If you want to know why large companies — telecom companies and utilities in particular — are very slow to adopt new products that appear far more superior than what they currently use, here’s why: When cool products go bad, or when the companies behind them go out of business, you’re screwed.

Take the recent example over at AT&T. The telecom giant had purchased lithium-metal-polymer batteries a few years back from a promising Quebec City company called Avestor. AT&T was using 17,000 of those batteries at sites throughout the country to provide back-up power for equipment that runs its U-verse TV service. In fact, AT&T appears to have been Avestor’s largest customer, having deployed about 85 per cent of all batteries sold by the small company.

But Avestor locked its doors in October 2006, citing its inability to attract investment and customers for its telecom back-up battery. Perhaps not so concindentally, that’s when one of these Avestor batteries sold to AT&T exploded. Since then, a number of them have blown up or caused fires. As AT&T said in a statement: “Normally we would work with a vendor to diagnose problems and develop solutions. We can’t do that in this case.”

And one wonders why telecom companies and utilities are risk-averse, lending support to the adage: “Nobody ever got fired buying _____” — usually, it’s Microsoft or IBM, but in this case you could fill in the blank with lead-acid batteries. Now, think of the risk the big automakers are taking by wanting to put a lithium-chemistry battery into plug-in hybrids or electric vehicles? In fact, nobody ever wants to see these kinds of accidents/explosions happen because it does make decision-makers take a sober, second look when they’re considering taking a chance on a new technology. Bless them when they go for it. It takes guts, and we need this kind of risk to bring these innovations to market, whether it’s an EEStor ultracap or a VRB Power flow battery or a A123 lithium-ion battery. Unfortunately, some startups bite the bullet and it’s a risk that has to be considered, and accepted.

This makes me worry about agreements like the one Malcolm Bricklin’s Visionary Vehicles signed this week with Mississauga, Ontario-based battery maker Electrovaya Inc., a maker of lithium-ion superpolymer batteries. It’s great news for Electrovaya, a company that appears to have a great technology but is nonetheless a money-losing penny stock that has struggled to keep its head above water. Bricklin, who has made clear his intentions to bring a full line of plug-in hybrid-electric cars to market, is a good, high-profile partner to have. In a statement, he admitted there will be challenges ahead. “This is a complex new terrain and the methodology and science that Electrovaya has developed stands apart from the others,” he said, adding that his company selected Electrovaya after a comprehensive review of battery manufacturers in the United States, Europe and Asia.

A memorandum of understanding has been signed to create a joint venture, which will be established as a standalone company — owned equally by Electrovaya and Visionary Vehicles — whose purpose is to develop and manufacture batteries and battery-management systems. R&D will also be a strong focus. As part of the joint venture, Electrovaya would receive royalties and license fees and each company would have the option to purchase shares in the other. Strangely, the deal has done nothing to lift Electrovaya’s shares.

Time will tell whether this will be Electrovaya’s big break, or whether a few years down the road it will be a train wreck for both companies. But the experience over at AT&T should be a lesson to those, including myself, who get over-excited about the prospects of a new technology but underestimate the time it takes to get it right.

I guess in this market — in the rush to please “green” consumers, tackle climate change, and put a lid on skyrocketing energy costs — getting new, exciting and in some cases disruptive technologies to market requires a little bit of “Go faster!” and a little bit of “Slow down!”

I’ve got a story at Technology Review (www.technologyreview.com) that looks at a French-designed compressed-air car and a deal with India’s Tata Motors that could see commercial production beginning this year in France and India. Personally, I think the concept is quite neat — particularly when you envision every home having a portable compressed-air station that both fills your urban car and captures heat for your hot water tank. Let’s face it, not all of us need highway-speed cars or the range required to drive back and forth from Boston to New York. Most of our driving is local and at speeds under 60 kilometres an hour (assuming we obey speed limits). Motor Development International, based in Nice, France, has a well-engineered Air Car design that could work in such urban settings, particularly in developing countries such as India. In North America it’s a tougher sell, though at least one company has signed up to manufacture and distribute the Air Car in the United States. There are many skeptics out there who question the efficiency, speed claims and range claims of MDI’s Air Car, but it’s an interesting project nonetheless and I hope MDI makes some meaningful inroads.

As a Canadian citizen I’m outraged. The federal Conservative government has fired the head of the country’s nuclear safety commission, using Linda Keen as a fall guy for the government’s own screwups related to Atomic Energy of Canada Ltd.’s NRU research reactor in Chalk River (it was shut down in late November because it didn’t comply with safety standards, causing a global shortage of medical isotopes). The government, because it didn’t have any of its own backup plans, blamed the “:independent” regulator instead of the crown corporation that was in violation of its license: AECL. It then overrode the authority of the regulator and ordered the reactor to be put back online. So much for independent oversight in the name of safety.

Now, Keen has been fired — for doing her job. And the last I heard, her job has nothing to do with guaranteeing the supply of medical isotopes. But there’s more to this. Keen, in the course of doing her job and keeping nuclear safety top-of-mind, has made life difficult for AECL and its ability to sell new reactors in Canada (specifically Ontario). Many observers of this battle between Keen and the federal government believe her dismissal is also part of a plan to make it easier for AECL to comply with safety rules and ultimately get licensed in Canada. Also, as the federal government looks to privatization AECL, it needs a reactor sale in Canada to get top dollar.

I should point out that Keen remains on the commission, but one wonders how long that will last.

Now, I don’t know about you, but as a Canadian I’m not comfortable with the government cutting corners and firing people who do their jobs just so they can sell a reactor or two and continue to justify the existance of AECL, and the further use of taxpayers’ dollars to support it.

End of rant.