Cleantech: The Sixth Industrial Revolution

I’ve been writing about energy storage for several months because it will be a fundamental enabling technology for cleantech, the sixth industrial revolution, and I believe it is destined to be a major investment theme for the next 20 to 30 years. I’ve written about an emerging consensus that sales in the energy storage sector will grow from $25 billion to over $100 billion by 2020. I’ve also written about a variety of technologies and companies that will benefit from explosive growth in the sector. In late December, I started to explain why I believe the energy storage sector needs to take baby steps before it can run and ended up doing a cost-benefit analysis of electric vehicles. Today I’m going to take another step back and try to concentrate on broader issues that will make the sixth industrial revolution fundamentally different from each of the five industrial revolutions that came before.

Since the early ‘70s, the dominant business mega-trend has been the age of information and telecommunications, the fifth industrial revolution. During the ‘60s, my father invested in computer mainframe leasing and did well. I studied Fortran at Arizona State University in 1974 and used punch cards for data input. I bought my first computer in 1986 and thought direct modem communication at 1,200 bps was heaven. I established our firm’s first website in 1995. Today our IT network has terabytes of storage, we have more phone lines than people and we seamlessly represent clients in Europe, North America and Asia. Even though the calendar tells me that it took over 40 years to develop the IT systems and infrastructure we rely on today, I immediately assume that the commercialization path for new IT products will be measured in months, rather than years and decades.

That fundamental assumption was valid during the late stages of the fifth revolution but it is useless for the early stages of the sixth. The issue we need to understand as investors is how the sixth revolution is likely to unfold.

Mark Twain said, “History doesn’t repeat itself, but it does rhyme.” If history teaches anything, it teaches that the cleantech revolution cannot emerge fully formed in the twinkling of an eye. Like any other infant, cleantech must first learn to crawl; then learn to stand; then learn to walk and finally learn to run. Unfortunately, we’ve gotten spoiled. We’ve forgotten the early days of the IT revolution when progress was slow and painful. We’ve also forgotten the virtue of patience. Investors who blithely assume that the rates of progress and growth in cleantech will mirror the rates we have come to expect from IT are in for a grave disappointment. Investors who remember the words of Dorothy who said, "Toto, I've a feeling we’re not in Kansas anymore,” have an opportunity to become wealthy. However doing so will require patience, a global focus and common sense.

I first mentioned a thematic report on cleantech from Merrill Lynch strategist Steven Milunovich in a Seeking Alpha article that discussed the savage beating energy storage companies suffered in last fall’s market meltdown. I haven’t quoted the Milunovich report extensively, but the following paragraph merits special attention:

On the positive side, cleantech markets dwarf IT to the tune of two orders of magnitude. Unlike tech names, cleantech companies often don’t need huge unit growth to succeed – modest improvements mean more. New IT vendors often face a hurdle of a 5-10x improvement over incumbent technology to succeed while in cleantech doing the same amount of work with reduced CO² emissions might be enough. Moreover, we think the application of the VC model to energy could result in an acceleration of results. It’s entirely possible that real change could be achieved in the next 5-10 years, change that would take decades in the existing energy markets.

The implications are staggering! Mr. Milunovich starts out by saying we can value the entire IT sector and add two zeros. He then confirms that baby steps matter and modest differences in price and performance will be critical factors; which only makes sense when you realize that behind the noble talk of a greener planet, the driving force for the cleantech revolution is economic – minimizing waste while getting more useful energy for less money. He finishes by suggesting that the cleantech revolution may advance much faster than its predecessors. These are very exciting conclusions, but they leave no room for doubt that the sixth revolution will be very different from the fifth.

The first four industrial revolutions were primarily North American and European affairs. The fifth included Japan as an invited guest and other Asian countries have certainly been having a good time since they crashed the party. As the sixth revolution matures, North America and Europe might be little more than footnotes. The word is already out and there are 6 billion people who are working diligently to earn the lifestyles and comforts that 500 million of us already enjoy. The trick will be finding a way to help raise the standard of living in developing economies without crushing the standard of living in developed economies. For that to happen without catastrophic conflict or horrific environmental consequences, the world must find relevant scale solutions for persistent shortages of water, food, energy and every commodity you can imagine. The sixth revolution is not going to be pleasant and we will likely be plagued by rising prices, commodity shortages and intense global competition. But with 6 billion new consumers striving to modestly improve their lives, the power of the sixth revolution will be an order of magnitude greater than anything the world has ever seen. The Asian giant is not only awake; he’s hungry.

The fifth revolution was largely a revolution in physics. Electronic circuits became smaller and more powerful with each new generation of products and researchers found amazing ways to use precision manufacturing to slash raw material inputs while improving product performance. It was difficult work for manufacturers that resulted in huge benefits for consumers. We’ve already seen many of the same dynamics at work in the development of smart grids, solar panels, wind turbines, tidal power systems and flywheel energy storage. Overall, there is good reason to expect that future advances in power generation and distribution will be far more impressive than past advances. But advanced power generation and distribution technologies are only part of the solution. The rest is energy storage.

When we get down to basics in battery technology, the ugly truth is that chemistry is far less flexible than physics. Every element on the periodic table has a fixed electrochemical potential and most battery chemistries are rapidly approaching maximum theoretical efficiency. Accordingly, future gains in the ability of a given battery chemistry to store energy will be measured in single digit increments at best. To make matters worse, about 75% of the cost of a typical battery goes for raw materials and every time you reduce the amount of active materials that go into a battery, you reduce its storage capacity proportionally. That means the performance gains and cost reductions we’ve come to expect in IT are extremely unlikely in batteries. If anything, demand from 6 billion new consumers will increase battery costs, not reduce them. With due respect for the last 40 years, I believe that people who expect battery costs to decline significantly from “economies of scale” are ignoring the Asian Elephant in the living room.

This leaves cleantech facing an immense challenge. Batteries are a dreadful way to store energy. They’re big, they’re heavy, they’re expensive and they’re easily damaged by careless users; but they’re the only choice we have for many applications. Pumped hydro, compressed air and bulk thermal storage systems may prove very cost effective when it comes to storing hundreds of megawatt-hours (mWh) of electricity, but they’re useless when it comes to storing a few kilowatt-hours (kWh). Flywheels and supercapacitors work great if you need power for 60 seconds, but they can’t deliver stable power for more than a few minutes. We’ve all heard about the wonders of hydrogen fuel cells, but storing and using hydrogen gas is no easier or cheaper than storing and using compressed natural gas. At least for now, batteries are the only game in town and choosing a battery is a lot like choosing a congressman; you carefully weigh the positive and negative points, and then vote for the best bad choice.

I’ve been studying energy storage and batteries for over five years and still find technology comparisons confusing. My first level of confusion comes from the fact manufacturers don’t adhere to uniform standards when publishing performance data. A second level of confusion comes from the fact that performance data is invariably expressed in metric measurements that many find difficult. To help reduce the confusion, I decided to spend some time working on a table that would answer two simple questions I believe every battery buyer should ask.

• “If I want to store a kWh of electricity, what will the battery weigh and how much space will it take?”
• “If I want to store a kWh of electricity, what will the battery cost and what will my average battery cost per charge-discharge cycle be over the expected service life?”

The following table isn’t perfect and I’ll undoubtedly draw comments that dispute the source data, but I believe the table is accurate enough to provide a general overview of how the numbers compare for 1 kWh of storage capacity.

click to enlarge

Most of the basic performance data for the table comes from an educational website on battery technology but I did incorporate some information from other sources when I needed to fill gaps. I then added cost data from a recent report published by Sandia National Laboratories and performed the necessary conversions and calculations.

The first three performance metrics in the table, weight, volume and price, are pretty straightforward but the other two, cycle-life and user cost per cycle, are incredibly mushy because they assume that a battery owner will use every charge-discharge cycle he buys, which is usually not the case. Unfortunately, understanding cycle-life and cost per cycle issues is critical to a well-informed choice between competing battery technologies. So I’ll drill a bit deeper.

To analyze cycle-life, engineers install a battery in a test rack, hook it up to sophisticated electronic equipment and then repetitively charge and discharge the battery until it loses 20% of its rated storage capacity. After repeating the test with a statistically valid sample, the average becomes the reported cycle-life. A big problem with cycle-life testing is that human beings are less consistent than testing equipment when it comes to using energy and following instructions. A bigger problem is that cycle-life estimates assume that each cycle will discharge the battery down to its recommended limit and then recharge it properly, which doesn’t often happen in real life. To further complicate matters, many battery chemistries including lead-acid and Ni-MH last longer at modest depths of discharge than they do in deep cycle testing, which is why a 400-cycle NiMH battery can have a 5-year useful life in an HEV.

I can’t speak for others, but my experience with the lead-acid battery in my car and the Ni-MH batteries in my house phones has been better than the table would suggest while my experience with the Li-ion batteries in my cell phone and laptop has been worse. Just for kicks, I want to take a highly unscientific straw poll and ask each of my readers to jot off a quick comment to this article that ranks their personal battery replacement history on a scale of 1 to 5. To keep the comments consistent and simplify my tabulation work, I’d like everyone to tell me how many years they average between battery replacements using the following format: Lead-acid 3, NiMH 5, Li-ion 2. (My personal ranking) With a little luck the straw poll results may give me something to write about next week.

As I’ve learned more about energy storage, I’ve come to view cycle life claims as providing a useful but unreliable indication of potential battery life. Lab tests are fine but I prefer road tests. I’m also skeptical about cycle-life claims from development stage companies that are not actually manufacturing a commercial product or pre-commercial prototype. The reasons are simple. First, you can’t draw a statistically valid test population until you have a product population to draw the sample from. Second, laboratory prototypes are unreliable indicators of product performance because a PhD working in a well-equipped laboratory can always generate test results that are vastly superior to the best results one can expect from a factory staffed by skilled and semi-skilled manufacturing workers. Third, life-cycle tests on individual cells are not a good indicator of how a multi-cell battery pack will perform because system complexity increases at astounding rates as the number of cells increases from tens to hundreds to thousands.

The answer to the most important question, “What will my average battery cost per charge-discharge cycle be over the expected service life?” is perhaps the most difficult because it is impossible to provide an answer unless you can describe what you plan to do with the battery and how long you plan to own it. First, you need to match your cycling demands with the cycling potential of the battery because regardless of the technology choice, using only a half or a third of the potential cycles will double or triple your effective cost per cycle. Once you have a firm grip on what your needs are going to be, it’s a relatively simple matter to go through the type of cost benefit analysis I presented in an earlier Seeking Alpha article, Alternative Energy Storage Needs To Take Baby Steps Before It Can Run.

It is my fervent hope that some creative soul will eventually come up with a brilliant and cost-effective way to store small amounts of energy in a portable form that will make batteries obsolete. The guy who invented petroleum did one heck of a job; he just didn’t make enough of it. For the time being, however, we’ll all be forced to make the best bad choice. I for one refuse to pay a premium for that dubious privilege.

I’m a firm believer in the upside potential of companies like Exide (XIDE) Enersys (ENS) C&D Technologies (CHP) and Axion Power International (AXPW.OB) because they make inexpensive products that can satisfy the energy storage needs of most users and applications. I can’t and won’t denigrate the technical performance of exotic Li-ion chemistries (at least until my straw poll results are in). Toshiba (TOSBF.PK) manufactures a fine Li-titanate battery and development stage competitors like Altair Nanotechnologies (ALTI) and Ener1 (HEV) make impressive performance claims. The same goes for the Li-phosphate batteries manufactured by A123 Systems (IPO Pending), China BAK (CBAK) and Valence Technology (VLNC). My only issue with these companies and their existing and proposed products is simple economics. Expensive battery technologies do not work in applications where the user’s goal is to save money. Likewise, I’m unimpressed by vague happy talk about future economies of scale when I know that 6 billion new consumers will drive a seismic shift in global demand for all commodities and products.

Increased performance combined with lower end user cost was a reasonable assumption during the fifth revolution. But we’re not in Kansas anymore and the rules of the game have changed. As we embark on the sixth revolution, the watchwords for investors are thrift, patience, focus and common sense. We have a choice to either embrace the change and profit handsomely or fight the change to our detriment. But the change will come either way.

Disclosure: Author holds a large long position in Axion Power International, recently bought small long positions in Exide and Enersys and may make other energy storage investments in the future.

Comments

[John Petersen:]

Mayascribe, over the holiday somebody told me about China Rita Power (CRTP.OB), a lead-acid manufacturer that seems to export about 80% of its production. It looks interesting at first pass but I've not had time to study it.

Jan 06 01:15 AM

[Mayascribe:]

Funny how your column has become the "Axiom" for energy storage. You work hard and so do I. Long before your writing here for Seeking Alpha I was into the Energy Storage sector. Thanks for guiding me.

Frankly, these writers for Seeking Alpha scare me, drastically. One, just last week, columnist stated gold could go up to $2000/ounce to $20,000/ounce! Can this be a typo? No!

Keep telling the truth, as you see it. There is no doubt that you are one of the most observing and trying-to-get-it-right writers in this forum, no matter how much I bashed you way months earlier. And, you deserved it, then. But now you don't. I love how you chase and chase and unravel the truth.

Perhaps the coolest aspect of your writing is that, by far, you've drawn in other peeps who know what they're talking about. The technical data steaming forth is amazing, and, for me hard to digest. I just want to know who, as in, what stock(s) is going to win in the long term.

Would not you say that from July to now that the overall commentary has upgraded hugely? I read at least half of all the Seeking Alpha columns everyday, and way more outside. You have upgraded your research and integrity by far more than anyone else I read. And I don't say that loosely.

I want to make money. And I want to make money in this depressed market. It's an opportunity that in my lifetime is no doubt the best. And the Energy Storage sector, no doubt, with thrifty, even "pernarious" investment, will allow me to...we'll see.

Still firmly believe this "axiom." That, in the long term, people need to eat. People need to get around. And people who accumulate a little bit of wealth, will want anything from coffee makers to aquiring precious metals. This, to me, means that commodities will soar, as well as banks, and of course, ways to store energy. Drug/health care will surge, too, but not nearly like your professed sector.

I agree. A new generation of investment is upon us. It is not about the accumulation of energy, but rather, the proper storage of energy.

Keeping a lot of my powder dry. But I love the depressed small caps, some of which were mid caps just as late as August.

ADVICE TO ALL WHO READ THIS: NEVER BUY A STOCK WITHOUT RESEARCHING A COMPANIES' CASH POSITION. GO INTO THEIR CORPORATE WEBSITES AND DO DUE DILIGENCE.

I have made way too many mistakes by not doing this. Now it's proticol.

Jan 06 02:02 AM

[John Petersen:]

Mayascribe, thanks for the very kind words. You and others have been excellent teachers because your early criticisms showed me what I was not explaining adequately. My research and integrity really haven't changed much. My ability to explain why I believe what I do has improved immeasurably.

The really crazy part of all this is that there isn't a company in the sector that can't be a big winner if they can complete their development work and bring a product to market. But if your goal is to buy low and sell high, last year's big winners are never the best place to start because all equities go from undervalued to fairly valued to overvalued. The goal is to buy at undervalued and sell at overvalued. You know where I think the values are so there's no sense in table pounding.

Overall, I just want to thank you and the other commenters for making me a better writer.

Jan 06 06:27 AM

[jkessler:]

If "A123 is in the middle of a patent infringement lawsuit with UTexas and HydroQuebec for allegedly stealing the original liFePo "recipe" first patented by a UTex professor, Dr. John Goodenough." And Valence just prevailed in getting UT and Dr. John Goodenough patents Revoked in the European Patent Office., And Valence apparently has the first Lithium Phosphate patent in the US (ahead of UT/Goodenough), then who do you think is in the right position at the right time? See below link.

ir.valence.com/release...

Jan 06 09:29 AM

[John Petersen:]

jkessler, unfortunately that's a question I would immediately send to patent counsel if a client asked me so I won't even try to speculate about who has what if anything. The only thing I know about patents is that when I was but a lad, one of my father's companies had the US patent for the one gallon injection molded plastic milk bottle with integrated handle and he decided that the company couldn't afford the non-stop litigation it would have taken to defend it.

Jan 06 09:52 AM

[Ricknplano:]

John (aka Battman),

Yes, your ability to explain yourself has risen remarkably and I think your depth of knowledge has risen as well, as you consider and respond to comments. The comments have improved as well, e.g. Mil Ovan et al.

As always, thanks for sharing your insight.

Rick

Jan 06 11:23 AM

[Ricknplano:]

John,

Might I add that the stocks that make one money are not always the stocks you expect to make money. Remember, markets can remain irrational longer than you can remain solvent. Since markets are made of individual decisions, some of the persons who regularly post comments should make it clear why markets remain irrational in spite of evidence to the contrary. As you have said, you can explain it for them but you can not understand it for them. Let us hope that the best companies actually do win. Best wishes for the new year.

Rick

Jan 06 11:30 AM

[Mayascribe:]

Thanks for the CRTP info, John. Looking at their balance sheet I see that their cash position has exploded!

In thousands of dollars:

2003- $244
2004- $215
2005- $199
2006- $0
2007- $4,776!!!

Going right into their corporate website, as this stock also has two strong buys on my stock screener, with a 52 week range of $1.01 to $11.25. Today the stock is up 10 cents to a $1.95/share. Scary January 08 selloff, though.

I'll stop back.

Jan 06 11:45 AM

[Mayascribe:]

In moments I will establish a small position in CRTP. I suggest you add this company into your mix of Energy Storage sector stocks to your articles. Getting sick of hearing Larry Kudlow talk 30 times a day about mustard seeds. But, indeed CRTP could be one for my portfolio.

Thanks again for the info. I love banged up small caps with possible huge upside multiples over the long term.

Jan 06 11:59 AM

[John Petersen:]

rick & may, I get a number of e-mail newsletters and one of them, Agora Financial's "Rude Awakening" had a couple of wonderful Keynes quotes that I just have to share since rick quoted him on irrational markets:

"My purpose is to buy securities where I am satisfied as to assets and ultimate earnings power and where the market price seems cheap in relation to these."

"Keynes also developed a fierce contrarian streak. One of his greatest personal coups came in 1933. The Great Depression was on. Franklin Delano Roosevelt's speeches gushed with anti-corporate rhetoric. The market sank. America's utilities were, Keynes noticed, extremely cheap in "what is for the time being an irrationally unfashionable market." He bought the depressed preferred stocks. In the next year, his personal net worth would nearly triple."

Jan 06 12:19 PM

[John Petersen:]

I too love the irrationally unfashionable companies and fully intend to add CRTP to the list I keep track of.

Jan 06 12:21 PM

[Mayascribe:]

Well, I put in a order for some CRTP. The stock did not budge all day. In fact, not even ONE share sold from my earlier post. That bazaar fact makes me think twice about getting in on this holding company. And, just maybe, therein lies the rub; it's a holding company. How in the heck can a company that claims it has Suntech Power and Emerson Electronics among 28 others as customers world wide, not even sell one measley share in hours of trading time? Is this company a private club with just 19 mil in outstanding shares giving forth a 37 mil market cap. With 4.7 bil in 2007 sales? Something here does not add up!

Jan 06 04:35 PM

[John Petersen:]

Mayascribe, I don't think CRTP is stating their financial information in thousands. A sub $2 price with 19 million shares and $24 million in book value is just about right. If they were using thousands, the book value would be over $1 K per share.

Jan 06 04:41 PM

[Mayascribe:]

By the way, John, I talked with my Wachovia (->) Wells Fargo broker last Friday. He said, "Stand pat." But, he also said that the corporate bonds becoming available this and next week are something he's looking (for me) to get involved with; along with preferred shares of S & P 500 type companies. Obviously, in this forum I only talk about high risk, high trade stuff; my chancy side of life. He's my conservative side. Makes a nice balance to my thesis that right now is the ultimate time to buy severely beaten down small caps that I can get in and out of @ $4.50/trade.

Jan 06 04:55 PM

[Old Wizard:]

JP, Another very good article. Did you notice that American super conductor just announced a deal they closed to provide grid regulation for three wind farms in China?

Jan 06 05:09 PM

[John Petersen:]

Mayascribe, there are a lot of folks looking real hard at beaten down bonds of all types and wondering if there aren't some real nice yield and short-term appreciation plays out there. There are also a lot of folks who think small caps will lead the way out of this downturn like they usually do. I've always been poorly diversified and it has a nasty tendency to lead to feast or famine portfolio performance. I wouldn't recommend it as a strategy.

Wizard, American Superconductor is a really neat company, but they do so much that's beyond my fairly narrow area of focus and expertise that I don't fee qualified to talk about them.

Jan 06 11:52 PM

[frflyer:]

Digger

"I have not found anybody in the RE lobby who make claims of reliable base load capability"

Then they are leaving out solar thermal with heat storage. CSP plants with 6-8 hours of heat storage are already being built and storage of 14-16 hours is completely feasable.
They will be able to produce electricity as low as 5-8 cents/kWh when economy of scale kicks in. Can be air or water cooled.
And storing heat is far cheaper than storing electricity. This is NOT intermittent energy.
In one respect it is better than coal base power because it naturally revs up in sinc with the demand cycle during the day, matching output with demand and price.

Look at the proposal called TREC, which would build solar thermal plants around the Mediterranean along with HVDC transmission. These solar thermal plants would supply electric power as well as CHP(combined heat and power) while also desalinizing water.
The plan is to power Europe, North Africa and the Mideast. Creating clean water and clean energy from one source could do wonders for many parts of the world. And while it may seem idealistic to some, it may also provide a clear demonstration of what can be achieved when nations cooperate with each other.
The Mideast in particular could use some of that sensiblility.

The U.S. obviously has more potential for renewable energy than the UK due to the geographical limitations of the UK. For that reason, nuclear may be one of the only choices there for any large capacity generation.

Solar thermal with heat storage could power the entire U.S., using less land than now used for the coal industry and coal plants.
And there wont be billion gallon spills of toxic fly ash sludge.

Gas plants can be run less hours a day, but run when needed by the grid. This will extend the life of existing gas plants and help fill in the gaps from intermittent power like wind and PV.

I think it is obvious from an environmental standpoint that the number one priority should be phasing out of coal. Solar thermal in the U.S. could replace all the coal by 2030.
A study by the Western Governors Association said 300 GW of solar thermal could be built in the southwest near existing transmission lines. Adding HVDC lines would expand that substantialy.

Solar thermal is also being built for non electric applications in industry and agriculture.

I don't rule out nuclear power altogether but am not a big fan and the objections are more than just emotional. Saying the objection is just emotions belies the truth of the dangers of spreading the availability of fissionable material and waste all over the world. Look at the current angst of Iran's nuclear program. Now imagine that playing out in dozens of countries around the world. And don't tell me that nuclear is safe because less people have died from it than from coal. That's akin to saying living next to an active volcano is safe because it hasn't erupted yet. We haven't had a nuclear holocaust yet either, but that doesn't make me feel any more comfortable about nuclear arms proliferation. Anything is safe until it isn't. There will be no mistakes in the nuclear industry just like there are no mistakes in the oil and coal industries right?
Tell that to the people of Kentucky and Tennessee. Think the billion gallon spill in Tennessee is an anomally? Eight years ago there was a 300 million gallon spill in Kentucky. And the same containment ponds continously bleed toxins into watersheds.
I'm sure there will be no spills of radioactive materials just like there are no oil spills right? As long as there is human error, I won't completely trust anything as lethal as nuclear power.


Power from new nuclear plants will not be cheap.
It won't even be able to compete with solar thermal.
The cost of building nuclear plants has gone up. FPL has raised the estimate for two new nuclear plants proposed for Florida from $4,000 kW to between $5,500 and $8,100 kW.
No wonder they have moved into the solar thermal business, and not just in Florida.

Estimate for power from new nuclear plants is 12-17 cents kWh. Solar thermal can match that right now with prices falling to half that much in less than ten years, about when the first new nuclear plant would likely go online.

A new estimate puts the price of nuclear power at 22-30 cents kWh and up to $10,000 kW to build.

Another interesting development that could prove to be big is the new type of solar being developed by Zenith Solar in Israel. Concentrating PV which also captures the heat from cooling the PV receivers. So these are sort of a combined solar thermal and PV system. The captured heat could be used to make more power, or as hot water for buildings and industry. This increases the conversion efficiency by quite a bit over pure PV systems. www.businessweek.com/g...

One important benefit of renewable energy like solar and wind is that they are labor intensive to build and will provide far more jobs than building nuclear or coal plants.

Sources:

climateprogress.org/20.../

climateprogress.org/wp...

climateprogress.org/20.../

www.salon.com/news/fea...


climateprogress.org/20.../

List of solar large projects in US
www.seia.org/galleries...

www.altenergystocks.co...

Waterless solar thermal? Yes.
www.nrel.gov/csp/troug...

solarsouthwest.org/ Solar Southwest Initiative

www.desertec.org/

www.trec-uk.org.uk/

Jan 07 03:27 PM

[DiggerUK:]

frflyer,
I feel you do not see base load as I understand it.

By base load I mean the amount of power that has to be available on a guaranteed basis 24/7. I don't refer to power supply as base load.

Power supply needs to meet base, peak and intermittent needs.

I only see a place for RE's in the intermittent supply. Storage would only make RE's more reliable in that role.

None of your sources makes a claim that RE's can be relied on for base load.

Jan 07 09:34 PM

[Conan the B...:]

Hey John, remember Zenn cars and EEstor Ultra capacitator idea. EEstor apparently has received a US patent for its Battery, specs as yet unreleased.

PS its great to be back.

Jan 16 01:40 AM

[John Petersen:]

paul, it's good to have you back, but I'll hold off on talking about EEstor until they get out of the advanced vaporware stage.

Jan 16 11:25 AM