Just remember, the US Na-Ion battery startup died last year with _products_ _in_ _warehouses_ just because it couldn't get a UL certification. All it needed was a bridge loan.

And the government did nothing.

▲

trynumber9 11 hours ago | parent | next [-]

>And the government did nothing.

Why didn't a private investment company, even venture capital, extend them a bridge loan? It seems like the type of technology that could have decent returns in licensing fees.

I ask this question because it seems odd to someone in the software world so flooded with startups that the government would be expected to intercede on behalf of a startup.

▲

brudgers 9 hours ago | parent | next [-]

To a first approximation, an inability to get UL certification means a product failed to demonstrate compliance with well established safety expectations…technically it means the insurance industry will not treat it as ordinary risk.

The ramifications range from inability to obtain product liability insurance for manufacturers, the voiding of general liability for users, and the fire marshal shutting down places where the system is installed.

Keep in mind that new products get listed under new standards developed by manufacturers all the time. But only when the new standard demonstrates ordinary safety.

The simplest likely explanation is that vc did not believe the technology was worth betting on.

	▲	torginus 43 minutes ago \| parent [-]
		Yes I remember this story, and something like this was the case - the product's readiness and market viability was overstated, and the company has been tossed around between investors for quite a while.

▲

tadfisher 11 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-]

In this case, Natron was focused on energy-storage for data centers, a sector which is ordinarily a prime recipient of government intervention.

	▲	adrian_b 9 hours ago \| parent [-]
		While this article is about cars, there is another Chinese company that offers 50 MWh sodium-ion batteries for stationary energy storage. While for cars sodium-ion batteries will never reach the energy per kilogram of the best lithium-ion batteries, for stationary use it makes absolutely no sense to use lithium batteries, because sodium batteries will become much cheaper when their production will be more mature, so they should always be preferred to lithium batteries. Even for cars, sodium-ion batteries have a second advantage besides price, they retain their capacity and their charging speed down to much lower temperatures than lithium-ion batteries, so they will be preferred in cold climates.

▲

cyberax 11 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-]

Apparently, there were shenanigans from investors/creditors. So the company got quietly carved up instead of going through a bankruptcy auction.

I'm looking forward to the eventual investigational report.

BTW, the company was Natron Energy.

▲

wat10000 11 hours ago | parent | prev [-]

Decent returns aren't enough for a risky investment, they need to be spectacular returns.

The benefit to the country as a whole is potentially large, but most of it wouldn't show up as profit for the company itself. I'm sure it would do quite well if it was successful, but the benefits to car manufacturers and to having this sort of technology on-shore would not translate into monetary returns on private investment. That's the sort of thing government intervention is good for.

▲

btheunissen 12 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-]

Starting to think that the American century of humiliation meme was prophetic.

▲

iugtmkbdfil834 11 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-]

One could argue that in that case, doing nothing was very much a choice.

	▲	joe_mamba 11 hours ago \| parent [-]
		"Never interrupt your enemy when he is making a mistake"

▲

greesil 4 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-]

Which company?

▲

simmerup 11 hours ago | parent | prev [-]

Think not,'what can my country do for me?', but, 'How can I further enrich Trump'