Seeking Alpha

Axion Power Host's  Instablog

Axion Power Host
Send Message
Trying to learn stuff
Back To Axion Power Host's Instablog HomePage »

Instablogs are blogs which are instantly set up and networked within the Seeking Alpha community. Instablog posts are not selected, edited or screened by Seeking Alpha editors, in contrast to contributors' articles.

Comments (315)
Track new comments
  • Renzo
    , contributor
    Comments (352) | Send Message
     
    I would like to thank pageant officials for this opportunity to speak to you...
    6 Jan 2013, 02:24 PM Reply Like
  • User462699
    , contributor
    Comments (112) | Send Message
     
    Me too!
    6 Jan 2013, 02:35 PM Reply Like
  • Renzo
    , contributor
    Comments (352) | Send Message
     
    I humbly accept this crown and realize that it wasn't my hard work, beauty or intelligence that got me here today. Rather, it was sheer dumb luck.

     

    Thank you and God bless.
    6 Jan 2013, 02:37 PM Reply Like
  • Mr Investor
    , contributor
    Comments (2800) | Send Message
     
    Now we're up to 195 Followers. :^]
    6 Jan 2013, 06:01 PM Reply Like
  • froggey77
    , contributor
    Comments (2770) | Send Message
     
    Oil and Gas Financial Journal
    The Top Ten energy prognostications for 2013 – Year of the snake
    January 2, 2013 Rusty Braziel, RBN Energy

     

    http://bit.ly/WAHglN
    6 Jan 2013, 07:06 PM Reply Like
  • wtblanchard
    , contributor
    Comments (2434) | Send Message
     
    "10. Rail will suck crude oil barrels out of pipelines. This has already been happening in the Bakken for several months now. Unit train economics are attractive, and each one of these trains moves 70,000 barrels to higher priced markets, bypassing the still-glutted Midcontinent/Cushing regions. But not only do the numbers look good, producers committed their barrels to rail terminal operators so they could get the terminals financed and built. So contractual obligations are also creating that giant sucking sound at the pipeline receipt points. Expect this phenomenon to expand during 2013 as the economic advantage of moving barrels to the East and West coasts grows."

     

    Positive for NSC (as noted recently)

     

    Also, Cramer this morning on CNBC said that NSC may benefit for China's really really cold winter requiring more coal deliveries. I would have guessed UNP or BN[BRK] for that with deliveries from the Left Coast ... but for what it's worth ...

     

    Also very interesting concept of possible pipeline "glut" or overbuilding ... don't know if I believe that or not. But I did note this today:

     

    "More MLP ETF Competition: iPath Debuts IMLP"

     

    http://yhoo.it/WEMtJo
    7 Jan 2013, 03:14 PM Reply Like
  • Edmund Metcalfe
    , contributor
    Comments (1509) | Send Message
     
    wtb,
    I believe that the way the coal movement shifts when China needs more is Russia ships to China and we fill the gap that leaves in the EU import picture. So the extra coal to China is taken from our East Coast on net.
    7 Jan 2013, 04:26 PM Reply Like
  • Futurist
    , contributor
    Comments (2127) | Send Message
     
    Congrats Renzo,
    No one deserves to be any luckier than you. I'm simply honored to be here when your awarded your wonderful prize.
    6 Jan 2013, 08:17 PM Reply Like
  • Renzo
    , contributor
    Comments (352) | Send Message
     
    OMG, Renzo and Futurist, BFF!!!!
    6 Jan 2013, 10:37 PM Reply Like
  • jcrjg
    , contributor
    Comments (174) | Send Message
     
    Can anyone explain the importance of the new announcement on UL certification. My understanding is that they announce the hub with some fan fare and it seemed like they were caught off guard by the need for UL certification. This was a problem because they were hoping to show some sales from this ahead of their new round of financing. Is this all correct and is there anything else?

     

    Thanks.
    6 Jan 2013, 09:04 PM Reply Like
  • froggey77
    , contributor
    Comments (2770) | Send Message
     
    crjg

     

    "Can anyone explain the importance of the new announcement on UL certification."

     

    UL (Underwriters Laboratories) is a global safety organization.
    What it means is if the cube dies, it will die safely. It will not burn down your house in the process. If you look at things with plugs around your house, probably nothing made in the last 20 years or more won't have one on it. (As I write in the glow of a 50+ year old lamp.) While not apparently impossible to sell the residential cube without it the local installers would spend a bunch of time and money making sure it didn't burn peoples houses down. Also time in convincing customers it is safe. Essentially not really worth it until the UL listing was done.

     

    "My understanding is that they announce the hub with some fan fare and it seemed like they were caught off guard by the need for UL certification."

     

    No surprise. During the Q2 conference call we were told the beginning of Dec. we would get UL cert. I've heard stories of where it took years to get it. I'm a bit surprised it was that close, especially considering how long other things have taken.
    The 'fan fair' was to advertise to introduce the product to local construction/remodeling contractors, sales and installers. The beginnings of a pipeline to get the jobs in and done. A contractor can't tell their customer about your product, if they've never heard of it.

     

    "This was a problem because they were hoping to show some sales from this ahead of their new round of financing."

     

    We very much would like some good news, such as sales of these, orders from Epower, NSC or an OEM before it is time for the raise. The more good news the better, as the raise will most likely be stock price based. The higher the stock price, the less shares, sold for the same amount of money. Lower dilution to existing shareholders.

     

    "Is there anything else?"
    Rosewater's agreement is based on sales. No sales they lose the license. (At some point.) While they will start slowly at first to avoid errors.They do have to start. The sooner the better. Tuesday is supposed to be the best day to announce good news. I am hopeful we will get some.
    Also the raise does not have to be done immediately. It likely needs to be finished no later than in June. Last time they looked at the stock's price for a 3 month period. Axion can wait a bit longer for news.
    6 Jan 2013, 10:43 PM Reply Like
  • jcrjg
    , contributor
    Comments (174) | Send Message
     
    Thanks to froggey and Edmund. That is very helpful. Do we have any sense of the economics yet? How much do the hubs cost and how much goes to axion?
    6 Jan 2013, 11:20 PM Reply Like
  • Edmund Metcalfe
    , contributor
    Comments (1509) | Send Message
     
    "the raise will most likely be stock price based"

     

    What other realistic choices are there?

     

    If sales are ramping but stock does not move immediately in response, could a 'bridge loan" be obtained to cover a quarter or two?

     

    I have no good grasp about financial matters (I reckon I just made that obvious, so I'm stating the obvious yet again), but I see a lot of variety in financing strategies amongst the many junior miners and mouse-trappers I watch.
    7 Jan 2013, 01:03 AM Reply Like
  • Edmund Metcalfe
    , contributor
    Comments (1509) | Send Message
     
    Hi jcrjg, I'll take shot since everyone who knows better must be asleep or something.

     

    UL certification is a strong comfort issue. Anything electrical is a fire hazard. UL certification is a gold star indicating that the device can be trusted to do no harm and that the device has passed rigorous third-party objective and exhaustive testing. It's even more than that "second opinion" everyone talks about. This gives comfort to both installers and installeees who would be concerned with issues of liability.

     

    I really don't think anyone was surprised by the need to obtain UL certification since it is an industry standard.
    6 Jan 2013, 10:49 PM Reply Like
  • H. T. Love
    , contributor
    Comments (18048) | Send Message
     
    Edmund: More importantly, I think, UL certification affects insurance availability and rates as well as being necessary to meet some codes?

     

    Unsure on both these fronts.

     

    HardToLove
    7 Jan 2013, 08:50 AM Reply Like
  • DRich
    , contributor
    Comments (4673) | Send Message
     
    >H.T.Love ... Quite correct. These are the top 2 reasons that UL is important. I thought people understood this.
    7 Jan 2013, 09:01 AM Reply Like
  • Nathan Kemalyan
    , contributor
    Comments (594) | Send Message
     
    So, help me out here...Rosewater's website says "available in September 2012". UL certification comes in 1/13.
    If they're ready to sell them, then AXPW must be ready to deliver the battery. If they're ready to deliver the battery, they must be ready to warranty it. They must also be ready to deliver it, meaning they have some measure of current manufacturing capacity, beyond just a few prototypes.
    So, where are they actually in their readiness to release a product on the open market? Other companies are taking delivery in "onesies and twosies" for field testing in various applications, but AXPW must be releasing something other than final prototypes if they're willing to allow Rosewater to sell them to residential customers, no?
    So, what is their current capacity to supply a market, even if a very small one?
    7 Jan 2013, 02:28 AM Reply Like
  • Futurist
    , contributor
    Comments (2127) | Send Message
     
    Nathan,
    I'm not sure why you think the PbC can only be produced in small batches. If you peruse the Axion website you will see the Generation 2 fabricating line for manufacturing the negative plates. Presently it can produce enough electrodes for 3-4 thousand PbC batteries per month. There is plenty of space to add more Gen 2 or Gen 3 fabrication lines. The 1,000 batteries needed for the Norfolk Southern railroad locomotive have been delivered ( according to sources). The purchases of large carbon quantities seem to indicate that production is way beyond onesies and twosies.

     

    The plant is ready. Its consumers who are being slow right now.
    7 Jan 2013, 07:50 AM Reply Like
  • LT
    , contributor
    Comments (5082) | Send Message
     
    It's not the assemble line or adding new ones that is questionable....it is the "fully automated" carbon sheeting process that caused the problems. There has never been a definitive statement saying this is accomplished. And it may be what has made slow adoption along with the fact that PbC is not a power battery...it's strength is rapid charge/discharge cycling. Such as behind the meter Power Cube.
    We don't know yet where it stands as just a storage battery compared to the competition...such as for grid.
    7 Jan 2013, 07:57 AM Reply Like
  • John Petersen
    , contributor
    Comments (30232) | Send Message
     
    The PbC is absolutely a power battery. It is not a high energy battery.
    7 Jan 2013, 08:03 AM Reply Like
  • LT
    , contributor
    Comments (5082) | Send Message
     
    that;s what i meant JP .... and a word change does not change the question of production capability and the fact that PbC can not compete in some applications, leaving the question of which mkts. with volume can it compete with or be the "best choice" ?
    7 Jan 2013, 08:36 AM Reply Like
  • John Petersen
    , contributor
    Comments (30232) | Send Message
     
    Production capacity is not an issue. Additional electrode lines can be bought as needed with short lead-times and modest capital outlays.

     

    All the obsession over issues with the carbon sheeting process is based on speculation rather than statements from Axion. The carbon sheeting process we used in 2007 has been replaced by a highly efficient new process. There are no rumors of problems anywhere except Yahoo! finance. The grapevine reports that all technical issues have been resolved and there is nothing except purchase orders that needs to happen before production can ramp.

     

    The applications where the PbC will be most competitive are micro-hybrids and locomotives, with significant potential in heavy trucking. In my opinion the stationary applications may be slowest to develop because those are the applications where potential buyers have the least experience and the tightest economic constraints.
    7 Jan 2013, 08:52 AM Reply Like
  • jakurtz
    , contributor
    Comments (1940) | Send Message
     
    LT -- "it is the "fully automated" carbon sheeting process that caused the problems. There has never been a definitive statement saying this is accomplished"

     

    This was discussed ad-nauseum when you were around a lot and it absolutely has been declared accomplished a long time ago. TG stated they are always working at making it faster, better, more economical -- the progression of any manufacturing company producing any automated product. People took TG's desire to make that process better and decided through their own interpretation on it that it was not up to snuff, which was just not true but seems to be buried in the psyche of some who can't let it go for whatever reason...too much Yadoodoo I suspect.
    7 Jan 2013, 09:01 AM Reply Like
  • renim
    , contributor
    Comments (1102) | Send Message
     
    The PbC is absolutely NOT a power battery.

     

    In lay terms, any Pb based battery that is not willing to reveal it CCA rating is not a power battery.

     

    also its not really a battery either, PbC's original patent describe it as a capacitor
    http://1.usa.gov/XeIc1k
    7 Jan 2013, 11:05 AM Reply Like
  • D Lane
    , contributor
    Comments (1375) | Send Message
     
    >JP said: "The applications where the PbC will be most competitive are micro-hybrids and locomotives, with significant potential in heavy trucking. In my opinion the stationary applications may be slowest to develop because those are the applications where potential buyers have the least experience and the tightest economic constraints."

     

    John, would you agree the HUB is an exception when it comes to stationary applications?
    7 Jan 2013, 11:16 AM Reply Like
  • John Petersen
    , contributor
    Comments (30232) | Send Message
     
    CCA, or Cold Cranking Amps, is only relevant for automotive starter batteries. It has nothing to do with the characterization of a device like the PbC which is designed for frequent and rapid charging and discharging in applications ranging from micro-hybrids and battery powered locomotives to a variety of trucking and stationary applications.

     

    I may be forced to tolerate your trollish deception in comments to my articles on the main pages, but the host of this concentrator series is under no such compulsion.
    7 Jan 2013, 11:16 AM Reply Like
  • Rick Krementz
    , contributor
    Comments (2428) | Send Message
     
    renim, I have been disappointed on the opacity of Axion, especially about the battery specs. I suspect the CCA protocols (there are several), or at least one of them, make the PbC appear inadequate. A defining characteristic of PbC is a linear decline in voltage, unlike traditional Pb acid chemistries with a plateau discharge curve.

     

    The SAE J537 spec for CCA goes to 7.2 volts, which is below the "death point" for a Pb acid battery. The PbC still has significant energy left at 7.2 volts, and is not near death.

     

    In short, the CCA spec likely makes a PbC appear less powerful than it is. The other side is that PbC is probably not an ideal starting battery. Of course, it never has been promoted as a starting battery.

     

    My opinion, even before learning about the PbC, is that CCA was a very poor measurement of anything useful. More CCA roughly correlates with bigger, better, heavier, larger, pricier, and every other battery measurement; it does not add any new, useful data or information.

     

    http://bit.ly/XeMdCY describes CCA measurements
    http://bit.ly/WonYzK has shorthand measurements of batteries
    7 Jan 2013, 11:34 AM Reply Like
  • iindelco
    , contributor
    Comments (9574) | Send Message
     
    Saft Buys French Battery Factory from Johnson Controls

     

    "This transaction took place on January 1st, 2013, in line with the agreement concluded with Johnson Controls on September 30, 2011 related to the sale of Saft's shares in a Johnson Controls-Saft joint venture"

     

    http://fxn.ws/13bgOph
    7 Jan 2013, 09:44 AM Reply Like
  • John Petersen
    , contributor
    Comments (30232) | Send Message
     
    I do hope that capacity figure is 60 MWh per month, rather than 60 MWh per year.

     

    I also think it's fascinating that the $145 million price tag JCI paid in September 2011 for Saft's interest in the Holland Michigan plant is exactly the same price Saft is paying for the JCI plant in France.

     

    http://bit.ly/ZgrUo7
    7 Jan 2013, 09:54 AM Reply Like
  • H. T. Love
    , contributor
    Comments (18048) | Send Message
     
    I think this fits with some of John's thoughts about JCI's position re Li-ion unused manufacturing capacity.

     

    HardToLove
    7 Jan 2013, 09:54 AM Reply Like
  • LT
    , contributor
    Comments (5082) | Send Message
     
    Plus all corps want out of France and the 75% tax that was rebutted as illegal.
    7 Jan 2013, 10:03 AM Reply Like
  • iindelco
    , contributor
    Comments (9574) | Send Message
     
    And this version which has been added to the Altoona site explains the charge algorithm Penn State developed to rejuvenate LABS.

     

    Battery aging reversed to keep electric train chugging along

     

    "He and his colleagues set out to reverse this process of sulfation via a long charging process that converts the sulfate crystals back into active material.

     

    The challenge is, charging batteries for a long time causes batteries to produce hydrogen and oxygen gases, which dry out the battery and thus cause further battery degradation.

     

    To get around this, they wrote an algorithm that monitors pressure inside the battery and stops charging when it detects the buildup of pressure and do this over a long stretch of time. Lab experiments showed it works — increasing overall battery capacity by 30 percent.

     

    The slow charging de-sulfation would only need to be done periodically, say once a month or so. The rest of the time, standard, rapid charging is fine, allowing the locomotive to work regular eight hour shifts around the switch yard."

     

    http://nbcnews.to/SfK780
    7 Jan 2013, 09:57 AM Reply Like
  • thotdoc
    , contributor
    Comments (1728) | Send Message
     
    I don't know if everyone saw this as I posted it several APC's ago. The lead researcher from Penn wrote back to me and said my information request for the name of the battery they were working with was covered by an NDA.
    7 Jan 2013, 10:59 AM Reply Like
  • thotdoc
    , contributor
    Comments (1728) | Send Message
     
    Can anyone opine on how this effects our battery and its chances?
    7 Jan 2013, 11:01 AM Reply Like
  • John Petersen
    , contributor
    Comments (30232) | Send Message
     
    I think it's irrelevant because a brand new AGM battery has about 1/4 of the dynamic charge acceptance Norfolk Southern needs.

     

    A good AGM battery can handle a 50 amp current before it starts to deteriorate. The PbC can handle 200 amps for years.
    7 Jan 2013, 11:19 AM Reply Like
  • iindelco
    , contributor
    Comments (9574) | Send Message
     
    thotdoc, I can't see why NSC would be anxious to repeat another field trial with deep cycle AGM batteries even with these new BMS findings. Why would Gerhard Thelen and Gibson Barbee take that risk given the failure of the last trial? I sure wouldn't.

     

    I would however caution that they would like to have two options for each application. Any company would like at least two with more being even better.

     

    Anyway, I just cannot see these guys walking into the shop in Altoona and saying "Well we were talking up PbC and it worked well in all the testing but we're going with AGM again because we found a new charge cycle in the lab that seems to help. Just can't see this happening over King in a string. I think they will have something like the Ultrabattery as an second option though.
    7 Jan 2013, 11:20 AM Reply Like
  • metroneanderthal
    , contributor
    Comments (1511) | Send Message
     
    John wrote:
    "The PbC can handle 200 amps for years. "

     

    I like that 200 figure that puts the PbC in a different league.
    7 Jan 2013, 12:07 PM Reply Like
  • metroneanderthal
    , contributor
    Comments (1511) | Send Message
     
    I don't think this has any affect on the NS project. NS tested many different batteries. Even if you add 30% to the life of AGM, it still isn't near the PbC on charge acceptance, depth of discharge, and KIS.
    7 Jan 2013, 12:10 PM Reply Like
  • H. T. Love
    , contributor
    Comments (18048) | Send Message
     
    Iindelco: I also had the thought that taking a unit OoS (Out of Service) for ~3% of each month would be uneconomical both in ROI and increased CapEx (additional locos needed to fill the gap).

     

    Then I also though, why would I want to buy a battery that will "come back" to +30 above it "ruined state", leaving us well below the capacity of new when I can use a battery that loses almost no capacity for years and years.

     

    Use a battery that works 24/7x365 and does the "Energizer Bunny" thing or this "new improved battery maintenance algorithm" and incur the costs?

     

    Obvious answer, ISTM.

     

    There could be applications we've not considered where this new algorithm, and the batteries it services, would be beneficial though.

     

    We mustn't forget that NSC seems to be "greening" everywhere they can. The new stuff may not ultimately useful in the loco application, but it is funded by you-know-who and might be useful elsewhere.

     

    Thinking, thinking,
    HardToLove
    7 Jan 2013, 12:11 PM Reply Like
  • bazooooka
    , contributor
    Comments (2892) | Send Message
     
    Seems like its a good PR story but why would any major oem sacrifice performance just because they can get an extra year or two out of a regular agm (30% max longevity increase).

     

    I'd think the PbC specs will blow agm out of the water whether or not it has some increased life. PbC performs on a different level we're told (i.e. 10X lifespan).

     

    Heck, I have a buddy that trickle charges his winter batteries all the time and brags they last him 7 years instead of the typical 5. Lots of work for a little gain is how it strikes me; fun read though - imho.
    7 Jan 2013, 12:31 PM Reply Like
  • wtblanchard
    , contributor
    Comments (2434) | Send Message
     
    Two options is interesting. Perhaps even "required" (in a CYA view) when one comes from a company that trades as a penny stock in a industry category littered with bankruptcies ... no matter how good the testing results. Especially if there's EPA deadlines looming.

     

    Might they rebuild a switcher without the up front expense of regenerative braking (how much is that?) and use straight Deep cycle Lead Acid batteries and perhaps "recharge" it more often and/or"differently?" If you're not blasting the batteries with regenerative braking, does the sulfation "profile" change dramatically [changing maintenance/replacement costs]?

     

    Might they run a long term real world death match between the Axion proposal and a different one and compare costs (and reliability?) over time? PSU guys would probably love something like that where they get to churn out papers every year ... with or without grants to go with.

     

    Perhaps it's obvious who wins, but they (PSU) might do their predictions and then compare the real world results with the predictions.

     

    Perhaps/probably there are even better options [than my 10 minutes pretty uninformed spitballing :-) ]! I realize we're talking real money to do this, but just trying to think outside our Axion box. This general line of thought might be another reason there were delays in shipping the PbCs ... even if they didn't at the end of the process come up with a second alternative they're ready to spend money on and test right now.

     

    Note I'm only talking about switchers here ... OTR seems to me to present a scenario that's different enough to perhaps demand a different "second option" (should they be able to come up with one.)

     

    7 Jan 2013, 12:32 PM Reply Like
  • H. T. Love
    , contributor
    Comments (18048) | Send Message
     
    Wtb: good thinking. The CYA angle, especially, strikes me as a likely scenario.

     

    And I'd not even considered the sans regenerative braking.

     

    HardToLove
    7 Jan 2013, 12:45 PM Reply Like
  • iindelco
    , contributor
    Comments (9574) | Send Message
     
    HTL, Yeah. We'd need to see the duty cycles for the various intended uses to see if these types of conditioning algorithms would be something that the applications could live with (ignoring other important requirements) . And the X % added capacity probably doesn't apply because capacity in PA is not capacity in NY etc. Each increment of capacity is not infinitely flexible across their network. So I could envision having extra locos to fill in the gaps for conditioning to be pretty unpalatable.

     

    The other thing I'd think about is what I'll call safety factor. If an operator is forced, due to unforeseen circumstances, to work outside of the intended design range what are the implications. I think we'd find the PbC a far better tech. to be forgiving in many cases where the AGM battery would suffer more in both capacity and life.

     

    All and all the East Penn findings will help out in some apps. I'm guessing the NS999 type app. is not one of them.
    7 Jan 2013, 12:48 PM Reply Like
  • AlbertinBermuda
    , contributor
    Comments (739) | Send Message
     
    I wonder what testing was done before the NS999 was built?

     

    What batteries did they test?

     

    What was the CYA option for the NS999 in the first go round?

     

    I don't have the time to try and find out but I suspect that the answer is little to none.
    7 Jan 2013, 01:37 PM Reply Like
  • John Petersen
    , contributor
    Comments (30232) | Send Message
     
    I believe the original NS 999 went from grant to rollout in less then two years. The search for a better battery began in late 2009 and has taken three years.
    7 Jan 2013, 01:43 PM Reply Like
  • iindelco
    , contributor
    Comments (9574) | Send Message
     
    Albert, I'd bet with you on this one. I can't imagine they did much testing at all on energy storage systems for the first round NS999 prototype. Just the way they were loaded in tubs speaks amateur to me.
    7 Jan 2013, 01:46 PM Reply Like
  • jakurtz
    , contributor
    Comments (1940) | Send Message
     
    Sounds like they were really excited in 2009 just to show how progressive they were being by launching this project and getting it off the ground to show pols in Washington they were trying and deserve some tax breaks and grants while satisfying a green-mania at the time. Remember in 2009 companies were hurting. I would almost venture to guess they never dreamed they would find a cost effective battery that could actually do the job. I imagine the PbC came around and they said, "Oh! We might actually be able to do this thing, lets get to work now."
    7 Jan 2013, 01:58 PM Reply Like
  • DRich
    , contributor
    Comments (4673) | Send Message
     
    >wtblanchard ... Even sans regen breaking and the diminished charge acceptance required for recharge, there is that nagging problem of dynamic discharge rate where the batteries are asked to deliver 4x to 8x the running amp load to start a cut of cars ... over & over again. All that internal resistance (heat) can't do a out of balance string any good. The inference from the article is recharge required every 8 hours (no factual basis but I'll go with it), what is that rapid recharge rate? How many extra locos need to be available for service/breakdown?
    7 Jan 2013, 02:01 PM Reply Like
  • iindelco
    , contributor
    Comments (9574) | Send Message
     
    Looks like some upgrade deferral required to support "pollution of the commons".

     

    S&C and Scottish and Southern Energy Power Distribution announce pilot storage project in South East of England; UK Network operator installs first energy storage system on the low voltage distribution network

     

    http://bit.ly/ZgykUl
    7 Jan 2013, 10:18 AM Reply Like
  • Nathan Kemalyan
    , contributor
    Comments (594) | Send Message
     
    so there you have it; market ready, able to respond to flow of orders.
    It's hard to imagine that high-end residential applications will be more than a niche market, but an early opportunity with buyers who are most certainly less stringent in their knowledge and expectations for performance than a high-tech product fabrication firm, or company whose information management system need utter reliability and pristine uniformity of power supply. After all, noone's business goes pfutch if their home entertainment system flickers.
    I wonder if the Rosewater cube will provide any real-world post-marketing data that will support interest in larger stationary installations? Perhaps all the longevity/reliability testing that needs to happen is complete, but I would imagine every commercial buyer will want as much information on performance in post-marketing applications as can be acquired.
    I wonder if redundancy will be important; two smaller systems more reliable than a single larger capacity system?
    I can imagine that might make sense in some renewable energy installations; multiple inputs, each one variable, all with a different individual pattern of variability.
    In summation, what's the full value of this "first to market" application? Hopefully, it's more than just a means to cheer up the impatient investors.
    7 Jan 2013, 11:13 AM Reply Like
  • Al Marshall
    , contributor
    Comments (531) | Send Message
     
    At the CEDIA show in the fall, I suggested that Rosewater should collect the data from deployed Residential Hubs and compile data on power quality provided by various utilities in various geographies. Presumably such data could be quite a sales aid in areas they identify with poor power. Of course, would data from a Residential Hub be applicable to the home next door? On the next block? A different substation?

     

    My impression was that Rosewater guys figured they have at least a million more important things to do before they might consider this.

     

    One more thing. I personally believe that the market opportunity for Residential Hubs, as they are presently configured, is probably hundreds of units (Rosewater might be more optimistic). The beauty of the RH is that it satisfied an unmet need by a relatively cost insensitive market segment and equally important, they didn't have to go through a "third party" to address that market. In other words, RH offered the quickest and most reliable path to commercial sales.
    7 Jan 2013, 05:29 PM Reply Like
  • Edmund Metcalfe
    , contributor
    Comments (1509) | Send Message
     
    That was a big buy just now of about 300,000 shares!
    7 Jan 2013, 11:21 AM Reply Like
  • metroneanderthal
    , contributor
    Comments (1511) | Send Message
     
    Taking out that 300,000 has seemed to have a beneficial affect on price, at least for the moment - and taking into account my 15 minute delay. Hope jakurtz is right and our big seller has finally relieved himself completely of his burden.
    7 Jan 2013, 12:18 PM Reply Like
  • H. T. Love
    , contributor
    Comments (18048) | Send Message
     
    What's more interesting, to me, is that the bid size has some MMs not seen near the top for a while competing with TEJS, ATDF and, occasionally, NITE. UBSS, MAXM have been added to the blender at the top of the bid side.

     

    On the ask side, no one new jumping to the top of the line.

     

    This suggests that we may not be done moving higher yet. We *did* hit $0.329, almost touching my claimed first resistance. The test will be breaking that in a few days and moving on to $0.35, IMO.

     

    HardToLove
    7 Jan 2013, 12:29 PM Reply Like
  • H. T. Love
    , contributor
    Comments (18048) | Send Message
     
    Just noticed: didn't get the usual "three-martini lunch" no trading volume often seen during lunch hour.

     

    HardToLove
    7 Jan 2013, 12:49 PM Reply Like
  • iindelco
    , contributor
    Comments (9574) | Send Message
     
    HTL, Maybe it's a sandwich and coffee delivered from the local deli kinda day? No sense gettin' up for popcorn when the movie is good and you can't pause it.
    7 Jan 2013, 12:53 PM Reply Like
  • jakurtz
    , contributor
    Comments (1940) | Send Message
     
    Metro, On Friday I was confident enough in my call to put more money where my mouth was. It seems to have worked out this time.
    7 Jan 2013, 02:03 PM Reply Like
  • H. T. Love
    , contributor
    Comments (18048) | Send Message
     
    UBSS 297K ask @ $0.307 just got taken out, took thre transactions to do it.

     

    VWAP that took it appears to be $0.30699.

     

    As mentioned a few days ago, if we keep trading above $0.304x, ... :-))
    bid/ask now TEJS $0.3065 x 2.5K/$0.3096 x 2.5K

     

    HardToLove
    7 Jan 2013, 11:22 AM Reply Like
  • iindelco
    , contributor
    Comments (9574) | Send Message
     
    Nathan, One cautionary note. The article I posted was a utility install and not behind the meter in a residential app. Far different customers.

     

    BTW, Rosewater is suppose to study this type of install in Ontario starting this year.

     

    http://bit.ly/UvYCQQ
    7 Jan 2013, 11:32 AM Reply Like
  • Stefan Moroney
    , contributor
    Comments (2656) | Send Message
     
    Random Italian Axion mention

     

    http://bit.ly/WorpXd
    7 Jan 2013, 12:10 PM Reply Like
  • John Petersen
    , contributor
    Comments (30232) | Send Message
     
    As of this morning, my 200-day VWMA was $.32668.

     

    What's your number HTL?
    7 Jan 2013, 12:17 PM Reply Like
  • H. T. Love
    , contributor
    Comments (18048) | Send Message
     
    John: 1/4 EOD $0.3298. ATM showing $0.3294 through 12:23.

     

    HardToLove
    EDIT: Standard charting shows $0.3302 1/4 EOD and $0.3298 so far today.
    7 Jan 2013, 12:31 PM Reply Like
  • bazooooka
    , contributor
    Comments (2892) | Send Message
     
    Axion hasn't been in the mid 30s since 4th of July. Can we get fireworks today or this week? =)
    7 Jan 2013, 12:34 PM Reply Like
  • H. T. Love
    , contributor
    Comments (18048) | Send Message
     
    Bazoooka: They're on my screen ATM! :-))

     

    HardToLove
    7 Jan 2013, 12:51 PM Reply Like
  • bazooooka
    , contributor
    Comments (2892) | Send Message
     
    How many shares have traded after the spike to .32; I'm surprised the next wave of volume didn't take us even higher. Looks like the sellers may have re shored the damn temporarily. Maybe another 300M shares will do the trick. Anyhow maybe we can break 1M shares total and make this one of the highest volume days in months.
    7 Jan 2013, 01:28 PM Reply Like
  • H. T. Love
    , contributor
    Comments (18048) | Send Message
     
    Bazooooka: Including the first trade @ 11:53:40 @ $0.32 through 13:32:10 235,810 shares traded. From the time we fell below $0.32, 12:19:56, 188,850 shares traded and we moved above $0.32 again at 12:44:03.

     

    HardToLove
    7 Jan 2013, 01:42 PM Reply Like
  • iindelco
    , contributor
    Comments (9574) | Send Message
     
    China Sets First Rare Earth Output Quota for 2013 at 46,900 Tons

     

    http://bloom.bg/UDqMek
    7 Jan 2013, 12:59 PM Reply Like
  • D. McHattie
    , contributor
    Comments (1844) | Send Message
     
    This should renew the search for an alternative wherever the application permits (ie: push the PbC into higher and higher levels of vehicle hybridization).

     

    D
    7 Jan 2013, 03:13 PM Reply Like
  • H. T. Love
    , contributor
    Comments (18048) | Send Message
     
    Desperate MMs fishing? Trying to trigger stops? 200 shares trade $0.3175 when prior trade was $0.3210 and bid ask was $0.3264/$0.3175. TEJS 2.5K on the bid, ATDF 10K on the ask.

     

    HardToLove
    7 Jan 2013, 01:01 PM Reply Like
  • H. T. Love
    , contributor
    Comments (18048) | Send Message
     
    There's a very real risk we may just blow through the $0.33 resistance I expected. The buy:sell is holding up *very* well. UBSS & VFIN has joined the jostling on the bid side. The ask side has the asks moving up to near the folks that were >= $0.33 since early this morning.

     

    As I typed this, we hit $0.333 and average trade size (including the aggregate 279K earlier) is outside what I think is retail range.

     

    Bid/ask now TEJS $0.3305 x 2.5/$0.3397x 2.5K TEJS.

     

    I expect short volume to be high today, but unsure of percentage. Since so much time did *not* have the same MM as best on both sides, I suspect percentage daily short sales will also be high. But we've also had many times the same MM was best on both sides and *may* have done intra-type trades, possibly reducing shorts.

     

    Hard to tell.

     

    HardToLove
    7 Jan 2013, 02:11 PM Reply Like
  • billa_from_sf
    , contributor
    Comments (370) | Send Message
     
    Looks like the raise is imminent.
    7 Jan 2013, 02:31 PM Reply Like
  • John Petersen
    , contributor
    Comments (30232) | Send Message
     
    The entire board has an average cost of over $1.25 per share and all of management's options are worthless until the price exceeds $1.50. The implication that Axion has anything to gain by another low priced offering ignores the reality that they'll suffer far more than street holders.

     

    I've seen investors make a "now or never" power play when a stock starts to run within a couple weeks of a planned closing, but with adequate cash to squeak through Q2, I just don't see management as being in a big hurry.
    7 Jan 2013, 02:42 PM Reply Like
  • Milhouse
    , contributor
    Comments (362) | Send Message
     
    Their SBIR phase 1 grant was in June, 2012 and was scheduled to end 10 months later, as I recall. I assume that would mean applying for phase II in the second quarter 2012.

     

    If they get this phase II grant before they run out of cash, will this make a difference to the bottom line, or is that money earmarked for specific research?
    7 Jan 2013, 02:57 PM Reply Like
  • John Petersen
    , contributor
    Comments (30232) | Send Message
     
    Grant money is specifically allocated to R&D and subject to stringent accounting and reporting rules. To the extent that Axion would have done the work in any event, a grant may reduce proprietary R&D costs and could theoretically reduce reported losses or increase profits, but they don't generally have a meaningful bottom line impact.
    7 Jan 2013, 03:12 PM Reply Like
  • H. T. Love
    , contributor
    Comments (18048) | Send Message
     
    Milhouse: It may not affect share price either way. Just getting the grant says that Phase I milestones were completed, the DOE decided they had shown worthwhile results and the expenses going forward would be offset to the extent the Phase II award. So it would benefit bottom line going forward. But I think the impetus in pps would be from the "worthwhile results" increasing likelihood of future revenues, partly through the *possibility* of a Phase III grant.

     

    MHO,
    HardToLove
    7 Jan 2013, 03:16 PM Reply Like
  • Milhouse
    , contributor
    Comments (362) | Send Message
     
    OK, that all makes sense.
    Thanks for both explanations.
    7 Jan 2013, 03:34 PM Reply Like
  • mrholty
    , contributor
    Comments (1041) | Send Message
     
    John -

     

    Completely agree with your comment. By my rough math AXPW doesn't need more cash until Q2.

     

    End of Q3 Cash - $4,172k plus presume $400k for NS Battery order which reduces inventory less CFFO & Investing ($2,200K) puts cash on hand at around $2.4M maybe more. If the stock price doesn't appreciate maybe they can risk all the way through the end of Q1 to end Q1 with a couple hundred K in cash.

     

    After the last conference call I believed that they had a tenative plan/agreement to go back at the same time in 2013 but I've listened to it again and I believe that they can hold out a little longer if they absolutely need to. This year doesn't look exactly like last year but it may rhyme.
    7 Jan 2013, 05:23 PM Reply Like
  • billa_from_sf
    , contributor
    Comments (370) | Send Message
     
    Regarding the next raise:

     

    Whatever it is going to be, I would like to be looking at it in the rear view mirror already, so we have a solid baseline to be working from.

     

    A strategic partner would be infinitely more desirable than an offering, and for all we know rumors of a partner could be behind today's bump.

     

    But whatever it is going to be, the suspense is killing me.

     

    I am also light 10,000 shares of my goal because I was too cheap to buy at .29, so this post is mostly sour grapes. Because $10 x 10,000 shares is a hundred grand.
    7 Jan 2013, 05:58 PM Reply Like
  • axion-nl
    , contributor
    Comments (180) | Send Message
     
    nice! .34 bid... this baby is flying!
    7 Jan 2013, 02:14 PM Reply Like
  • metroneanderthal
    , contributor
    Comments (1511) | Send Message
     
    I'm afraid to comment for fear of casting an evil eye on that stock we are familiar with.
    7 Jan 2013, 02:27 PM Reply Like
  • Edmund Metcalfe
    , contributor
    Comments (1509) | Send Message
     
    chuckle. knock on wood. ouch.
    7 Jan 2013, 03:13 PM Reply Like
  • wtblanchard
    , contributor
    Comments (2434) | Send Message
     
    50K trade at .34 at 2:24:20 Eastern

     

    vol 1.121 Million!

     

    But ATDF offering 40K at .335 ...

     

    taking profits or desperately trying to put a lid on?
    7 Jan 2013, 02:32 PM Reply Like
  • wtblanchard
    , contributor
    Comments (2434) | Send Message
     
    ATDF now offering 44.5K at .33
    7 Jan 2013, 02:38 PM Reply Like
  • RBrun357
    , contributor
    Comments (787) | Send Message
     
    Hopefully we hold on through this little sell off and then charge upward going into the close!
    7 Jan 2013, 02:40 PM Reply Like
  • wtblanchard
    , contributor
    Comments (2434) | Send Message
     
    Really OT:

     

    we had a few brief mentions in the last year (Maya?) of the "new" (more legitimized) idea of Crowdfunding and today I got a Chicago area notification of a new meetup devoted to such:

     

    http://bit.ly/UDJ4Mn
    7 Jan 2013, 02:51 PM Reply Like
  • Mayascribe
    , contributor
    Comments (9983) | Send Message
     
    wtb: I did report on this new investing technique a while back. However...us Axionistas are already doing a form of "crowdfunding," via this blog.

     

    It's still an interesting concept.
    7 Jan 2013, 03:07 PM Reply Like
  • Bylo-
    , contributor
    Comments (417) | Send Message
     
    A million and a half shares traded today. Excellent way to start the week.
    7 Jan 2013, 03:01 PM Reply Like
  • Bylo-
    , contributor
    Comments (417) | Send Message
     
    Sorry... million and a quarter shares. Duh.
    7 Jan 2013, 03:02 PM Reply Like
  • H. T. Love
    , contributor
    Comments (18048) | Send Message
     
    Bylo- You'll likely be right by EOD 1.5MM!

     

    HardToLove
    7 Jan 2013, 03:21 PM Reply Like
  • John Petersen
    , contributor
    Comments (30232) | Send Message
     
    Great forecast of total volume for the day Bylo-
    7 Jan 2013, 04:31 PM Reply Like
  • KentG
    , contributor
    Comments (368) | Send Message
     
    Anyone, what is above the current 50K @ .33 ASK?

     

    Kent

     

    edit: someone jumped ahead @ .3299 x 10K
    7 Jan 2013, 03:29 PM Reply Like
  • H. T. Love
    , contributor
    Comments (18048) | Send Message
     
    Kent, that seems to have hidden the 50K $0.33. So it was likely either TEJS or ATDF because they are both below that now on the ask.

     

    I didn't catch the 50K one myself.

     

    HardToLove
    7 Jan 2013, 03:40 PM Reply Like
  • wtblanchard
    , contributor
    Comments (2434) | Send Message
     
    TEJS 2.5k .3298
    ATDF 6.5K .3299
    UBSS 10K at .345
    BNCH 2K .349
    ETRF 5K .35
    7 Jan 2013, 03:43 PM Reply Like
  • KentG
    , contributor
    Comments (368) | Send Message
     
    thanks H2L
    7 Jan 2013, 03:43 PM Reply Like
  • iindelco
    , contributor
    Comments (9574) | Send Message
     
    Fire At Boston Airport Damages Boeing 787's Reputation

     

    "The Boeing 787 is a revolutionary airplane which saves xx fuel compared to the older models it replaces. One of the ways it’s designed to save energy is by making extensive use of electrical power instead of powering many onboard system directly from the engines – but now the very batteries that are one of its most innovative features are putting the plane in trouble."

     

    http://bit.ly/URR7pO
    7 Jan 2013, 03:39 PM Reply Like
  • iindelco
    , contributor
    Comments (9574) | Send Message
     
    Not sure if this is current.

     

    Thales selects GS Yuasa for Lithium ion battery system in Boeing’s 787 Dreamliner

     

    http://bit.ly/UCmojq
    7 Jan 2013, 03:42 PM Reply Like
  • H. T. Love
    , contributor
    Comments (18048) | Send Message
     
    Iindelco: Maybe explains the fire on a Dreamliner today? ;-))

     

    Not really. The cause is known. But maybe it just scared that Dreamliner into spontaneous combustion! =>8-O

     

    HardToLove
    7 Jan 2013, 04:13 PM Reply Like
  • Edmund Metcalfe
    , contributor
    Comments (1509) | Send Message
     
    1.4+ million and counting - looks like it will hold $0.32 - got some more shares myself. We are seeing increasing volume and price since about Christmas, which I think would make this run (esp. if you start at the 0.20 Nov 20 bottom) the best pps performance since last March.

     

    Maybe I'll visit stockta.com tonight and see what they say.
    7 Jan 2013, 03:41 PM Reply Like
  • wtblanchard
    , contributor
    Comments (2434) | Send Message
     
    "Recently, I came across this very interesting thought-piece, “Cleantech Marketing Isn’t IT Marketing”, written by Aaron Fike, the founder and CEO of Energy Cache.

     

    ...

     

    The vicious Catch-22 of ‘You can’t get funding until it is proven; you can’t prove it without funding’ is incredibly strong. Nobody wants to be first.” "

     

    Energy Cache: Avoiding Cleantech’s Catch-22
    On January 6, 2013, in Blog, by Richard T. Stuebi

     

    http://bit.ly/UwtSir
    7 Jan 2013, 03:46 PM Reply Like
  • bazooooka
    , contributor
    Comments (2892) | Send Message
     
    Lots of placement buyers at .35. I think we'll need a few days of 1M shares to get out any weak hands who were waiting on a second chance for the exit. I'd like to see an above .33 close (and open) and confirmation of the 200 day break in the rear view.
    7 Jan 2013, 03:48 PM Reply Like
  • H. T. Love
    , contributor
    Comments (18048) | Send Message
     
    Bazooooka: Shoulnd't take long to break 200-day SMA. Today it's at $0.3299 and we closed at $0.3297. The tail of the 200-day is dropping some readings around ~$0.39 +/- and if we stay flat 200-day will fall another 8/9 days. Any reasonable expectation of appreaciation in the next 3/4 days would still have the 200-day dropping.

     

    So there's an excellent chance we'll trade above it and close above it.

     

    The "truth" of it will be follow-on volume when it happens. If folks believe that bullish signal, volume should rise initially.

     

    HardToLove
    7 Jan 2013, 04:24 PM Reply Like
  • John Petersen
    , contributor
    Comments (30232) | Send Message
     
    Tell me bazooooka, if you'd bought at $.35 in January 2012 and held on through a year of fairly miserable market performance, would you be in a huge hurry to bail for breakeven?
    7 Jan 2013, 04:30 PM Reply Like
  • Rick Krementz
    , contributor
    Comments (2428) | Send Message
     
    JP/bazooka - it wouldn't surprise me if some investors, who thought it was a losing bet after a few months, would be happy to get out at breakeven before it sinks lower again. Not most investors, but some.
    7 Jan 2013, 04:36 PM Reply Like
  • bazooooka
    , contributor
    Comments (2892) | Send Message
     
    JP, I hear ya but I also personally know some who lightened up last year as it ran from .30 to .50+ on the idea that now they were back closer even (or almost).

     

    I also presume life may have dealt some of the 2012 placement investors some curveballs and maybe a few million shares of slop still exist until we get to our next price point where stronger hands will hold for larger profits (i.e. 50 cent +). imho =)
    7 Jan 2013, 08:54 PM Reply Like
  • billa_from_sf
    , contributor
    Comments (370) | Send Message
     
    John -

     

    I made that mistake once and cost myself $1.50, which turned out to be a dollar more than my original target.

     

    A year might be long enough to forget why one bought at .35, but bailing there is a bad idea.
    7 Jan 2013, 09:39 PM Reply Like
  • 481086
    , contributor
    Comments (3450) | Send Message
     
    Especially not if you felt that the underlying case/rationale for the investment in the first place was not only still intact, but was in fact even more solid and was now a full year's worth of progress and (peripheral) developments closer to culminating fruition. Barring some kind of substantive adverse setback to the main thesis (which there emphatically hasn't been) why lose faith and bail now?
    7 Jan 2013, 10:11 PM Reply Like
  • Mayascribe
    , contributor
    Comments (9983) | Send Message
     
    48: Xcellent comment! All things of promise last year, still have promise this year, and into the next years. Nothing has changed, except timelines and expectations of such timelines.
    7 Jan 2013, 11:48 PM Reply Like
  • wtblanchard
    , contributor
    Comments (2434) | Send Message
     
    Just love the title:
    "The Ethane Asylum: Big Time Ethane Rejection in the Shale Gas World" http://bit.ly/Uwurci
    7 Jan 2013, 03:51 PM Reply Like
  • Pztrick44
    , contributor
    Comments (83) | Send Message
     
    Is it plausible that there were tax-loss takers that sold in November and are re-buying after wash-sale restrictions elapse? (I haven't compared volumes but we were $0.2x lows in November). Or, rather, could this be a significant effect with the price today?

     

    Maybe these persons wish to be long-term holders and had been waiting for a 2013 low (perhaps around capital raise) are now feeling squeezed to buy today before it rises more?
    7 Jan 2013, 03:58 PM Reply Like
  • John Petersen
    , contributor
    Comments (30232) | Send Message
     
    FWIW I've always noticed that my articles that discuss Axion seem to have a bigger impact on the day after publication than on the day of publication. I've always attributed the phenomenon to investors who like to think and sleep before making a decision.

     

    I was surprised to see Axion announce the UL listing on the Friday after New Years because prevailing wisdom is that Monday and Friday news is less compelling than mid-week news. It may well be that today's market action is related to Fridays announcement.
    7 Jan 2013, 04:08 PM Reply Like
  • Bylo-
    , contributor
    Comments (417) | Send Message
     
    http://bit.ly/WpOg48
    7 Jan 2013, 04:05 PM Reply Like
  • Alphameister
    , contributor
    Comments (1428) | Send Message
     
    I added significantly to my holdings today using newly available funds. Should have been more aggressive early in the day when I was able to buy below 0.31. AXPW is looking great technically!
    7 Jan 2013, 04:13 PM Reply Like
  • Mr Investor
    , contributor
    Comments (2800) | Send Message
     
    Good to hear, Alphameister.

     

    I lucked out when I added right after the 250k+ block was soaked up.
    7 Jan 2013, 04:42 PM Reply Like
  • Occam's_Razor
    , contributor
    Comments (1551) | Send Message
     
    Alpha: I think within a few weeks, anything in the .30s will look pretty good in retrospect.
    7 Jan 2013, 05:33 PM Reply Like
  • metroneanderthal
    , contributor
    Comments (1511) | Send Message
     
    http://bit.ly/wrFRnF
    Original NS999: My WAG is that Brookville is that other locomotive manufacturer.
    "NS teamed with Brookville Equipment Corp., a locomotive maker in Brookville, Pa., and TMV Control Systems, an Ontario, Canada, vendor of locomotive control systems, to develop the regenerative energy and battery management systems.
    “In initial tests, we’ve seen up to 35 percent of NS 999’s regenerated power being stored in the batteries,” said Thelen. “That’s good savings in the long run,and that’s free, clean energy.”
    7 Jan 2013, 06:03 PM Reply Like
  • D. McHattie
    , contributor
    Comments (1844) | Send Message
     
    "Advances in battery technology will be the primary driver for widespread industry use of electric locomotives, he added. NS currently is eying the use of lithium ion and nickel-based rechargeable batteries, as well as improved lead-acid batteries."

     

    Maybe even back in 2009 some knew that lead acid 1.0 or 2.0 wasn't going to cut it.

     

    Lucky for them there's a 3.0 to go along with their good idea. And you have to give them a lot of credit for dedicating resources to these experiments, which is far more than other railroads.

     

    D
    7 Jan 2013, 06:56 PM Reply Like
  • LabTech
    , contributor
    Comments (1777) | Send Message
     
    D. McHattie,
    I was thinking the exact same thing after reading the article. Also, it's nice to know that in the time since this was written, NS has tested those other battery options and come to realize that the PbC is the clear winner.
    7 Jan 2013, 09:24 PM Reply Like
  • H. T. Love
    , contributor
    Comments (18048) | Send Message
     
    1/7/2013: EOD stuff partially copied from instablog (up much later).
    # Trds: 154, MinTrSz: 125, MaxTrSz: 220000, Vol 1460809, AvTrSz: 9486
    Min. Pr: 0.3013, Max Pr: 0.3449, VW Avg. Tr. Pr: 0.3228
    # Buys, Shares: 101 903444, VW Avg Buy Pr: 0.3227
    # Sells, Shares: 52 547365, VW Avg Sell Pr: 0.3234
    # Unkn, Shares: 1 10000, VW Avg Unk. Pr: 0.3049
    Buy:Sell 1.65:1 (61.8% “buys”), DlyShts 246800 (16.89%), Dly Sht % of 'sells' 45.09%

     

    Just because I mentioned it yesterday – don't know if it has utility – the daily short sales percentage of “buys” today was 27.32%.

     

    Daily short sales were strong, on a stand-alone volume basis, but as I suspected, not quite so strong on a percentage basis. This says either a lot of trades were intra/inter-broker (most likely intra) and/or MMs selling into the market were long in their portfolios (some from shares flowing in backing some of the 183.79K shorted on 1/2 when we had high volume and a VWAP of $0.2955, some of which likely were covered by some MMs in the subsequent trading days?). I suspect we also had some longs “pulled” into selling, based on the “break” from the high of $0.3449 at 14:19 to a lower price of $0.33 at 14:36. We did briefly get to $0.3232 at 14:42 but came right back to just below $0.33 immediately. Including that high and onward, the buy:sell was 1:1.14 – reasonably well balanced – and the VWAP was $0.3318.

     

    An unusual feature today was a VWAP buy price lower than the VWAP sell price. Haven't seen this since 12/11 when we had $0.2939 and $0.2967 for those two respectively. That was a down day on high (for that period) volume.

     

    On the traditional TA front, I'll be briefer than normal. Another day of higher lows, highs and close. Bullishness indications in the oscillators I watch continue to improve (see prior posts for some comparisons): RSI 75.31 (overbought territory and highest since 1/26/2012 – we have a “positive divergence” compared to other times we were in this price range and getting a little rise), accum/distr continues improvement to -2.65 (1 year chart), MFI 85.02 (overbought territory), momentum ~1.14, Williams %R weakens slightly to -21.8 (*not* bearish – just moving to less extreme), stochastic in overbought, ADX's DI- down to 9 with DI+ up to 34. We need to see ADX creep to 30+ to have it suggest continuing strength is likely.

     

    We continue to have the trading range pull above and away from the now-rising 50-day SMA, $0.2815, and we had an “overshoot" (from the perspective my expected $0.33 resistance) to $0.3449 (exceeding the 200-day SMA of $0.3299 at EOD), a pullback and, finally, a close just $0.0002 below it - $0.3297. I commented early that we were at risk of blowing right past the expected $0.33 resistance. I don't know whether to stroke my ego because $0.33 did what I thought it would or rue the fact that we couldn't just gallop on up to the $0.35 next resistance I expect (was the high of $0.3449 close enough? Nah – it was just an “overshoot”!).

     

    Trading range also continues a “departure pattern” regarding my rising trading channel support and traded all day above one of those two new long-term descending resistance lines I had recently established. It traded above the other from 11:07 forward.

     

    The range and close both exceeded the traditional 20-period upper Bollinger limit today. This argues for a move back to a more centered attitude, especially since the lower limit is still descending. I make this guess only because the “pinch” of the upper and lower limits never got all that tight. I'm not calling for that move yet – too many other things suggest it won't happen right away. If it did we'd likely see ~$0.2925 or so.

     

    We have the fourth day of price “pushing” my experimental 13-period upper Bollinger. Will we make six straight, as we did the last two times? Stay tuned to find out! It's looking quite likely even if we don't push strongly up right away.

     

    The MACD that Drich brought to our attention continues it's improvement - +0.007 and +0.003 on the signal and average respectively.

     

    Finished up 7.75%. This all on volume nearing five times the average volumes I posted yesterday for all the periods.

     

    The inflection point calculations continue to improve.

     

    Detailed discussions of “Dly Sht % of 'sells'” and inflection points omitted here.

     

    HardToLove
    7 Jan 2013, 07:29 PM Reply Like
  • RBrun357
    , contributor
    Comments (787) | Send Message
     
    HTL,

     

    Thanks again for your report.
    8 Jan 2013, 12:13 AM Reply Like
  • John Petersen
    , contributor
    Comments (30232) | Send Message
     
    I had a stray thought about yesterday's market action that may be worth considering.

     

    Since New Years day fell on a Wednesday this year, yesterday was the first day back to work for much of Europe and many fund managers. It's possible that we're seeing a ripple (wave?) of investors that didn't want Axion on their books at year end but wanted to start building a position early in 2013.
    8 Jan 2013, 05:51 AM Reply Like
  • Futurist
    , contributor
    Comments (2127) | Send Message
     
    JP,
    I just have my doubts about how many fund managers are following Axion as a sub $1 stock. I realize it only takes a few, but wouldn't they more likely be calling TG about investing in the next raise?

     

    My question is where did 11/2 million shares come from that were sold yesterday?
    8 Jan 2013, 07:39 AM Reply Like
  • billa_from_sf
    , contributor
    Comments (370) | Send Message
     
    I woke up today with almost the same thought as JP, that this is the first full week of the new year and yesterday was the first day back to work for many traders/investors, particularly high-rollers who weren't obligated to plop back down in a cubicle the day after New Years.

     

    In answer to Futurist: there are always HFT computers and other short-term traders posting asks that by their standards are in outer space. People like us, who are planning on holding for 2 or 3 years, have not suddenly had a change of heart and decided to dump 1.5 million shares. IMO.
    8 Jan 2013, 08:34 AM Reply Like
  • H. T. Love
    , contributor
    Comments (18048) | Send Message
     
    Futurist: I think the answer lies in the numbers 12/11/12-1/4/13. Here's VWAP and round volume, in thousands. We have traders around, I think, as well as Axionistas manging risk and taking profits. Percentage-wise there's some folks that got a very nice gain.

     

    0.2935 433
    0.2945 52
    0.2895 181
    0.2840 314
    0.2854 1162
    0.2813 644
    0.2807 461
    0.2803 518
    0.2783 178
    0.2882 92
    0.2896 292
    0.2831 273
    0.2870 348
    0.2840 336
    0.2955 539
    0.3015 178
    0.3046 333

     

    HardToLove
    8 Jan 2013, 08:40 AM Reply Like
  • John Petersen
    , contributor
    Comments (30232) | Send Message
     
    Fund managers come in all shapes and sizes and while most have very stringent policies that they must follow, there are always a few that have flexibility. My current best guess is that the next raise will be a private placement, rather than a public offering, and that makes a big difference to many fund guys. With 1.5 million shares of reported volume, I use the 50-50 rule which says that 750,000 represents shares leaving the hands of sellers and the other 750,000 represents shares entering the hands of buyers.

     

    While it was pretty easy to speculate on the "who" when we had the big uglies out there doing their thing, it's almost impossible to guess now that I *think* the big uglies are out of stock.
    8 Jan 2013, 09:32 AM Reply Like
  • dlmca
    , contributor
    Comments (359) | Send Message
     
    JP comment below well worth paying attention to

     

    "The entire board has an average cost of over $1.25 per share and all of management's options are worthless until the price exceeds $1.50. The implication that Axion has anything to gain by another low priced offering ignores the reality that they'll suffer far more than street holders."

     

    As suggested my "inflexion point" is a break out with volume beyond $0.36

     

    If we do, looks to me like we go much higher
    7 Jan 2013, 07:38 PM Reply Like
  • froggey77
    , contributor
    Comments (2770) | Send Message
     
    CODA Cuts Staff Again. Is The End Near?
    http://bit.ly/13eR7Dx

     

    <On paper, the CODA all electric sedan stacks up against the competition fairly well. It has 88 miles of EPA range for $37,250. On a dollar per electric mile basis, it is actually the best value out there.>

     

    <All these factors translated to disasterous sales, and lead CODA to “right size” their company about 4 weeks ago by letting go some of their work force.>

     

    <Unfortunately, it turns out that was only the right size for about a month, as CODA as put another chunk of its remaining 270-odd employees on furlough. A representative of the company said they expected the layoffs to last at least 3 months.>

     

    Is The End Near?
    I'd say inevitable and near.
    In answer to the question.... Yes.
    7 Jan 2013, 09:07 PM Reply Like
  • H. T. Love
    , contributor
    Comments (18048) | Send Message
     
    Thanks Froggey77. I've posted a link to your comment and the article in my UQM speculative play instablog.

     

    HardToLove
    7 Jan 2013, 09:48 PM Reply Like
  • froggey77
    , contributor
    Comments (2770) | Send Message
     
    HTL
    I'm Honored.
    7 Jan 2013, 11:44 PM Reply Like
  • froggey77
    , contributor
    Comments (2770) | Send Message
     
    WSJ’s Dan Neil Admits He ‘Went Too Easy On The Fisker Karma’
    Patrick George

     

    <Pulitzer Prize-winning auto scribe and noted foppish clothing enthusiast Dan Neil recently did the gutsy but rarely-seen-in-this-bu... move of admitting to all his mistakes and misfires in 2012.
    Chief among them: Dan says he went way too easy on the Fisker Karma. Here's what he wrote:
    In the review, published in February, I tied myself in knots trying to praise the Karma, even resorting to the "world's most interesting car" banality. But in the end, I see in hindsight, the car is too heavy, too overpromised in terms of performance and efficiency, and it is just too durably weird-looking to love. Put a jar in your Fisker Karma, and put a dollar in the jar every time somebody asks you, "What the hell are you driving, mister?" You could put a kid through college that way.>

     

    Mr. Ormisher also took this moment to come clean about Karma production; and offered that no car had been built in Finland since the plant when on summer break in July.
    http://bit.ly/WqZO7e

     

    Due to Aone's bankruptcy Fisker had no battery supplier. in Nov.
    Fisker laid off 40 workers around Dec 10. Laid off from not working?
    According to Inside EVs there are about 350 Karmas left (After sales and Sandy) 140 US and 210 ROW.
    According to this article, Fisker is still not producing.
    Freedom to Design: Q&A with Henrik Fisker, CEO of Fisker Automotive
    http://bit.ly/V5ZIGx

     

    He intends to build a family of beautiful, electric but somewhat expensive cars in the future.
    All he needs is OPM.
    7 Jan 2013, 09:59 PM Reply Like
  • Futurist
    , contributor
    Comments (2127) | Send Message
     
    140 US Karmas left.

     

    If that doesn't say it all about the state of EVs in America.

     

    I'm happy we can talk about mild hybrids and S/S.
    Not as sexy but it might make us a little money. A hell of a lot more than the Karma made for their company owners.
    7 Jan 2013, 10:09 PM Reply Like
  • H. T. Love
    , contributor
    Comments (18048) | Send Message
     
    Seems like a lot of over-ambitious highly-touted "green" efforts related to autos turning to $h*t-brown these days. Maybe baby-$h*t yellow would be more apt - smells to high heaven.

     

    HardToLove
    7 Jan 2013, 10:12 PM Reply Like
  • Edmund Metcalfe
    , contributor
    Comments (1509) | Send Message
     
    http://bit.ly/USvPbD

     

    I think the car has nice lines.
    7 Jan 2013, 10:23 PM Reply Like
  • 481086
    , contributor
    Comments (3450) | Send Message
     
    As in many things, John is being proven right: It's colossally stupid to try to use batteries as gas tanks. There's a lot of useful energy in a gallon of gasoline, and to my mind the automobile efficiency game isn't really over until what is achieved is the perfected hybrid---where as much of that energy as possible is converted to actual miles traveled-- ultimately expended in fighting (optimized) aero drag and rolling friction with as little of it as possible wasted heating up brake-pads and other system components, or heating/cooling passengers...

     

    To this end, the Karma represented an, uh, somewhat flawed approach.
    7 Jan 2013, 10:31 PM Reply Like
  • Milhouse
    , contributor
    Comments (362) | Send Message
     
    This looks like it might be a better try...from BMW

     

    http://bit.ly/13f1V4w
    7 Jan 2013, 11:10 PM Reply Like
  • jakurtz
    , contributor
    Comments (1940) | Send Message
     
    There was a new Karma parked inside our mall during the holidays. It is a gorgeous car and one I would love to drive, so for his recant to include the looks of the car tells me he is just really confused.
    8 Jan 2013, 08:22 AM Reply Like
  • nogoodslacker
    , contributor
    Comments (1038) | Send Message
     
    If I had half a million bucks laying around, I would buy a few of these and put them in storage because they will be rare collector's items in 10 years. I mean, if Justin Beiber and Leonardo DeCaprio drive them...
    8 Jan 2013, 09:21 AM Reply Like
  • iindelco
    , contributor
    Comments (9574) | Send Message
     
    nogoodslacker, Without the battery though. They still age if you don't use them.
    8 Jan 2013, 09:28 AM Reply Like
  • nogoodslacker
    , contributor
    Comments (1038) | Send Message
     
    I have a 5 year old LiFePO4 battery on my e-bike and I still get the original 40 miles of range out of it, even though the bike sits idle for 350 days out of the year. I used to use it to commute, but my new job is only 3 blocks from my house.
    8 Jan 2013, 10:04 AM Reply Like
  • froggey77
    , contributor
    Comments (2770) | Send Message
     
    The EV community seems to be admitting there are EVs that nobody wants.

     

    Five Electric Cars Facing Demise in 2013
    By Brad Berman · January 07, 2013
    http://bit.ly/V64803

     

    Coda
    Fisker Karma
    Mitsubishi i or i-MiEV,
    BYD E6 (Not that it ever got here.)

     

    This last one is pretty funny
    Plug In Cars is actually predicting the death of a car not slated to arrive for 6 months. Essentially DOA.

     

    Chevrolet Spark EV: The Spark EV doesn’t go on sale in California until summer 2013, but there’s little evidence that this all-electric microcar can succeed when the Mitsubishi i, Think City, Smart Electric Drive, or Toyota iQ-EV came up short. Like the other models on the list, the price of the Spark EV is out of whack with its features and odd looks. Critics and shoppers will be quick to point out that the gas version of the Spark starts at $13,000, while the electric variant begins at $32,000 (before incentives). Fortunately, the future of the Volt and other G.M. plug-in hybrids is on more certain ground.
    7 Jan 2013, 10:18 PM Reply Like
  • JRP3
    , contributor
    Comments (8144) | Send Message
     
    Most of us in the EV community were always less than enthusiastic over the first 4 on the list. From initial reports the Spark may have a shot. It's from GM, performance has been described as impressive, (400ft./lbs instantly available), it has A123 cells which despite all the company's issues are very durable, it's not as ugly as the Coda or iMiEV, it should be a pretty efficient platform, and unlike all the other microcars listed it should be built in volume and marketed heavily. Fed incentive brings it down to $24,500, CA incentive takes it to $22,000 I can see some going for it, should be a fun ride.
    8 Jan 2013, 08:22 PM Reply Like
  • Futurist
    , contributor
    Comments (2127) | Send Message
     
    JRP3,
    Great commentary. I believe the Spark Ev of limited range should fare better than better looking EVs that also have range problems.
    No consumer choice basis to back this up , but it is my opinion. ( I assume these statements are good generalist statements of what you are preaching)

     

    Most ecomomist so far probably have concluded that paying double for a vehicle that is small and ugly and range limited doesn't make sense for most people.

     

    In fact, it is quite amazing that the gas powered spark, is rated very bad for a car of its class also.

     

    Really JRP3. Your rhetoric is simply rhetoric.
    8 Jan 2013, 09:08 PM Reply Like
  • JRP3
    , contributor
    Comments (8144) | Send Message
     
    Futurist,
    Somehow you completely misinterpreted my commentary. I said the Spark is better looking than some of the other vehicles mentioned, it should have impressive performance, and since it's styling clearly targets it as a city type vehicle it's range, which should be better than the iMiEV, will be good enough for it's intended market segment.
    So to be clear:
    Better appearance
    Better range
    Better performance
    Better support
    Better production volume
    Better marketing
    Better pricing
    9 Jan 2013, 09:27 AM Reply Like
  • Futurist
    , contributor
    Comments (2127) | Send Message
     
    It is not better priced.

     

    It is twice the price of an ICE Spark. That is the point. Limited range. Small. Expensive. Not a great consumer choice. Tha is why the consumer will not buy it in meaningful numbers.
    9 Jan 2013, 09:18 PM Reply Like
  • JRP3
    , contributor
    Comments (8144) | Send Message
     
    I think it's obvious that I was referring to the price of other EV's. However some of the cost differential between the ICE and EV will be paid back through lower operating costs. Not to mention it's quite common to spend more for a model with higher performance, and the EV Spark will blow away the ICE Spark, and probably a lot of other ICEs as well. Should be a real sleeper.
    10 Jan 2013, 08:45 AM Reply Like
  • Futurist
    , contributor
    Comments (2127) | Send Message
     
    Yes JRP3, a real sleeper.
    Same slow sale sleepiness of the Volt, Leaf, and every other pure EV.
    10 Jan 2013, 09:01 AM Reply Like
  • Rick Krementz
    , contributor
    Comments (2428) | Send Message
     
    jrp3, do you have ANY documented, legitimate evidence of lower operating costs? Just because you repeat it repeat it repeat it does not make it true.

     

    Tires and wiper and electric windows and shock absorbers wear out. Tesla blogs report numerous BMS systems needed replacements, and several motors. Headlights burn out. Windshields gets chipped.

     

    Subsidized "fuel", not paying for road use, and artificially reduced registrations fees just means the rest of the taxpayers are being scammed, not actual lowered operating costs.

     

    Of course, the second elephant is battery depreciation. The $40,000 battery that might last 100,001 miles is 40 cents a mile, and STILL has not been demonstrated. Nobody replaces their engine at 100k. A warrantee from an almost bankrupt company is worth as much as used toilet paper.

     

    Did I mention bricking? Well, with two elephants and a Tesla in the room for a few weeks, bricking is what you smell.

     

    Don't respond with rant - just show some fact-based, authoritative information about this generation of battery electric vehicles actually (not projected or imagined or hallucinated) having lower operatings cost on average.
    10 Jan 2013, 09:39 AM Reply Like
  • iindelco
    , contributor
    Comments (9574) | Send Message
     
    Rick, I keep hearing this as well and all I can say is the 600 USD annual fee required by TSLA is around the highest I've ever paid in a year for worse case events. And that wasn't very often. Actually I don't think I've ever paid that much in a year. Maybe once in inflation adjusted dollars when I had a compressor fail about 20 years ago.

     

    Edit:

     

    BTW, Is it really a warranty when you have to pay so much just to keep it on an annual basis?

     

    http://aol.it/TMOk1m
    10 Jan 2013, 09:56 AM Reply Like
  • Milhouse
    , contributor
    Comments (362) | Send Message
     
    Nice find, ii

     

    "...failure to pay $600 for an annual inspection voids the warranty. Plus, any visit to a non-Tesla shop for any type of service will void the warranty, a provision that could run afoul of the law."
    10 Jan 2013, 10:06 AM Reply Like
  • mrholty
    , contributor
    Comments (1041) | Send Message
     
    I can't se how that is enforceable.

     

    Per the sign at my local jiffy-lube there is a refernce to the Magnuson Moss Warranty Act which is supposed to protect people for being locked in unless it can be provided for free.

     

    http://bit.ly/U7L3IR

     

    http://bit.ly/U7L3IW

     

    Maybe when Mr. Petersen gets settled in Fl. and adjusts to being his wife's eye candy he can sue Telsa proactively for this. He gives us a heads up so we can short Tesla and the Tesla fanboys would eventually be right that he's trying to destroy them.
    10 Jan 2013, 10:29 AM Reply Like
  • froggey77
    , contributor
    Comments (2770) | Send Message
     
    Tesla has stated even getting your tires rotated elsewhere voids your warranty.
    10 Jan 2013, 10:51 AM Reply Like
  • Rick Krementz
    , contributor
    Comments (2428) | Send Message
     
    Actually, there is an additional $150 every two years that is required for the a/c maintenance (keeps the batteries cool). I haven't looked recently, but there were several hundred dollars of other recurring maintenance charges, on 2 and 3 year cycles. I remember flushing the radiator and battery cooling system is a recurring maintenance item.
    10 Jan 2013, 11:02 AM Reply Like
  • D Lane
    , contributor
    Comments (1375) | Send Message
     
    "the actual running costs can vary hugely depending on your usage"

     

    One Owner's Chevy Volt Running Cost: 2 Cents Per Mile:
    http://bit.ly/13jGfoP
    19,938 of the Volt's total 20,642 miles in 2012 were driven on electricity--a staggering 97 percent. Electric efficiency was calculated at 31 kWh/100 miles, and gas mileage topped 36 mpg on average.

     

    That meant the owner's total electricity cost was $371, and gasoline cost a measly $71--for a total fuel cost of $442. Cost per mile? Only 2 cents.

     

    For comparison, a 50 mpg Toyota Prius would cost 7 cents per mile over the same distance, with a total fuel cost of $1,486. The average 30 mpg car would use $2,477 in gas, at 12 cents per mile.

     

    Maintenance was low too, with the car not requiring any oil changes, and the owner's real electricity cost was lower than $371 as about half the charges were free, at work and at shopping malls.
    10 Jan 2013, 11:31 AM Reply Like
  • Milhouse
    , contributor
    Comments (362) | Send Message
     
    The Volt doesn't require oil changes? It has an ICE engine, therefore it requires oil changes.

     

    half the charges were free? Electricity is not free--someone has to pay for it, even if it is not you.

     

    How much will it cost to replace the battery pack after it goes bad?
    10 Jan 2013, 12:04 PM Reply Like
  • D Lane
    , contributor
    Comments (1375) | Send Message
     
    Good points. I guess he did not change the oil during 2012.
    10 Jan 2013, 12:20 PM Reply Like
  • iindelco
    , contributor
    Comments (9574) | Send Message
     
    Oil changes are not that expensive. Not sure about the dealer ones but locally where I'm at they are charging 22 USD + tax (8%) for up to 5 quarts of standard oil and the filter.

     

    Plus they are rotating the tires. checking the brakes and filling the tires if necessary for free. So it's a sales channel for the repair guys.
    10 Jan 2013, 12:53 PM Reply Like
  • Rick Krementz
    , contributor
    Comments (2428) | Send Message
     
    D Lane, your reply is EXACTLY the blogosphere anecdotal nonsense that I hate.

     

    He is figuring a lot of free electricity, and what's not free is at 6 cents, half the national average. He did not change the oil on his Volt, even thought the oil should be changed every year, regardless of mileage. He must have been lucky; apparently did not have any incidental expenses to the car, not even windshield washing fluid.

     

    He rides for free on the highway since he pays no tax. The state of Washington has started charging EVs $200/year to help cover their highway usage; other states will likely follow.

     

    So, a single anecdotal blog trying to convince the world he personally made the right decision for his car, tied together with a lot of political rantings.

     

    Perhaps the Volt is the right car for him. I don't know or care. But the article and the blog content is mostly noise, and adds nothing to establishing actual operating costs of EVs.
    10 Jan 2013, 12:54 PM Reply Like
  • D Lane
    , contributor
    Comments (1375) | Send Message
     
    Thanks Rick. I did not go to the blog myself, just read the story at GreenCarReports. Thought it would add to the conversation.
    The story does provide specifics on cost and does say "the actual running costs can vary hugely depending on your usage"
    10 Jan 2013, 01:11 PM Reply Like
  • froggey77
    , contributor
    Comments (2770) | Send Message
     
    If you check KBB 5 year TCO

     

    I used the base case for all vehicles.
    I used 2013 models for all but the Leaf which is not out yet.
    http://bit.ly/UZaJsc

     

    The Leaf, Volt, Prius, PHEV Prius, and Toyota Corolla all come in within a couple of hundred bucks on maintenance also in repair.
    (About $2,000 in each category)

     

    Leaf VS Corolla.
    The Leaf was $63 less than the Corolla in repairs and $339 in maintenance. A savings of $400.
    Leaf $900 higher in insurance and $1,300 more in financing.
    The serious savings are state fees (Leaf rebate $4,296 Corolla pays $1,468) and fuel. $7,000

     

    TCO in 5 years.
    Corolla $31,151
    Volt..... $37,127
    Prius ... $37,453
    Leaf .....$39,061
    PHEV
    Prius ....$49,087

     

    Based on anything close to KBB numbers: the Leaf won't reach breakeven in 10 years either.
    10 Jan 2013, 01:16 PM Reply Like
  • D-inv
    , contributor
    Comments (4203) | Send Message
     
    "For comparison, a 50 mpg Toyota Prius would cost 7 cents per mile over the same distance, with a total fuel cost of $1,486. "

     

    Just completed a ~1,900 mile trip (Columbia, MD - Orlando, Fl - Charleston, SC - Columbia, MD) in a 2011 4 cyl. Camry averaging 33.5 mpg over the entire trip (including running airconditioner ~1.5 days in Ga., Fl. Fuel cost averaged < $.10 mile.
    10 Jan 2013, 01:44 PM Reply Like
  • 481086
    , contributor
    Comments (3450) | Send Message
     
    Let's not forget that battery depreciation needs to be included in cost per mile, assuming it will wear out at some point due either to mileage or calendar life.. so if a $10,000 dollar battery is good for 100,000 miles, then that sounds like 10 cents a mile right there...
    10 Jan 2013, 06:09 PM Reply Like
  • JRP3
    , contributor
    Comments (8144) | Send Message
     
    Rick,
    Talk about a rant. Why are you referencing numbers for the Model S, a luxury performance sedan, when I'm talking about the Chevy Spark? Operating costs should be lower for the EV Spark than the ICE Spark. I never said an EV won't get a chipped windshield or need tires, those costs will be similar, but fueling obviously will be much lower, which of course you know. You can also eliminate oil changes, and probably brake pads and rotors. Prius owners have proven the latter.
    11 Jan 2013, 08:54 AM Reply Like
  • JRP3
    , contributor
    Comments (8144) | Send Message
     
    Depends on the chemistry. I expect the A123 LiFePO4 cells in the Spark to last the life of the vehicle with only moderate degradation in capacity.
    11 Jan 2013, 08:58 AM Reply Like
  • renim
    , contributor
    Comments (1102) | Send Message
     
    Rick

     

    FWIW the Nissan LEAF service manual, http://bit.ly/XpVacG

     

    My impression is that there is very little actual maintenance other than brake fluids. And that Nissan wants to keep an eye on the batteries.
    11 Jan 2013, 09:13 AM Reply Like
  • froggey77
    , contributor
    Comments (2770) | Send Message
     
    About oil changes: \
    A good synthetic is good for a year or 15,000 mi.
    $60 and one stop for the year.
    Better protection and easier winter starts too boot.
    11 Jan 2013, 10:30 AM Reply Like
  • Tim Enright
    , contributor
    Comments (1356) | Send Message
     
    froggey77, a good synthetic is really good until its contaminated. we should be testing our oil to see if it needs to be changed instead of picking a "worst case" type number based on driving conditions. I had 120k miles on my last oil change and testing did not reveal that it needed to be changed. I just changed it so the new owner could start fresh...
    11 Jan 2013, 11:55 AM Reply Like
  • Rick Krementz
    , contributor
    Comments (2428) | Send Message
     
    jrp3, your response to: "jrp3, do you have ANY documented, legitimate evidence of lower operating costs? Just because you repeat it repeat it repeat it does not make it true." is "should be lower"?
    11 Jan 2013, 03:27 PM Reply Like
  • Rick Krementz
    , contributor
    Comments (2428) | Send Message
     
    Wanna compare operating costs for the EV Spark and the ICE Spark? Go ahead.

     

    I do not know if the additional EV GVW has caused more suspension, steering, wheel bearing or steering problems. I do not know what the additional weight has done to tire life. I do not know what has been the failure rate of the BMS. I do not know the actual battery life in the GM EV fleet. I do not know if the traction motor has had problems with Minnesota ice, Arizona heat, vibration, and high g-forces. I do not know if there are more "disposable" parts, such as the recently discussed lead AGM battery in the Teslas that apparently need replacing nearly every year.

     

    Is the actual battery life 100,000 miles? I don't know. I know most Japanese cars go 200,000 without replacing the engine and gas tank. The average US car is over 11 years old, so at a average 12,500 miles per year, the "average average" is 137,500 miles. Can any significant number of EV Sparks even get to 137,500 without a new battery? I do not know.

     

    As for anecdote, I am in the process of selling a Honda Accord with 93,000 miles. I should get about $11,000. I do know if I was trying to sell this car, but it will have an imminent need for a $10,000 or $20,000 renovation, I won't get anywhere near $11,000.

     

    So, if you know an authoritative comparison of actual driving costs comparing the EV and ICE Sparks, I'd love to see it. Preferably not put out by GM's marketing department.
    11 Jan 2013, 05:58 PM Reply Like
  • JRP3
    , contributor
    Comments (8144) | Send Message
     
    Since the car is not yet released obviously such data does not exist, which is why I said "should be lower". Yes it's speculative but firmly based in knowledge of the components and their behavior. The Spark EV is not so much heavier that tires and suspension parts are likely to wear significantly faster, (there are heavier vehicles on the road), and I'm assuming that GM knows enough about automotive electronics that they built a reliable BMS. It's not rocket science. The A123 cells should be good for over 2000 cycles, which is at least 160,000 miles. Yes I could be wrong and GM built an under designed piece of crap that will fail prematurely, but assuming they aren't trying to sabotage themselves they do have the ability to build a reliable vehicle.
    I know my home built EV is cheaper to operate than my ICE vehicles, even when put together with less than ideal components. I expect an OEM can do better.
    12 Jan 2013, 09:22 AM Reply Like
  • froggey77
    , contributor
    Comments (2770) | Send Message
     
    All EVs Operating Under 18 MPH To Have Audible Warning

     

    http://bit.ly/USwtpz
    All auto makers can pick their own sound.

     

    Hopefully not this one
    http://bit.ly/UxbYw8
    7 Jan 2013, 10:29 PM Reply Like
  • billa_from_sf
    , contributor
    Comments (370) | Send Message
     
    When big money comes to the realization that EV's just ain't gonna cut it -- and that PbC is the best battery for SS -- our little stock here is going to go through the roof!

     

    I am going to pick up that last 10,000 shares I've been holding out on tomorrow -- in the low .30's if if I can (which puts my avg. under .40, so I can't complain).
    7 Jan 2013, 10:53 PM Reply Like
  • magounsq
    , contributor
    Comments (990) | Send Message
     
    So much for the utilities' management skill ...can't convert a darn HR payroll system...can't workout the pay issues...don't act till AG steps in...and we expect some good smart grid strategy!

     

    AG Martha Coakley fines National Grid for pay delays

     

    http://bo.st/13cU3RM
    7 Jan 2013, 11:12 PM Reply Like
  • 481086
    , contributor
    Comments (3450) | Send Message
     
    Ultimately for autos too, I think the path ePower is forging may prove fruitful.... an ICE-centered series hybrid where the ICE is right-sized for max-efficient highway travel and the battery kicks in for acceleration and hills... 'Course if you want to make millions of them you're going to need to find a cheap and plentiful robust power battery, even if there might be a weight tradeoff...
    7 Jan 2013, 11:12 PM Reply Like
  • JRP3
    , contributor
    Comments (8144) | Send Message
     
    Didn't you just describe a Prius?
    8 Jan 2013, 08:24 PM Reply Like
  • 481086
    , contributor
    Comments (3450) | Send Message
     
    No... a prius is a parallel hybrid I believe, meaning a conventional mechanical drivetrain...
    8 Jan 2013, 09:02 PM Reply Like
  • JRP3
    , contributor
    Comments (8144) | Send Message
     
    That's because it's more efficient to directly drive the wheels at certain times. The Volt uses a series/parallel combo setup for this reason.
    9 Jan 2013, 09:33 AM Reply Like
  • 481086
    , contributor
    Comments (3450) | Send Message
     
    Right, but as many have argued, the inclusion of a conventional mechanical drivetrain adds cost, weight, and complexity. If Epower's approach indeed proves out, I would think the concept could successfully scale down somewhat, perhaps to pickup truck or even auto size...but perhaps not. You're a motor and battery guy, what do you think? How much ICE Hp would be required to cruise an automobile at 70Mph highway speed if it was going through a generator-to-electric-... motor conversion? 30Hp? 50?, 70?
    10 Jan 2013, 06:19 PM Reply Like
  • D-inv
    , contributor
    Comments (4203) | Send Message
     
    " If Epower's approach indeed proves out, I would think the concept could successfully scale down somewhat, perhaps to pickup truck or even auto size.."

     

    I'm thinking there is very little chance ePower's approach will not prove out and that it should scale down to almost all vehicle sizes. Mail delivery vehicles anyone?
    10 Jan 2013, 08:31 PM Reply Like
  • Rick Krementz
    , contributor
    Comments (2428) | Send Message
     
    D-Inv: Folks have been talking about full serial hybrids for decades. The problem has always been the batteries. I don't know, even with PbC, if the storage technology is up to the challenge.
    10 Jan 2013, 09:45 PM Reply Like
  • D-inv
    , contributor
    Comments (4203) | Send Message
     
    I certainly could be mistaken, Rick. If so then I will sell sooner rather than later.

     

    My surmise is predicated on five factors. Self-equalizing charge and DCA properties of the PbC put it in a class that did not exist previously (to my knowledge). 5X - 10X longer service live to full DoD (and who knows how much longer @ 90% DoD) suggests much lower cost than FLAB or VRLA batteries. Axion has apparently suggested fewer PbC batteries could do the job of the 52 AGM batteries used in ePower's 2nd gen truck and NSC choosing the PbC over other battery chemistries tested also support inference of PbC suitability for the application.
    10 Jan 2013, 10:23 PM Reply Like
  • 481086
    , contributor
    Comments (3450) | Send Message
     
    RK, fwiw, that's more or less what I figured as well. Yet with the advent of the PbC, a very different animal from what has been available heretofore, it leaves us with a *very* big question: What if PbC *is* up to the challenge? In view of ongoing developments it sounds like we're going to begin to get some answers to that here fairly soon...
    10 Jan 2013, 10:32 PM Reply Like
  • JRP3
    , contributor
    Comments (8144) | Send Message
     
    48,
    True the lack of mechanical coupling of the ICE would save some weight but that savings would have minimal effect on highway efficiency. Power required for sustained highway speed would vary depending on the vehicle but the main consideration is the efficiency loss from the ICE generating electricity and then running that power through the inverter and motor instead of directly driving the wheels. Obviously GM did the calculations and decided it was worth the added complexity and weight to use direct drive in some cases. However we know that trains don't use that technique so with heavier vehicles and/or different use patterns the series setup may be more efficient, or close enough that the added complexity of a parallel drive isn't worth it.
    11 Jan 2013, 09:09 AM Reply Like
  • tongas
    , contributor
    Comments (40) | Send Message
     
    something not very clear in my mind so if someone can answer.

     

    for ex.Nvidia and Amd are releasing reference graphic cards and then OEM are playing around and release "tuned"cards.

     

    As Axion's goal is to sell his carbon electrodes,is there room for Battery manufacturers X and Y to buy theses and play around a little,or are things carved in marble and product from X and Y will end being similar.
    8 Jan 2013, 06:49 AM Reply Like
  • John Petersen
    , contributor
    Comments (30232) | Send Message
     
    The PbC technology can be tuned to favor energy by using thicker lead electrodes and thinner carbon electrodes. It can also be tuned to favor power by using more carbon and less lead. It's not an infinite range of variability, but there is enough for customers to make differentiated products.
    8 Jan 2013, 07:10 AM Reply Like
  • Edmund Metcalfe
    , contributor
    Comments (1509) | Send Message
     
    Is there a paper on this "tuning"?
    8 Jan 2013, 08:01 AM Reply Like
  • John Petersen
    , contributor
    Comments (30232) | Send Message
     
    I've never seen anything committed to paper but the fact of limited tune ability used to be a standard part of Axion's 10-K disclosure. I don't know that they're doing much tuning yet, but it's clearly doable.
    8 Jan 2013, 09:36 AM Reply Like
  • tongas
    , contributor
    Comments (40) | Send Message
     
    Thanks John

     

    Interesting points.As always,precises answers.
    8 Jan 2013, 07:26 AM Reply Like
  • WayneinOregon
    , contributor
    Comments (1035) | Send Message
     
    OT - Widow of WW II MIA soldier finds answers - Remarkable story (6 min. video)

     

    http://bit.ly/13dR9w9

     

    P.S. Don't pass up the "other information" at the 4:00 minute mark.
    8 Jan 2013, 09:03 AM Reply Like
  • H. T. Love
    , contributor
    Comments (18048) | Send Message
     
    Wayne: Thanks. I can't watch too much of that sort - makes my eyes tear up.

     

    HardToLove
    8 Jan 2013, 09:20 AM Reply Like
  • iindelco
    , contributor
    Comments (9574) | Send Message
     
    Thanks Wayne, I'm with HTL.

     

    A couple years ago I helped out a guy cleaning up some brush in his back yard. Afterwards we sat down and he shared stories about his mission in Europe which he supported with a book he had on the exact mission. After about 2 hours of being absolutely amazed by the entire recounting he closed his story by pointing to his picture in the book. I was numb from the experience.
    8 Jan 2013, 10:09 AM Reply Like
  • Articula
    , contributor
    Comments (253) | Send Message
     
    Not sure if this has been posted or not - but this may be the high profile Li-Ion battery fire that begins the death march for Li-Ion popularity.

     

    Li-Ion battery expected cause in Dreamliner fire

     

    http://bloom.bg/13dUQC3
    8 Jan 2013, 09:27 AM Reply Like
  • John Petersen
    , contributor
    Comments (30232) | Send Message
     
    There have been a couple other incidents where battery fires either took planes down or destroyed them on the runway. I have to believe it's just a matter of time before a car with a back seat full of kids in safety seats goes. People can ignore airline problems but they won't ignore individuals.
    8 Jan 2013, 09:39 AM Reply Like
  • Articula
    , contributor
    Comments (253) | Send Message
     
    Until a plane full of people go down over the Atlantic. There was at least a 5 minute discussion on Squawk Box this morning hypothesizing if this could actually happen. In my mind the popularity of Squawk could play a major role in shifting the investment momentum away from Li-ion.
    8 Jan 2013, 10:06 AM Reply Like
  • John Petersen
    , contributor
    Comments (30232) | Send Message
     
    The momentum has been shifting away for the last couple years after peaking in late 2009 or early 2010. A couple years ago there were four highly overvalued public lithium-ion battery manufacturers. Now there are three corpses and one that's moving to China.

     

    http://seekingalpha.co...

     

    I will never understand how investors can believe EVs will be highly successful while the lithium ion battery sector is imploding, but I hear it every I mention the T word.
    8 Jan 2013, 10:11 AM Reply Like
  • wtblanchard
    , contributor
    Comments (2434) | Send Message
     
    Welcome to GS Yuasa Lithium Power:

     

    EDIT: http://bit.ly/13e5Tv7

     

    "The battery can charge from 0 to 90% in only 75 minutes and comes with battery management electronics which guarantees multiple levels of safety features"

     

    http://bit.ly/13e52KN

     

    Guaranteed levels! What more do you need?
    8 Jan 2013, 10:35 AM Reply Like
  • John Petersen
    , contributor
    Comments (30232) | Send Message
     
    A really big products liability umbrella policy?
    8 Jan 2013, 10:42 AM Reply Like
  • JRP3
    , contributor
    Comments (8144) | Send Message
     
    EV's are still proving to be safer than gas cars, you better hope that family goes up in flames pretty soon since each day the statistics get harder and harder to beat.
    8 Jan 2013, 08:33 PM Reply Like
  • iindelco
    , contributor
    Comments (9574) | Send Message
     
    JRP3, Not sure there are enough units on the road yet to make such a claim.
    8 Jan 2013, 08:46 PM Reply Like
  • JRP3
    , contributor
    Comments (8144) | Send Message
     
    There are certainly more than enough lithium ion batteries in use worldwide to make the claim that spontaneous lithium battery fires are insignificant. If it's a real issue why do we all put them in our laps, carry them in our pockets, and hold them against our faces?
    9 Jan 2013, 09:36 AM Reply Like
  • iindelco
    , contributor
    Comments (9574) | Send Message
     
    JRP3, There is a big difference between putting a small battery in a mobile electronic device and putting a large one in an automotive application. Automotive is by far a move abusive environment. No comparison between the two.
    9 Jan 2013, 09:41 AM Reply Like
  • H. T. Love
    , contributor
    Comments (18048) | Send Message
     
    JRP3: I suspect different chemistries, as well as heat dissipation characteristics, would come into play.

     

    And don't forget the the fires in laptops that one of the major manufacturers had just a few years back - my daughter had to have her stuff replaced several times before that was all resolved.

     

    HardToLove
    9 Jan 2013, 10:14 AM Reply Like
  • JRP3
    , contributor
    Comments (8144) | Send Message
     
    iind,
    Not so sure about that. Mobile devices don't have a TMS, they get tossed around all the time, living in people's pockets quite often, getting dropped, and, in fact spend lots of time in automobiles. Plus they are often cycled at extreme high and low SOC's in attempts to get maximum run time and are often in constant use. I'd say an automotive pack is living a coddle life in comparison.
    10 Jan 2013, 08:50 AM Reply Like
  • JRP3
    , contributor
    Comments (8144) | Send Message
     
    Those laptop fires are old news and due to faulty manufacturing. Yes there are some different chemistries being used in EV's, many of them inherently safer than the LiCo laptop cells. Even so the original Tesla Roadster did indeed use standard LiCo laptop cells, with 2500 Roadsters in the world, 6831 cells each, that's 17,077,500 cells, no spontaneous fires or crash related fires, ever. We also now have around 3000 Model S's out there with an even higher cell count per vehicle. I think we are past the point where the lithium cell safety issue can be a factor. Initially I was somewhat critical of Tesla's cell choice and pack design but they've obviously proven me wrong.
    10 Jan 2013, 08:58 AM Reply Like
  • iindelco
    , contributor
    Comments (9574) | Send Message
     
    JRP3, Let's say we'll agree to disagree here. But I'll not disagree with the variables humans can introduce to a process and thus the components in the process. I will say that the hardest industrial processes I ever launched were the manual operations. The s*&t people will do. All the way to the cutters, people that will work hard to figure out a way to maim themselves to get time off and/or to make money.
    10 Jan 2013, 09:10 AM Reply Like
  • metroneanderthal
    , contributor
    Comments (1511) | Send Message
     
    Article on lithium-ion battery fires and airlines - including some numbers.
    http://on.wsj.com/VSbK6b
    12 Jan 2013, 10:02 AM Reply Like
  • wtblanchard
    , contributor
    Comments (2434) | Send Message
     
    ATDF seller steps up again

     

    offered approx 45K at .335 of which 25.8K is left when the next best offer was TEJS at .3424 and high was .348

     

    Sure seems like somebody has a fairly large position to get rid of and they don't care about getting the best price for it ...

     

    definitely killed any potential momentum, though they also say the novices buy the opening hour or so and the pros sell it
    8 Jan 2013, 10:01 AM Reply Like
  • H. T. Love
    , contributor
    Comments (18048) | Send Message
     
    And then NITE stepped on the ask with a $0.34 x 96.5K offer.

     

    HardToLove
    8 Jan 2013, 10:33 AM Reply Like
  • jakurtz
    , contributor
    Comments (1940) | Send Message
     
    Thanks WTB I appreciate the updates from level II.
    Just FYI: If you go here you can see that NITE and ATDF rank as the top two MM's on the OTCQB with UBSS 4th. I believe ATDF is merely a hard worker bee and can not possibly represent a single seller but undoubtedly represent a mix of all. I would imagine there strategy is working the higher volume on lower spreads so we will always see them representing all the different investors who are willing to narrow the spread to execute their order first. Often in the past we have seen them compete with NITE for this role in the market, it is the higher risk higher volume MM role.

     

    http://bit.ly/W7I8xE
    8 Jan 2013, 10:46 AM Reply Like
  • H. T. Love
    , contributor
    Comments (18048) | Send Message
     
    JAK: You can click on the tabs to get different sort orders. Volume vs. $ is often interesting to note.

     

    HardToLove
    8 Jan 2013, 10:57 AM Reply Like
  • wtblanchard
    , contributor
    Comments (2434) | Send Message
     
    NITE showing 73.9K left at .34, but ATDF has again jumped in front with 40K @ .335

     

    Perhaps just simple profit taking

     

    Volume 243.7K pretty good for this hour, so there's that.

     

    Somebody's buying what they're selling :-)

     

    ETRF sitting below best bid with 28.3K bid at .33
    UBSS has 28.9K @ .31
    8 Jan 2013, 11:01 AM Reply Like
  • H. T. Love
    , contributor
    Comments (18048) | Send Message
     
    Along with there's that ... so far higher high and low. Trading above 200-day SMA ($0.3299 yesterday EOD). B:S good through 10:40 at 2.36:1. This sort of ratio *can* hold as it's within the normal range.

     

    HardToLove
    8 Jan 2013, 11:08 AM Reply Like
  • jakurtz
    , contributor
    Comments (1940) | Send Message
     
    HTL, That is interesting. I guess the data is being updated throughout the day so they all change in where they rank too.
    8 Jan 2013, 11:28 AM Reply Like
  • Stefan Moroney
    , contributor
    Comments (2656) | Send Message
     
    New ZBB microgrid order:

     

    http://yhoo.it/VQp4ou
    8 Jan 2013, 10:24 AM Reply Like
  • D. McHattie
    , contributor
    Comments (1844) | Send Message
     
    And the pps falls. It's a topsy turvy world we live in now.

     

    D
    8 Jan 2013, 10:33 AM Reply Like
  • LT
    , contributor
    Comments (5082) | Send Message
     
    Where does ZBB stand on capital now ? they gonna have to raise more ?
    Or do they have enough now ?
    8 Jan 2013, 12:42 PM Reply Like
  • wtblanchard
    , contributor
    Comments (2434) | Send Message
     
    I'm a bit impressed that they beat out Redflow in Australia!

     

    RedFlow bags battery orders from US defence contractor
    Monday, January 07, 2013 by Proactive Investors

     

    "RedFlow (ASX:RFX) has received an initial order for 12 of its zinc-bromide battery modules(ZBMs) from a US conglomerate that is involved in the US defence industry.
    The trials with this US conglomerate would involve the delivery of some 50 battery modules in the current financial year.
    The 12 units will be supplied before end of this month."

     

    http://bit.ly/UyExsU
    8 Jan 2013, 12:52 PM Reply Like
  • Stefan Moroney
    , contributor
    Comments (2656) | Send Message
     
    I believe they will have to raise capital again before the end of the summer unless they start converting a majority of their backlog, but I have not looked at their financials since I believe early November.
    8 Jan 2013, 05:59 PM Reply Like