rolling it out again
And now that Democrat Joe Biden is president, Republicans are again screaming about the debt, using that to justify kneecapping any sort of relief or help to the American people for which Biden may get credit.
Consider the amazing story of where this strategy came from, and how the GOP has successfully kept their strategy from getting into the news; even generally well-informed writers for media like the Times and the Post — and producers, pundits and reporters for TV news — don't know the history of what's been happening right in front of us all for over 40 years.
The GOP invented the Santa con in 1974
Republican strategist Jude Wanniski first proposed his Two Santa Clauses strategy in 1974, when Richard Nixon resigned in disgrace and the future of the Republican Party was so dim that books and articles were widely suggesting the GOP was about to go the way of the Whigs. There was genuine despair across the Party, particularly when Jerry Ford began stumbling as he climbed the steps to Air Force One and couldn't even beat an unknown peanut farmer from rural Georgia for the presidency.
Wanniski was tired of the GOP failing to win elections. And, he reasoned, it was happening because the Democrats had been viewed since the New Deal as the Santa Claus party (taking care of people's needs and the General Welfare), while the GOP, opposing everything from Social Security to Medicare to unemployment insurance, was widely seen as the party of Scrooge.
The Democrats, he noted, got to play Santa Claus when they passed out Social Security and Unemployment checks — both programs of the New Deal — as well as when their "big government" projects like roads, bridges, schools and highways were built, giving a healthy union paycheck to construction workers and making our country shine.
Democrats kept raising taxes on businesses and rich people to pay for things, which didn't seem to have much effect at all on working people (wages were steadily going up, in fact), and that added to the perception that the Democrats were a party of Robin Hoods, taking from the rich to fund programs for the poor and the working class.
Americans loved the Democrats back then. And every time Republicans railed against these programs, they lost elections.
Wanniski decided that the GOP had to become a Santa Claus party, too. But because the Republicans hated the idea of helping working people, they had to figure out a way to convince people that they, too, could have the Santa spirit. But what?
"Tax cuts!" said Wanniski.
To make it work, they had to invent a phony economic theory
To make this work, the Republicans would first have to turn the classical world of economics — which had operated on a simple demand-driven equation for seven thousand years — on its head. (Everybody understood that demand — aka "wages" — drove economies because working people spent most of their money in the marketplace, producing demand for factory output and services.)
In 1974 Wanniski invented a new phrase — "supply side economics" — and suggested that the reason economies grew wasn't because people had money and wanted to buy things with it but, instead, because things were available for sale, thus tantalizing people to part with their money.
The more things there were for sale, he said, the faster the economy would grow. And the more money we gave rich people and their corporations (via tax cuts) the more stuff they'd generously produce for us to think about buying.
At a glance, this move by the Republicans seems irrational, cynical and counterproductive. It certainly defies classic understandings of economics. But if you consider Jude Wanniski's playbook, it makes complete sense.
To help, Arthur Laffer took that equation a step further with his famous napkin scribble. Not only was supply-side a rational concept, Laffer suggested, but as taxes went down, revenue to the government would go up! Neither concept made any sense — and time has proven both to be colossal idiocies — but together they offered the Republican Party a way out of the wilderness.
Ronald Reagan was the first national Republican politician to fully embrace the Two Santa Clauses strategy. He said straight out that if he could cut taxes on rich people and businesses, those tax cuts would cause them to take their surplus money and build factories, and that the more stuff there was supplying the economy the faster it would grow.
During the 1980 Republican primary, George Herbert Walker Bush — like most Republicans in 1980 who hadn't read Wanniski's piece in The Wall Street Journal — was initially horrified. Ronald Reagan was suggesting "Voodoo Economics," said Bush in the primary campaign, and Wanniski's supply-side and Laffer's tax-cut theories would throw the nation into such deep debt that, he believed, we'd ultimately crash into another Republican Great Depression.
But Wanniski had been doing his homework on how to sell "voodoo" supply-side economics.
In 1976, he rolled out to the hard-right insiders in the Republican Party his "Two Santa Clauses" theory, which would enable the Republicans to take power in America for the next forty years.
Democrats, he said, had been able to be "Santa Clauses" by giving people things from the largesse of the federal government. From food stamps to new schools to sending a man to the moon, the people loved the "toys" the Democrats brought every year.
Republicans could do that, too, the theory went — spending could actually increase without negative repurcussions. Plus, Republicans could be double Santa Clauses by cutting people's taxes!
For working people it would only be a small token — a few hundred dollars a year on average — but would be heavily marketed. And for the rich, which wasn't to be discussed in public, it would amount to hundreds of billions of dollars in tax cuts.
The rich, Reagan, Bush, and Trump told us, would then use that money to import or build more stuff to market, thus stimulating the economy and making average working people richer. (And, of course, they'd pass some of that money back to the GOP!)
There was no way, Wanniski said, that the Democrats could ever win again. They'd be forced into the role of Santa-killers by raising taxes, or anti-Santas by cutting spending. Either one would lose them elections.
In 1981 it worked, but needed a new marketing strategy
When Reagan rolled out Supply Side Economics in the early 80s, dramatically cutting taxes while exploding spending, there was a moment when it seemed to Wanniski and Laffer that all was lost. The budget deficit exploded and the country fell into a deep recession — the worst since the Great Depression — and Republicans nationwide held their collective breath.
But David Stockman came up with a great new theory about what was going on — they were "starving the beast" of government by running up such huge deficits that Democrats would never, ever in the future be able to talk again about national health care or improving Social Security.
And this so pleased Alan Greenspan, the Fed Chairman, that he opened the spigots of the Fed, dropping interest rates and buying government bonds, producing a nice, healthy goose to the economy.
Greenspan further counseled Reagan to dramatically increase taxes on people earning under $37,800 a year by doubling the Social Security (FICA/payroll) tax, and then let the government borrow those newfound hundreds of billions of Social Security dollars off-the-books to make the deficit look better than it was.
Reagan, Greenspan, Winniski, and Laffer took the federal budget deficit from under a trillion dollars in 1980 to almost three trillion by 1988, and back then a dollar could buy far more than it buys today. They and George HW Bush ran up more debt in eight years than every president in history, from George Washington to Jimmy Carter, combined.
Surely this would both "starve the beast" and force the Democrats to make the politically suicidal move of becoming deficit hawks. And that's just how it turned out.
Republicans use it to sucker-punch Clinton
Bill Clinton, who had run on an FDR-like platform of a "New Covenant" with the American people that would strengthen the institutions of the New Deal, strengthen labor, and institute a national health care system, found himself in a box.
A few weeks before his inauguration, Alan Greenspan and Robert Rubin sat him down and told him the facts of life: he was going to have to raise taxes and cut the size of government. Clinton took their advice to heart, raised taxes, balanced the budget, and cut numerous programs, declaring an "end to welfare as we know it" and, in his second inaugural address, an "end to the era of big government."
Clinton was the anti-Santa Claus, and the result was an explosion of Republican wins across the country as Republican politicians campaigned on a platform of supply-side tax cuts and pork-rich spending increases. State after state turned red, and the Republican Party rose to take over, ultimately, every single lever of power in the federal government, from the Supreme Court to the White House.
It worked! Republicans gloat…
Looking at the wreckage of the Democratic Party all around Clinton by 1999, Winniski wrote a gloating memo that said, in part: "We of course should be indebted to Art Laffer for all time for his Curve… But as the primary political theoretician of the supply-side camp, I began arguing for the 'Two Santa Claus Theory' in 1974. If the Democrats are going to play Santa Claus by promoting more spending, the Republicans can never beat them by promoting less spending. They have to promise tax cuts…"
Ed Crane, then-president of the Koch-funded Libertarian CATO Institute, noted in a memo that year: "When Jack Kemp, Newt Gingich, Vin Weber, Connie Mack and the rest discovered Jude Wanniski and Art Laffer, they thought they'd died and gone to heaven. In supply-side economics they found a philosophy that gave them a free pass out of the debate over the proper role of government. Just cut taxes and grow the economy: government will shrink as a percentage of GDP, even if you don't cut spending. That's why you rarely, if ever, heard Kemp or Gingrich call for spending cuts, much less the elimination of programs and departments."
Two Santa Clauses had gone mainstream. Never again would Republicans worry about the debt or deficit when they were in office; and they knew well how to scream hysterically about it as soon as Democrats took power.
George W. Bush embraced the Two Santa Claus Theory with gusto, ramming through two huge tax cuts — particularly a cut to the capital gains tax rate on people like himself who made their principle income from sitting around the mailbox waiting for their dividend or capital gains checks to arrive — and blew out federal spending.
Bush, with his wars, even out-spent Reagan, which nobody had ever thought would again be possible. And it all seemed to be going so well, just as it did in the early 1920s when a series of three consecutive Republican presidents cut income taxes on the uber-rich from over 90 percent to under 30 percent.
In 1929, pretty much everybody realized that instead of building factories with all that extra money, the rich had been pouring it into the stock market, inflating a bubble that — like an inexorable law of nature — would have to burst.
But the people who remembered that lesson were mostly all dead by 2005, when Jude Wanniski died and George Gilder celebrated the Reagan/Bush supply-side-created bubble economies in a Wall Street Journal eulogy:
"…Jude's charismatic focus on the tax on capital gains redeemed the fiscal policies of four administrations. … Unbound by zero-sum economics, Jude forged the golden gift of a profound and passionate argument that the establishments of the mold must finally give way to the powers of the mind. … He audaciously defied all the Buffetteers of the trade gap, the moldy figs of the Phillips Curve, the chic traders in money and principle, even the stultifying pillows of the Nobel Prize."
In reality, his tax cuts did what they have always done over the past 100 years — they initiated a bubble economy that would let the very rich skim the cream off the top just before the ceiling crashed in on working people.
The Republicans got what they wanted from Wanniski's work. They held power for 24 years, packed the Supreme Court with hard right extremists, made themselves trillions of dollars, and cut organized labor's representation in the workplace from around 30 percent when Reagan came into office to around 6 percent of the non-governmental workforce today.
And now they're at it again!
The GOP's plan now is to use the death Reagan Comma Bush Comma Bush and Trump ran up as a "crisis" to oppose Joe Biden's $1.9 trillion Covid rescue program.
When this happens, Democrats must remember Jude Wanniski, and ignore the screams and outrage from Republicans in Congress and their friends in the media.
And, hopefully, some of our media will begin to call the GOP out on their Two Santa Clauses program. It's about time that Americans realized the details of the scam that's been killing wages and enriching billionaires for nearly four decades.
Feb 2·11 min read
|
Onits first day of trading in November, shares of QuantumScape, a lithium-metal battery startup, surged by 57% in price. Then 10 days later, the price doubled, and less than two weeks after that, it was up another 72% — a total 5.7-fold increase in less than a month. The price has since plunged back to earth — sort of. As of the close of trading yesterday, it was up a mere 80% since its debut two months ago.
But the stock's dramatic rise has its logic if you understand that QuantumScape is at the center of a whirlwind in lithium-ion battery technology. For four-and-a-half decades, ever since the invention of the first, primitive lithium storage device at Exxon, researchers have sought but failed to achieve what the oil company couldn't: to make a battery powered by pure-lithium, the lightest metal on the periodic table. If they could, they would unlock immense power for electric vehicles — much more than the plain-Jane lithium-ion battery. But no one could navigate the stubborn metal.
The scourge was a sort of cancer — a nightmarish growth that tends to bloom from pure lithium metal while the battery is in use and trigger the device's death. The dreaded growth is called dendrites, and researchers have failed to rid batteries of them, and even to discover what precisely causes them. The one thing the research community has done is agree that dendrites look horrible — like the craggy root of a tree, as some say, or spooky tendrils, spiky branches, or crawling moss. Whatever is most apt, researchers know that when dendrites burrow in, they can bid the battery they are working on goodbye.
In December, though, QuantumScape came out of a decade of stealth with remarkable data for a lithium-metal-based battery: If scaled up, its cells would charge up every time in 15 minutes and still retain 90% of their original capacity after 240,000 miles of driving. In one test, its cells even charged up in two minutes. Delirious excitement followed QuantumScape's coming-out party on Wall Street and in the battery community.
But in an hour-long interview last week, two of QuantumScape's founders were most interested in talking about a single thing: How they had beaten dendrites.
CEO Jagdeep Singh and CTO Tim Holme said the company had discovered what precisely causes lithium dendrites, and that they had also developed a material that suppresses them before they grow. If validated, their breakthrough would be the biggest in batteries since the commercialization of lithium-ion itself in 1991. "We're lucky that in the end nature had a material," Singh said. "The team was able to discover it. And importantly, the team was able to manufacture it in a way that was low-cost and scalable. Because if you couldn't do that latter point, it wouldn't have mattered."
Over the years, QuantumScape has been extraordinarily secretive, refusing to divulge the barest details about what it has been doing. In September, it began something of a coming-out built around its debut on the New York Stock Exchange. Still, the company has steadfastly refused to say much of anything about its crucial separator material, the thin strip of film that lies between the two electrodes. (The consensus in the battery community is that it's a material called LLZO, a flexible ceramic that has attracted attention because it doesn't disintegrate when in contact with lithium metal.) This is the first interview that Singh and Holme have given to describe their experience making the separator.
One question is whether we are watching a "Bannister Moment": For 68 years, starting in the closing decades of the 19th century, the world's greatest coaches and runners made a concerted effort to achieve a milestone — the sub-four-minute mile. In 1954, a 25-year-old British medical student named Roger Bannister finally ran one. But his record was short-lived. Just 46 days later, an Australian runner beat Bannister's feat, and in the subsequent year, three men did so in a single race. In the years since, more than 1,400 more people have done it, too. It turned out that the barrier to the four-minute-mile was all in the mind.
So is the defeat of dendrites, too — if it is confirmed and scaled up — a matter of the mind? Will the rest of the field now beat them?
In2009, Singh got it in his mind to invent the better battery. He quit his job as CEO and founder of Infinera, a Silicon Valley optical networking company, and started incubating the idea. At Stanford, where he had gotten his master's in computer science, he met Holme and Fritz Prinz, a material science professor. The next year, QuantumScape was born.
"We didn't have any religion about how we would build the battery, only that we wanted greater density, faster charge times, greater safety, and so on," Singh said. To be cheaply manufacturable, the battery also could contain no rare-earth or scarce materials, like germanium, platinum, or palladium, and had to be continuously manufacturable, so off-the-shelf lithium-ion machines could be used.
The men quickly settled on lithium metal as the best chance of achieving this super-battery. But because the metal is so volatile, current EV batteries use just sprinkles of lithium that intercalate into a safe graphite anode. To make pure lithium metal useable, most researchers are attempting to develop a solid separator, and thus avoid the standard liquid electrolyte that makes lithium metal react so badly. Toward the same goal, Singh had raised around $150 million in venture capital, and he and Holme quickly assembled a company of around 100 engineers. Now, Holme and his team got to work drawing up a list of all the possible materials that might produce a successful separator.
"But every one of the systems we looked at was dendriting," Singh said. "That turned out to be the single biggest challenge." A year passed, two, then three. By 2014, Singh was despairing. So were some of the rest of the team. It was the dendrites. Singh shows me a slide. "This is a really scary picture," he said. "This is a solid separator but it didn't prevent dendrites. Not only can you see lithium metal that's made its way through the material. But these gray regions that you can barely see — they represent lithium that's actually inside the material. Lithium will literally snake its way in there, and even if it doesn't pop all the way out, it's this monster that's lurking. And with enough cycles, it will just burst out. It's like that monster in Alien in the '80s where there was an alien inside Sigourney Weaver and it pops out in the end."
Scary stuff. And nothing was working. "Those were some dark times, I gotta tell you," Singh added, "because you've raised the kind of capital you've raised and there's not a clear light in the tunnel. You don't know what the right course of action is. You have cash in the bank. Should you continue to invest it or should you say to investors, 'Guys, here's the money back. It's not going to work'?"
Holme pulled together all his engineers. "Time out," he recalls saying. "Put your work down. Everybody, stage left. We're going to start working on this dendrite problem. If we don't solve this, we don't have a product, we don't have a company." For a year, the entire engineering team worked only on dendrites. They collected every known theory about what causes them. First was that if the separator were hard enough, dendrites could physically not poke through and short circuit the battery. Only, that turned out not to be true, because lithium managed to knife their way through hard ceramics anyway. Then they looked at the theory that a soft separator would do the trick. It didn't work, either.
Finally, they discarded the literature. "We had to go back to first principles and come up with our own theory of what causes dendrites," Singh said. "And we had to actually develop our own metrology, which are measurement techniques to measure the quality of the material we were making because it turns out that some of the things that cause dendrites were not even measurable with normal metrology techniques."
In 2015, the team finally settled on an explanation for lithium dendrites. They began testing it on the materials they had gathered. Finally, they found one that policed the dendrites. It was great. "My personal depression started to lift," Singh said.
Only, they had spent five years to reach this stage, and all they really had was a tiny shard of material. They needed to make it larger and larger and better and better, with absolutely no defects such as pinholes that would attract dendrites. Each step up in size took six months to a year. In all, this phase required another five years. The last step, made in the end of 2019 and into last year, was taking the cell from 30-by-30 millimeters in size to 70-by-85.
So what did they discover? What causes dendrites? They aren't saying. "We may make it public eventually," Singh said. "But the industry doesn't know this yet and it took a lot of work and sweat and blood to get there, so we feel that if we share that it makes it easier for competitors to enter as well. So we're trying to avoid sharing that."
Given the profound trauma that dendrites have caused in the battery community over the decades, it's perhaps not surprising that not many researchers appear prepared to accept QuantumScape's claim at face value. When I called around to researchers, a typical question I got back was whether the company was talking about the discovery of a universal solution for lithium dendrites, or something more limited. "Can its solution be applied to other lithium-ion systems, or is it unique to its own system?" asked James Frith, head of energy storage at BloombergNEF, a renewable energy research firm. That is, even if it is validated, if no one else can benefit from QuantumScape's discovery, is it really a scientific breakthrough?
I asked Singh, the QuantumScape CEO, whether he was talking about a broad dendrite solution. "What our team discovered is applicable to solid-state separators, which to our knowledge, is the only way to prevent dendrites," he responded in an email. That seemed to suggest that QuantumScape's approach could work with the separators being produced by any of its solid-state competitors. If so, that could be the Bannister Moment. But, as with all of QuantumScape's impressive claims, confirmation is the operative word. And that "depends on getting independent people to verify it," Frith said. "That is the only way to truly confirm it." As of now, independent validation does not appear to be on Singh's priority list.
Jeff Sakamoto, a materials science professor at the University of Michigan whose battery work is similar to QuantumScape's, said that if what the company is reporting about dendrites is true, it is a substantial leap. "Lithium metal is the Holy Grail," he said. "That is the breakthrough." But Sakamoto is not convinced that the breakthrough is technological. Rather, from perusing the company's patents, he thinks that QuantumScape has simply devised a shrewd way to operate its batteries. Sakamoto specifically suspects that QuantumScape is "pulsing" its cells, or regulating the current going into the battery. "If they start to form dendrites, they can pull it back by reversing the current," he said. "If you carefully control it, you can get around the problem." Clearly, Sakamoto would be more impressed if he believed that QuantumScape had in fact made an advance in materials science.
"From a deep dive into their patent portfolio, there is nothing that stands out as an obvious breakthrough magic material or magic coating that enables fast charge," Sakamoto said. "There is no trail of evidence that would explain how they made a leap in performance, in other words. And, if they kept the breakthrough material or coating as a trade secret, it would be too risky since there would be a clear signature in their product. This makes me think it's more of how the cell is cycled than what's inside the cell."
The greatest reservation cited about QuantumScape's dendrite claims is that all of its assertions revolve around a single-layer cell, and not the eventual 100-layer cell that it has to create to go commercial. Most serious people in the industry say that scaling up is the hardest task in a successful battery —Elon Musk, the CEO of Tesla, for instance, has called scaling up "99.9%" of the work. I have spoken to no one in the battery community outside of QuantumScape's tight-knit group who is confident that the company can pull off the scale-up.
Unsurprisingly, that includes the company's competitors. Among them is Josh Buettner-Garrett, CTO of Solid Power, a solid-state battery-maker based in Colorado. He never mentioned QuantumScape by name, but throughout an interview made it clear he was talking about the company. Creating a single-layer cell is one thing, he said. "The big challenge comes in how do you achieve the same results in automotive scale large cells." Buettner-Garrett said, "They tend not to be able to point to how these [cells] will be produced with the same perfection at automotive scale at the required cost point."
Venkat Srinivasan, head of the Collaborative Center for Energy Storage Science at Argonne National Laboratory, suggested that the scaling problem could leave the way open for a rival electrode formulation, such as silicon, to commercialize first. "QuantumScape's innovation is scientifically huge, but I do wonder if it will be technologically huge," Srinivasan said. "In 15 years, we may end up saying silicon was instrumental in changing the EV landscape and moving us to full electrification."
With all this skepticism, I emailed Singh a last time. "You are saying that your team established the definitive reason why dendrites happen with lithium metal, meaning not another theory but the actual reason, correct? And second you are saying that your solution prevents dendrites — not that it impedes them under certain conditions but actually prevents them from forming?"
In an email back, Singh started out with what he might have thought was modesty, but if so, the effect was to dig in deeper. "Humility prevents us from saying we've found 'the definitive reason dendrites form,'" he wrote. "Just like it might have been hard for someone to say Newton's theory of gravity was 'the definitive theory' of gravity, even though it worked well enough experimentally allow the prediction of the paths of cannonballs and the timing of eclipses, etc. And indeed eventually Einstein came along and found what might be a better theory in general relativity. And of course, there might be an even better theory than general relativity waiting to be discovered that might better predict, for example, what happens in black holes, etc.
"What we'd be comfortable saying is we developed a theory of what causes dendrites, a theory that was different from the conventional wisdom, and we were able to empirically validate the theory well enough to allow us to build solid-state separators that work at record-high levels of current density without needing elevated temperatures while delivering >1,000 cycles," he said. "These are of course, the parameters you need to hit to be useful in real cars, so that's why this development is interesting and important."
When I have spoken with oilmen, I have gotten the sense of an animate actor — oil, so much of it sloshing around the world, making some countries rich, and most recently warming the Earth. For different reasons, Singh gave me a similar feeling about lithium. It, too, was alive. But now, it was possibly under a bit of control. "Working with lithium metal and with batteries has a way of producing humility," Singh said, "because you just don't know if lithium is going to find a way to get you."
Editor at Large, Medium, covering the turbulence all around us, electric vehicles, batteries, social trends. Writing The Mobilist. Ex-Axios, Quartz, WSJ, NYT.
Posts
All Comments
