I thought I was slowing down. My apologies to the committee and to the translator.
That, in turn, spins the flywheel, resulting in storage of energy. The vehicle now needs to accelerate, and instead of drawing on the carbon fuel, whether it's gas or diesel—we're fuel agnostic—we draw on the stored energy from the flywheel first to propel the vehicle forward. We only draw on the carbon fuel and the engine when it is optimal to do so. Of course, this is controlled through sophisticated software and computer-controlled modules.
The more a stop-start driving pattern is introduced, the more energy is wasted, and therefore the more energy that can be captured and stored. If you can picture a transit bus driving pattern, a garbage truck stopping at every driveway, and 75% of cars globally that are mired in urban traffic, which equates to 70 million vehicles produced year over year, you can quickly begin to formulate the magnitude of wasted energy, wasted money, and unnecessary emissions.
That answers how it works and why it is necessary.
As for the second part, why flywheels are better suited than traditional chemical batteries, the answer is twofold.
First, the pure physical properties and operational demands, such as high power, short duration conditions, demand a highly tolerant durable technology. As our flywheels were originally designed for space and the Canadian Space Agency, and intense industrial use, we not only meet this demand, we far exceed it.
Typical elements are long life cycles, up to 20 years; high round-trip efficiency; no capacity fade, no power or efficiency fade; a wide range of temperature tolerance—weather is not relevant—low maintenance cost; no end-of-life disposal costs; low cost of ownership, since you do not have to change your batteries—and, particularly from a safety perspective, no high-voltage exposure during operational maintenance or to first responders at the scene of an accident.
Second, it solves the economic barriers that prevent purchasers from buying hybrids, whether it is the fleet operator, such as a transit authority, or a family vehicle. The current economic challenge and barrier to purchasing existing hybrids are price premium, operational expense—which is changing the batteries—and end-of-life disposal fees, all of which have deterred the adoption of hybrids. There is ample proof of this even within this committee's previous witness testimony, mostly by fleet operators.
Flywheel technology is far less expensive to manufacture, which lowers the price premium. There is no exchange of the flywheel, as it lasts the life of the vehicle and reduces operational costs.
Lastly, there are no end-of-life disposal issues, as a flywheel is made out of steel and is 100% recyclable, turning an end-of-life cost into a profit and avoiding further environmental damage by heavy metals that are found in chemical batteries.
There are approximately 100,000 transit buses in the NAFTA region alone that should be hybrid but are not. There are 70 million light-duty vehicles produced year over year. Now 75% of these vehicles demonstrate driving patterns that should be hybrid, and yet there has been a lowly 3.7% hybrid adoption rate over two decades of research and hundreds of billions of dollars spent globally by governments in this industry, with very little result.
As you can see, chemical batteries are not the solution; they are, in fact, the problem. Rising fuel costs and operational costs demand hybridization, and chemical batteries prevent it. In short, the chemical battery is an end-of-century solution to a mid-decade problem. We need a solution now, and we believe flywheels can be that solution.
There are many more and significant benefits for fleet operators, but time today does not allow me to address that in my opening comments. But I am at your service to provide such information that is warranted and appropriate to committee protocol.
With regard to general barriers and allowing our technology to be adapted and to flourish, we take the stance that they are the same for us as they are for any other developing technology in engaging in commercial process; that is, to fight the psychology of preconceived notions in linear thinking.
Auto manufacturers, governments, investors, and scientists alike have all bought into the notion that chemical batteries are the solution. The conventional thinking is that since this battery didn't work, we should try another battery. I liken this to the dot-com bubble, where otherwise very intelligent people were so fixated in a position, they could not see that most of the technology was bunk.
Frankly, our experience with the government has been extremely positive, and we would make two general thematic recommendations. In my attachment, I have gone into more detail.
First, the major problem in Canada is investment in technologies, and private capital is simply not doing the job. The government has gone to great lengths to address this issue, so we have not drawn any conclusions as to the government's need to do more or that private capital is happily willing to let the government do the heavy lifting and then engage when the risk is mitigated. We would support continued government policies that strive to facilitate and foster the introduction of risk capital into developing technologies. This is paramount.
Second, the government has very good programs and sees the importance of post-R and D movements towards commercialization. While these efforts assist greatly, the administration of the program is problematic. I am not referring to the process, as any company should be able to withstand the rigours of due diligence; I'm referring to the timing misalignment between the commercial window of opportunity and the capital requirements of a company. If a company was to be vetted for private capital, the due diligence process typically takes 30 to 90 days to get a term sheet. The government can take six to twelve months, depending on the program, if not longer. For an early-stage company with commercial-ready technologies, this is a challenge. Policies that meet the deployment of capital in a timelier manner would be seen as favourable.
In closing, what we are asking of the committee is to be mindful that there are a variety of solutions that solve transportation issues and not get lost in the noise or pet technology projects. We believe that flywheel energy storage systems will be a core component of successful hybridization now and for decades to come. We are, however, under no illusion that we are the silver bullet. Flywheels will be but one of many new technologies in vehicles that will meet the economic, operational, and environmental issues for all concerned.
On behalf of Blueprint Energy, I would like to take this time to thank you for your dedication and interest in finding real solutions for the transportation industry.