PHEVs and EVs: Plugging into a Lump of Coal

Since I've stirred up a hornet's nest over the last two weeks first by debunking the mythology that PHEVs and EVs will save their owners money and then by showing how PHEVs and EVs will sabotage America's drive for energy independence, I figured I might as well go for the triple-crown of harsh realities by showing readers that in the U.S., where 70% of electricity comes from burning hydrocarbons, PHEVs and EVs won't make a dent in CO₂ emissions. They'll just take distributed CO₂ emissions off the roads and centralize them in coal and gas fired power plants.

I started to seriously question the policy arguments in favor of PHEVs and EVs when McKinsey Quarterly published an article titled "Profiting from the low-carbon economy" in early August. The article included a "Global carbon abatement cost curve" that shocked me because it showed that HEVs offered a substantial cash benefit from carbon abatement while PHEVs imposed a significant carbon abatement cost. A few days ago I got permission to reprint the original graph from a recent McKinsey & Company report entitled "Pathways to a Low-Carbon Economy. Version 2 of the Global Greenhouse Gas Abatement Cost Curve," 2009."

While the graph is fairly complex because it shows both the benefits and costs of various carbon abatement options and the potential amount of CO₂ that each option could eliminate, the key issue is the relative positions that HEVs and PHEVs occupy on the curve. HEVs are shown on the left hand side of the graph between residential insulation retrofit and electricity from landfill gas; which means that HEVs save €30 ($43) per metric ton of carbon abatement. PHEVs are shown on the right hand side of the graph between nuclear power plants and low penetration wind farms; which means that PHEVs cost €12 ($17) per metric ton of carbon abatement. Since the McKinsey graph analyzed abatement costs at a 'global' level, I felt compelled to dig a little deeper and analyze their impact in the U.S.

In its latest report on greenhouse gas emissions in the U.S., the Energy Information Administration said that CO₂ emissions from electricity generation were 2,433.4 million metric tons in 2007. In its 2007 annual summary of electric power in the U.S., the EIA reported that net generation of electric power during 2007 was 4,157 billion kilowatt-hours from the sources identified in the following graph.

When you divide the total CO₂ emissions from electricity generation by the total amount of electricity generated, it works out to 585.4 grams of CO2 per kWh. While the figures vary among manufacturers, the average electric-only range of the PHEVs and EVs planned by General Motors, Nissan (NSANY), Mitsubishi (MMTOF.PK), BYD (BYDDF.PK), Tesla Motors, Fisker Automotive, Th!nk Global and a legion of others is roughly 4 miles per kWh of useful battery capacity. So in the U.S., a PHEV or EV will ultimately be responsible for about 146 grams of CO₂ emissions per mile unless the owner has the foresight and dedication to buy solar panels or wind turbines to generate the electricity his PHEV or EV will use.

To review the math, a gallon of gasoline releases 20.35 pounds of CO₂ (9,231 grams) when it is burned in an internal combustion engine. So a normal car that meets current CAFE standards of 27.5 mpg is responsible for roughly 336 grams of CO₂ emissions per mile. In contrast, an HEV like the Prius, which slashes fuel consumption by roughly 40% through a combination of recuperative braking, idle elimination and electric launch will be responsible for roughly 201 grams of CO₂ emissions per mile.

The following table compares typical vehicle costs (without tax subsidies) and CO₂ emissions per mile for each class of vehicle. It then goes two steps further and (a) calculates an average carbon abatement cost for HEVs, PHEVs and EVs, and (b) calculates an incremental carbon abatement cost for PHEVs and EVs. Both carbon abatement costs are expressed in dollars of capital spending per gram/mile of CO₂ emissions.

	Vehicle Cost	CO2 Emissions	Average Cost Per Gram/Mile	Incremental Cost Per Gram/Mile
ICE Vehicle	$20,000	336
Prius class HEV	$26,500	201	$48.15
Volt class PHEV	$40,000	146	$105.26	$245.45
Leaf class EV	$40,000	146	$105.26	$245.45

Is it any wonder that Vinod Khosla keeps telling interviewers that in the U.S., China and India, PHEVs and EVs will be plugging into a lump of coal for years to come?

News stories, speeches and press releases can only maintain the electric drive illusion for so long. Sooner or later the public is going to realize that it's all hype, blue smoke and mirrors, and that PHEVs and EVs have little of substance to offer customers in the U.S. market. When the public comes to the realization that electric drive vehicles:

• Won't save their owners significant amounts of money;
• Won't be as fuel efficient as HEVs when battery capacity is factored into the equation;
• Won't be as CO₂ efficient as HEVs when utility emissions are factored into the equation; and
• Are nothing more than feel-good, taxpayer subsidized eco-bling,

The backlash against lithium-ion battery developers like Ener1 (HEV) and Valence Technologies (VLNC) that have attained nosebleed level market capitalizations based on electric drive hype may be vicious. The big winners should be developers of cheap and efficient high-performance lead-carbon batteries like Exide Technologies (XIDE) in cooperation with Axion Power International (AXPW.OB); C&D Technologies (CHP) in cooperation with Firefly Energy; and East Penn Manufacturing in cooperation with Japan's Furukawa Battery Co. (FBB.DE).

It would be wrong for readers to assume that I dislike lithium-ion battery technology, because I believe it will be an increasingly important part of the coming cleantech revolution. I also believe that companies like Advanced Battery Technologies (ABAT), Altair Nanotechnologies (ALTI), Johnson Controls (JCI) and A123 Systems (IPO pending) that are taking a diversified approach by focusing on products for a wide variety of consumer, industrial, utility and military applications will grow and prosper. But the companies, reporters, financial analysts and politicians that have built a mountain of unreasonable expectations from an electric drive molehill may be in for a tough time.

DISCLOSURE: Author is a former director and executive officer of Axion Power International and holds a large long position in its stock. He also holds a small long position in Exide.

Comments

[Jack Lifton:]

So it came to pass that in year 9 of the false god Climate, whose priest was lithium, there arose a prophet called John and all that John foretold came to pass and the rain of truth fell and lithium dissolved to reveal bright lead underneath as it had been foretold verily by John...the text breaks off here.

Aug 30 08:13 AM

[John Petersen:]

Have a great trip Jack. I hope you come back with something interesting you can share on the rare earth metals front.

Aug 30 08:21 AM

[Dave Marsh:]

I'm re-posting my comment from another article in April here, where it actually fits the discussion better:

The "other" electric car starts to sound more reasonable in the long term. The "other" is the hydrogen fuel-cell powered electric car. Yes, I know, the production and distribution infrastructure needed is immense, but in the long run sounds more feasible in light of Mr. Lifton's arguments. (Those were arguments against the viability of economical Li-ion batteries over the long term due to supply constraints).

My personal grand energy plan has always been and still is based on nuclear energy. Nuclear plants would be designed and built as three-way machines. A three-unit plant would have one reactor for electricity, one for reverse osmosis clean water production, and one for electrolytic hydrogen production. Crossover capability would allow all three reactors to produce power for peak time of day, but would divert increasing power to the hydrogen and water trains as night fell. At that point, the vast available clean baseload of two reactors produces clean water and hydrogen gas all night with (of course) zero CO2 production. In the battery (vs fuel cell) EV scenario, as discussed in previous SA articles, the nightime charging of all those extra batteries would have to come from more baseload coal plants, which makes your battery car dirtier, despite the efficiency gained from the inherent electric motor high energy conversion efficiency. What battery EVs there are would also retain their "CO2 cleanliness" if the nightime charging were from new nuclear baseload units, which run at 100% all night anyway (no one really does nuclear "load following" and they aren't designed for that).

Building nuclear plants that can cleanly fill in the nighttime demand valley with massive fresh water and hydrogen production, while at the same time giving a clean charge to the battery EVs, is an alternative whose time will have to come.

Sorry for simply re-posting, but it's 5:30am on Sunday, and I'm incapable of real thought yet. And besides, since your semi-infinite series of (good) articles, I realize there's nothing wrong with incessantly beating the same drum, as long as it's a good drum to beat.

Aug 30 08:34 AM

[John Petersen:]

Dave, while I suspect your personal grand energy plan would take a fair bit of time to implement and face a number of daunting emotional and technical hurdles, I did some searching about and found the following NERL report on the relative cost and energy efficiency of producing hydrogen through electrolysis.

www.nrel.gov/hydrogen/...

I'm personally open to almost anything that doesn't take a half-trillion dollars per year out of the U.S. economy and send it somewhere else.

Aug 30 09:11 AM

[manya05:]

Author: "PHEVs and EVs won't make a dent in CO2 emissions. They'll just take distributed CO2 emissions off the roads and centralize them in coal and gas fired power plants."

It is fantastic that now you are looking at the problem with a system approach. I will not agree or disagree with your conclusions, but I think you got a step closer to understanding DOE's overall strategy (right or wrong, again, no opinion here). Your own table shows that a PHEV or HEV will lower CO2 emissions by 50% with respect to a conventional ICE, and some 25% with respect to a Hybrid. So, even if you plug into a lump of coal, the DISTRIBUTED emissions on the freeway went down, and what is more important, and as you point out, they are now CONCENTRATED at the power plant, where carbon sequestration might be feasible (it is NOT feasible at the tailpipe). You helped me see why DOE is so interested in carbon sequestration. Of course, carbon sequestration will bring down overall efficiency, so what we gain in the end may not be so much, and instead of that 50% we may not get much. And when compared to hybrids, carbon sequestration at the plant may not be worth it. I do not know, but I see EV and PHEV as a good step in the direction of reducing oil consumption, switch to domestic coal, and still reduce CO2 emissions. Of course the wildcard is carbon sequestration. I remember people working on it 25 years ago, so it may be a pipe dream.

Thank you for writing these articles, themselves, and the ensuing discussion, are always helpful.

Aug 30 09:23 AM

[Ferdinand E...:]

Brilliant article, but we know the bottom line don't we. It's.....no, that for my new book.

Aug 30 09:49 AM

[jerrydd:]

Again in his long jihad against EV's, PHEV's and trying to justify his so far vaporware carbon lead batteries he uses selective information and ignoring obvious future trends.

First coal use has dropped again a couple % since his graphs were made as coal continues to fall from plant closings and far more eff Ng cogen plants and wind, solar replace them. This trend will accelerate. Even the coal plants left are being upgraded to cogen cutting their coal needs by 30%. More wind cap was installed last yr than any other generation means including coal showing an obvious trend.

And most utilities are required to get 20% renewables soon, further dropping coal use as will it's cost rise from carbon taxes, energy prices.

Plus he ignores at night when EV's, PHEV's much of the power will be charged is from hydro and old Nukes, both lower cost than coal and little carbon output. New nukes cost way too much, $9-18/kw to build. Coal is $4/kw and going up as it's fuel is.

He ignores the cost of Lithium batteries is dropping fast as they are now below the cost of sealed lead batteries. He can quote his sources all he wants that they are more expensive but the fact you can buy them at those prices rules. Plus GM announced they were buying LG batteries for that price, $.30/wthr in SAE magazine, you know, Society of Automotive Engineers.

And the other increasing trends of home generation and dropping prices of wind, solar CSP and PV. Home wind is now $2k/kw with inverter , CSP/a 5hp solar steam engine can be made for under $3k/kw and 3x's as much heat as a bonus, and PV will soon be $4k/kw in home plug and play units. By the time enough EVs, PHEV's are out their these will easily be done making them extremely low carbon..

Then he uses the prices of the first EV's, PHEV's which are double what they will be once enough of them are out there to make a difference in about 4-5 yrs.

Now let's get to his vaulted batteries, the CL. Where are they John? How much do they cost? Where do I buy one? Which car company has said they are going to use them? Inquiring minds want to know.

And let's not forget his capacitor CL hype he touts as his CL makers do too. An Ultracapacitor is a device that used 2 plates collecting a space charge between them and it goes from rated voltage to 0 discharging. Does CL's do that John?
A battery is a chemical cell which stores energy in chemical changes. Regular lead goes from 2.2vdc/cell fully charged to 10.75vdc/cell discharged.
So which does a CL do John? You, Axion, Ultrabattery, EEStor need to tell the truth. Companies that lie are seldom good investments.

Aug 30 09:52 AM

[Robert Cast...:]

I like the way you detail the info, but your arguments have been touched upon before. I the documentary "Who Killed the Electric Car" one expert notes that "all you're doing with an electric car is moving the smokestack".

Also, in a SeekingAlpha article wrote on March 19 "Which Is Worse: Buying Solar Panels from Eurasia or Oil from OPEC?" I point out that we need to have and keep an infrastructure here in the US, otherwise all we are doing is importing a different form of energy from another country - solar in my argument, batteries in yours.

Aug 30 10:17 AM

[John Petersen:]

Manya05, the most interesting part of this article for me is the carbon abatement cost curve from McKinsey. It really deserves a lot more attention than I could ever give it in a blog. If people who are concerned about CO2 would take the time to study the curve and see where they can make a difference with efficient lighting, insulation, efficient appliances etc., we could make a big dent in the problem while saving money.

Thank you Professor Banks. It's always a pleasure to hear nice words from you.

jerrydd, the mere fact that you can't buy something at AutoZone does not make it vaporware. The DOE has approved a $34 million grant to "Exide with Axion" to manufacture batteries for micro and mild hybrids based on Axion's lead-carbon technology. NYSERA has two tests scheduled, one for substation deferral and another for solar power at CUNY. Both projects are part of Imre Gyuk's summary presentation on storage available here:

www.ge.com/battery/res...

I am a former director of Axion and I know a great deal about its technology. It is not, however, my place to speak for the company. That's management's job and until they release data I certainly can't. Frankly I'm growing weary of personal attacks that go after me and a company you know nothing about without addressing the facts.

You're very good at talking about how you think things ought to be but less than worthless when it comes to providing credible third party analysis that supports your hopes, dreams and aspirations.

The Federal renewable mandate is 15% by 2021. That is not soon or substantial. The EIA summary I linked to says that power generation grew by 2.3% from 2006 to 2007. If we assume for the sake of laziness that 2.3% is a reasonable estimate of future growth rates (which it most certainly won't be in a PHEV or EV world) total power generation in 2021 will be 5,715 billion kWh including 857 billion kWh from renewables. So even with the renewable mandate hydrocarbon fueled electric generation will increase by 701 billion kWh by 2021.

The hard cold fact is that your beloved EV is responsible for 146 grams of CO2 per mile, you're just dumping it in the backyard of the poor soul who lives next to the power plant.

Since you obviously don't want to participate in a civil discussion between rational adults, I would be grateful if you stopped reading and commenting on my articles.

Aug 30 10:26 AM

[John Petersen:]

Robert, I'm all in favor of building America's infrastructure for batteries, solar, natural gas, nuclear and anything else that will prevent the export of a half-trillion dollars per year for oil. But once we build the infrastructure we also need to encourage the most efficient use of the goods we manufacture. Making batteries for Prius class HEVs is an extremely worthwhile endeavor. Making batteries for eco-bling is not. Solving America's energy dependency is like eating an elephant, we have to do it one bite at a time.

Aug 30 10:30 AM

[Don Harmon:]

John, just a few items that I would like to add here: You are on a roll these days! Keep up the thought-provoking work.

Coal is energy stored in dead plant matter from prehistoric times. Large mines built to extract coal -- either open pit, strip, or underground -- cause severe erosion, leaching of toxic chemicals into nearby streams and aquifers, and loss of habitat. About two-thirds of the SO2 and one-quarter of the NOx emissions in the U.S. are produced by coal burning, as well as one-third of the CO2 emissions. Coal burning generates 55% (you cited 70%) of the electricity in the U.S. Coal reserves will last for centuries at current rates of usage. Long before supplies run out, however, global climate change and acid rain will require that restrictions be imposed on burning coal.
SOURCE:
www.edf.org/article.cf...

At least it's OUR OWN coal - not our own money flowing into foreign countries who don't particularly like us! Your own quote:
"I'm personally open to almost anything that doesn't take a half-trillion dollars per year out of the U.S. economy and send it somewhere else".

Initially, the small amount of electricity that would be used in PHEV's and EV's wouldn't be enough to get all bent out of shape over IMHO. By the time the sheer volume of these vehicles reaches a tipping point I expect the advanced Lithium-ion batteries will be up to the task and available for duty @ a reasonable price!

Aug 30 10:42 AM

[John Petersen:]

Don, I actually said 70% from hydrocarbons because the graph showed 48.5% coal and 21.6% natural gas, but that's a minor point. As you know, I'm a global warming agnostic so it's hard for me to get worked up about CO2 emissions. Nevertheless, there are lots of people out there who think it's very important. North America is blessed with an extraordinary wealth of resources, both natural and human. Over the course of a 30 year career I've watched in dismay as using those resources for human needs has become subservient to a perceived greater good of conserving them in perpetuity. In the process we've accumulated immense debt to acquire needed resources from other countries. One of my big hopes is that the pending Chinese cut-off of rare earth metal exports will serve as a wake up call and result in the removal of some of the roadblocks that stand in the way of self-sufficiency.

The natural and human resources to accomplish that goal exist within America's borders. What's missing is the WILL POWER.

Aug 30 10:55 AM

[gibber:]

John,
I want to thank you for your articles on this topic. As an old engineer that worked in the auto industry for 25 yrs and then moved to SF, the capital of the Greenies, as you pointed out they due not see the complete picture. I tried to get the City of Berkeley to run a test of EVs using the new Nano Carbon batteries against the Li+ to inform the public of all of the issues facing Li+. I even tried to get AXPW interested without any success (Ed Biel CEO). You would think the leaders in environmental issues like Berkeley would want to educate the public on the issues of recycling Li, cost, the dependence on unstable gov't to supply lithium (creating next OPEC) and etc. No they just go with the sexy thing being pushed.
I worked for the Old Delco Remy that made Pb batteries and it must be ponted out it is the longest and most recycled product out there. According to BCI (battery council int'l) they have a 99% compliance and 95% of the battery is recycled. You would think that with that fact alone the Greenies would jump on the new nano Pb batteries. I have lost most respect for the Greenies due to their lack of looking at the issues in the total context. Also it needs to be pointed out that besides the 38M for AXPW thru Exide the gov't released 21.3M to EnerG2 to develop ultracapacitors and better separators. www.azom.com/news.asp?...
It is obivious the gov't realizes they do not have all of the pieces to get the Li they are pushing to be competitve at this time.Looks like they are hedging their bets a little. I am a real believer in Ultracapacitors and would like to talk to you more - if possible could you email at [e-mail]. I have talked to Professor Burke on this topic and would like to discuss it with you on some new opportunites. Keep up the great work - I see it like this the Cadillac of EVs with have Li and the Chevy's of EVs will have Pb if you keep up the great work. Differently the Chevy's will have ultra capacitors.


On Aug 30 10:26 AM John Petersen wrote:

> Manya05, the most interesting part of this article for me is the
> carbon abatement cost curve from McKinsey. It really deserves a lot
> more attention than I could ever give it in a blog. If people who
> are concerned about CO2 would take the time to study the curve and
> see where they can make a difference with efficient lighting, insulation,
> efficient appliances etc., we could make a big dent in the problem
> while saving money.
>
> Thank you Professor Banks. It's always a pleasure to hear nice words
> from you.
>
> jerrydd, the mere fact that you can't buy something at AutoZone does
> not make it vaporware. The DOE has approved a $34 million grant to
> "Exide with Axion" to manufacture batteries for micro and mild hybrids
> based on Axion's lead-carbon technology. NYSERA has two tests scheduled,
> one for substation deferral and another for solar power at CUNY.
> Both projects are part of Imre Gyuk's summary presentation on storage
> available here:
>
> www.ge.com/battery/res...
>
> I am a former director of Axion and I know a great deal about its
> technology. It is not, however, my place to speak for the company.
> That's management's job and until they release data I certainly can't.
> Frankly I'm growing weary of personal attacks that go after me and
> a company you know nothing about without addressing the facts.<br/>
>
> You're very good at talking about how you think things ought to be
> but less than worthless when it comes to providing credible third
> party analysis that supports your hopes, dreams and aspirations.
>
>
> The Federal renewable mandate is 15% by 2021. That is not soon or
> substantial. The EIA summary I linked to says that power generation
> grew by 2.3% from 2006 to 2007. If we assume for the sake of laziness
> that 2.3% is a reasonable estimate of future growth rates (which
> it most certainly won't be in a PHEV or EV world) total power generation
> in 2021 will be 5,715 billion kWh including 857 billion kWh from
> renewables. So even with the renewable mandate hydrocarbon fueled
> electric generation will increase by 701 billion kWh by 2021.
>
> The hard cold fact is that your beloved EV is responsible for 146
> grams of CO2 per mile, you're just dumping it in the backyard of
> the poor soul who lives next to the power plant.
>
> Since you obviously don't want to participate in a civil discussion
> between rational adults, I would be grateful if you stopped reading
> and commenting on my articles.

Aug 30 11:21 AM

[Dave Marsh:]

John's last sentence about will power goes equally for nuclear power. It is not cost prohibitive when done properly, only when re-starting a dormant program as we have here. China is building 45 reactors, and twenty or so other countries are building nuclear plants also. I believe John spends time in France, where they derive >80% of their power from nuclear, have the cleanest air in Europe, and if they are not laughing at us, they should be. One hundred fifty two-unit plants could eliminate coal-burning completely. Staggered over twenty-five years it's completely possible, as is restarting fuel reprocessing which will close the loop on the nuclear fuel cycle, and qualify nuclear power as largely renewable. Onl then will your EVs become CO2 free and not "plugged into a lump of coal." Grid-scale storage for intermittent wind and solar is not going to be economically viable in our lifetimes, if ever. Storing a single ten-hour night's worth of power from a single two-unit nuclear plant (e.g. Diablo Canyon - two 1100 MW reactors) would require 22,000 Megwatt-hrs of storage, i.e. 22 million kilowatt-hrs. Even at $100/kW-hr, that's 2.2 trillion dollars. How absurd. No amount of Rube Goldberg "smart grid" shell-gaming will get around this. We need nuclear power to make things like pure EVs - largely recharging at night - viable over the long haul. As has become all too common, the rest of the world is passing us by, and we will deserve our fate. Step up to the plate Energy Secretary Chu.

Aug 30 11:24 AM

[Dave Marsh:]

Self-correction: meant 2.2 billion dollars for one night's storage - still absurd.

Aug 30 11:35 AM

[John Petersen:]

Dave Marsh, I'm a big fan of nuclear and know first hand the benefits of living in Switzerland where the power mix is 60% hydro and 40% nuclear. We had a lot of panic created in the 70s and 80s that's taking a long time to subside. But I know full well that other countries are pushing forward while we twiddle our thumbs. Without beating the issue to death, I'll point out that even poverty stricken Vietnam wants to build at least a dozen nuclear plants because it thinks it has the ability to become a power supplier to all of Southeast Asia where the land is generally too unstable for nuclear development.

I agree that diurnal storage will be a big challenge for a long time, but according to a Sandia report from 2004 it would actually make sense if somebody could come up with a $100 per kWh solution. For a graph that shows the market size and salient price points in the grid-connected market see the second graph in:

seekingalpha.com/artic...

Aug 30 11:53 AM

[manya05:]

John, yes, I looked at the graph (although with difficulty, for some reason it cutoff and could not see all the captions). That conservation (lifestyle change) is the most effective way to cut CO2 emissions and environmental decay is not new (we do not need McKinsey or other expensive consultants to know that). If people lived in closer quarters and worked within walking/bicycling distance from work, and/or used more public transit...of course...we would not be having these discussions. But like dieat and health, change is hard to come by when it comes to breaking people's habits. In teh case of diet, people have a choice, when it comes to how and where to live with respect to their jobs, people have no choice really. Therefore, we need to think long and hard what is the best way of providing people teh current mobility cars afford us with minimum CO2 production and reasonable overall investment for society.

Aug 30 11:54 AM

[Don Harmon:]

I had never read this bill before. I include a link to it as reference to this article:

www.edf.org/article.cf...

Aug 30 11:57 AM

[Dave Marsh:]

Thanks for the link John. Still, getting from $500 - $1000 per kWh down to $100 is by itself a task that may not be accomplished in the next 50 years. Meanwhile, we have the nexgen nuclear capability in-hand, today. Much of what Chu and company apparently want to do is to miraculously leap-frog all things current and base this country's energy future on largely unproven (and mostly not-yet-invented) technologies. That seems hugely irresponsible. I guess I foresee a day in the U.S. where we regret having not gone for the clean "sure-thing", and the other countries going nuclear now will be saying "We don't have a problem, why do you?"

Aug 30 12:19 PM

[searcher:]

Clearly, many here are tempted to stray from "Seeking Alpha" to "Seeking Psi." At times it looks like we're poaching in the 'precognition' preserve of an ESP seminar. 'Sexy science' is great for an IPO but not so great as an investment that has already soared to an unsustainable premium.

Aug 30 12:28 PM

[Don Harmon:]

Dave, Have you actually read the ARRA FOE list of the types of grants recently awarded by Dr. Chu and the DOE? I don't understand your statement " Much of what Chu and company apparently want to do is to miraculously leap-frog all things current and base this country's energy future on largely unproven (and mostly not-yet-invented) technologies."

Care to elaborate on this?

Aug 30 12:31 PM

[Diegojames:]

SO it is nuclear reactor power stations to supply electricity for grid to power battery cars or diesel hybrid -electric motor with new drive trains to motors at each wheel for city....
Or solar every roof in the south western USA to recharge your battery powered 3 or 4 wheeled car for city and turbine diesel-motor hybrid for longer distance.
Should we get started or debate this until we destroy our economy, make ourselves a vassel state of the oil sheiks, talk some more about abortion, civil rights, and health care..
Lets make healthy cars, keep US dollars for ourselves, start a new technology surge in free education for chemical and physical sciences, free medical schools, free homes for physics majors and technology centers at all public schools with high salaries for the science teacher not the protocol for correctness group of feel good teachers who want to light candles and complain .....

Aug 30 12:36 PM

[John Petersen:]

Manya05, if you single-click on the graph in the article, Seeking Alpha automatically gives you an enlarged version.

Don, the cap and trade is one of the scariest things I can imagine because Congress is invariably oblivious to the laws of unintended consequences and the legislation presents an incredible opportunity for the boys at Goldman or someplace else to slice, dice and securitize to their heart's delight, until we get to a subprime carbon credit crisis somewhere down the road.

Dave Marsh, I'm a big fan of baby steps starting today instead of giant leaps years down the road. One leads to stumbling progress where the other leads to spectacular crashes.

searcher, it sounds like your singing from my hymnal. When the market says that the top three battery companies in terms of market value are Enersys, Ener1 and Exide, there's something desperately wrong with the valuation metrics in the #2 position.

Aug 30 12:39 PM

[John Petersen:]

Diegojames, I'm a big fan of baby steps starting today instead of giant leaps years down the road. One leads to stumbling progress where the other leads to spectacular crashes.

Aug 30 12:41 PM

[andrewjmcd:]

Oak Ridge developed the Molten Salt Reactor using the Thorium fuel cycle until the mid-seventies. It was shut down because its breeding capability was considered as not as promising as a competing program. Also the political/military climate at that time wanted technology that could produce material for bombs.

A Thorium Reactor could produce 1GWyear using 1 ton of thorium. In Lehmi Pass Id, there is approximately 600000 tons of thorium. Not to mention the 10's of thousand of tons that are stockpiled by the US govt.

In about 5 years a commercial grade Thorium Reactor could be developed. It could be mass produced and made in modular fashion producing safe, clean, green energy.

The most exciting Thorium Reactor is the Liquid Flouride Thorium Reactor and currently there are two bills in House pertaining to the LFTR technology.
www.opencongress.org/b...
www.opencongress.org/b...

ORNL's research documentation can be accessed here
www.energyfromthorium....
www.energyfromthorium....

A very good overview site about the LFTR can be found here:
rethinkingnuclearpower...

Regards,

Andrew

Aug 30 12:43 PM

[Michael D.:]

The social challenge on nightime storage:

Instead of storing power in massive cells/banks/Sodium/(in... your favourite technology) the option discussed is to keep it flowing through the grid to charge the cars in the market. That is a lot of EV/PHEV batteries (1.3 million charges (@16 kwh EV)per night from the Diablo situation discussed above).

You need to eat an elephant one bite at a time, but if society all takes a little bite simultaneously, you can turn things around very quickly. It will take a social revolution to make it happen. The partisan positions in the USA make me doubt that this will happen, you need a leader to bring together the will and stir the masses.

In other words, start now.

Aug 30 12:47 PM

[tiggernlizzy:]

I for one will definately buy a phev , or perfhaps BYD's pure electric the E6 with 250 mile range. I will put solar panels up to recharge it and will be happy to tell the oil cartels to stuff it. It sounds to me like your working for big oil. Anything to discourage Americans from getting off the oil merry-go- round. As far as coal goes , they run those power plants 24 7 . Seeing how most people will charge their cars at night . When power companys start building storage plants using BYD's lithium iron batteries the power from those will be co2 free. They are building 2 pilot plants in the US now. One in Oregon and one in Southern Cal. Those will be just the beginning . I also think when people have the ability to make their own power via solar panels to power their every day run about car that runs on free electricity they themselve made they WILL. Right now we're at the mercy of big oil and we all now how much mercy they have !

Aug 30 01:05 PM

[John Petersen:]

Michael D, current best practice is to run base load plants (typically coal and nuclear) 24/7 because they are not easy to ramp up and down. As demand increases from base load, the utilities bring on additional generating capacity that's typically gas fired. If you look at the first chart in my article "Grid-based Energy Storage: Birth of a Giant, you'll see the way the generating capacity and demand ramped up and down on a typical summer day in California. The idea that we have lots of electricity that is going to waste in off peak hours is pretty much a relic of the past. See:

seekingalpha.com/artic...

Aug 30 01:06 PM

[Meicul:]

John,

For someone who wants to research in a sector that's relevent to our time and can make an impact in solving our civilizations problems your blog is a great place to start. I wonder how it was
20 years ago as an individual investor to find outstanding informed writers like yourself in an instant and follow them practically in real time.

There is a five year old private company I ran across in a local newspaper article named Xtreme power based out of Kyle, Tx. They make lead acid battery-based storage systems for power utilities, wind farms,and large manufacturers. They've received $2 million in grants from the Texas Emerging Technology Fund to speed up commercializantion of the technology. Are companies
such as this one worth noting?

Aug 30 01:09 PM

[fran:]

mr. lifton--

to what location[s] and for what intrigueing subject[s] do you journey hence? when will we hear and through what media channel[s]?


On Aug 30 08:21 AM John Petersen wrote:

> Have a great trip Jack. I hope you come back with something interesting
> you can share on the rare earth metals front.

Aug 30 01:13 PM

[John Petersen:]

tiggernlizzy, I have no argument with your choice, but I think the number of people who are willing to make financial and lifestyle commitments on that scale will be small. I believe reliance on imported oil is a travesty. I also believe that a visceral hatred of oil companies that precludes the rational development of domestic oil and natural gas (particularly natural gas) resources is a travesty of comparable magnitude. BYD was probably a great investment when Warren Buffet bought at $1.12 per share. Since I know that trees do not grow to the sky and nothing fundamental has changed in BYDs business over the last year, it's far less attractive at $5.88 per share. As long as you do your homework and are satisfied with your choices, I'll wish you well.

Aug 30 01:15 PM

[John Petersen:]

Meicul, I try to keep tabs on the major privately held companies in the sector because I think the next few years will likely see a flood of energy storage deals coming to market, just like we saw with the internet, and solar energy, and biotech etc. The storage wave should start in earnest when A123 goes public next month (?). Since Seeking Alpha is an investment site, I generally limit my articles that are already registered with the SEC and people can invest in today. It's not a slight against anybody because I believe we will need every solution that's been invented, together with a bunch that are yet to be invented.

Fran, 他去瓷

Aug 30 01:20 PM

[Don Harmon:]

QUOTE:

I think it's safe to say there is money to be made here. It's estimated that energy storage will morph into a $600 billion industry over the next decade — not to mention it's the missing link to propelling renewable energy from marginal to mainstream.

And yet, it gets much less attention than its solar and wind cousins, giving savvy investors a brief window of opportunity to beat The Street to the punch.

SOURCE: www.matternetwork.com/...

Aug 30 01:31 PM

[John Petersen:]

Don, many thanks for the link. This is a great overview article that should be read by anybody who cares enough to read this far down into the comments. It will only take a couple minutes, but does a great job of explaining why I've been able to write for over a year without ever getting away from manufactured energy storage devices.

www.matternetwork.com/...

Aug 30 01:43 PM

[Don Harmon:]

Thought you would like that John! I hope you devote a future article to grid storage as this would add to your general body of work.

featured.matternetwork...

Aug 30 02:05 PM

[renim:]

So a nissan leaf (electric car) in Swiss will be close to zero emissions anyway, in japan/france it will 50%- 80% nuclear powered (it is a France/Japanese car company), in Texas it will low emission due to combined cycle gas stations, in else where USA it will be 50% coal powered.
In western australia it will have 1/2 the emission than in south australia (due to electricity generator emissions per kwh) and this is 2 states side by side in 1 country.

you're comparing apples to oranges to pineapples etc, a single emission number for a EV needs to explained with an paragraph of if, when and hows of probably false assumptions...

Well off course the electric vehicle is zero emission, its the electricity generator that make the emissions -is the cup half full or half empty.

As an aside
EVs promise to provide very significant off peak load for the grid, this would decrease general electricity cost as infrastructure is used more efficiently, similar to stored power, except its on wheels.

Aug 30 02:14 PM

[quick:]

What about people who have solar panels on their roof and generate all their own electricity? These are going to be the kind of people who first buy electric cars and PHEV like the Volt. You're making a big assumption that people who buy these vehicles will all get their power from the grid.

Aug 30 02:19 PM

[Don Harmon:]

QUOTE:
Vehicles will be primarily charged at home as early adopters will prefer the convenience. China, which has mandated the production of electric vehicles, will be the world leader in charging stations, selling nearly half of the global total of 1.5 million units in 2015. Bidirectional smart vehicle-to-grid charging will remain a niche application for the foreseeable future due to technical difficulties and utilities’ conservative deployment strategies.

SOURCE:
www.pikeresearch.com/a...

Aug 30 02:21 PM

[Thomas Brennan:]

John,

You did it again, congratulations! To me there is nothing better than stimulating the thought process. That, because it is the only way of finding a solution to the problem.

First, I must point out that if one were to revisit the bell shaped curve (Google or Wiki - "Normal Distribution") and accept that any population or sample of a population will distribute itself on just about any variable according to the parameters of this statistical function, one would find that if any group of humans were to vote on any topic, the most innovative solutions would be countered by the most conservative. Further, the next less innovative would be countered by the next less conservative and so on until the vote of the group would be the average of the group thought. That vote will always be mediocrity - not too daring or risky and not too careful.

Knowing that, one will immediately realize that the WILL to change will be difficult to embrace. Because most people never get past their day to day worries, they seldom give themselves the opportunity to think in strategic terms. i.e. long term goals that will most certainly not benefit them in any way in the near term. I have friends who will not invest in solar panels, wind turbines, or even switch to geothermal heating and cooling because they are waiting for THEM to do it of for THEM to pay for it. And therein lies the problem. Those few of us who are at least thinking about the problem and those of us who are engaged in doing something, however small and at our own expense, may eventually convince the rest that there is some benefit in acting now.

My personal feeling (based on real data) is that it is far too late to stop and, in few short years, it will be too late to even slow down global warming, in fact, I was saying 50 years ago that it was already too late. Unless we act IMMEDIATELY, we are in for some major surprises. We do need a leader and I am most disappointed in President Obama who campaigned on an agenda of leadership. I am not in his office so I cannot see the day to day nonsense that is going on in D.C. but my perception is that it is all negotiation, i.e. , voting (see above.) To lead means to take the followers where they do not want to go or where they would not go on their own. And that is precisely what we do not have at the moment.

Obviously, there are many solutions to choose from and my thought is that cost should not be the only driver. The cost of not doing something will eventually be a premature death for far too many people and those deaths cannot be measured in economic terms, especially for those will will be doing the dying. OK, enough morbidity from me, how about some solutions?

The best solution as I see it , is to start taking risks. Yes, there will be some marginal successes but there is also the chance for at least one major success and that is worth the risk in this environment.

"A pessimist sees the difficulty in every opportunity; an optimist sees the opportunity in every difficulty."
Winston Churchill

Again, John, thank you for keeping us thinking and I thank all of those who took the time to comment as your thoughts are also most appreciated.

Tom

Aug 30 02:29 PM

[EVNow:]

Sad.

You continue to distort facts to push your agenda. First you inflate the price of Nissan Leaf to $40K. Second you completely ignore the costs of fossil fuels that have been externalized. Once you add back those costs and look at real cost of oil of $480 a barrel your analysis will look foolish.

This not taking into account the cost of human life lost defending easy access to cheap fossil fuels.

Aug 30 02:34 PM

[noapplefanboy:]

John, I don't disagree with your points but have two comments:

1. As has already been mentioned, at least with coal we aren't buying our energy from the Middle East.

2. The sources of energy powering our electric grid can change, and solar is rapidly becoming cost-competitive with traditional fuels.

Aug 30 02:54 PM

[John Petersen:]

Don, I've written a number of articles about grid storage, but some of them pre-date your interest. See:
seekingalpha.com/artic...
seekingalpha.com/artic...
seekingalpha.com/artic...
seekingalpha.com/artic...
seekingalpha.com/artic...

Thomas Brennan, I'm a big fan of bell shaped curves too and write about them frequently (too frequently for some):
seekingalpha.com/artic...

I think the most important thing about change is the need to start now rather than wait for a better solution tomorrow. I'm a big proponent of baby steps that start immediately. It's a delight having you and a number of new and active readers joining this thread. We need all the good minds we can find.

EVNow, Nissan has not specified a price for the Leaf but insists it will be competitive with the Volt. I've read a number of reports fixing the price in a range from $18,000 without batteries to $33,000 with batteries (after giving effect to $7,500 in tax credits). Those same reports also indicate that Nissan only expects a five year life from its battery packs. I have not misrepresented anything and if you can provide an authoritative link, I would love to have more detailed information. Until I have an authoritative link, I'll continue to assume price competitiveness with the $40,000 Volt, which will be reduced by the $7,500 eco-bling credit.

noapplefanboy, unlike many, I'm a global warming agnostic and have a hard time getting worked up over coal. However given my belief that we have to minimize waste at every opportunity, I think we get to much the same place at the end of the day. Buying a half-trillion dollars of oil every year from foreigners is a travesty. Huge progress is being made in bringing down the cost of solar, wind and even more importantly geothermal. There's also a lot of progress being made in storage. But when we go back to fundamental economic drivers, I can't support any solution that wastes one set of natural resources in the name of conserving another, which is exactly the result we will get from the current rash of PHEV and EV proposals.

Aug 30 03:20 PM

[Don Harmon:]

John, I will go back and read them - thanks. Did you catch Woolsey's talk @ Storage Week. Sounds like it was certainly lively anyway?

Don

Aug 30 03:24 PM

[Don Harmon:]

QUOTE:

Now of course it isn't likely that one will be able to just go out and buy a LEAF in 2010 for that price. You see the most expensive part of the car is its 24 kwh lithium ion battery. Though Nissan is jointly manufacturing the battery with its partner NEC, costs of production for these groundbreaking laminate cells are considerable.

Usually lithium ion cells cost anywhere from $450 to $1000 per kwh. That puts the pack alone somewhere between $10,000 and $24,000. Though most writers are assuming its $10,000 Nissan has not publicly confirmed this. And although Nissan has not formally announced it, we expect them to lease the battery separately from the rest of the car, and charge buyers a monthly battery leasing fee.

www.allcarselectric.co...

Aug 30 03:30 PM

[John Lounsbury:]

John Petersen - - -

Thank-you for keeping the latest in front of usd.

The McKinsey chart was eye-opening. I am reminded though, as I read the comment stream, that the debate often evolves to two sides: (1) the views of those grounded in the present and (2) the visionaries.

The McKinsey chart is an excellent snapshot. But it is no more. It is a snapshot with a time stamp. The snapshot in 10 years will be radically different, and in 20 years totally changed again. For those who wonder what I am talking about, think about what would have been the 10-year plan for computer technology in 1975, then 1985 and again in 1995. The three plans would seem to have come from different planets.

I think that making even five year projections for utility energy, as well as transportation energy, is particularly difficult at this time. I do think that nuclear energy expansion in the U.S. is not a difficult thing to support because it is a relatively small portion of our electrical generation capacity currently and we can always use it through plant end of life, even if other generation technologies become more widely utilized.

It would be interesting to know what assumptions went into the McKinsey analysis. I doubt that they included the ancillary costs (such as environmental) of each of the options, because no one knows (as far as I can determine) how to do that in Euro or dollar terms. However, whatever the assumptions, many will be totally obsolete and incorrect in a few years. (Refer to my computer technology analogy.) The menu for cost of carbon reduction is a moving target. I expect the target is moving far faster than most of us can imagine today.

Aug 30 03:52 PM

[John Petersen:]

renim and quick, here in Switzerland with $6 gasoline and very clean electricity the Leaf may indeed work depending if its cold weather performance is adequate, but I wouldn't quite my day job if you promised me a commission of $100 per car sold here. All of these things are going to be experimental vehicles for the next several years and all the wishful thinking in the world won't make them a commercial product until they've logged several years of use in a broad range of operating environments. Then and only then will owners need to sit down and figure out what their power mix is. As I said in the article, owners who have the foresight to buy their own solar or wind systems to charge their PHEV or EV can claim zero emissions. Other than that it's simple greenwash.

John, it's always a pleasure to hear from you. The link I provided will get you to a download page for the entire McKinsey report which runs to 192 pages, and before you ask I have not read it all and don't plan to. I think your point about change is particularly apt. I'm a big fan of John Mauldin who has written several letters over the last couple years about how the accelerating rate of change will likely push more change into the next 20 years than we've seen in the last 100. That being said, whenever we put on our visionary hats we need to remember that the secret is out for the first time in history: the 6 billion know how good 500 million of us have it and they all want their piece of the dream. So everything we do in visionary mode has to be tempered with the question of whether it truly makes the highest and best use of all resources, because anything that doesn't is doomed to fail.

Aug 30 04:39 PM

[nakedjaybird:]

Dave Marsh - hey, I've got a novel idea for you; another Gov't program called "Nukes for Clunkers" (the coal type). That way the coal generators will be equally or overly compensated and won't have to totally waste their assets already sunk (not to mention the uproar and lobbying we'd see from the whole coal mining industry).

But, hey, maybe we can also compensate them somehow too.....we'll call it "OBAMASIZED".

Hey, even better, let's dismantle, ship and reconstruct all the US coal fired plants in China (and then sell China all of our coal - you know, why keep it - we'll never use it!! Everyone will be pleased!!). And then we can also export all our clean coal technology, services and equipment - help the trade imbalance.

That's what we should have done with all the auto clunkers instead of just squashing them - China could have used the vehicles til they wore out - (and helped keep the world oil demand up!); they're going to get the scrap iron, regardless!!!!

Marsh said- "John's last sentence about will power goes equally for nuclear power. It is not cost prohibitive when done properly, only when re-starting a dormant program as we have here. China is building 45 reactors, and twenty or so other countries are building nuclear plants also. I believe John spends time in France, where they derive >80% of their power from nuclear, have the cleanest air in Europe, and if they are not laughing at us, they should be. One hundred fifty two-unit plants could eliminate coal-burning completely. Staggered over twenty-five years it's completely possible, as is restarting fuel reprocessing which will close the loop on the nuclear fuel cycle, and qualify nuclear power as largely renewable. Onl then will your EVs become CO2 free and not "plugged into a lump of coal." Grid-scale storage for intermittent wind and solar is not going to be economically viable in our lifetimes, if ever. Storing a single ten-hour night's worth of power from a single two-unit nuclear plant (e.g. Diablo Canyon - two 1100 MW reactors) would require 22,000 Megwatt-hrs of storage, i.e. 22 million kilowatt-hrs. Even at $100/kW-hr, that's 2.2 trillion dollars. How absurd. No amount of Rube Goldberg "smart grid" shell-gaming will get around this. We need nuclear power to make things like pure EVs - largely recharging at night - viable over the long haul. As has become all too common, the rest of the world is passing us by, and we will deserve our fate. Step up to the plate Energy Secretary Chu." Aug 30 11:24 AM

Aug 30 04:39 PM

[John Lounsbury:]

John Petersen - - -

Thanks for your comment in reply. I was hoping you wouldn't tell me to go read the whole report. I'll bookmark it for later. (Sigh.)

Aug 30 04:55 PM

[nakedjaybird:]

JIC - regarding HYBRIDS ......

nakedjaybird: Comments (609) Follow

Fred Linn (and John) - as some of us know, in the near future (I'll tell you more after I've finished acquiring my positions - selfish greedy little me!), the ONLY ONBOARD STORED ENERGY in hybrid vehicles will be a small GRASS TANK refillable at every yet existing refueling pump dedicated to renewable non-food-chain-threate... BIOFUELS which will be burned in a NO-MOVING-PARTS BURNER (non-ICE) while capturing 70-80% of the energy in solid-state direct conversion THERMIONIC DEVICES for the electric drive HYBRID. Possibly, just possibly, they may be an onboard quick charge/discharge device, but small at best, and more than likely NOT an electrochemical device (why bother with all that messy manufacturing stuff to then contend with its charge/discharge inefficiencies). This market will grow in concert with the an exaggerated biofuels market (assuming aircraft demand does not cause an initial delay in the available biofuel supply).

Then, look out! As you well know, the first 10% reduction in crude consumption has already arrived (for the second time - the first being 1973!). So the world is awash in crude all the way to zero - while the folks continue to play their pricing games.

But the replacement market for the new hybrid vehicles need only grow at a few percent a year to make huge new markets for much stuff, while the crude traders die with buggywhips in their hands.

Aug 30 03:14 PM |Report abuse| Link | Reply 00

Aug 30 04:57 PM

[nakedjaybird:]

Der Chu - are you listening??

Aug 30 05:07 PM

[Thomas Brennan:]

Psychologists will tell you that humans have three components of mind; intellect, emotion, and behavior. Think of it as the old Rock, Paper, Scissors game. Intellect can change behavior but not emotion. Emotion (attitudes) can be changed by behavior. So, if people are forced to change their behavior they will have to find a value system to help them explain to themselves why they are behaving in this new way. Again, we need a leader (not a negotiator) to force us down a new path because we will not take it on our own. And the reason we will not take a new path is because we perceive the old path as rewarding. Make the old path a punishment and behavior (and then emotions) will change.

Aug 30 05:07 PM

[nakedjaybird:]

Let's make that Dr. Chu.

Aug 30 05:09 PM

[nakedjaybird:]

Thomas Brennen - actually, the old, comfortable path is very rewarding; the questions are: for whom, and how long???

Change for the sake of change is not necessarily beneficial; but, change to fix what is broken --- now, that's beneficial.

Knowing what's really broken is the key!!!!!

The rest is floundering, which looks very familiar.

Aug 30 05:17 PM

[energyinvestor:]

Hi John,

As always, your comments are both knowledgable and easy to comprehend. A breath of fresh air.

September is the month when ZENN is due to receive their first certified components from the pilot production line for the EEStor EESU - tested at voltage.

I also note activity on the Lockheed Martin web site which appear to indicate that they are advancing their plans for the use of EESUs for warfighters and grid storage.

December is when we are told a pre-production EESU is due for delivery. The final stage of the production line (picking and placing components for EESUs) is due to be built in Q1 2010.

These projections have come from Dick and Tom Weir of EEStor and they are supported by Ian Clifford of Zenn Motor Co.

The emergence of the EESU (assuming it occurs when and to the performance promised) will not only affect the economy and performance of BEVs, but also affect energy storage economics across the board.

Dick Weir has stated that he is looking to produce a version for grid storage and balancing which could allow renewable energy to be more viable.

So, if we assume all goes to plan for EEStor/Zenn, they will have more viable uses for BEVs (plugged into the proverbial lump of coal) but also energy storage which could help each household become more independent using solar and wind.

I wish....

Aug 30 05:35 PM

[Advill:]

John;

It always surprise me that you write your articles in " Americana" way, i know that U.S consumes over 25% of total energy of the world but there is another 75% worldwide, where a universe of alternatives are around.

You mentioned your Swiss energy mix, there is the French one base in nuclear electricity, and there is the German/Spaniard one based more and more in wind and solar (both kinds).

Not to mention Israel who I believe deserves an article from you in relation to the national model of electric car already supported by Renault and where other countries (even Hawaii) are now planning .

But back to your point, I don´t agree because:

1. It is easier to control a few hundred big CO2 emmisions plants that millions of cars.

2. CO2 is becoming A VALUABLE RESOURCE see sonorabiofields.com or Craig Venter Institute who will use CO2 as raw material to produce biofuels....Exxon just signed a kind.

3. Greenery without sticks and carrots will not work, a policy similar to tobacco laws has to be applied in CO2 and MPG, people will not react unless they feel it in the skin via taxes (something under control) or by wild fuel prices and its consequences (which are out of control.)

The point of view you mentioned in your last articles is based in a comment of a forum participant with an "americana" way of thinking...there is much more in the world than that.

Regards

Aug 30 06:26 PM

[rcevett:]

One of the problems in evaluating these technologies is that we're comparing hypothetical, yet to be produced, let alone sold, vehicles with the ICE vehicles people depend on every day. It's very hard to get an apples to apples comparison when so many of the *EV are fringe vehicles to most Americans. I can get 7 large bags of leaves per trip to the dump in my 30 mpg Hyundai. A Telsa might get 2, tops.

The only real life comparison I've seen was done earlier this year by Consumer Reports. They took a standard Prius and compared it directly to an after market plug-in hybrid conversion of same. We can ignore the conversion cost, because anything after market is bound to be very expensive compared to building it that way at the factory. Here's a link to an overview of their tests:

mysite.verizon.net/rce...

Since they have real numbers for how many miles, how many kW-hr, and how many gallons of gasoline were used in real world testing, one can directly calculate the CO2 per mile for each vehicle. When I did so, I found the PHEV conversion actually INCREASED the CO2 per mile:

mysite.verizon.net/rce...

This is high school chemistry and physics, so just about anybody ought to be able to check my work. I used the current mix of electricity generation CO2 for the calculations. Please don't bother me with talk about how all it takes is a revolution in how we generate electricity during the time when one owns his newly bought PHEV. Buying the cart first, and then trying to revolutionize the horse, is clearly an unsmart strategy.

If this is a sneak preview of what we're going to expect when the Volt hits the road, it's going to be a flop. Unless denial of the facts trumps all evidence.

Aug 30 09:00 PM

[Gandalph:]

To accelerate a vehicle of mass M, from 0 to velociy V, requires an energy input of 1/2 M V^2, however you do it. You can burn the fuel on board the vehicle or in a 40% efficient power plant many miles away, pump it through a lossy grid, and charge batteries that get really hot (Some EVs require fluid cooling of the batteries !). It's just thermodyanics, entropy and conservation of energy. Nuclear is not magic; It's also about 40 - 50% efficient and rest is heat dumped into the environment. e.g. read Eric Chaisson, Long-Term Global Heating From Energy Usage, EOS, Transactions of the American Geophysical Union, 8 July, 2008. There are people out there that actually understand this issue, if the contributors to these exchanges would just inform themselves.

Aug 30 09:14 PM

[andrewjmcd:]

Many don't seem to understand that modifying a current technology to be roughly 3 times better that is ALREADY scaled for today's society and 95% recyclable is a much better BET than a technology that is ... not.

Carbon-Lead is already in field trials, the chemistry is much better understood. Lithium is work in progress. Throwing money at a problem often doesn't make breakthroughs happen faster.

I mentioned earlier the Liquid Fluoride Thorium Reactor (LFTR) because the technology has already over 20 years of development and is approximately $1 billion and a few years away from commercialization. The LFTR runs at atmospheric pressure and therefor can be much smaller and cheaper. The amount waste produced is less than 1/1000th than a typical nuclear reactor.

It like lead acid needs a new look to bring it up to speed.

Tell your congressman to support Lead-Carbon and LFTR
www.opencongress.org/b...
www.opencongress.org/b...

Aug 30 09:46 PM

[Don Harmon:]

Yes, putting lipstick on a pig is always the best solution to any problem! Lithium is NOT a work in progress! It is used in every cellphone and laptop computer on earth and it is well on it's way to being adopted by ALL the major automakers today. So you need to do your homework andrew - and how do you expect transportation to run on LFTR ? I think you are possibly delusional?

On Aug 30 09:46 PM andrewjmcd wrote:

> Many don't seem to understand that modifying a current technology
> to be roughly 3 times better that is ALREADY scaled for today's society
> and 95% recyclable is a much better BET than a technology that is
> ... not.
>
> Carbon-Lead is already in field trials, the chemistry is much better
> understood. Lithium is work in progress. Throwing money at a problem
> often doesn't make breakthroughs happen faster.
>
> I mentioned earlier the Liquid Fluoride Thorium Reactor (seekingalpha.com/symbo...)
> because the technology has already over 20 years of development and
> is approximately $1 billion and a few years away from commercialization.
> The LFTR runs at atmospheric pressure and therefor can be much smaller
> and cheaper. The amount waste produced is less than 1/1000th than
> a typical nuclear reactor.
>
> It like lead acid needs a new look to bring it up to speed.
>
> Tell your congressman to support Lead-Carbon and LFTR
> www.opencongress.org/b...
> www.opencongress.org/b...

Aug 30 09:57 PM

[Don Harmon:]

Just to clarify my position - I am a big fan of LFTR but NOT of Lead-Carbon! SO tell your congressman to support LFTR and Lithium!

Cheers!

Aug 30 10:42 PM

[Jack Lifton:]

Gentlemen,

Keep in mind that all natural thorium is Th-232 and it is fertile. Moderated neutrons from fisisoning U 235 or Pu 239 will breed Th 233 which decays to U-233, which is fissionable. It is not true that there is 3 or 4 times as much minable thorium as uranium but even though there is actually much less minable thorium than uranium ALL of the natural thorium can be used to enhance a uranium reactor whereas only 0.7% of natural uranium is U-235. Thus ound for pound thorium is much more useful as a reactor fuel component than uranium. In this sense we can say that there is more throium available than uranium.

Google my name anfd thorium ("jack Lifton" and thorium) and you will see a number of articles and links about this technology. I am in a few hours on my way to Beijing to speak about the sourcing of thorium. I am also a member of an industry trade group promoting thorium as a nuclear fuel component in Washington. Three bills are now pending as part of the 2010 defense Appropriations Act to mandate that the NRC and the Navy study thorium reactor and fuel technology with a view to licensing it.

The Age of Thorium has begun.

Atomic energy of Canada has already successfully tested a retrofitted CANDU with thorium enhanced uranium fuel. An anouncement about an American group formed to bring thorium reactor technology forward will be out in October, and the group's composition will surprise you as it gives you confidence in how seriously this issue is being taken.

Just wait a little longer, please.

Aug 30 11:27 PM

[Road Runner:]

John, I believe you incorrectly used the information in the “Global carbon abatement cost curve” chart, and consequently came to incorrect conclusions.

The McKinsey report you referenced, “Profiting from the low-carbon economy”, at www.mckinsey.com/clien... does not fully explain this graph so I had to find a better explanation. I found a better, though not complete, explanation at www.iiasa.ac.at/rains/... called “Pathways to a Low Carbon Economy”.

The flaw in your reasoning is that you did not notice that technology in the “Global carbon abatement cost curve” is “frozen” at 2005. Note the phrase “frozen technology
scenario (2005-2030)” on graph “Basic cost curve logic”. In other words, there is no accounting for major technological advances nor big drops in price. That, in my opinion, is why solar and plug-in vehicles have a positive abatement cost. Because solar and batteries are both experiencing huge technological and manufacturing innovations, I believe that when this graph is rewritten in the future, it will show a much lower cost for solar and plug-in vehicles, and it will eventually show a negative cost.

Another thing is the “Global carbon abatement cost curve” was calculated at $60 a barrel oil. In the “Pathways to a Low Carbon Economy” report, there is an updated Global carbon abatement cost curve” at $120 a barrel oil called “Effect of high energy prices”. It shows that the cost is almost $0 for plug-in vehicles, solar, nuclear, etc.. I believe that $120 is a good estimate for oil prices starting in 2011. Through, this could be a low price for oil if the dollar heads lower. Watch how much China lets their currency rise against the dollar.

One more thing. Your idea that a plug-in vehicle is just plugging into “a limp of coal” is only 50% accurate. Today, only 50% of electricity is generated from coal. But, in the “Pathways to a Low Carbon Economy” report, it states that “In 2030, 70% of electricity would be generated from low-carbon sources”. See “Key findings global GHG abatement cost curve v2.0” page.

I think McKensey put out this chart as more of a sales tool than a teaching tool. It is geared toward bankers telling them that there are big opportunities to make money if they get in early to the new CO2 abatement movement. McKinsey’s ultimate goal is to get banks to pay McKinsey more money to do deeper research. The information on this graph was left intentionally vague on purpose. I had to “read between the lines” to approach an understanding of what this chart means.

John, you should not have drawn hard conclusions from this graph. It’s not comprehensive enough of a chart and report for drawing such conclusions as stated in the “Pathways to a Low Carbon Economy” report, “The GHG abatement cost analysis ... cannot be used for ... Forecasting individual technologies ...”. This only makes sense since no one can accurately predict where fast moving technologies are going to take the world in 10 years or more. This chart is intended to create a baseline of understanding, and get people “in the ballpark” with their knowledge.

Aug 30 11:32 PM

[John Petersen:]

Rather than trying to respond individually to the comments that came during the night, I'd just like to clarify that I see all of these issues as a matter of diminishing returns on investment. When you start with a CAFE compliant hybrid that generates 336 grams per mile the first $6,500 outlay for a Prius reduces carbon by 40%, or 135 grams, the next $13,500 in outlays only gets another 55 grams. So it takes us back to the question of whether $20,000 in incremental spending should be used for three Prius class hybrids that will reduce total carbon by 405 grams overall or one PHEV or EV that will reduce carbon by 190 grams overall. The equation will change over time as the composition of generating sources changes but unless we are willing to assume unlimited funding. it's best policy to do the things that offer the highest immediate returns and leave the second tier improvements for later. Things like the McKinsey graph go a long way toward showing what the best baby steps are.

Advill, your right about me being a bit too U.S. centric, but those are the legal structures, securities markets and product markets I understand best. It's also the market with the biggest problems of urban sprawl. I fully expect that over time people will get to a point where they ask questions like "why did I ever think a 4,500 pound SUV was a reasonable way to move one person?" and "why did I ever think a 45 minute commute to work was reasonable?" But changes like that take time. Frankly I think there are a lot of places where PHEV and EV solutions might make sense sooner, I'm just not all that convinced that a large segment of the population is going to pay a huge premium for a small incremental gain in green.

If we go back to the McKinsey graph, nuclear, solar and wind are all in the $15 to $20 capital cost range per ton of CO2 abatement. CCS starts at about $50 and ramps up rapidly. If the numbers are good, the cheapest over the long term will be to build new power plants and simply scrap the old ones, an incredibly daunting task.

Andrew, I'm with you on lead-carbon and LFTR, and while I think lithium-ion has huge potential in the cleantech revolution, I'm less optimistic than Don about its utility in transportation.

Aug 31 12:06 AM

[John Petersen:]

Road Runner, we need to remember that Seeking Alpha is an investment site and the entire purpose is to get people in the ballpark and provide enough information to help them make good investment decisions. I agree that progress is being made on a number of fronts in terms of driving down technology costs. The rate of progress, however, is much slower than we've lived with during the IT revolution, so it's an entirely different metric.

For those of us who like propeller-head technical issues, five to seven years is just around the corner. For investors who focus on the time value of money, five to seven years is a very long time to wait for first returns. It's all a question of the shoes you're standing in, which is why I try to focus on things that will be important over the shorter term and tend to put less value on long-term promise.

Aug 31 12:20 AM

[Mayascribe:]

John: Good article for you to check out by Dian L. Chu, "The Alternative Fuel and $300 oil."

You can find it in the "Macro" section of SA.

Aug 31 11:57 AM

[John Petersen:]

Mayascribe, I saw the Chu article a couple days ago and am unsure about her relative bullishness for alternative fuels. I've had enough experience in biodiesel to have felt first hand the impact of uncorrelated commodity price risks on the feedstock and finished product ends of the plant. A lot of producers were crushed in '06 when crop prices spiked and fuel prices didn't. If the new natural gas resources people are talking about are as extensive as claimed, CNG may well be a real good choice because it's domestic in source, works well in vehicles and emits about half as much carbon as petroleum products. So for the next decade, I think we could do a lot worse than CNG powered HEVs while more exotic technologies had time to develop and prove themselves properly. In any event, I guess time will tell.

Aug 31 12:10 PM

[Old Wizard:]

John, Another good article that drives the reader to the application of applied analysis as opposed to myth and heresay. A couple of points: the graph you present shows gas from waste[ I presume this is methane] is a carbon dioxide saver, while natural gas is a contributer. This seems contradictory. The global warming hysteria and fanaticism has permeated the administration and combined with the arrogance it has displayed in other areas, appears to reject reasoned analytical arguments and favor exaggerated claims while ignoring obvious counterexamples to their position based on questionable and unverifiable evidence of man-made global warming. Be as it may, the so called energy plan upon which they have embarked has no coherence, no sense of urgency and no evaluation of unintended consequences. The investment in Petobras, the sponsering of the bill in Congress by Reid to fund some natural gas conversions and the claim that clean coal is the ultimate solution, while forcing the electric car solution and ignoring nuclear, shows that at minimum there is no focused plan. Not having goals that reduce the current account appreciably in 5 and 10 years should be considered more dangerous to the health of the American citizenery than any imminent global warming crisis and those interested in a cleaner environment should not buy the palliative of providing 15% of our electrical energy from wind and solar[ which requires a doubling of our existing capacity every three years to get there by 2022] by 2020. Analyasis of a coordinated and comprehenive plan that results in a detailed energy program with measureable 5 and 10 year milesones, measures of performance that include less negative operating cash flow, significantly less importation of oil, significant new jobs for americans and less carbon dioxide emissions is sorely needed. We, collectively, have the ability to produce such a program, and, as I have suggested to Fitz, I believe that a group of Seeking alpha contributers and commenters could do a pretty good job of putting one together that is actionable in less than 6 months.

Aug 31 01:20 PM

[Ricknplano:]

Government incentives to jump start new technologies is an established practice worldwide and, in general, works well. But governments sometimes encourage the wrong technology since by definition it is an area of evolving knowledge. I appreciate the recent broad range of battery grants issued by the DOE to hedge their bets.

When subsidizing industries at the level of customer purchase the government should be equally non-specific. Giving a $7,500 subsidy to buy a pure EV but no subsidy at all to buy a Prius does not accomplish the duel goals of maximizing reduction of gas consumption and maximum reduction of CO2 as John eloquently argues. Giving manufacturers and researchers help to develop products can be good, but then let the market decide what vehicle makes sense without market distortions at the consumer level that direct purchases that do not make economic sense without the incentives.

If the goal of the customer level incentives is instead to maximize the incentive to build better batteries, then the subsidy makes more sense but again can be better accomplished at the research level.

A clear explanation of why any subsidy exists can allow clear debate. John makes an excellent argument for use of lots of small subsidies (lots of Prius) rather than a few large subsidies (Volts) if the goal is energy and CO2 reduction. If the goal is better batteries then probably research grants make sense and no consumer level incentives should exist at all. Let the market decide if the technology is ready for mass adoption.

Aug 31 01:26 PM

[John Petersen:]

Old Wizard, the McKinsey graph shows the net benefit or cost of CO2 abatement. So when you take landfill gas and use it for free fuel it results in a net economic benefit just like insulation does. When you go to a gas fired plant and try to do carbon capture and storage, that's another story altogether.

When you get right down to it, I feel sorry for the people who have to try and put together a coherent national policy because there are so many groups with different agendas that the goal becomes unattainable. If Fitz and some others are right about natural gas resources, a CNG Hybrid is likely to emerge as a strong competitor within a couple of years. In any event I would be a strong advocate for making HEV technology a "standard option" on all new cars within a fairly short time-frame. Their per unit cost is far lower than PHEV and EV alternatives and their impact on total gasoline consumption far more substantial. Mercifully I'll not be the one making those decisions because in the words of LBJ "if nominated I will not run and if elected I will not serve." It's far more fun being a contrarian.

Ricknplano, I'd make the playing field as broad and level as possible by saying something like "There shall be a tax credit for every vehicle that offers fuel economy performance that exceeds applicable CAFE standards by more than 10%. The amount of credit shall be determined by subtracting the CAFE standard from actual fuel economy performance, dividing the remainder by the CAFE standard and multiplying the product by the amount of $x for every 5% or greater improvement. With a current standard of 27.5, a 55 mpg HEV would qualify for a credit of 20x and a 110 PHEV or EV would qualify for a credit of 60x. At the same time a 41 mpg ultra-efficient diesel would qualify for 10x. The formula part is easy and legislators do that all the time, the hard part will be setting ideology aside in favor of tangible results.

Aug 31 01:49 PM

[George Marc...:]

John:

Students at Western Washington University have already built a natural gas-powered hybrid called the Viking 32. See, www.harvestcleanenergy.... The Viking 32 NGV hybrid gets 50 miles to the gallon (gasoline equivalent), which is essentially the same mileage as a gasoline-powered Prius.

However, as you point out, natural gas combustion releases 30% less carbon dioxide into the atmosphere per BTU than gasoline. So, an NGV hybrid is not only a logical vehicle to manufacture to decrease US dependence on petroleum (as Michael Fitzsimmons has consistently and persuasively argued in SA) but an NGV hybrid (or a tetra-fuel vehicle with NGV capability) will leverage the CO2 reduction advantage of any hybrid simply because the fuel itself contains less carbon per BTU.

If the US is going to pursue a policy of CO2 reduction in the transportation sector, an investment in NGV hybrids (like the Viking 32) and the infrastructure to support them gives the biggest bang for the buck. Reduction in petroleum reliance is obviously an enormous, related benefit (and perhaps the primary benefit).

Aug 31 06:01 PM

[Road Runner:]

John, you said, "For those of us who like propeller-head technical issues, five to seven years is just around the corner. For investors who focus on the time value of money, five to seven years is a very long time to wait for first returns." But, then you turn around and write an article called "How PHEVs and EVs Will Sabotage America's Drive For Energy Independence". Becoming energy independent is a multi-decade long-term goal.

You are being hypocritical. You are trying to scare people away from plug-in vehicles by saying that they will sabotage the long term goal of energy independence, but when someone, like me, challenges your reasoning on this, you blow off my argument because it supposedly is too long term to be investment oriented.

Second, my argument was not technically oriented, nor was it too long term. It was a direct challenge to the way you interpreted a McKinsey chart. You used that chart to argue that plug-in vehicles are bad for US energy independence. I argued that you misinterpreted that chart because you did not do your due diligence in understanding that chart.

John, your religious fervor for promoting the stock of Axion has led you to spread incorrect ideas about Lithium ion batteries and plug-in vehicles. You are cherry picking your information sources, misinterpreting data, and blowing off your critics through hypocritical arguments.

Luckily, car companies are ignoring your false warnings and charging ahead with plug-in vehicles using Lithium ion batteries. In the short term, plug-in vehicles don’t save money nor reduce carbon, but they are the basic technology, when perfected, that will do both.

And, about your comment, “For investors who focus on the time value of money, five to seven years is a very long time to wait for first returns.”. Tell that to Warren Buffett.


On Aug 31 12:20 AM John Petersen wrote:
> Road Runner, we need to remember that Seeking Alpha is an investment
> site and the entire purpose is to get people in the ballpark and
> provide enough information to help them make good investment decisions.
> I agree that progress is being made on a number of fronts in terms
> of driving down technology costs. The rate of progress, however,
> is much slower than we've lived with during the IT revolution, so
> it's an entirely different metric.
>
> For those of us who like propeller-head technical issues, five to
> seven years is just around the corner. For investors who focus on
> the time value of money, five to seven years is a very long time
> to wait for first returns. It's all a question of the shoes you're
> standing in, which is why I try to focus on things that will be important
> over the shorter term and tend to put less value on long-term promise.

Aug 31 11:44 PM

[Road Runner:]

John, you said, "For those of us who like propeller-head technical issues, five to seven years is just around the corner. For investors who focus on the time value of money, five to seven years is a very long time to wait for first returns." But, then you turn around and write an article called "How PHEVs and EVs Will Sabotage America's Drive For Energy Independence". Becoming energy independent is a multi-decade long-term goal.

You are being hypocritical. You are trying to scare people away from plug-in vehicles by saying that they will sabotage the long term goal of energy independence, but when someone, like me, challenges your reasoning on this, you blow off my argument because it supposedly is too long term to be investment oriented.

Second, my argument was not technically oriented, nor was it too long term. It was a direct challenge to the way you interpreted a McKinsey chart. You used that chart to argue that plug-in vehicles are bad for US energy independence. I argued that you misinterpreted that chart because you did not do your due diligence in understanding that chart.

John, your religious fervor for promoting the stock of Axion has led you to spread incorrect ideas about Lithium ion batteries and plug-in vehicles. You are cherry picking your information sources, misinterpreting data, and blowing off your critics through hypocritical arguments.

Luckily, car companies are ignoring your false warnings and charging ahead with plug-in vehicles using Lithium ion batteries. In the short term, plug-in vehicles don’t save money nor reduce carbon, but they are the basic technology, when perfected, that will do both.

And, about your comment, “For investors who focus on the time value of money, five to seven years is a very long time to wait for first returns.”. Tell that to Warren Buffett.


On Aug 31 12:20 AM John Petersen wrote:
> Road Runner, we need to remember that Seeking Alpha is an investment
> site and the entire purpose is to get people in the ballpark and
> provide enough information to help them make good investment decisions.
> I agree that progress is being made on a number of fronts in terms
> of driving down technology costs. The rate of progress, however,
> is much slower than we've lived with during the IT revolution, so
> it's an entirely different metric.
>
> For those of us who like propeller-head technical issues, five to
> seven years is just around the corner. For investors who focus on
> the time value of money, five to seven years is a very long time
> to wait for first returns. It's all a question of the shoes you're
> standing in, which is why I try to focus on things that will be important
> over the shorter term and tend to put less value on long-term promise.

Aug 31 11:44 PM

[John Petersen:]

George, it bothers me when beliefs that border on religious form the basis for policy decisions. It's one thing for government to tell me what the problem is and another entirely to dictate the "most desirable" solution. From what I've read, it looks like we can get a lot of value from domestic natural gas supplies in terms of both oil dependence and CO2 emissions. If you add HEV technology into the mix the case is very strong. It keeps all the money at home, satisfies the immediate needs and gives other technologies time to follow a rational development, testing and commercialization path. I like baby steps that work.

RoadRunner, I write about facts as they are in 2009 and you want to talk about conditions as they might be in 2030. Current facts are fairly easy to ascertain and future conditions are not. As of today. speaking solely in terms of CO2 abatement, HEVs enjoy a price advantage of roughly $60 per ton over PHEVs and EVs. While PHEVs may get to a point where they are sitting on the zero line, that will not change the comparison with HEVs which will simply offer a larger advantage arising from a higher oil price. As PHEVs and EVs become cheaper, energy efficient solutions like HEVs become more profitable. The relationships are locked in place.

For the last couple weeks I've been pretty technology agnostic. For purposes of this particular analysis the type of battery doesn't matter and the primary issue is "if we have a given quantity of batteries, what type of electric drive gives us the best bang for the buck in terms of (a) cost savings to owners, (b) contribution to fuel efficiency, and (c) CO2 abatement." The answers are the same if the batteries are NiMH, lithium-ion or my favored lead-carbon. PHEVs and EVs sound good in the telling but are an immense waste of resources.

I look at the energy storage sector from the perspective of an investor who is trying to pick stocks that will outperform both the market and others in their sector. It takes very little experience with market dynamics to know that stocks swing from being "in favor" to being "out of favor" fairly rapidly. When that happens the out of favor stocks rise while the in favor stocks fall. Currently companies like Ener1 and Valence are maintaining market values that are several years ahead of their business fundamentals while the lead-acid sector has fallen to very low levels. As a result, Ener1 which has annualized sales of $30 million trades at roughly 1.5x the market value of Exide which has annualized sales of $2 billion. As the market comes to the realization that both companies have a bright future, Ener1 is likely to fall and Exide is likely to rise. That's simple value investing as practiced by Warren Buffett.

While we're on the topic of Buffett, he bought his interest in BYD at a price of roughly 1.3 times sales and paid $1.12 per share. Since BYD has been profitable for years, it was probably a smart buy. Today BYD is trading at close to $6 because many investors think "following Buffet" is a good strategy. What they ignore is that paying 5x Buffet's price is a very high risk strategy. For their investment to double, Buffet's has to increase by 1000%. Given the events that have transpired over the last year, I wouldn't encourage anybody to buy BYD because it's already had a monster run-up in price and is likely to either remain flat if the business continues smoothly or fall off if it gets rocky. Warren will come out a winner in any event because he almost always does. The followers who pay a much higher price per share may not be as fortunate.

Sep 01 01:20 AM

[RP 95839:]

John:
Thank you for your insights- I appreciate the time you have put into this. I was wondering abouth the various life expectencies of the next gen batteries and what happens to them on their disposal?

Sep 01 10:34 AM

[John Petersen:]

RP 95389, when it comes to NiMH there haven't been many batteries that reached the end of their life expectancies. In fact, their cycle life in the Prius has apparently been better than expected. The smaller batteries for cell phones and laptops are not a highly recycled item yet.

There is a company named Toxco that has developed a cryogenic recycling process for lithium-ion batteries, but the size of their current operation is unclear. Toxco did snag a $9.5 million grant for building a recycling facility, but it bothers me a bit that the battery recycling category was the only block of ARRA grants that didn't get gobbled up in the first round.

Sep 01 11:09 AM

[marketquant:]

> "triple-crown"

John,

I'll perhaps take the "triple black ball" for disagreeing again -- I basically agree with renim about the CO2 thing. But I don't get worked up about CO2.

You are heading for for the "triple burning at the stake" by taking on these religious things -- CO2, EVs, renewables (?) -- I kinda forget what.

In general, when you use a single number -- average X or snapshot of Y% -- you open yourself up to two problems: (1) the average omits situations where the average doesn't apply (e.g. places of much higher gas prices or viable niche markets of non-average needs) and (2) that trends of the components of X or Y are very different that the current snapshot implication (e.g. the marginal change in the generation mix of coal/natgas/renewables due to policies).

Of course, if market analysis of were easy or obvious we'd all be above average investors. :-)

Sep 01 11:30 AM

[Road Runner:]

John, Please address the issues I brought up instead of diverting the conversation.

On Sep 01 01:20 AM John Petersen wrote:
> RoadRunner, I write about facts as they are in 2009 and you want
> to talk about conditions as they might be in 2030. Current facts
> are fairly easy to ascertain and future conditions are not. As of
> today. speaking solely in terms of CO2 abatement, HEVs enjoy a price
> advantage of roughly $60 per ton over PHEVs and EVs. While PHEVs
> may get to a point where they are sitting on the zero line, that
> will not change the comparison with HEVs which will simply offer
> a larger advantage arising from a higher oil price. As PHEVs and
> EVs become cheaper, energy efficient solutions like HEVs become more
> profitable. The relationships are locked in place.
>
> For the last couple weeks I've been pretty technology agnostic. For
> purposes of this particular analysis the type of battery doesn't
> matter and the primary issue is "if we have a given quantity of batteries,
> what type of electric drive gives us the best bang for the buck in
> terms of (a) cost savings to owners, (b) contribution to fuel efficiency,
> and (c) CO2 abatement." The answers are the same if the batteries
> are NiMH, lithium-ion or my favored lead-carbon. PHEVs and EVs sound
> good in the telling but are an immense waste of resources.
>
> I look at the energy storage sector from the perspective of an investor
> who is trying to pick stocks that will outperform both the market
> and others in their sector. It takes very little experience with
> market dynamics to know that stocks swing from being "in favor" to
> being "out of favor" fairly rapidly. When that happens the out of
> favor stocks rise while the in favor stocks fall. Currently companies
> like Ener1 and Valence are maintaining market values that are several
> years ahead of their business fundamentals while the lead-acid sector
> has fallen to very low levels. As a result, Ener1 which has annualized
> sales of $30 million trades at roughly 1.5x the market value of Exide
> which has annualized sales of $2 billion. As the market comes to
> the realization that both companies have a bright future, Ener1 is
> likely to fall and Exide is likely to rise. That's simple value investing
> as practiced by Warren Buffett.
>
> While we're on the topic of Buffett, he bought his interest in BYD
> at a price of roughly 1.3 times sales and paid $1.12 per share. Since
> BYD has been profitable for years, it was probably a smart buy. Today
> BYD is trading at close to $6 because many investors think "following
> Buffet" is a good strategy. What they ignore is that paying 5x Buffet's
> price is a very high risk strategy. For their investment to double,
> Buffet's has to increase by 1000%. Given the events that have transpired
> over the last year, I wouldn't encourage anybody to buy BYD because
> it's already had a monster run-up in price and is likely to either
> remain flat if the business continues smoothly or fall off if it
> gets rocky. Warren will come out a winner in any event because he
> almost always does. The followers who pay a much higher price per
> share may not be as fortunate.

Sep 01 11:43 AM

[John Petersen:]

marketquant, I depend on you and others to disagree because I can only write from the position of the shoes I stand in and the comments bring balance to a topic that inspires a fervor that is not far from religious in the minds of many.

I personally view averages as a safe harbor, particularly when stepping away from them simplifies criticism. I also agree that the equation is very different in different places, Since I'm currently paying $6 for gasoline, live in a country with no fossil fuel electricity and don't drive more than about 20 miles without looking for the train schedule, I'm actually thinking that by 2015 or so they'll have enough of the bugs worked that I'd be tempted to buy an EV (but never a PHEV) for local errands on pleasant days.

Since my primary focus is current economics and minimizing waste, I'll be more than happy to change my opinions to meet new facts when they develop.

Sep 01 11:43 AM

[John Petersen:]

RoadRunner, the McKinsey chart I provided came from "Version 2 of the Global Greenhouse Gas Abatement Cost Curve 2009." There is huge difference between doing adequate "due diligence" and searching for anything that can prove the conclusions suspect. I did the former and you did the later. I disagree with you.

I have no intention of debating wildly optimistic assumptions that you or anybody else wants to make about the future. Dealing with the present is hard enough.

Sep 01 12:00 PM

[marketquant:]

> new facts when they develop

That's a good attitude. You probably will not have to wait long at all.

Sep 01 02:19 PM

[John Petersen:]

marketquant, I really hope you're right. The forecast demand for products of all sorts is frightening when you consider the factory and resource constraints and while many believe that there will be or should be a dominant technology, I really believe they'll all have more business than they can say grace over. So the real issue is going to be getting new products out of the test racks and shipping to paying customers.

Sep 01 03:09 PM

[Don Harmon:]

Late but noteworthy! This today on EV World's subcriber newsletter:

Getting a Handle on Lithium
When Nissan announced last week that the 24kWh lithium battery pack in the LEAF utilizes 4 kg of lithium they settled a long standing debate about how much lithium an electric car needs and how much lithium there is in the world, a debate initiated by William Tahil when he estimated that each electric car battery would require 1.4kg of lithium per kilowatt hour of energy. Arguing for lithium abundance, Keith Evans calculated only about 430-450 grams were needed per kilowatt hour.

Now we know it's even less than that. A quick bit of math reveals that the LEAF requires only 160 grams/kWh. That's 11.4% of Tahil's estimate and about one-third Evan's projection. Put another way, one metric tonne of lithium is sufficient to build 6,250 LEAF-sized battery backs. Since the industry currently produces some 16,000 tonnes of lithium annually, if all it were used to build electric car batteries, that's enough to turn out more than 2.5 million cars annually.

Banning Lithium
The interesting thing about the Air Line Pilot Association's most recent call to ban the air shipment of lithium batteries -- both primary and secondary -- is that there isn't any concrete evidence the batteries are responsible for a number of suspicious thermal incidences, three in the last two months.

When ALPA renewed their call to ban the shipment of lithium cells until proper handling procedures can be established, they cited an inflight incidence in 2006 in which a UPS DC-8 cargo jet made an emergency landing in Philadelphia when something in one of its cargo containers caught fire, filling the cargo area and cockpit with smoke. The three-man crew donned oxygen masks and made a safe emergency landing. It took fire crews four hours to extinguish the flames, but not before the rear half of the fuselage was virtually destroyed. A photo of the jet is available here.

In conducting their follow-up investigation, the U.S. National Transportation Safety Board (NTSB) reported that it could not determine the source of ignition. What lithium batteries they did pull from the wreckage were intact, leading investigators to officially conclude "this accident was an in-flight cargo fire that initiated from an unknown source..."

However, there have been enough near misses, to warrant considering the batteries as prime suspects. What ALPA is calling for isn't a ban on consumer portable electronics like cellphones, laptops and iPods, most of which are now powered by lithium ion batteries, but a temporary ban "until the proper safety regulations are in place and can be enforced."

At present, the U.S. TSA prohibits the lithium batteries from checked luggage and places a limit on the number and size of batteries that can be carried on board the aircraft. Here are TSA's guidelines for Safe Travel with Batteries and Devices. Additionally, the shipment of lithium batteries in the cargo hold of passenger jets is prohibited, though there is a caveat. The shipper and his agent has to indicate the shipment is a hazardous material, and as the NTSB discovered in investigating the 2006 fire in Philadelphia, a least two items onboard the DC-8 should have been labeled hazardous and weren't, hence ALPA's insistence on enforcement.

If there is a silver lining here, it's that all this attention on lithium battery safety is leading to the development of much safer chemistries and battery management techniques.

Fire-proofing Lithium
One of the more recent such breakthrough is a new molecule whipped up by a pair of Argonne National Lab researchers, Khalil Amine and Zonghai Chen. One of the prime causes for thermal runaway in lithium batteries occurs when the battery -- or a cell -- is overcharged. At present, electronic microcircuits are used to monitor and manage the charge/discharge condition of the cells, modules and/or pack. That adds, Argonne estimates 20% to the cost of the battery and is, itself, subject to failure. What Amine and Zonghai have come up with is a molecule based on boron and fluorine that chemically manages the rate of charge in the cell by attracting excess electrons if voltage starts to exceed the cell's safe level. The molecule is difficult to fabricate and presently costs $1,000/kg. However, EnerDel has licensed the technology and is using a U.S. Department of Energy grant to scale up the fabrication process, in hopes of bringing the cost down to as little as $100/kg.

Recycling Lithium
One final comment on lithium reserves and availability. While it's popular to refer to it as the next petroleum -- "Bolivia is the Next Saudi Arabia" -- there are obvious differences. While lithium carbonate from the vast Salars of of the Andes are a relatively cheap and abundant source of lithium, there are plenty of other places it can be found, though at a higher cost. One of those sources happens to be in the batteries themselves.

Recently the Obama Administration awarded Toxco, Inc. a $9.5 million dollar grant to build an advanced battery recycling facility at its existing plant in Lancaster, Ohio, which already recycles large format lead acid, nickel metal hydride and nickel cadmium batteries. The company's Canadian facility already recycles lithium batteries.

Additionally, it is being reported that two Japanese firms are also setting up operations to recycle lithium batteries to reclaim their lithium. What remains to be seen, however, is how the economics of recycle compare to the using virgin lithium from Chile and China. As we've learned, whether its recycling spent nuclear fuel rods or recycle copier paper, recycled content can often cost more than using virgin materials -- at least for the time being. Still, that the processes are being put into place to deal with hybrid and electric car batteries is an important step towards the "Future in Motion."

Oh yes, and try recycling that gallon of gasoline you just put in your fuel tank.

Sep 01 03:48 PM

[Jack Lifton:]

Don,

If the leaf requires 160 grams of "lithium" per kWh that means it requires approx 1 kg of lithium carbonate per kWh; I have always understood that to be Keith Evans' estimate.

There were 27,400 metric tons of lithium, measured as the metal, produced last year; this is 155,000 mt of "lithium carbonate."

25% of the above figure was used for storage batteries for portable electronics and tools. A negligible amount was used for motor vehilce battery packs.

There may have been a 20% surplus of lithium produced last year.

There is NO economical recycling process in operation today. All are disposal rather than recycling processes; i.e., someone (such as the American taxpayer is paying) is subsidizing an inherently uneconomical process. TOXCO was freezing lithium-ion batteries in liquid nitrogen to enable the "safe" disassembly of them. One wonders, if the batteries are so safe, why then go to such an extreme?

There is no shortage even today of the supply of lithium, and it is so cheap that there can be today no economical recycling of lithium from the most currently used types. Neither the price of the lithiumitself or the cost of recycling it is now or have has been a factor in the cost of producing large scale packs for vehicle use. The costs arise from the manufacturing engineering cots for such short lived devices. There will be no changeover to lithium-ion battery packs until the hype and reality mesh and until after real time testing proves that such a battery system is economcial.

Do any of you remember the hype about Iraq'a "crack" Republican Guard? They were last seen running from their abandoned Russian tanks as US Army forces blasted them to pieces from beyond the range of Iraqi return fire capability. A Toyota Prius can drive 500 miles in 6 hours; the same trip would take a week in a Prius. Is there really a mass market for an expensive VOLT?

Sep 02 07:54 AM

[renim:]

some reflections on the battery swap/lease model (aka better place)

range say 120mile to 100mile (ie minimum 160km)
assumptions,
assume a cycle is equivalent to 100km
battery life is 3000 cycles typical (note I chose typical, not minimum)
$12,000 battery cost
$4 per cycle battery depreciation.
$1 per cycle leasing / profit (arbitrary assumption)
(Other significant effects ignored)
$1 per cycle swap infrastructure lease (arbitrary but equates to 1-2 swap stations per 3000 vehicles)
$0.5 per cycle home recharge station cost
$0.5 per cycle work/shop recharge station cost
$2 per cycle electricity cost (about 20x10c)

total $9 per cycle, or approx 100km , readily reducible to $6 per 100 km (see effects below). $6 per 100km is pretty cheap in most countries around the world, and even public transport in any developed country can't compare with it (at least in a non subsidized form).
A 40 second swap time should not be compared with refilling a car, its comparable to the wait at a set of typical traffic lights.


further effects
1. residual value of battery, ie suitable for use in less demanding region, so region A may require 120mile minimum battery, region B may use 100mile to 120mile battery, region C may use 80mile battery, if depreciation is say 50% region A, 35% region B and 15% region C, then this is at the most only $2 per cycle. Additionally there is likely to be significant residual value on a standardized battery (which won't exist for a custom battery)
2. also if typical cycle life increase due to chemistry/manufacturing refinements, then this part may halve again for say a 6000 cycle life battery.
3 a $1 per cycle lease cost over 3x3000 cycles gives a gross 75% margin.
4 if these cycles are really equivalent to 160k then I've over priced this by 60%, conversely if these cycles are really equivalent to 50% then double the price, perhaps one more knowledgeable about Lithium Ion batteries could make a comment here,

Finally Better Place is about miles/km not cars, so in say Japan 2% of the cars are taxis, these produce 20% of the miles. with 2% of the car sales going to better place, they could make revenue as if it were 20% of the cars.... this could be immensely profitable way before it appears to have significant market penetration.

Sep 02 08:37 AM

[John Petersen:]

Shai Aggasi is a very smart guy and it will be interesting to see how the Better Place model works in places like Denmark, Israel and Japan where gasoline prices are 2x to 3x U.S. prices and driving distances are typically short. I'm generally skeptical about cycle-life assumptions because nobody has these new wonder batteries in vehicles yet and without real world testing by people who are nowhere near as predictable as computer test racks the best anybody can do is estimate. I also think that anybody who believes they can use a battery for five to ten years and then sell it for a significant value has never sold a used five to ten year old anything. Frankly, if a new battery is going to cost half as much in the future and deliver twice the performance, why would a purchaser in that golden future want a used battery?

Sep 02 11:13 AM

[Jack Lifton:]

Bull's Eye, John

How do the econometric models look when the residual value of the battery is ZERO? In fact, at that point, IT'S A COST! How did the value of propeller driven commerical passenger aircraft fare in the 1950s as Jets (that didn't crash) were introduced? Would a car or battery company perhaps HESITATE to introduce a new technology until its current one was fully depreciated? Could any such company afford not to COVER UP or DISCOURAGE new technology? WQon't this type of speculation be used to promote every single idea to vary battery technology for vehicles from now until the end of capital markets?

It is amazing how people simplify their models until they work and bear little or no relation to reality at all.


On Sep 02 11:13 AM John Petersen wrote:

> Shai Aggasi is a very smart guy and it will be interesting to see
> how the Better Place model works in places like Denmark, Israel and
> Japan where gasoline prices are 2x to 3x U.S. prices and driving
> distances are typically short. I'm generally skeptical about cycle-life
> assumptions because nobody has these new wonder batteries in vehicles
> yet and without real world testing by people who are nowhere near
> as predictable as computer test racks the best anybody can do is
> estimate. I also think that anybody who believes they can use a battery
> for five to ten years and then sell it for a significant value has
> never sold a used five to ten year old anything. Frankly, if a new
> battery is going to cost half as much in the future and deliver twice
> the performance, why would a purchaser in that golden future want
> a used battery?

Sep 02 11:43 AM

[John Petersen:]

Jack, my somewhat cynical view of potential resale value hails from seeing what happened to computer mainframe leasing companies that expected substantial resale value on their multi-million dollar installations, and to a lesser degree on the value I get when I change out my high end Macintosh computer system every couple of years.

Sep 02 02:06 PM

[Advill:]

110% agree, for unknown reasons only one of the multiple options of nuclear energy was developed...killing the image of the industry in the process.

Thorium, uranium oxide and others are ways of producing cheap and abundant electric energy (the only enrgy taht will be available en the long future), today deep burning technologies , electronics, small nuclear "batteries", nuclear plants produced in production lines to save costs are facts that could liberate us from a big part of our oil dependance creating in the process a healthier, grenner and safe world.

Regards


On Aug 30 12:43 PM andrewjmcd wrote:

> Oak Ridge developed the Molten Salt Reactor using the Thorium fuel
> cycle until the mid-seventies. It was shut down because its breeding
> capability was considered as not as promising as a competing program.
> Also the political/military climate at that time wanted technology
> that could produce material for bombs.
>
> A Thorium Reactor could produce 1GWyear using 1 ton of thorium.
> In Lehmi Pass Id, there is approximately 600000 tons of thorium.
> Not to mention the 10's of thousand of tons that are stockpiled by
> the US govt.
>
> In about 5 years a commercial grade Thorium Reactor could be developed.
> It could be mass produced and made in modular fashion producing safe,
> clean, green energy.
>
> The most exciting Thorium Reactor is the Liquid Flouride Thorium
> Reactor and currently there are two bills in House pertaining to
> the LFTR technology.
> www.opencongress.org/b...
> www.opencongress.org/b...
>
> ORNL's research documentation can be accessed here
> www.energyfromthorium....
> www.energyfromthorium....
>
> A very good overview site about the LFTR can be found here:
> rethinkingnuclearpower...
>
> Regards,
>
> Andrew

Sep 03 05:38 AM

[Advill:]

Why is then the reason that having so obvious advantages over light water reactors are so little thorium reactor around?

Regards.


On Aug 30 11:27 PM Jack Lifton wrote:

> Gentlemen,
>
> Keep in mind that all natural thorium is Th-232 and it is fertile.
> Moderated neutrons from fisisoning U 235 or Pu 239 will breed Th
> 233 which decays to U-233, which is fissionable. It is not true that
> there is 3 or 4 times as much minable thorium as uranium but even
> though there is actually much less minable thorium than uranium ALL
> of the natural thorium can be used to enhance a uranium reactor whereas
> only 0.7% of natural uranium is U-235. Thus ound for pound thorium
> is much more useful as a reactor fuel component than uranium. In
> this sense we can say that there is more throium available than uranium.
>
>
> Google my name anfd thorium ("jack Lifton" and thorium) and you will
> see a number of articles and links about this technology. I am in
> a few hours on my way to Beijing to speak about the sourcing of thorium.
> I am also a member of an industry trade group promoting thorium as
> a nuclear fuel component in Washington. Three bills are now pending
> as part of the 2010 defense Appropriations Act to mandate that the
> NRC and the Navy study thorium reactor and fuel technology with a
> view to licensing it.
>
> The Age of Thorium has begun.
>
> Atomic energy of Canada has already successfully tested a retrofitted
> CANDU with thorium enhanced uranium fuel. An anouncement about an
> American group formed to bring thorium reactor technology forward
> will be out in October, and the group's composition will surprise
> you as it gives you confidence in how seriously this issue is being
> taken.
>
> Just wait a little longer, please.

Sep 03 05:42 AM

[Advill:]

John; Agree with your view, "one fit all" approach (which is very "US centric" by the way), small countries and specific geographical regions will develop specific solutions (the Swiss space is one).

In your previous articles about micro mild hybrids i talked about a list of solutions for increasing MPG, reducing CO2 emission which are cheaper more than a battery.

Abundant and dirty cheap electricity is the solution for many of our todays problems (including, Irak, and the expensive measures of Patriot Act and Homeland Security), how to produce this huge amounts of electricity is the question.

Nuclear is a solution (Mr. Lifton is clear in that)
Biofuels not related to Agri-forest feedstock is other.

If we are able to use CO2 as a valuable commodity (sounds funny i know) we will see very interesting things.

If you see movies from 80´s or 90´s were not able to show things than today are common (cellulars,internet, pda´s...or our absolute fail in Space), future of energy will take spectacular swings, many obvious today winner´s will be broken in 2015
Regards.

On Aug 31 12:06 AM John Petersen wrote:

> Rather than trying to respond individually to the comments that came
> during the night, I'd just like to clarify that I see all of these
> issues as a matter of diminishing returns on investment. When you
> start with a CAFE compliant hybrid that generates 336 grams per mile
> the first $6,500 outlay for a Prius reduces carbon by 40%, or 135
> grams, the next $13,500 in outlays only gets another 55 grams. So
> it takes us back to the question of whether $20,000 in incremental
> spending should be used for three Prius class hybrids that will reduce
> total carbon by 405 grams overall or one PHEV or EV that will reduce
> carbon by 190 grams overall. The equation will change over time as
> the composition of generating sources changes but unless we are willing
> to assume unlimited funding. it's best policy to do the things that
> offer the highest immediate returns and leave the second tier improvements
> for later. Things like the McKinsey graph go a long way toward showing
> what the best baby steps are.
>
> Advill, your right about me being a bit too U.S. centric, but those
> are the legal structures, securities markets and product markets
> I understand best. It's also the market with the biggest problems
> of urban sprawl. I fully expect that over time people will get to
> a point where they ask questions like "why did I ever think a 4,500
> pound SUV was a reasonable way to move one person?" and "why did
> I ever think a 45 minute commute to work was reasonable?" But changes
> like that take time. Frankly I think there are a lot of places where
> PHEV and EV solutions might make sense sooner, I'm just not all that
> convinced that a large segment of the population is going to pay
> a huge premium for a small incremental gain in green.
>
> If we go back to the McKinsey graph, nuclear, solar and wind are
> all in the $15 to $20 capital cost range per ton of CO2 abatement.
> CCS starts at about $50 and ramps up rapidly. If the numbers are
> good, the cheapest over the long term will be to build new power
> plants and simply scrap the old ones, an incredibly daunting task.
>
>
> Andrew, I'm with you on lead-carbon and LFTR, and while I think lithium-ion
> has huge potential in the cleantech revolution, I'm less optimistic
> than Don about its utility in transportation.

Sep 03 06:03 AM

[renim:]

John, the Better Place (Lease and swap) model is very sensitive to longevity of the battery, it has the advantage that as better place will operate in different geographies it can depreciate the battery across different users (ie longer range, medium range, shorter range) with corresponding reductions in price in price for those users.
The $9 figure excludes this effect, the $6 figure approximates this effect. My example is for Australia (presumably longer range), for shorter range users (hawaii) the battery depreciation cost cost would start to be minor factor.

The epiphany of this to me is that if better place is successful in Taxi trials in Japan, and globally becomes the taxi industry's preferred 'car miles' supplier, and with 2% of cars (taxis) doing 20% of a countries kms, then with 2% of car sales (seemingly minor) they could have 20% of car miles which would make them either the largest car company currently in the world (or close to the combined 'car miles' production of the worlds #1 and #2 oil producers (saudi and russia together produce approximately 20% of world oil)

so while others are long term bullish on oil, I'm not. others are bearish on natural gas, I'm ok with that, gas is becoming the new coal (there are 2 markets, piped gas and liquified gas and they will stay disconnected), some are bearish on coal, I'm bullish on exported coal but its not on my shares yet (i chose iron ore instead, china currently produces and consumes 48% of world steel production and only 7% of world oil production)
I am however waiting for a sell trigger to fire for some shares i have in a small oil/gas explorer producer which i will then re-allocate to a small lithium mine project called galaxy resources which is being tied to China and EVs (and partly funded by china)

Sep 03 02:38 PM

[renim:]

so in summary, I'm betting on EVs over oil, but only because of the 'lease and swap' model. If electric cars future were to follow the Tesla and Prius then I put more money into oil.

Sep 03 02:42 PM

[renim:]

Jack, my quick and dirty model was based on a residual value zero, it was developed bottoms up, i just put down guesses, and then added them up, my point being is that if there is no advances there will be residual value, if there are advances there is no residual value but then its a moot point. ( think propellor plans vs jets or computers vs mainframes)
yes a battery is a negative value if its raw material is difficult to recycle or its size is too small.
but if it still has 'superior' storage characteristics than Pb, and is a standardized package, then there is little reason to why it would not displace Pb batteries in various applications.
finally, if the lease and swap operators can physically swap a component that embodies 50% of the capital value of a car in the time it takes to wait at a set of traffic lights, and will ship the batteries to where ever they deem suitable on a global basis, (their main financial backer is a shipping/oil/fertilizer conglomerate) i think they can profitably deal with the reuse issues.
finally if better place uses a battery similar to BYD, it will be remarkably benign, (LiFePO4 sounds like chinese fertilizer to me, graphite sounds chinese blast furnace additive to me, BYD's electrolyte was supposable demonstrated to be swallowable by s BYD exec, i suppose it just be re-refined and placed into new batteries.) but that'll all be moot because they will just recycle it in China instead anyway.

Sep 03 04:35 PM

[John Petersen:]

Renim, as I said, Shai Aggasi's a smart cookie and I wouldn't want to bet against him in his principal target markets. We're at the very beginning of a new energy epoch and I'd have a hard time picking the winners among the edgier business models. Some will work well and others will fail spectacularly. The one thing that strikes me as a sure bet is that for the next decade well-established and objectively cheap technologies will enjoy spectacular growth with far lower risk, and at my age lower risk becomes increasingly important. I still buy green bananas, but I don't have a lot of interest in planting seedlings.

Sep 03 04:36 PM

[John Petersen:]

GhostOfSpec, I hope you'll have more sense than your corpse did. You can be civil and deal with demonstrable facts or you can find somebody who cares. If you're disruptive I'll let the police handle it.

Sep 04 04:23 PM

[DRich:]

Atta-Boy John!!!

Sep 04 04:44 PM