It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Guess who owns the patent rights to NiMH batteries (hybrid)? Chevron

page: 1
2

log in

join
share:

posted on May, 31 2008 @ 11:11 PM
link   
www.democraticunderground.com...

en.wikipedia.org...


"In 1994, General Motors acquired a controlling interest in Ovonics's battery development and manufacturing, including patents controlling the manufacturing of large nickel metal hydride (NiMH) batteries. In 2001, Texaco purchased GM's share in GM Ovonics. A few months later, Chevron acquired Texaco. In 2003, Texaco Ovonics Battery Systems was restructured into Cobasys, a 50/50 joint venture between Chevron and Energy Conversion Devices (ECD) Ovonics. Chevron's influence over Cobasys extends beyond a strict 50/50 joint venture. Chevron holds a 19.99% interest in ECD Ovonics. Chevron also maintains veto power over any sale or licensing of NiMH technology. In addition, Chevron maintains the right to seize all of Cobasys' intellectual property rights in the event that ECD Ovonics does not fulfill its contractual obligations."


Chevron having veto rights of the sale and use of the batteries used in hybrid vehicles seems to be a pretty big conflict of interest if you ask me. It just seems weird that they don't get any fair trade questions for this. Having veto power over anything that would directly compete against oil seems to be a pretty powerful thing to have and looks like something that could be considered monopolistic.




posted on Jun, 1 2008 @ 12:11 AM
link   
This is a great find that I did not know, thanks much for info.



posted on Jun, 1 2008 @ 12:15 AM
link   
That would seem to be a conflict of interest. Conspiracies? Let them eat gas. I believe the time is soon something will blow NiMh's socks off.



posted on Jun, 1 2008 @ 12:33 AM
link   
This could be a big deal, but most hybrid makers are looking at newer lithium ion technologies like lithium ion gel pack batteries. Lithium is a better alternative to NiMH batteries because of their charge characteristics and also the mAh stored per gram of material.

Still quite interesting and I wonder if Chevron has used their influence for any good in that field? Doubtful..



posted on Jun, 1 2008 @ 12:40 AM
link   

Originally posted by jpm1602
That would seem to be a conflict of interest. Conspiracies? Let them eat gas. I believe the time is soon something will blow NiMh's socks off.


And how many of Chevron's billions will it take to secure that tech? I had heard all of the rumors and CT's regarding oil companies suppressing technology, but this was the first real evidence that I had seen. If they will do it with NiMH, then I am sure they will try to do it with whatever is next. It's not like they don't have the cash.



posted on Jun, 1 2008 @ 01:53 AM
link   
reply to post by Karlhungis
 


Well, I fly R/C models, and NiMH batteries have been around for some years....small, of course, about 600MaH to 1200MaH. NiCads got a rep for 'memory' (not holding a full charge) but that was from improperly discharging/recharging them.

Plus, batteries DO wear out. They generally have a limited lifespan of re-charges available. Just bought a new radio, still uses NiCad, but NiMH can be bought (they need a different charger).

Of course, we're talking here about Chevron holding a 'patent' on larger batteries, implication being that they might stand to lose gasoline profits, unless they quelsh the licensing of these batteries?

But, as I mentioned, batteries will need to be replaced, and they are not cheap!! So, people will either replace, or just scrap the vehicle....so, it's win/win for the manufacturer of the batteries. You replace the battery, or you buy a new car, which, of course, has a new battery in it....

Just a few thoughts......



posted on Jun, 1 2008 @ 04:03 AM
link   
reply to post by weedwhacker
 


I would imagine that the Oil companies would much rather depend on profiting off of gas than batteries. The US drives about 3,000,000,000,000,000 miles per year. That is a lot of gas (at an avg of 19mpg, it is roughly 15 Trillion gallons of gas). To contrast, they only sell roughly 17,000,000 vehicles per year. Even if 100% of the vehicles relied upon their batteries, they would make far less money than if they were still gas vehicles.

[edit on 1-6-2008 by Karlhungis]



posted on Jun, 1 2008 @ 04:22 AM
link   
NiMHI batteries are old hat anyway. This might have mattered a decade ago, but nowadays, no self respecting hybrid or electric car maker would use NIMHI batteries. Everything usues Lithium Ion nowadays.



posted on Jun, 1 2008 @ 05:46 AM
link   
I hope you understand by now Karl my snarling revolting style. Big petrol has offed people to keep status quo. I am so misunderstood.
Karl, reread, you were merely obliging the same issue. Big gas takes down every contrary energy. By hook or crook, or death.

[edit on 6/1/2008 by jpm1602]



posted on Jun, 1 2008 @ 05:51 AM
link   
reply to post by jpm1602
 


I understand you probably 95% of the time. The other 5% I would probably be better suited if I get a translator


You want to talk about misunderstood, in another thread tonight I was accused of being the type of person that brings about the current tyrannical state we are in today.



posted on Jun, 1 2008 @ 05:53 AM
link   
Rofl Karl....I drink for a living. Since my health went to antarctica. You tyrannical bringer upper you.

[edit on 6/1/2008 by jpm1602]

[edit on 6/1/2008 by jpm1602]



posted on Jun, 1 2008 @ 06:52 AM
link   
Patent protection expires. Might it be that time is expiring on some useful patents owned by oil so the oil price is being forced upward before technology can change and move away from oil.

I guess I can only hope there is something on the energy horizon.



posted on Jun, 1 2008 @ 06:57 AM
link   
reply to post by roadgravel
 


That is a good point. I didn't think of that.



new topics

top topics



 
2

log in

join