Until I spent a few years as a manufacturer, I would have asked the same question, but I have some sympathy for the challenges that Firefly is facing.

Not only do they have to do the background work to ensure that their lab scale technology works as the designers expect, but they also have to figure out a way to get product to market without running out of money and having to sell out just as they are reaching their stride.

It sounds like they actually have a pretty good plan that is worth continued attention.

Until I spent a few years as a manufacturer, I would have asked the same question, but I have some sympathy for the challenges that Firefly is facing.

Not only do they have to do the background work to ensure that their lab scale technology works as the designers expect, but they also have to figure out a way to get product to market without running out of money and having to sell out just as they are reaching their stride.

It sounds like they actually have a pretty good plan that is worth continued attention.

There is another incentive scheme that might work even better, an idea called Social Policy Bonds invented by New Zealand economist Ronnie Horesh (see http://socialgoals.com/). Initially sold by the government at a low price, the bonds mature when a social goal is achieved (such as a battery passing suitably designed tests) and are then redeemable at a high price. A prize promises benefits to only one party. As progress toward the goal becomes more evident, the trading price of the social policy bonds rises. This can benefit all parties that work toward the goal, not just the one party that finally realizes it.

It may be possible that a group of concerned citizens could organize to issue a privatized version of social policy bonds. I discussed this possibility with Mr. Horesh in email once. He was unsure whether private resources could provide a strong enough incentive to make it worthwhile.

There is another incentive scheme that might work even better, an idea called Social Policy Bonds invented by New Zealand economist Ronnie Horesh (see http://socialgoals.com/). Initially sold by the government at a low price, the bonds mature when a social goal is achieved (such as a battery passing suitably designed tests) and are then redeemable at a high price. A prize promises benefits to only one party. As progress toward the goal becomes more evident, the trading price of the social policy bonds rises. This can benefit all parties that work toward the goal, not just the one party that finally realizes it.

It may be possible that a group of concerned citizens could organize to issue a privatized version of social policy bonds. I discussed this possibility with Mr. Horesh in email once. He was unsure whether private resources could provide a strong enough incentive to make it worthwhile.

The tech seems solid and a logical evolution of the current lead-acid battery game.

I don’t understand why it has take this long to get just one product to market.

I work in the heavy highway construction industry. We actually do a lot of business with CAT.

So I shouldn’t be surprise at how slowly adoption of technology comes for people that have been in these types of industries. But it continues to amaze and frustrate me.

Here is a list of additional questions that I have in no particular order. Some of the questions are for the purpose of getting Mil Ovan and whomever else is in charge over at FireFly to rethink or expand on their business model.

Why not build a FireFly battery in the same size as a variety of consumer grade batteries.

Car, Truck, Boat, RV, Motorcycle, ATV, UPS, etc.

Is there not a standard for the testing of batteries?

Think small first. For example standard batteries sizes to cover the top 5 to 10 types of uninterruptible power supplies.

Think standard sized batteries. Let the consumer decide what to do with them.

The EV crowd will use whatever battery size that is available.

License the IP to a battery manufacture and get the first generation product out there before the fuel cell, super caps, (insert other battery/power technology) beats you to the game.

Why would anyone tout the capabilities of their product and then refuse to go head to head with any sort of standardized performance benchmark? If all you have is the Group31 battery then compare it directly with another Group31 battery.

The tech seems solid and a logical evolution of the current lead-acid battery game.

I don’t understand why it has take this long to get just one product to market.

I work in the heavy highway construction industry. We actually do a lot of business with CAT.

So I shouldn’t be surprise at how slowly adoption of technology comes for people that have been in these types of industries. But it continues to amaze and frustrate me.

Here is a list of additional questions that I have in no particular order. Some of the questions are for the purpose of getting Mil Ovan and whomever else is in charge over at FireFly to rethink or expand on their business model.

Why not build a FireFly battery in the same size as a variety of consumer grade batteries.

Car, Truck, Boat, RV, Motorcycle, ATV, UPS, etc.

Is there not a standard for the testing of batteries?

Think small first. For example standard batteries sizes to cover the top 5 to 10 types of uninterruptible power supplies.

Think standard sized batteries. Let the consumer decide what to do with them.

The EV crowd will use whatever battery size that is available.

License the IP to a battery manufacture and get the first generation product out there before the fuel cell, super caps, (insert other battery/power technology) beats you to the game.

Why would anyone tout the capabilities of their product and then refuse to go head to head with any sort of standardized performance benchmark? If all you have is the Group31 battery then compare it directly with another Group31 battery.