Cleantech, Optimism Squared and the Battery Industry

Last November, Merrill Lynch released "The Sixth Revolution: The Coming of Cleantech," a thematic report from strategist Steven Milunovich that heralded cleantech as a new investment theme and forecast a coming age of plenty. A few days later venture capital icon Vinod Khosla warned a Palo Alto audience “500 million people on earth enjoy a lifestyle that 9 billion people will want in 2050.” The differences between these two informed viewpoints are more than a little stark, but they highlight a frightening truth about cleantech: for the first time in human history the fundamental drivers of a technological revolution are constraints rather than opportunities.

It is remarkably different this time!

Last weekend, I re-read the Milunovich report and spent several hours pondering the fundamental forces that drove the technological revolutions identified in the following table.

	Technological Revolution	Historical Era
FIRST	The "British Industrial Revolution"	From 1771
SECOND	The Age of Steam and Railways	From 1829
THIRD	The Age of Steel, Electricity and Heavy Engineering	From 1875
FOURTH	The Age of Oil, the Automobile and Mass Production	From 1908
FIFTH	The Age of Information and Telecommunications	From 1971
SIXTH	The Age of Cleantech and Biotech	From 2003

I'm not an avid historian, but I recall that the popular reactions to the first five technological revolutions ranged from violent resistance to innovations that threatened job security (e.g. Luddites in England and saboteurs in France) to polite disdain or outright derision of innovations that were not seen as threats (e.g. Fulton's Folly). I still cringe when I remember college boy conversations where I taunted classmates with questions like "You may be able to buy a home computer in ten years but why would anybody ever want one?" The point is we didn't understand how important the innovations were until we viewed them in 20/20 hindsight. This dynamic gave important technologies time to evolve naturally, establish their value and then change the world in ways we couldn't have imagined. The process invariably took decades.

Where the first five revolutions were driven by the individual desire to do something better, faster and cheaper, it seems that cleantech is driven by a different dynamic. We collectively know that water, food, energy and commodities are not resources we can waste with impunity. We collectively understand that 6.2 billion people know how the rest of us live and each of the have-nots wants a fair share of the dream. We collectively fear a tipping point where unrestrained consumption of fossil fuels will irreparably damage our planet.

We collectively worry that the world we pass to our children will face catastrophic conflict and horrific environmental consequences because of decisions that were made in a different era by our grandparents, our parents and us. So instead of viewing cleantech developments with a healthy dose of skepticism and requiring inventors to prove their worth, we collectively grasp at the latest research results and grossly overestimate their real value. A great example of this phenomenon are widely circulated stories about an MIT research project that would make it possible to recharge a GM Volt in less than five minutes by plugging it into the nearest available 125,000 watt power source.

Our problems are grave and almost everyone recognizes the desperate need for relevant scale solutions to persistent shortages of water, food, energy and commodities. But instead of acting like adults, accepting personal responsibility and doing the little things like home weatherization that could help alleviate the problems, we demand profound changes without considering whether the changes are enduring solutions or simple band-aids. We then compound the foolishness with the insane delusion that technological development is instantaneous and success is certain.

My favorite story of unbridled optimism is about a straight-laced father who thinks his son is overly optimistic and decides to teach the boy a lesson by telling him that a load of garden manure is his birthday gift. The manure is delivered and dumped in the driveway and the father puts a big red bow on top of the pile. When the son gets home from school, he promptly dives head-first into the manure pile and starts digging. When the surprised father asks what's going on, the boy replies, "There has to be a pony in here somewhere!"

It's a crazy world and an infantile time, but once the tantrum phase passes, we'll do what adults have always done. We'll get up in the morning, we'll go to work and we'll solve our problems. The first casualty will be unbridled optimism. The second will be waste in all its pernicious forms. Ultimately, rational cost-benefit analysis will prevail and we'll begin to find enduring solutions to critical problems.

Warren Buffett advocates investing in companies you understand, companies that that sell products and services you know, trust and use. Unfortunately, that methodology is almost impossible in cleantech because most of the players are new, few can point to a long and successful operating history and the principal disclosures investors rely on are forward-looking statements from people that are trying to promote an agenda or build a company; people who are by nature optimists. Any time you put an optimist's forward-looking perspective into the hands of an optimistic reader, the only possible result is optimism squared and that's a very dangerous equation for investors.

Unlike many financial bloggers, I know my opinions and outlook are far from mainstream. To compensate for that deficit, I've developed a simple technique I call the "family reunion test" to evaluate cleantech investments. It all boils down to a simple question: "How many of the people who attended our last family reunion are likely to buy this product or service at today's price?" If I conclude that most of my extended family members would be likely buyers, then it's probably a good investment. If I find myself all alone in the likely buyer class, then it's probably a good investment to avoid. Rigorously applied, the family reunion test is an amazingly accurate forecasting tool.

The battery industry is in a state of turmoil because none of the technologies we've relied on in the past are able to satisfy the extreme demands of a cleantech future. At $250 a kWh, lead-acid batteries are cheap and reliable, but they have weight, power and cycle life limitations that make them sub-optimal for plug-in vehicles. Li-ion batteries have exceptional weight, power and cycle life performance, but at $1,000 a kWh they're just too expensive for most cleantech applications. The net result is a race to the middle as lead-acid battery manufacturers work feverishly to improve performance while Li-ion battery developers work feverishly to reduce costs.

In the swamps of Degoba, Yoda told Luke Skywalker "Do or do not ... there is no try." The same wisdom holds in the battery industry. Don't talk about your plans ... talk about your accomplishments! In the meantime, investors would do well to remember that optimistic forecasts from interested parties are every bit as meaningful as the trash talk, hype and drama that precede every WWE championship.

Over the last several months I've delved into several arcane technical aspects of the battery industry. While the detail is useful for technophiles, it can be mind-numbing detail for the average reader. As penance for my past sins, I've prepared the following table that provides a simple summary overview of the differences between lead-acid battery manufacturers and Li-ion battery developers.

	Lead-acid batteries $250 per kWh of useful capacity	Li-ion batteries $1,000 per kWh of useful capacity
Manufacturing infrastructure	Efficient factories already exist and capacity can be rapidly and cheaply expanded.	Substantially all existing capacity is located in Asia and billions will need to be spent on new factories that will take years to build and equip.
Distribution infrastructure	Efficient sales, distribution and customer support networks already exist.	Billions will need to be spent on sales, distribution and customer support networks.
Recycling infrastructure	Nationwide recycling capacity already exists, over 98% of lead-acid batteries are currently recycled and the recovered materials can be used to make new batteries.	Recycling techniques are in the R&D stage, there are no large-scale recycling facilities and the recovered materials are not pure enough to use in new batteries.
Technological challenge	Improve energy density, power and cycle life; goals that appear reasonable in light of several recent advances I've discussed in prior articles.	Slash manufacturing costs by at least 50% in the short-term; a goal that is patently unreasonable for an industry that has historically achieved savings of less than 5% per year.
Raw material availability	All essential raw materials are available in adequate quantities from domestic sources.	Essential raw materials are imported and there are important unanswered questions about future availability and price.
Financial stability	The principal U.S. manufacturers are well financed and able to attract additional capital when necessary.	The principal U.S. developers are effectively bankrupt and cannot expand (survive?) without loans and grants from the government.
Market valuations	Experienced manufacturers are trading for a small fraction of per share sales.	Developers with limited manufacturing history are trading at several times forecasted sales.

We are in the early stages of a technological revolution that is unlike anything the mind of man remembers. Instead of being opportunity driven, cleantech will be constraint driven. Instead of giving important technologies adequate time to evolve naturally, establish their value and then change the world, we're trying to avoid technical Darwinism, pick a winner based on theory, conjecture and public relations, and then force decades of technical progress into a couple of years. Experience tells me that the most likely outcome is catastrophic failure.

Ultimately, it boils down to your personal goals. If you want a long-term investment that will grow over time and derive immense benefit from the coming cleantech revolution, then the low-profile lead-acid battery manufacturers including Exide (XIDE) Enersys (ENS) and C&D Technologies (CHP) are probably the best choices for your portfolio. If you want a low-cost speculation on an advanced lead-carbon technology in the final development stages, then Axion Power International (AXPW.OB) may be a good choice.

If you're more interested in fast paced trading in volatile markets then the high-profile Li-ion battery developers like Ener1 (HEV), Valence Technology (VLNC) and Altair Nanotechnologies (ALTI) may be best for you. In any event you should do your own research and understand what you're investing in before you place an order. My favorite place for reliable current information is the SEC's Edgar Website, which contains detailed disclosure from all of the companies I've mentioned.

I don't believe that Li-ion technology is doomed to fail. In fact I believe it has tremendous potential in a variety of markets where size and weight are mission critical constraints. However I can say without reservation that the challenges facing lead-acid manufacturers pale in comparison to the challenges facing Li-ion developers, even if they get all the government support they could possibly want. To paraphrase a December 2008 note in the Wall Street Journal, Li-ion developers may well secure a place in a new electric-car industry. But at current prices, investors are being asked not just to dream, but to take success for granted.

Disclosure: Author holds a large long position in Axion Power International (AXPW.OB) and small long positions in Active Power (ACPW), Exide (XIDE), Enersys (ENS) and ZBB Energy (ZBB).

Comments

[Dave K.:]

Hi aqua
Actually you have failed to understand the self-healing process that is used by the energy storage technology. The self-healing electrode structure is not an external fuse but internal, where a defect or weak spot is disconnected from the remaining bulk of the part. The following link, plasma.ece.utk.edu/pub... is from an independent research group and provides some details about how the process takes place. The exact method and construction of the self-healing structure is dependent on the materials used in the capacitor’s construction and end application. The capacitors they are testing are designed specifically for energy storage.
The difference between the 1-LTL (1st Lighten The Load Inc.) capacitor structure and those in the article is in their construction. The dielectric constant (the part where the energy is stored) of the capacitor in the article is 4 to 8 depending on the plastic film that is used with break down voltage of 350 V/micron, about 9,000 Volt per thousands of an inch. The 1-LTL ultra-capacitor construction is different in that the dielectric layer has been replaced with a material having dielectric constant about 6,000 but with a much lower breakdown voltage, about 100V/micron. This gives an energy density about 100 times that of a commercial metalized film capacitor. Our technology at 300J/cc is only 3 times the energy density of a soon to be commercial double layer-ultra-capacitor which are about 30 w-hr/kg while 1-LTL’s claim is 100 w-hr/kg. The press release for the double-layer capacitor is www.jeol.com/NEWSEVENT...
The advantage of our technology over double layer ultra capacitors is in working voltage and in single unit size and cost of manufacture. Double layer capacitors are from 1.5 to 3.5 volts while the 1-LTL’s ultra-capacitors have single unit voltages from 10 through 100,000’s of volts. This makes them easier to use in almost all energy storage applications from automotive through electric grid storage. The question isn’t if batteries will be replaced by ultra-capacitors but it is when and who will have the lowest cost to fabricate technology. In the end it will be cost of manufacture and the operating cost of the storage technology that will win. Whether it is made using green apples or oranges really doesn’t matter to the consumer so long as it is inexpensive, recyclable and can be called a green environmental friendly technology.
I hope this has answered your criticism and you now accept that the 1-LTL technologies as credible.

On Apr 01 06:18 PM aquaculture wrote:

> Ok Dave fair enough. I read you're aware of dielectric saturation
> in the case of Eestor.
> I just wasted some 10 minutes looking at your renewed site.
> To me meaningfull scientific statements -claims that you make- are
> a method of verification. Since no such method is in the air, your
> entire content (the rest) is meaningless to me.
>
> That said, you claim 300J/cc. with ceramic/polymer material, about
> 10 x better than commercial and cheap ultra-cap in marketplace today.
>
> This high energy density is possible -only in theory!- capped at
> about 400 J/cc as upper limit, in three phase composite with some
> nano scale fraction packed.
> But achieving high breakdown strength is extremely difficult. For
> this you have to create a packing at nanoscale without defects, with
> some high order-a very difficult problem on which many labs are working
> today. And fusing doesnt help. In fact of the billion you manufacture
> one might come out right.
> But if you have solved one of the toughest problems in nano kudos
> to you...
>
> Good luck.
> aqua

Apr 02 02:44 PM

[John Petersen:]

marketquant, expectations that the same technology may be used for both applications are interesting, but they are not purchase orders. Like I said, the engineers and accountants will make those decisions based on factual analysis rather than PR. Time will tell.

Like most companies, Toyota is filing patent applications whenever possible. In mid-March, their executive VP made it perfectly clear that Toyota plans to use Li-cobalt when it moves over to Li-ion because "Battery reliability comes not only from the battery materials, but also from production know-how. So far, that chemistry gives us the highest total reliability."

www.technologyreview.c.../

When dollars and cents decisions are made by informed decision makers, the Toyota position says a lot about how decisions will be made.

Apr 02 03:56 PM

[marketquant:]

> engineers and accountants will make those decisions

Ali Nourai will make the decision based on what the engineers and accountants tell him. He's in charge of it. He said it will happen by the end of the year. An energy exec told me that 'utility grade' specs require operating in the environment up to 65C (150F), surviving up to 85C (185F), so the particular battery chosen will be interesting.

> Li-cobalt

That Toyota patent specifies a Li-cobalt cathode.

Apr 02 04:43 PM

[aquaculture:]

Dave K.

No you have not answered any criticism regards 1-ltl.
No I do not accept that your tech is credible.
The opposite!! (now that its clear youre not following the route I outlined above)

Its not a matter of me not understanding self-healing. The problem is you not understanding dielectric saturation (strong electron-ion correlation as field stengthens, leading to cancellation between ionic- and electronic polarization in ceramic dielectric!)
K varies as ~1/E over much of voltage range resulting in approx. LINEAR increase in energy density with field.
You believe (common mistake!!!!!) using a 6000 K material will give you 100 x energy density.
You calculate total energy stored as 1/2 CV^2 without reporting any breakthrough on saturation issue. This invalid calculation 1/2 KE^2 then gives (.5)(8.85x10^-12 F/m)(6000)(10.6^8 V/m)= ~3x10^8 J/m3 = ~300 J/cc.
That's optimism squared!
In reality you're lucky to get 2J/cc with the link you gave...

Your website has been in the air a long time, yet:

-no patent (even though there are hundreds of US patents which make the same mistake out there -sometimes I wish the Swiss would examine all patents!)
-no energy storage measurements
-no permittivity versus field data

If you want to be succesfull in this field, the order to do things would be:
-to get a lot of Schaum's outlines, practice solving millions of problems incuding calculus.
-get mr Feynmans trilogy and complete at least part 1 and 2, be able to validate everything he says.
-then IF you get a good idea in the kitchen:
1.make it,
2. test it,
3. go to mr Peterson and get a patent,
4 get 3rd party verification of your measurements,
5 and THEN you can launch a website promising all the goodies to mankind.
And not the other way round...

Apr 03 07:59 AM

[Michael Fit...:]

i always enjoy your articles john. i couldn't help noticing how your "family reunion test" resembles my "can i fly-fish in colorado the rest of my life test". so here's the question: if natural gas vehicles were widely available at dealers, and if CNG refueling stations were abundant, would your family drive to your reunion in an NGV and would i go to the mountains of colorado in an NGV? i can answer affirmative to the later. so, it's not difficult to find a warren buffet type "known" technology...it is staring us right in the eyes and has been around for decades. unfortunately, honda appears to be the only company engaged. considering our abundant natural gas resources in this country, that is a sad commentary on america. regardless, your article was well written and made me think. good action.

Apr 03 04:08 PM

[John Petersen:]

Fitz, I've always liked CNG and think it comes far closer to meeting the family reunion test than the cars with plugs proposals. I really would encourage you to think a bit on this constraint-opportunity dichotomy because the more I consider it, the deeper the implications run.

Apr 03 04:54 PM

[Dave K.:]

Hi Aquaculture,

Excuse me but what part didn’t you get? Why would I wish to follow your flawed and incorrect comparison of apples to oranges? 1-LTL doesn’t use a ceramic-based capacitor dielectric, except for very low energy density, high frequency capacitor applications, but not for energy storage. Secondarily, our ceramic polymer dielectrics, for high frequency applications have dielectric constants that actually increase with increasing applied voltage and only show signs of saturation as they approach break down or their intended working voltage. Yes ceramic capacitors have a dielectric saturation problem, for some but not all formulations, a going up in smoke problem, because they lack self-healing and well ceramic is just brittle and breaks real easy, THAT IS WHY WE DON’T USE THE TECHNOLOGY. So please read this carefully THE 1-LTL ULTRA-CAPACITOR DOES NOT USE A CERAMIC BASED DIELECTRIC as the primary energy storage component in our ultra-capacitor technology.

You are applying apples to oranges and wrong because;

1. A Polymer based capacitor’s dielectric energy density is limited by the initial dielectric constant in combination with their break down voltage and does not have a dielectric saturation problem.

2. Double layer ultra-capacitor energy density is limited by the electrode surface area and electrolyte properties. Sorry no dielectric saturation problem here either. Their apparent dielectric value increases with increasing voltage but such effects are attributed to pseudocapacitance effects. Here is a link go read, bucky-central.me.utexa... Oops sorry you are wrong once again no dielectric saturation. Let me see 150 to 175 Farad per gram at up to 2.7 Volts. Energy 1/2CV squared => ½*125*2.75 *2.75 = 456 J/gram or by multiplying by 1000 and then dividing by 3600 gives 126 w-hr/kg. Oh yes you can argue the number should be 50 or 150 or 75 but the article proves the point I had to make. The capacitance versus voltage curves doesn’t show a dielectric saturation problem. Guess you have just been caught being wrong once again. Oops ultra-capacitor @ 125 w-hr/kg, will it be practical, will it emerge from the lab, look out batteries. There are many other published research articles with similar claims.

Neither of the above 2 capacitor technologies have a dielectric polarization problem. 1-LTL’s is polymer based and does not have a dielectric saturation problem either. So how wrong do you have to be before you quite talking about something you clearly don’t have a clue about?

So much for your pseudoscience and you have been caught red handed as a rude nasty little FAKE! So ignore the facts if you wish but please go elsewhere if you wish to make a fool of yourself.

I support my claims, whenever possible using technical sources, which are at, arms length to 1-LTL. If you are going to comment back I expect the same from you. In the future you should at least put in a few words such as “I am most likely wrong but feel” or try “I know nothing about the technology but I think that” or even better “ I am making the following up”.

As far as you having any expertise in patent applications, don’t even open that door.

Thank you for your big fat juicy mistakes, as you have been very entertaining for me.

Dave



On Apr 03 07:59 AM aquaculture wrote:

> Dave K.
>
> No you have not answered any criticism regards 1-ltl.
> No I do not accept that your tech is credible.
> The opposite!! (now that its clear youre not following the route
> I outlined above)
>
> Its not a matter of me not understanding self-healing. The problem
> is you not understanding dielectric saturation (strong electron-ion
> correlation as field stengthens, leading to cancellation between
> ionic- and electronic polarization in ceramic dielectric!)
> K varies as ~1/E over much of voltage range resulting in approx.
> LINEAR increase in energy density with field.
> You believe (common mistake!!!!!) using a 6000 K material will give
> you 100 x energy density.
> You calculate total energy stored as 1/2 CV^2 without reporting any
> breakthrough on saturation issue. This invalid calculation 1/2 KE^2
> then gives (.5)(8.85x10^-12 F/m)(6000)(10.6^8 V/m)= ~3x10^8 J/m3
> = ~300 J/cc.
> That's optimism squared!
> In reality you're lucky to get 2J/cc with the link you gave...<br/>
>
> Your website has been in the air a long time, yet:
>
> -no patent (even though there are hundreds of US patents which make
> the same mistake out there -sometimes I wish the Swiss would examine
> all patents!)
> -no energy storage measurements
> -no permittivity versus field data
>
> If you want to be succesfull in this field, the order to do things
> would be:
> -to get a lot of Schaum's outlines, practice solving millions of
> problems incuding calculus.
> -get mr Feynmans trilogy and complete at least part 1 and 2, be able
> to validate everything he says.
> -then IF you get a good idea in the kitchen:
> 1.make it,
> 2. test it,
> 3. go to mr Peterson and get a patent,
> 4 get 3rd party verification of your measurements,
> 5 and THEN you can launch a website promising all the goodies to
> mankind.
> And not the other way round...

Apr 03 05:15 PM

[Dave K.:]

John,
I wish to apologize having to reply to Aquaculture's criticisms, but I was left no choice. It is not my intention to get into side arguments that are off topic. It is unfortunate he didn't bother to e-mail me first and get his assumptions checked out. However, the readers did get a couple more links of ultra-capacitor electrical storage technology to watch out for.
Dave K.

Apr 03 05:22 PM

[renim:]

So roughly on the Li scene

BYD, Chery - (FePO4) based cathode)
Kia/Hyundai/GM - Li Polymer (Manganese based cathode)
Toyota - Cobalt based cathode (predicted)

So in summary
Chinese are going with FePO4 derived chemistries
Koreans are going with Manganese derived chemistries
Toyota is yet to show its hand
GM is going with Korean batteries
Chinese FePO4 chemistries appear similar to American 'cool' LiFePO4 startups (but without the royalties)

Mn, Fe, P and O are common elements.
So in short, amongst the Li chemistries, we won't know if there will be a dominant chemistry or not, so its hard to 'pick' a winner. Although if Project Better Place builds a battery factory in China, its likely to be LiFePO4 as the chinese are good at that, and BP's backers are Phosphate producers.

and Pb batteries are about to radically improve most properties except energy density, to such an extent that NiMH will no longer be used in Bipolar batteries. (ie suitable for vehicles)

Apr 04 08:13 AM

[aquaculture:]

Dave k

Above you gave link and said: (quote) "replaced with a material having dielectric constant about 6000"
Highest known polymer dielectric is a little over 50.
No 100 x energy density in that either...

Apr 04 02:00 PM

[Dave K.:]

Actually,
The highest polymer dielectric constant is 100,000, that I have found published and Research continues as to whether to what extent it will be useable. Not the one 1-LTL is working on/using and you won’t be able to find out, a few have already tried. For the record single crystal BT is about 100,000, (Japanese Research) but then growing single crystals and making capacitors economically is the problem. It hasn’t stopped pending and issued patents for single crystal capacitors rather than ceramic capacitors which are in actuality a fused poly-crystal structure.
Our conversation is way off topic as it is suppose to be about the battery industry and it is best to drop it at this point.

On Apr 04 02:00 PM aquaculture wrote:

> Dave k
>
> Above you gave link and said: (quote) "replaced with a material having
> dielectric constant about 6000"
> Highest known polymer dielectric is a little over 50.
> No 100 x energy density in that either...
>

Apr 04 04:42 PM

[aquaculture:]

Sorry, wrong. Can be found in the white papers here:
strategicpolymers.com

And BT is not a polymer.

And no not off-topic. Cleantech, batteries and (Optimism)^........

Apr 04 06:00 PM

[aquaculture:]

Also, but that is just my opinion, one has to realise that investors (here and elsewhere) have poured many millions of dollars in cleantech, batteries etc., so we -investment community- kind of like to keep track of current technology and its limits, if you know what i mean.

Apr 04 06:23 PM

[mycin17:]

Ok guy's this is all great science but will someone point out the heater and air conditioning switches to me. I don't live on the equator

And BTW if Li Ion batteries are beyond our marketing capabilities, I guess these guy's are wasting their time:
www.hybridtechnologies.../

Apr 04 10:12 PM

[NorthernPiker:]

John, not many of the seven categories in your summary table are issues for BYD. In fact, only distribution and recycling infrastructures will be issues and recycling infrastructure only becomes an issue when BVD expands beyond Asia, particularly into Europe, although there should be an existing recycle infrastructure for e-bikes.

China manufactured about 20 million e-bikes last year, with an aggregate of 8,000,000 kWh of batteries – 0.4 kWh of batteries per bike, 85% lead-acid and 15% NiMH or Li-ion, with these latter two types primarily for export. (Note: 8,000,000 kWh is the aggregate battery capacity of 500,000 Volts.)

pubs.its.ucdavis.edu/d...

Apr 04 11:15 PM

[John Petersen:]

NorthernPiker, it's a fascinating article and I appreciate the link. I was surprised to see that 85% of the E2W market relies on LAB instead of Li-ion and NiMH because the rider has to provide propulsion for both bike weight and battery weight when the motor is not engaged. I guess the 4x price premium for Li-ion is off-putting to the Chinese.

The real questions we need to think about are:

1. If China has to choose between giving 50 people mobility with E2W or giving 1 person mobility with an EV, which will win?

2. If China has to choose between $25,000 of industrial production for 50 E2Ws at $500 each or $5,000 of industrial production for one of their home grown EVs, which will win?

3. If China has to choose between the export revenue from 10kWh of batteries to America and using those same batteries to provide mobility for its own population, which will win?

The dynamic is great for companies like BYD, ABAT and the rest of the Chinese manufacturers who plan to market products in their home country, but it bodes very badly for people who believe China will export million of kWh in batteries to accommodate US demand.

Apr 05 02:54 AM

[John Petersen:]

Mycin, Hybrid Technologies (EVII.OB) was originally HYBT.OB, a stock that I've followed with mild amusement for several years that's had a tough time of late. At its peak, HYBT traded at an effective price of over $200 per share (after giving pro forma effect to the 1 for 7 reverse split in early 2008 and the more recent 1 for 3 reverse split). It's not a company I would speak highly of if I wrote on the EV sector.

Apr 05 03:24 AM

[Michael Fit...:]

johnP: wrt your comment on constraints/opportunity, i think that is why i am such a big nat gas transportation fan. the constraints are pretty simple and very solvable: chicken-n-egg scenario with respect to NGV and refueling availability (of both). on the electric car front (i.e. battery technology) it doesn't seem as simple to me, nor, from a time constraint standpoint, as rational as NGV's. even if electric cars were available in quantity today, they'd be re-charged by coal (bad). it will be a minimum of a decade to build the wind/solar/nuclear infrastructure needed to signficantly reduce foreign oil imports. economically, environmentally, and from a national security standpoint - the US is simply running out of time. therefore, to take the pressure off electric and hydrogen powered vehicles, and to do something proactive over the next 10 years to address the trifecta of big problems just mentioned, it seems to me the pragmatic, technically proven, feasible, and logical move is to place a big bet on NGVs. not just for fleets, but for middle class homes and electrical power generation. americans can save $trillions of dollars and prevent trillions of lbs of CO2 from entering the atmosphere over the next 10 years by taking this step. meantime, let's build the solar, wind, and nuclear infrastructure we'll need to power EV's or generate hydrogen fuel. if i missed your point on constraints/opportunity trade offs, perhaps you could clarify. thanks!

Apr 05 06:35 PM

[John Petersen:]

Fitz, I'm a firm believer that we need to use every available tool in the box and focus first on slowing the export of cash in exchange for oil. As that battle progresses, we can devote more attention to building out new power generating facilities and the smart grid and developing EV solutions that work. The biggest problem I see with trying to force longer term solutions into the short term is that you don't give the key technologies enough time to really mature. In my mind, this is one of those journeys of a thousand miles and I don't think any of us can do more than vaguely describe some of the mile-markers we are likely to pass en-route to the finish line. I'll guarantee that none of us can accurately describe 2060.

Apr 06 02:11 AM

[Dave K.:]

Try google.com, before replying next time as I have proven you wrong time and time again but you keep on trying.

I am very familiar with the work of Penn State and have been talking with a chemist, in a competing group to the ones involved with Strategic Polymer Sciences. Their polymers contain fluorine, which make them extremely expensive to manufacture and may represent an environmental disposal problem. The polymers they use are approximately 10 times the price of nonhalogenated (sp) polymers to manufacture. That is why 1-LTL isn’t considering their approach as economically viable for commercial applications and definitely not environmental friendly. You would have to get to 3,000J/cc to make the material viable and what they are 30J/cc I believe.

Time for you to quit, you are still zero unless you are a paid heckler, which means you won't go away as its your job.

O
n Apr 04 06:00 PM aquaculture wrote:

> Sorry, wrong. Can be found in the white papers here:
> strategicpolymers.com
>
> And BT is not a polymer.
>
> And no not off-topic. Cleantech, batteries and (Optimism)^........

Apr 06 03:45 AM