Seeking Alpha

Axion Power Host's  Instablog

Axion Power Host
Send Message
Trying to learn stuff
  • Axion Power Concentrator 223: Mar. 29: Axion Power Completes New Continuous Roll Carbon Sheeting Process 240 comments
    Mar 29, 2013 8:14 AM | about stocks: AXPW

    Latest News, Articles and Presentations...

    Axion Power's CEO Discusses Q4 2012 Results - Earnings Call Transcript

    Thomas Granville CEO: "We left the designation 'development stage company' in the dust in 2012 and there's no slowdown in sight."

    ------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Axion Power Reports Results for 2012 --

    Chairman & CEO Thomas Granville commented, "Axion continued to make important strides in the fourth quarter, making 2012 a landmark year overall. Obviously our best year ever will be the first year when PbC revenue starts to show significant growth but it was a good step in that direction that we were able to recognize the first big PbC sale in the 4th quarter, to Norfolk Southern. This coincides with our first 10K filing without "development stage company" status. With our increase in sales, and more specifically sales of our core business product, we are now recognized as a commercial entity for filing purposes.

    ------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Axion Power Completes New Continuous Roll Carbon Sheeting Process

    "This is a giant leap forward for us and allows us to make a better product at a reduced cost," said Axion Power's Chairman and Chief Executive Officer Thomas Granville. "It's the final step in automating our complete activated carbon negative electrode manufacturing process and it brings us tighter quality control, better production yields, meaningful production quantities and significant labor cost reductions..."

    -------------------------------------------------------------------------------Axion Power and EPower Engine Systems Inaugurate Strategic Alliance Using PbC Batteries in Hybrid Drivetrains for Class 8 Trucks

    -------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Dr. Ed Buiel, Axion's CTO until the end of 2010 -- A link to an archive of his comments on yadoodle about the PbC battery and much more. Invaluable commentary! Thanks to 481086 for putting the list together.

    Axion Power PbC Batteries Continue To Demonstrate Effectiveness For Railroad Applications -- Axion completed shipping its high-performance PbC batteries to Norfolk Southern Corp. (NYSE:NS), one of North America's leading transportation providers, for use in Norfolk Southern's first all electric locomotive - the NS-999.

    Axion Power Residential Energy Storage HUB Certified to UL, CSA Standards -- Axion receives UL certification and CSA Standards for their Residential Energy Storage HUB.

    "ePower's Series Hybrid Electric Drive - Unmatched Fuel Economy for Heavy Trucks" -- by John Petersen. Discusses the potential fuel savings for ePower's Hybrid electric drive for class 8 trucks using Axion's PbC batteries.

    "Axion Power - A Battery Manufacturer Charging Forward" -- by John Petersen. This is an excellent summation on Axion Power's history. It is a good starting point for introducing Axion Power to friends and family.

    13th European Lead Battery Conference, ELBC -- Sliderocket of John Petersen's presentation at the ELBC.

    Dr. Ender's Dickinson's Presentation on Axion's PbC -- Link to his slideshow at the 13th ELBC.

    Axion Power's 3rd Quarter Report and Press Release -- Seeking Alpha also published the transcript of the conference call here.

    RoseWater Joins Queen's University on Energy Storage Study -- Testing will determine the effects of residential energy storage systems on local power grids.

    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Axion Power Weighted Moving Average Prices and Volume:

    (updated through 03/23/2013)

    (click to enlarge)

    (click to enlarge)

    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Axion Power Monthly Volume versus FINRA Short Percentage:

    In late January I wrote an Instablog about the precipitous decline in reported FINRA short sales as a percentage of total trading volume. Over the last two weeks that trend has accelerated and the percentages for the month of February and the last four weeks are solidly in single digits. I view this graph as another confirmation of seller exhaustion. The big uglies are history and it looks like everybody who really wanted to sell already has.

    John Petersen's instablog here.

    (click to enlarge)

    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Axion Power Concentrator Comments:

    (click to enlarge)

    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Links to important Axion Power research and websites:

    The Axion Power Concentrator Web Sites, created by APC commentator Bangwhiz. It is a complete easy-to-use online archive of all the information contained in the entire Axion Power Concentrator series from day one, including reports, articles, comments and posted links.

    Axion Power Wikispaces Web Site, created by APC commentator WDD. It is an excellent ongoing notebook aggregation of Axion Power facts.

    Axion Power Website. The first place any prospective investor should go and thoroughly explore with all SEC filings and investor presentations as well as past and present Press Releases.

    Axion Power Intra day Statistics Tracking: HTL tracks and charts AXPW's intra-day statistics.
    --------------------------------------------------------------------
    Be sure and either follow the Axion Power Host ID on Seeking Alpha or click the check-box labeled "track new comments on this article" just ahead of the comments section!
    --------------------------------------------------------------------
    WARNING: This is a troll free zone. We reserve the right to eliminate posts, or posters that are disruptive.

    Enjoy!

    Disclosure: I am long OTCQB:AXPW.

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 (240)
Track new comments
  • jveal
    , contributor
    Comments (657) | Send Message
     
    Happy Easter weekend.
    29 Mar 2013, 08:20 AM Reply Like
  • growsmart
    , contributor
    Comments (170) | Send Message
     
    #2
    29 Mar 2013, 08:40 AM Reply Like
  • greentongue
    , contributor
    Comments (854) | Send Message
     
    Hopefully our Easter baskets will have some nice gifts, next week.
    29 Mar 2013, 08:46 AM Reply Like
  • JohnM121
    , contributor
    Comments (396) | Send Message
     
    From the 2012 10K:
    On December 31, 2012 there were 406 holders of record for our common stock and 113,260,006 shares of our common stock outstanding.
    That is 279,000 shares per person. I like to think that I'm an above average person. There are 2 ways to fix this. Buy more and get more shareholders. (The latter, for all you analogy people, is like arguing that the best way to improve your performance is to hire more low-performing people)
    There are 226 Concentrator followers now, but not all readers are followers. At least 1 follower is not a shareholder (Bang). It's pretty safe to assert that a large portion of the all the owners come here to check how the company is doing. With the price where it is, I can't be as confident on price support.
    My speculation strategy is to buy a small amount of a company, check in occasionally and buy more if the company (not the stock) is progressing. There have to be a few hundred more people in the world that can stumble onto axpw and buy a few shares.
    29 Mar 2013, 09:31 AM Reply Like
  • John Petersen
    , contributor
    Comments (30170) | Send Message
     
    When a public company reports the number of record holders, it only counts stockholders who hold physical certificates in registered form.

     

    The biggest entry on every public company's stockholder list is CEDE & Co. as nominee for the The Depository Trust. The CEDE certificate includes all shares that are held in brokerage accounts and IRAs and it usually represents more than 75% of the outstanding stock.

     

    The individual beneficial owners of the CEDE & Co. shares who have stock on deposit with intermediaries are not counted for purposes of determining the number of record holders, although they will be counted for purposes of determining the number of beneficial owners for market listing purposes.

     

    Based on market activity over the last three years, I'd bet dollars to donuts that there are several thousand beneficial owners who have stock tucked away in brokerage accounts and IRAs. The only time most companies get an accurate count of the number of beneficial owners is proxy season when they have to print enough copies to mail to every holder, record and beneficial.
    29 Mar 2013, 09:50 AM Reply Like
  • JohnM121
    , contributor
    Comments (396) | Send Message
     
    Thanks for the clarification. I was a little concerned since I read that number. Some other brokerage account holders have flagged it too.
    29 Mar 2013, 10:40 AM Reply Like
  • wtblanchard
    , contributor
    Comments (2430) | Send Message
     
    Gotta once again give props to A123 on their blog, The Pulse.

     

    California's 50MW Grid Storage Requirement
    Posted by Eric Hsieh on Wed, Mar 20, 2013

     

    http://bit.ly/10mXLVK

     

    "The final question involves the non-energy production uses of a generator. In many cases, a generator located on the “downstream” end of a transmission interface is more useful than a generator located “upstream,” since the former is located closer to the load. In select instances, the generator is needed not for energy, but to “prop up” the transmission line. A small generator, providing the proper support, can enable a transmission line to deliver power many times the size of the generator.

     

    ...

     

    If California’s circumstances change in the next decade, some LTPP stakeholders are rightly concerned about the costs of potentially redundant capacity. By utilizing storage, California can move the assets where needed, and even sell them to other areas.

     

    Storage also represents operational flexibility. Switching between frequency regulation, voltage support, energy arbitrage, and renewable ramp management applications is as simple as uploading new software. So even if local capacity requirements no longer require storage in a voltage support or energy arbitrage mode, the asset could find value in another usage."
    29 Mar 2013, 09:41 AM Reply Like
  • KentG
    , contributor
    Comments (368) | Send Message
     
    7th! Ha
    29 Mar 2013, 10:22 AM Reply Like
  • D-inv
    , contributor
    Comments (4135) | Send Message
     
    Rumor/speculation time.

     

    The PR announcing NSC purchase of PbC batteries for NS999v2 suggested shipment and "deployment" in 90 - 120 days. With batteries shipped in late December that "90 - 120" day window appears in play. I prognosticate sighting of NS999v2 moving under its own power before end-April.
    29 Mar 2013, 10:40 AM Reply Like
  • DRich
    , contributor
    Comments (4597) | Send Message
     
    >D-inv ... Been there, done that ... months ago.
    29 Mar 2013, 11:00 AM Reply Like
  • wtblanchard
    , contributor
    Comments (2430) | Send Message
     
    Did you know:

     

    "Industrial processes -- from petroleum refineries and paper mills to chemicals and metals industries -- consume about one-third of all energy produced in the United States."

     

    Energy Department Turns Up the Heat and Power on Industrial Energy Efficiency

     

    http://1.usa.gov/YMV8kJ

     

    "to help overcome barriers to expanded CHP investment"

     

    Ameresco gets a passing mention, aiding NCSU.

     

    Just thought I'd mention that not all DOE funds going to "Blue Sky" stuff ... this is one "energy policy" that deserves all the support it can get. You would think the economics would speak for themselves, but I'm sure that companies get bombarded with all kinds of pitches and hopefully this initiative helps one of the best push through the "din" and red tape that could slow down progress, competitiveness, and economic development.
    29 Mar 2013, 10:56 AM Reply Like
  • iindelco
    , contributor
    Comments (9461) | Send Message
     
    Battery Company Changes Name from A123 to B456 -- A Fire Extinguisher?

     

    http://onforb.es/14BmdZj

     

    The alleged name sake.

     

    http://bit.ly/10jV8CX

     

    I figured the model would have a hose on it. Symbolic for the "Hose Job" given to the US tax payer.
    29 Mar 2013, 11:06 AM Reply Like
  • DRich
    , contributor
    Comments (4597) | Send Message
     
    >iindelco ... Not everything associated with B456 (do they have a new trading symbol yet?) is all that humorous.

     

    http://bit.ly/11X15Z3
    29 Mar 2013, 11:15 AM Reply Like
  • iindelco
    , contributor
    Comments (9461) | Send Message
     
    DRich, Remember that I have lived in the manufacturing industry. You're preaching to the choir.

     

    The question now is, after all these decades of doing the damage you suggest, Has it gone too far? The Euro and the USD will answer that question.

     

    PS My humor is intended to mask my disgust.
    29 Mar 2013, 11:25 AM Reply Like
  • JRP3
    , contributor
    Comments (7996) | Send Message
     
    That article ignores the reality that A123 cells have been made in Korea and China for years. The sale of the company is irrelevant to national security.
    29 Mar 2013, 10:20 PM Reply Like
  • John Petersen
    , contributor
    Comments (30170) | Send Message
     
    While I rarely agree with JRP3, he's right in observing that A123's cells have been manufactured in Asia since the very beginning. More importantly, A123's "technology" is a relatively insignificant variation on LiFePO4 chemistry and basically no more "secret and proprietary" than my grandmother's carrot cake recipe.

     

    They've changed the secret sauce and left the hamburger alone.
    30 Mar 2013, 05:57 AM Reply Like
  • wtblanchard
    , contributor
    Comments (2430) | Send Message
     
    If anyone can figure it out, maybe the Germans?

     

    Got money. Got expertise. Got "power."

     

    Integrating Variable Renewables as Germany Expands Its Grid

     

    http://bit.ly/11Xa3Wh

     

    Pretty long article. Some good comments. Work in progress ...
    29 Mar 2013, 11:56 AM Reply Like
  • wtblanchard
    , contributor
    Comments (2430) | Send Message
     
    ZBB getting noticed/pushed ...

     

    A 43.3% YTD Return: What’s Small Cap Battery Stock ZBB Energy Corporation’s (ZBB) Secret?

     

    ZBB Energy Corporation (ZBB) boasts a 43.3% YTD return while many small cap battery or energy storage system stocks have failed to survive an industry shack out.

     

    ======================...

     

    Though exactly what a "shack out" was sadly not revealed :-)

     

    http://bit.ly/11Xd9tn

     

    Couple other articles on their site as well.

     

    Articles like this (whether like them and the "hot" money they might attract or not) could be in our not too distant future
    29 Mar 2013, 12:10 PM Reply Like
  • H. T. Love
    , contributor
    Comments (17876) | Send Message
     
    "... what a "shack out" was sadly not revealed".

     

    Opposite of a "shack up"? :-(( Sad, if true.

     

    As to the YTD return, I like the "cherry picking". If they had measured the EOY close to the 3/21 close, it would be flat! Now with a huge gap-up open 3/22, as a result of the news, and subsequent volume action, I wouldn't be surprised to see some retrace. This is also suggested by the medium-term resistance line I had in place. The high hit *exactly* on that line, AFAICT, and settled the last few days around the mid-range of that high day.

     

    Gaps "like to be closed" is the trader's saw. That would suggest that $0.37 will be visited without some momentum-sustaining PR.

     

    I wish folks used something like VWA close for some various periods instead of the one-day spikes that they always focus on.

     

    MHO,
    HardToLove
    29 Mar 2013, 01:18 PM Reply Like
  • wtblanchard
    , contributor
    Comments (2430) | Send Message
     
    OT: but one we've discussed a bit:

     

    SEC ruling gives boost to online funding tool for startups

     

    http://bit.ly/13E2RTR

     

    "In a significant footnote in the SEC letter, the Commission notes that FundersClub’s model is consistent with the Jobs Act, a recent law intended to make it easier for start-ups to raise money without regulatory headaches"
    29 Mar 2013, 12:31 PM Reply Like
  • H. T. Love
    , contributor
    Comments (17876) | Send Message
     
    03/28/2013: EOD stuff partially copied from instablog (up in an hour?).
    # Trds: 22, MinTrSz: 800, MaxTrSz: 14000, Vol 101815, AvTrSz: 4628
    Min. Pr: 0.2760, Max Pr: 0.2850, VW Avg. Tr. Pr: 0.2805
    # Buys, Shares: 11 43315, VW Avg Buy Pr: 0.2831
    # Sells, Shares: 11 58500, VW Avg Sell Pr: 0.2786
    # Unkn, Shares: 0 0, VW Avg Unk. Pr: 0.0000
    Buy:Sell 1:1.35 (42.5% “buys”), DlyShts 15000 (14.73%), Dly Sht % of 'sells' 25.64%

     

    I'm pretty pleased with today's behavior because it was as expected – always a comfort to me. Although I expressed some concerns yesterday, I wrapped up with “... it appears a move is less likely right now than before. Since we have entered short-term consolidation, we have a shortened week, ... we might easily get into the early part of April before this “log jam” is broken”. And I mentioned “... Continued consolidation behavior seems supported by the oscillators I watch doing what they've been doing – up a little, down a little, up a little, ... All more or less around fairly neutral readings ...”.

     

    We were actually looking better than expected through 14:37: buy:sell was 1.90:1 and VWAP was $0.2821 on 53.7K shares volume. And this was even with everybody, sort of, trying to participate on the sell side: ATDF, NITE, UBSS, CDEL all spent some time at the top of the “leader board” on the ask side. But the typical late-day weakness began, led by ATDF, and we ended as you see above – still not too bad IMO.

     

    Anyway, with a narrowing price spread and reducing volume continuing, it appears that at least a few more days of consolidation might be in store unless ...

     

    We are on our way to a medium-term or longer consolidation, which I think is possible as we await financing news, or some of our action was EOQ-related and the new quarter frees some folks to do things not related to EOQ (I have no idea if this affects AXPW or not), or financing news hits relatively quickly and provides impetus for a move based on either a sigh of relief or disappointment.

     

    On the traditional TA front there is some support for continued consolidation ATM. The oscillators I watch continue mixed with most around neutral readings. My experimental 13-period Bollinger limits ($0.3053 and $0.2721) are converging more quickly now and have moved inside of some potentially key points, the upper below the 50 and 200-day SMA and the lower above $0.27 support line. The nice thing about the lower right now is that price lows are not pushing the lower; rather the lower Bollinger is rising to catch up with the low, which has risen marginally.

     

    Using a standard 20-period Bollinger band, it's not quite as rosy: the upper limit is around $0.34 and “flattish” while the lower limit is $0.26 and falling. If a move to mid-point was attempted again at today's readings we'd hit our good old friend, $0.30. Anyway, the standard one is not showing convergence, and so is not suggesting an imminent move. But do keep in mind that a move to mid-point is not the only option – the bands suggest that movement to the limits is possible without violating two standard deviations. I seldom mention this, but it is a possible near-term move.

     

    On my experimental charts stuff, average trade size finished in what I think is the lower range of typical “retail” size. With the low volume today, this is to be expected. Buy:sell is still weak, but the short-term averages are showing improvement, suggesting that we are progressing towards more normal readings. Daily short sales “spiked” up today, with percentage breaking through a descending trend line and above all the averages I track for it. However, with the low volume and it being, essentially, a one-day event I wouldn't read much into it. It is worth noting that we do have a very short-term trend higher though, so we might want to keep an eye on it to see if it turns into something notable. Right now I'm not expecting any sustained change.

     

    On my original experimental inflection point calculations, I still interpret them as “flattish”. On my newer version, the three near-term calculations, 5, 10 and 25-day, are flat and the longer-term calculations, 50, 100 and 200-day, are beginning to curl up. For now, these should also be read as “flattish”.

     

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

     

    HardToLove
    29 Mar 2013, 02:11 PM Reply Like
  • mrholty
    , contributor
    Comments (1025) | Send Message
     
    Guys since this is a quiet news day and probable weekend I'm going to throw out a tech company that has a simple design that seems like it should work but I doubt it does.

     

    http://sheerwind.com

     

    A friend sent me this and thinks its revolutionary. It came from this SierraClub article.
    http://bit.ly/16mArvb

     

    I'm skeptical. My guess is the math simply doesn't work. Any thoughts?
    29 Mar 2013, 02:18 PM Reply Like
  • Poul Brandt
    , contributor
    Comments (278) | Send Message
     
    mrholty.
    This is funny.
    Just an example: Look at the image. If the Wind blows from the direction of the exhaust, absolutely no air will move through the system (or actually backwards).- But maybe they just forgot to mention the whole system (or at least the exhaust) has to turn with the Wind direction.
    Very funny indeed.
    29 Mar 2013, 03:29 PM Reply Like
  • Rick Krementz
    , contributor
    Comments (2376) | Send Message
     
    mrholty - Yet Another Wind Energy Scam.... YAWES

     

    1) Data-free website. No data on actual size, actual kw rating, actual kwh production, actual windspeeds producing specific power, nada-nada.

     

    2) HYPE HYPE SUPER PERCENT IMPROVEMENT... (over what?)

     

    3) Nearly content-free, too. "Winds speeds as low as 2mph" So? What happens? One milliwatt of power?

     

    4) No discussion of Betz limit http://bit.ly/14tKd08 , and active misdirection. Wind can be funneled and speed increased, but the ENERGY in the wind can only be decreased (because of friction). Betz law states only 59.3% of the energy in wind in the swept area can be extracted, regardless of technology.

     

    Example, a one MW wind turbine (small by today's standards), with a 57 meter diameter, has a swept area of 2550 m2, and probably works at 75% of the Betz limit. A 1 MW "Sheerwind" would still need an area of at least 2550 m2, which is a huge tower, regardless of how small the ground-based turbine is. This is physics, not hype.

     

    5) No safe stop or failure mode. In wind conditions, no way to feather or reduce the area. That 2500+ m2 funnel is going to catastrophically blow away in a storm.

     

    6) Perhaps they have solved the lee effect, but there is no evidence that they have. The downwind, or lee side, is going to have enormous vacuum effects, sucking wind / energy _out_ of the funnel.

     

    There are least another dozen sillies ... but I am tired of writing.

     

    Stay away. They are looking for suckers or government handouts, and probably both. Your skepticism is totally warranted.
    29 Mar 2013, 02:57 PM Reply Like
  • D-inv
    , contributor
    Comments (4135) | Send Message
     
    "This time around, though, the power could help retire those fossil fuel refineries for good. "

     

    Sounds/looks like air castles to non-technical me.
    29 Mar 2013, 03:07 PM Reply Like
  • mrholty
    , contributor
    Comments (1025) | Send Message
     
    Thanks guys. I'm going to forward some of your comments to him, especially yours Rick. He was going to invest a considerable to him % of his retirement funds with them in exchange for some equity. If he actually gets to go to see the actual demonstration unit in action I'll try to tag along (its a 4 hour drive).
    29 Mar 2013, 03:52 PM Reply Like
  • Rick Krementz
    , contributor
    Comments (2376) | Send Message
     
    mrholty - Wow! - Red Alert! Red Alert! Don't let him invest!

     

    Demos are often rigged or prove nothing. If I were a scammer, I'd probably have the little turbine spinning with an electric motor, and an amp meter showing how much power is "produced", but actually is consuming. For extra effect, have an aerometer measuring the wind speed, and varying the motor and turbine speed. Increased wind, increase motor, more wind come out the exhaust, "demonstrating" how much the wind is "accelerated". This type of scam setup would be particularly effective if the wind is below 10 mph.

     

    Bring a volt meter. See if they let you disconnect the wires from the turbine motor "generator" and measure the voltage. Note, an amp meter could be measuring the energy either going in or out of the generator. Note if the turbine slows or stops when the power supply is disconnected.

     

    Have fun!
    29 Mar 2013, 04:05 PM Reply Like
  • bangwhiz
    , contributor
    Comments (2248) | Send Message
     
    Shoot out his tires if you have to Mrholty.
    29 Mar 2013, 06:30 PM Reply Like
  • mrholty
    , contributor
    Comments (1025) | Send Message
     
    If anyone is still looking at this. My friend tried to schedule a time to see the turbine, data station, etc and basically told they didn't want to share trade secrets. At that point your comments plus them caused him to walk away from investing(giving them his money) with them.

     

    He got this article sent to his email today.
    http://bit.ly/15G9hmr

     

    Thought you all would like it.
    13 May 2013, 01:45 PM Reply Like
  • Rick Krementz
    , contributor
    Comments (2376) | Send Message
     
    Wow, I just had a friend today send me http://bit.ly/13tzFML, asking if it was bogus.

     

    Persistent little fraudsters, aren't they?
    13 May 2013, 03:13 PM Reply Like
  • mrholty
    , contributor
    Comments (1025) | Send Message
     
    It seems like they got their pumping machine out in full force.

     

    The thing about them is if you look at their board there are a bunch of former utility VPs on it which gives them instant credibility. Rick you should give them a call and play stupid and hear the whole pitch. This is all about getting and sustaining gov't grants.

     

    The head guys use his background from Iran as to where he got the idea as the buildings there have cooling towers to pull in breezes from higher up, etc. To a person who wants to believe it seems so simple that it would have to work.
    13 May 2013, 04:23 PM Reply Like
  • Rick Krementz
    , contributor
    Comments (2376) | Send Message
     
    I would, but I doubt I could keep my mouth shut. I hear enough fairy tales as it is....

     

    I'd rather listen to something has a possibility of success without cheating.
    13 May 2013, 07:12 PM Reply Like
  • siliconhillbilly
    , contributor
    Comments (2169) | Send Message
     
    But Rick, it can produce power at 1 cent per KWh! They said so! That's wonderful!

     

    Sarcasm font OFF.

     

    That "1 cent/kWh" number says all anyone needs to know about this scam. Wind funnels are fine for ventilating ground level or underground spaces. They are NOT fine for generating electric power.
    14 May 2013, 02:36 AM Reply Like
  • Rick Krementz
    , contributor
    Comments (2376) | Send Message
     
    Sili, you obviously failed green accounting. I suspect the electricity incremental cost is less than 1 cent/kWh, ignoring capital costs and maintenance. The wind is free!!!

     

    <snark off>
    14 May 2013, 01:20 PM Reply Like
  • carlosgaviria
    , contributor
    Comments (799) | Send Message
     
    Hellow mis amigos!!!

     

    This is a good news to micro-mild and Hybrids cars?

     

    http://on.mktw.net/X2iRdi

     

    Hasta pronto-Carlos.
    29 Mar 2013, 05:45 PM Reply Like
  • D-inv
    , contributor
    Comments (4135) | Send Message
     
    Carlos, my political antenna lead me to think even many Democrats in the US Senate and House of Representatives will likely tell IMF advocates of that gasoline tax to suck wind. I don't see anything close to the IMF recommendation happening in this country any time soon.
    29 Mar 2013, 06:49 PM Reply Like
  • 481086
    , contributor
    Comments (3444) | Send Message
     
    D-inv... I'm very much a clockwise type... and I'll be brief 'cause "Denny, please, it's not the venue..." but really... since we gotta have revenue (amount though always a fair debate), which means we gotta tax, levy, duty, fee, tariff *something*... let's *not* have it be (like now) on property, investment & productive & creative activity (in all their manifold forms) but rather on waste, pollution, etc and yes it hurts to say, energy consumption (all conventional forms...gasoline, diesel, coal, NG, electricity)... if we shifted the burden significantly to those things (which means we lighten it everywhere else *significantly*), over time we probably would see greater efficiencies, smarter and reduced consumption, and less waste, emissions etc... and, miracle of miracles, probably more and healthier economic growth and activity.

     

    I think everyone can agree that whatever the solution, the *current* sclerotic schema of national revenue raising is, uh, troubled, counterproductive, and ripe for change...

     

    just my two zinc tokens
    29 Mar 2013, 07:16 PM Reply Like
  • DRich
    , contributor
    Comments (4597) | Send Message
     
    >D-inv ... I don't think that is too out of the question. Right here in Texas we, right now, have toll roads (SH130 for instance) that that charge autos $0.37 per mile (Class 8 trucks $1.32) because it is private & state subsidized. If you want to look at this as a tax that comes to roughly $9.25 per gallon (figuring 25 mpg). My governor the, Repub Rick Perry, wants to build tolls into every road in the state so it seems. Here in DFW we have 180 miles so far and by 2020 it is supposed cover every major artery (approx 480 miles) and many secondary state highways (approx 200 miles). Presently the charge is $0.14 per mile or $3.50 per gallon. At least our Repub brethren didn't raise the gas tax and if you can live at the leisurely pace of traveling at 2 to 10 miles an hour you can avoid the tolls ... and, yes, there are free lanes, but that is only temporary under the plan.
    29 Mar 2013, 07:18 PM Reply Like
  • 481086
    , contributor
    Comments (3444) | Send Message
     
    DR, sympathy here... while (no shock) I'm mostly a fan of your guv, I kinda loathe toll roads... just a waste and PITA all the way around... would rather just see higher gas tax. Open roads I say, sea to shining sea...
    29 Mar 2013, 07:26 PM Reply Like
  • D-inv
    , contributor
    Comments (4135) | Send Message
     
    Tolls and higher fuel taxes are two of the three ways available to encourage (incentivize) energy conversation. The third option is through government regulation as in EPA emissions and/or fuel consumption standards. Carlos' interest, encouragement of start/stop and use of PbC, would benefit most from higher fuel tax and/or regulation approaches. Fuel taxes are, like tolls, user fees when receipts are used to fund roadway construction and maintenance but government can double dip with taxes collected on fuel consumed traversing toll roads.

     

    Numerous States are moving to raise fuel taxes. Maryland and Virginia have just done so. Maryland applied it's sales tax to highway fuels (phased in over time) and also recently raised tolls on all but one (newly opened) of its toll facilities. In Maryland's case, the revenue raisers were politically "justified" as needed to replenish highway trust funds (which had been raided to fund other non-transportation programs). Virginia replaced it's fuel excise taxes by subjecting fuel to the Virginia sales tax.

     

    Currently, federal excise taxes on highway fuels are 18.4 cents per gallon (cpg) on gasoline and 24.4 cents per gallon (cpg) for diesel fuel. IMF appears to have suggested raising the federal tax on gasoline ~$1.15 per gallon. The federal government does not need to increase transportation spending 7X.
    29 Mar 2013, 08:10 PM Reply Like
  • DRich
    , contributor
    Comments (4597) | Send Message
     
    >481086 ... Well, if you're a fan of crony capitalism, Rick Perry is your guy. I can tell you that he is truly hated by a large number (if not the majority) of people in Texas. If it weren't for him being the only Republican to choose from I think people would bring back tar & feathering, then ride him to a border and throw him out. What the people that don't vote for him would do is anybody's guess.
    29 Mar 2013, 08:33 PM Reply Like
  • 481086
    , contributor
    Comments (3444) | Send Message
     
    "The federal government does not need to increase transportation spending 7X. "

     

    totally concur... but that money could go to general revenue...and take a blowtorch to other forms/kinds of taxation... I'm talking root and branch systemic reform...
    29 Mar 2013, 08:35 PM Reply Like
  • DRich
    , contributor
    Comments (4597) | Send Message
     
    >481086 ... Whoa there buckaroo. Dangerously close to Socialism there.
    29 Mar 2013, 08:41 PM Reply Like
  • Futurist
    , contributor
    Comments (2127) | Send Message
     
    DRich,
    Some argue that the most conservative approach today, is socialism as defined in the past. I find that an interesting discussion.

     

    My simple thoughts are that we, in this country, have several diametrically opposed views on all tax and spend issues. These issues need to be resolved, through our political system, in order to reach a common goal ond be economically successful. Its a long way of saying we have to come together to figure out how to be the best the world has ever seen.
    29 Mar 2013, 08:52 PM Reply Like
  • 481086
    , contributor
    Comments (3444) | Send Message
     
    fair enough, DR... you're there, I ain't...
    29 Mar 2013, 08:56 PM Reply Like
  • 481086
    , contributor
    Comments (3444) | Send Message
     
    Well hell, all schemes and systems are going to have their incentive and disincentive effects. I would just rather those effects weren't so, uh, perverse... ;)
    29 Mar 2013, 09:01 PM Reply Like
  • DRich
    , contributor
    Comments (4597) | Send Message
     
    >Futurist ... I would be one of those people.
    29 Mar 2013, 09:09 PM Reply Like
  • Renzo
    , contributor
    Comments (352) | Send Message
     
    Let's assume there are going to be more toll roads. How about this as a counterintuitive funding mechanism?

     

    Divide vehicles into several arbitrary classes based on equivalent *gasoline* mileage. EV/very high MPG cars pay the highest toll and low mpg/commercial vehicles pay the lowest toll. That way everyone is paying for roads either through gas tax or tolls and you avoid burdening those who drive very little with exorbitant registration fees.
    29 Mar 2013, 11:32 PM Reply Like
  • DRich
    , contributor
    Comments (4597) | Send Message
     
    >Renzo ... I certainly don't have THE answer (or even one that would be popular) to how to fund the roads we all rely on. I do think it strange that a country that produces close to 100x the income of the country that built the road system pleads poverty and has a hard time just fixing the potholes.
    30 Mar 2013, 12:52 AM Reply Like
  • JRP3
    , contributor
    Comments (7996) | Send Message
     
    Do it by weight and mileage, since heavier vehicles beat up the roads far more than lighter vehicles. Trucks do most of the damage so they should pay most of the costs, which would of course be passed on to the consumer in the form of higher pricing of goods. This would also give more incentive to increase rail shipping which is more efficient anyway, as well as making locally produced items more competitive.
    30 Mar 2013, 09:09 AM Reply Like
  • D-inv
    , contributor
    Comments (4135) | Send Message
     
    "Do it by weight and mileage, since heavier vehicles beat up the roads far more than lighter vehicles."

     

    That is essentially the historic schema with States assessing higher vehicle registration fees on heavier vehicles and excise (as opposed to ad valorem sales) taxes. EPA regulations changed the historic weight/fuel use relationships and excise taxes per gallon have not been indexed to higher mileages per gallon reality.
    30 Mar 2013, 09:48 AM Reply Like
  • iindelco
    , contributor
    Comments (9461) | Send Message
     
    Another view.

     

    In praise of - road tolls.

     

    http://bit.ly/X4VEqW
    30 Mar 2013, 07:48 PM Reply Like
  • Futurist
    , contributor
    Comments (2127) | Send Message
     
    I once read about a tax concept called the single tax. That is: where every taxpayer is taxed at a single rate. Then the different governments (fed,State, local,etc) have to divy it up between themselves. This would probably work better as a consumption tax, but, it would predetermine each persons tax share, period.
    I know the politicians would hate it. One tax to rule them all. Then no other taxes. No personal, property, state, fed tax, or tolls of any kind.

     

    I'm not sure the public would like the surcharge but what a change it would be.
    30 Mar 2013, 08:04 PM Reply Like
  • 481086
    , contributor
    Comments (3444) | Send Message
     
    We can dream...
    31 Mar 2013, 03:03 AM Reply Like
  • JRP3
    , contributor
    Comments (7996) | Send Message
     
    Single tax or consumption tax favors the rich and punishes the poor and middle class. Sure the percentage is the same, but the percentage of income needed for basic survival is higher for the poor than the rich. The rich get richer because they spend a smaller percentage of their income.
    31 Mar 2013, 11:38 AM Reply Like
  • DRich
    , contributor
    Comments (4597) | Send Message
     
    >jpr .. I agree with you (& I'm amazed by that every time it happens) but this is not going to be popular here.
    31 Mar 2013, 11:47 AM Reply Like
  • Edmund Metcalfe
    , contributor
    Comments (1509) | Send Message
     
    JRP3, Just as you do with EVs (which simply push emission to the power-providers), your analysis of a "single tax" completely misses the point. All you are doing is pushing the problem from one person to another.
    Under the current paradigm, a self-serving self-aggrandizing self-legitimizing two-party see-sawz-all government has been ratcheting up tax rates (and the number of revenue streams) so that it is hard to find a single citizen from which the government does not take 50% of every dime that crosses his or her palm, both coming and going.
    The are few ways to control the idiots in power, none of which will be effective if we cannot control their ability to tax, spend, print or borrow (without asking from the future generations) the People's money.
    A single revenue stream from "all of us" to "all of them" sounds like a great first step to me. This sounds good, too: "NOT ONE DIME MORE FROM ANY OF US".
    Been travelling for the past two months. Missed you all. Still catching up. Happy Spring and Happy Easter!
    31 Mar 2013, 12:18 PM Reply Like
  • iindelco
    , contributor
    Comments (9461) | Send Message
     
    Edmund, Exactly. We should expect no less from our government than is expected of the private sector. Do more or the same with less. Having institutions that can adjust their own "take" irrespective of their contribution will never have a good outcome.

     

    One quick example:

     

    Last week I saw a town crew driving around picking up sod they had displaced with the snow removal equipment earlier. They arrived in front of my house with a dump truck, a front loader and a back hoe with a specially designed tool (an aprox. 15 foot long flat bar off a power take off that they could lower to the lawn and scape everything off the top that was loose). I watched as a crew of 6 people, including the 3 drivers, used all of this equipment like they really needed it. Process time 15 minutes. Amount picked up. I would estimate enough to fill a 5 gallon pail 1/2 to 3/4 of the way.

     

    Hanging from the side of the truck. A garden rake which was obviously the correct tool. This, IMO, is indicative of what happens in systems that have no feedback loop to separate good from bad practices.
    31 Mar 2013, 12:57 PM Reply Like
  • DRich
    , contributor
    Comments (4597) | Send Message
     
    >iindelco ... Ah, the common garden rake. It is, in this day of leaf blowers & open storm drains, a lost art of both purpose & use.

     

    I've spent a lot of time in construction and watched crews spend a lot of time trying to figure out how to get the mechanized equipment to do a task that could have been better done, & quicker, by hand.
    31 Mar 2013, 01:55 PM Reply Like
  • John Petersen
    , contributor
    Comments (30170) | Send Message
     
    Welcome back from your voyages Edmund. I was beginning to wonder whether you'd grown tired of us and sought out a more congenial forum.
    31 Mar 2013, 01:56 PM Reply Like
  • Futurist
    , contributor
    Comments (2127) | Send Message
     
    JRP3,
    I only stated what was obvious. That a single tax on every individual would be simpler as a consumption tax than any other. I did not say that everyone needs to be assessed the same consumption tax. It would simply be easier.

     

    For example a 20% consumption tax. If At end of year $250,000 income then no refund. If less, then a % refund.

     

    Does not make it regressive. But makes it one tax.

     

    People are so quick to throw the baby out with the bathwater. Ideas are floated for discussion. Not for every negative Nancy to criticize.

     

    I say this, not against you, but for clarification to all that we, as a nation, need dialogue, much more than we need kneejerk reactions to proposals.
    31 Mar 2013, 07:49 PM Reply Like
  • Futurist
    , contributor
    Comments (2127) | Send Message
     
    I'm amazed also!!!!!
    I surely hope that this kind agreement type of relationship, does not continue for a long time. Like what will we do if Axion ever goes up in value?
    31 Mar 2013, 07:52 PM Reply Like
  • DRich
    , contributor
    Comments (4597) | Send Message
     
    >Futurist ... If Axion ever goes up and particularly if it goes up enough I'm satisfied I haven't lost money on the wait, I'll pay my taxes and smile. I will have just made money with no sweat from my brow & made no really meaningful contribution to the company or technology. If not ... meh.
    31 Mar 2013, 07:58 PM Reply Like
  • Futurist
    , contributor
    Comments (2127) | Send Message
     
    Awh shucks,
    I thought if it went up you would visit down in Florida and we could enjoy one of those "umbrella drinks" and talk politics till wee hours of the night. :-)

     

    But in all honesty. If it does go up I think us long termers should get together in the Florida Keys or some other nice place.
    31 Mar 2013, 08:10 PM Reply Like
  • DRich
    , contributor
    Comments (4597) | Send Message
     
    >Futurist ... All things are possible. I can guarantee that I will take my funds and put them to work in the real economy while having some "bucket list" kind of fun. Top of my list is to buy that first PbC equipped auto (if that ever happens) and go for a little year long drive in the country. Present plan is to purchase the DVD set of "Diners, Drive-Ins & Dives" for my tour guide to the named attractions I've not seen yet.
    31 Mar 2013, 08:18 PM Reply Like
  • D-inv
    , contributor
    Comments (4135) | Send Message
     
    "Single tax or consumption tax favors the rich and punishes the poor and middle class."

     

    A consumption tax would do as you allege while a "single tax" may or may not do so depending on how it is structured.
    31 Mar 2013, 08:57 PM Reply Like
  • mrholty
    , contributor
    Comments (1025) | Send Message
     
    JRP- Isn't a consumption tax optimal for things such as energy usage, waste, etc as its easily identifiable for users. John P. has shown how exactly ones behavior is changed by a large fee meant to drive recycling.
    1 Apr 2013, 11:42 AM Reply Like
  • JRP3
    , contributor
    Comments (7996) | Send Message
     
    EM,

     

    "JRP3, Just as you do with EVs (which simply push emission to the power-providers), your analysis of a "single tax" completely misses the point. All you are doing is pushing the problem from one person to another."

     

    Just as you do with EV's you misunderstood completely. I pushed nothing nowhere, I simply pointed out the problem with Futurist's suggestion.
    1 Apr 2013, 07:41 PM Reply Like
  • JRP3
    , contributor
    Comments (7996) | Send Message
     
    MrH
    It changes the behavior of those who have less disposable income, so again it favors the rich.
    1 Apr 2013, 07:44 PM Reply Like
  • 481086
    , contributor
    Comments (3444) | Send Message
     
    Hmm.... okay a little crazy but checka this out:

     

    http://aol.it/14CjfE0

     

    300 lbs delta+ for the new hybrid version... which features a 13.4Hp electric motor... which is right at 10KW.

     

    Now look under the hood...
    http://aol.it/Zt27s7

     

    article says: "the automaker doesn't want to tell us all the details of how right it is."

     

    Well, I can see a couple of details right there...

     

    "A 100v, 13.5kw nickel-metal hydride battery is located under a revised rear floor area, and the engine uses and integrated starter/generator for the automatic start/stop feature. The compact hybrid system weighs just 209 lbs."

     

    Very interesting... NiMH for the boost motor.... TWO LA-looking batteries for SS and hotel loads...

     

    NiMH... did they make some kind of deal with toyota? why not Li-ion? why indeed...
    29 Mar 2013, 06:08 PM Reply Like
  • 481086
    , contributor
    Comments (3444) | Send Message
     
    Another vid of the subaru.... says going on sale late Fall... also interesting, because they emphasize how the orginal robust subaru AWD drivetrain is still all there.... just E-boosted.. but mainly, can clearly see *two* sizable LA-ish batteries in the engine compartment...I wonder whose those are?
    What other *two*-battery SS systems have we heard about out there?

     

    http://cnnmon.ie/108taMG
    29 Mar 2013, 07:42 PM Reply Like
  • KentG
    , contributor
    Comments (368) | Send Message
     
    48, Toyota and Subaru share a new sports car platform

     

    Scion FR-S and Subaru BRZ.
    29 Mar 2013, 07:45 PM Reply Like
  • 481086
    , contributor
    Comments (3444) | Send Message
     
    what the? really? whoa.

     

    "Simply put, Toyota put its wild card into play, that wild card being its part ownership of Fuji Heavy Industries, Subaru's parent company,"

     

    http://bit.ly/YOJh5F

     

    also

     

    http://bit.ly/Zt7NlU
    29 Mar 2013, 07:46 PM Reply Like
  • 481086
    , contributor
    Comments (3444) | Send Message
     
    100Volts, 13.5 KW NiMH....

     

    during occasional insomniac bouts we wonders, yes we wonders, just *how much* Lead is really, honest to goodness *required* in the PbC... it's really only the PbO2 positive electrode that's essential to contain (heavy) lead, no? I mean, if Axion mounted a serious effort to wring every last extraneous pound of weight out of the PbC (even if required some change in manufacturing away from pure AGM drop-in build-ability) how far could they take it? If they worked to optimize for power, what would *their* ~100Volt, ~15KW solution look like? Maybe three 48Volt 30HT's kept at intermediate SOC? Maybe eight smaller form-factor 16Volts? How big would it have to be, how much would it have to weigh? How cheap could it ultimately be made, now with the new carbon sheeting line? I'll stop now before JP wants to shoot me... but my main point is, how far can the PbC *chemistry* really go? Not the current AGM-type PbC design but the basic chemistry itself? If all the stops were pulled out to develop the lightest possible Kg per KW package... could it get within spitting distance of NiMH? If so, we know from a raw materials standpoint that such a solution, unlike NiMH, could be *mega*-scalable to millions and millions of vehicles... I mean look, the Honda UB tests already showed a decent level of utility for Lead-Carbon in a real hybrid... why not us? See what I mean?

     

    ok, I'll stop.
    29 Mar 2013, 08:20 PM Reply Like
  • jveal
    , contributor
    Comments (657) | Send Message
     
    It is doubtful that Axion's PbC is one of the two batteries in the Subaru. However, the PbC is probably on their radar for a possible upgrade once the AGM fails and the PbC has proven itself.
    29 Mar 2013, 08:22 PM Reply Like
  • 481086
    , contributor
    Comments (3444) | Send Message
     
    jveal, kinda what I was thinking... almost no way those are actually PbCs in there right now... (that would have been *most* sneaky of everyone involved, no?) but certainly..hopefully..... be blooming on their radar, yes?
    29 Mar 2013, 08:26 PM Reply Like
  • Futurist
    , contributor
    Comments (2127) | Send Message
     
    There will be much of this in the near future as automakers worldwide join together to cut cost and offer a staple value of automobiles. It won't just be automobile manufacturers where one owns the other. It will be Toyota and BMW making a joint vehicle for the world market, etc etc.

     

    Can you imagine Ford and Tata Motors. Ford owned Jag. Now owned by Tata. Creating the perfect India-America- European car?

     

    Hopefully all of these autos will have S/S with a PbC inside.
    29 Mar 2013, 08:38 PM Reply Like
  • carlosgaviria
    , contributor
    Comments (799) | Send Message
     
    US UNVEILS NEW AUTO EMISSION RULES

     

    http://bit.ly/10h96qP

     

    Is AXION each day closer

     

    Have a happy weekend.-Carlos
    29 Mar 2013, 06:19 PM Reply Like
  • Mayascribe
    , contributor
    Comments (9908) | Send Message
     
    Someday...the delivery surcharge of ordering in a pizza will cost more than the pizza.

     

    ####

     

    Happy Easter, all!
    29 Mar 2013, 07:14 PM Reply Like
  • carlosgaviria
    , contributor
    Comments (799) | Send Message
     
    http://cnnmon.ie/YJ1ui9
    29 Mar 2013, 06:34 PM Reply Like
  • jveal
    , contributor
    Comments (657) | Send Message
     
    Here is a link to the fourth in a four part series on the Navy's smart grid by Patrick Gordon.

     

    http://bit.ly/1740Tes

     

    Only the first of the four articles mentioned Axion. This is a link to the first article which mentioned Axion by name below the picture at the top of the article.

     

    http://bit.ly/10leuYg

     

    "Shane Trexler, Energy Engineer with SilTek Incorporated, completes the installation of the Washington Navy Yards Visitor’s Center Axion Power International Inc. Energy Hub used to monitor energy usage. The project helped the Visitor’s Center become a NetZero building, meaning it produces more energy annually than it consumes. Naval District Washington is utilizing innovative technology to improve energy efficiency with the implementation of its Smart Grid Pilot Program."

     

    The main benefit of the articles is that they show Axion is a small part of a large push by the military to become more energy efficient and mission operational during times of power interruption.

     

    This gives us a small glimpse of what may be happening with the different powercube proposals TG mentioned in the CC.
    29 Mar 2013, 08:18 PM Reply Like
  • Mr Investor
    , contributor
    Comments (2737) | Send Message
     
    jveal, when that article first surfaced here a couple weeks ago, I browsed Siltek's site, saw their renewable energy affiliate, with a pic of their battery storage (looked rudimentary to me), so I sent them an email asking who supplies the batteries. Never got a response.
    29 Mar 2013, 08:24 PM Reply Like
  • jveal
    , contributor
    Comments (657) | Send Message
     
    Mr. I, maybe they are like ePower, so focused on research and development that they don't have time to update their web site.
    29 Mar 2013, 08:58 PM Reply Like
  • D-inv
    , contributor
    Comments (4135) | Send Message
     
    Mr I ... I too sent email to Siltek (last year) without receiving any response. Subsequent APC discussion indicated that Siltek apparently pays much closer attention to its' Facebook presence (I do not Facebook so can't confirm).
    30 Mar 2013, 01:17 AM Reply Like
  • Mr Investor
    , contributor
    Comments (2737) | Send Message
     
    Here's a toe-tapping time lapse video of the NetZero Energy Project install---the windmill and solar parts, anyway:

     

    http://bit.ly/RFYlw8

     

    Alternate ending---picture of the building (Visitors' Center?) at the end:

     

    http://bit.ly/16odsA4

     

    That's where Axion's stuff is, I think. I like the egyptian eye-looking wind turbine up there on top of the garage. Kinda cool.

     

    Have to admit that I didn't know what the project entailed. Axion getting solar and wind gen experience. Nice to see, as they've mentioned wind and solar future potential activity in their recent PRs.
    30 Mar 2013, 10:52 AM Reply Like
  • D-inv
    , contributor
    Comments (4135) | Send Message
     
    Yep. The NetZero Energy Project was a sale, a sale made while working with Scott Sklar and Siltek. One wonders why Axion has not continued to work with those firms instead of working exclusively with Rosewater Energy Group (which to my knowledge has yet to deliver a sale of any kind).
    30 Mar 2013, 02:49 PM Reply Like
  • John Petersen
    , contributor
    Comments (30170) | Send Message
     
    I don't think there's any reason to believe that Axion is no longer working with Silek. Rosewater developed the concept for a residential HUB and has exclusive rights to that product. Anything else they do is non-exclusive. If Axion was happy with Siltek's performance and Siltek was happy with Axion, the odds are pretty good they'll do additional business in the future.
    30 Mar 2013, 03:23 PM Reply Like
  • wtblanchard
    , contributor
    Comments (2430) | Send Message
     
    Bethesda Systems "energy storage" page is back!

     

    http://bit.ly/YZGJec

     

    It's different ... it now also mentions the PowerCube ... for "commercial applications."

     

    No reference to Axion ... just to Rosewater ... with whom they apparently have a very good relationship.
    30 Mar 2013, 09:28 AM Reply Like
  • wtblanchard
    , contributor
    Comments (2430) | Send Message
     
    Located at the same address, a nation wide presence:

     

    Energy Squad

     

    "We Are Green Tech. Headquartered in Bethesda, Maryland, Energy Squad is a full service national distributor of environmentally-friendly residential and commercial electronics and technologies."

     

    Facebook: http://on.fb.me/Ymlt6B

     

    Energy Storage Page: http://bit.ly/XOfow8
    with a nice Residential Hub pic!

     

    Locate a Dealer: http://bit.ly/XOfqEn
    In the Energy Storage category, Bethesda is once again the only one listed. I'm about 98% certain that they were missing for a short period (as was their page mentioned above)
    30 Mar 2013, 09:40 AM Reply Like
  • Mr Investor
    , contributor
    Comments (2737) | Send Message
     
    wtb, I've had the Energy Squad website bookmarked for probably 8 months by now, since someone pointed it out back then. They do add articles to their site, so at least they pay some attention to it. Beth. Systems is still their only dealer that has an "Energy Storage" badge. Maybe they'll eventually update the HUB image.
    30 Mar 2013, 10:37 AM Reply Like
  • DRich
    , contributor
    Comments (4597) | Send Message
     
    >wtblanchard ... Nice work. As to the "No reference to Axion", I couldn't care less as long as devices with PbC get sold.
    30 Mar 2013, 09:48 AM Reply Like
  • wtblanchard
    , contributor
    Comments (2430) | Send Message
     
    BTW, if you want to be notified when a web page changes, one service that I know of (and use) is http://bit.ly/Ymo945

     

    I suspect there are others.
    30 Mar 2013, 10:03 AM Reply Like
  • Poul Brandt
    , contributor
    Comments (278) | Send Message
     
    wtb.
    That's brilliant. I did not know such a service exists.
    Thank you.
    30 Mar 2013, 03:10 PM Reply Like
  • iindelco
    , contributor
    Comments (9461) | Send Message
     
    (Touches paint damaging surface.) <sigh>

     

    Electric vehicle adoption may require battery technology breakthrough

     

    "Before electric cars take off a breakthrough in battery technology is required, according to a research report from Lux Research. According to that company, the primacy of lithium-ion batteries will soon be threatened by next-generation battery technology, but automobile use may be the last field to get better batteries because automakers are so sensitive to reliability.

     

    Lithium-ion gained primacy because of energy density advantages over older technologies like lead-acid or nickel-metal-hydride. Both have been used in electric vehicles in the past. Increased energy density allows lithium-ion based cars to have a lighter and smaller battery pack for the same range. Any component for automotive use requires stringent reliability and safety testing, causing automakers to have long qualification periods before adopting any new component."

     

    http://bit.ly/16oXBRD
    30 Mar 2013, 07:37 PM Reply Like
  • John Petersen
    , contributor
    Comments (30170) | Send Message
     
    I got my very own copy of the Lux report last week and am thinking about what I want to say when I write about it.
    30 Mar 2013, 08:13 PM Reply Like
  • Futurist
    , contributor
    Comments (2127) | Send Message
     
    Lets see,
    The Lux report says that if the world is to survive, the only energy saving source capable is the PbC. If every government in the world authorizes and subsidizes the PbC for all Grid and commercial use in the next ten years the planet will be saved.

     

    Well, I really doubt that that is what it said but I can fantasize as much as any EVangelist ever could.
    30 Mar 2013, 08:42 PM Reply Like
  • John Petersen
    , contributor
    Comments (30170) | Send Message
     
    It does conclude that the most important metric for future batteries will be cycle life, rather than energy density. They're basically predicting that lithium-ion will decline in price from $410 per kWh at the nominal cell level to about $200 by 2025 and then flatline. They're also hopeful that lithium-sulfur, lithium-air and solid state will all reach the same price level in the 2030 time-frame.

     

    They are most optimistic about solid-state lithium batteries which should be cheaper than lithium-ion on a per cycle basis by about 2020, assuming somebody can figure out how to manufacture the beasts.

     

    I get a huge kick out of forecasts that assume new manufacturing methods can be developed and a new battery technology can scale within a decade, but youth is always ambitious when it comes to those types of issues.
    30 Mar 2013, 09:15 PM Reply Like
  • iindelco
    , contributor
    Comments (9461) | Send Message
     
    John, I'll piece together all the partial teasers out from Lux and I'll give you, ummm, errrr, uhhh......never mind. Good luck! I'm sure it'll be good.
    30 Mar 2013, 09:22 PM Reply Like
  • battman
    , contributor
    Comments (373) | Send Message
     
    JP

     

    >>I get a huge kick out of forecasts that assume new manufacturing methods can be developed and a new battery technology can scale within a decade, but youth is always ambitious when it comes to those types of issues.<<

     

    Excuse me John, but were you talking about Axion??
    31 Mar 2013, 11:21 AM Reply Like
  • John Petersen
    , contributor
    Comments (30170) | Send Message
     
    I most certainly was. Experience is a brutal but effective teacher.

     

    In early 2004 Axion expected to have commercial prototypes in the hands of demonstration partners within 24 months. It took four years to get Axion's first prototypes into the hands of demonstration partners and another five years to invent, build, test and validate methods and equipment to automate the entire manufacturing process from end to end.

     

    Axion's experience of a decade between the Eureka! moment and a scalable product is not unusual, although I didn't understand that in late 2003. In fact, more complex battery technologies like zinc-air, lithium-air and lithium-sulfur are two or three decades between Eureka! and product.

     

    Nobody ever understands how difficult the process is until they live it, which is why you hear so many absurd claims about game changing technologies that die quietly during the development process. Innovations like the PbC that survive and have the inherent potential to scale rapidly by leveraging existing infrastructure are extraordinarily rare and precious.

     

    So I guess it's a damned good thing that Axion started with a fundamentally simple technology.
    31 Mar 2013, 11:29 AM Reply Like
  • DRich
    , contributor
    Comments (4597) | Send Message
     
    >JP ... Amen
    31 Mar 2013, 11:49 AM Reply Like
  • JRP3
    , contributor
    Comments (7996) | Send Message
     
    "They're basically predicting that lithium-ion will decline in price from $410 per kWh at the nominal cell level to about $200 by 2025 and then flatline."

     

    Great prediction, since Tesla is already pricing the difference between the 60 and 85kWh packs at less than $400 retail, at pack level, not cell level. Lux doesn't know what they are talking about, as usual.
    31 Mar 2013, 11:54 AM Reply Like
  • John Petersen
    , contributor
    Comments (30170) | Send Message
     
    Lux is writing about real automakers, as opposed to obscenely wasteful specialty toymakers.

     

    It's also focused on what it costs battery manufacturers to make a product instead of paying attention to loss leader pricing from companies that are manufacturing for a dime, selling for a nickel and hoping to eventually make it up on volume.

     

    There's a reason Panasonic has had to take $6 billion of write-downs on its lithium-ion battery business over the last two years, and it's certainly not because they're selling batteries to Tesla at a profit.
    31 Mar 2013, 12:04 PM Reply Like
  • Stilldazed
    , contributor
    Comments (2127) | Send Message
     
    JRP3,
    I'll leave the math to someone that knows the prices and can work out the profit margin for the cell maker and for Tesla. That said, I am assuming that the Lux report is talking the retail price in general and not specific to Tesla.

     

    It may end up that with the contamination and dendrite concerns, that the manufacturing process may become more expensive thru the use of clean rooms, not less expensive.

     

    Just a thought about what it may take to improve reliability and end user sentiment after the recent black eyes these batteries have received in the public forum. I wouldn't discount negative public sentiment and the costs to regain public confidence.
    31 Mar 2013, 12:12 PM Reply Like
  • JRP3
    , contributor
    Comments (7996) | Send Message
     
    Stilldazed,
    What contamination and dendrite concerns does Tesla have? Just because one single battery manufacturer has had some issues, probably due to a production method change, does not mean others have the same issues. Lux is talking about pricing at the cell level and Tesla is retailing below that cost at the pack level.

     

    Mr. Petersen,
    Real automakers? Tesla is on track to outsell all other EV's from "real" automakers, and on track to outsell other "real" automakers in the large luxury auto segment, including BMW and Lexus, be it EV or ICE.
    31 Mar 2013, 12:19 PM Reply Like
  • Stilldazed
    , contributor
    Comments (2127) | Send Message
     
    JRP3,
    If Tesla is selling completed battery packs below the retail price per pack of what an industry analyst thinks the going rate is then who is losing money? The next question would be if this loss would be sustainable. Business has to make a profit to survive, otherwise it is a charity and makes for a poor business model for business sustainability.

     

    BTW, if dendrites and contamination were not a problem with these batteries, then I wouldn't have heard of them before the recent public articles, but I did hear about them continually for the past few years.

     

    This isn't just a Tesla problem, but is more a public sentiment and acceptance problem that accompanies anything going mainstream for a new use or purpose with the attendant bugs.
    31 Mar 2013, 01:38 PM Reply Like
  • John Petersen
    , contributor
    Comments (30170) | Send Message
     
    Stilldazed and JRP3> Lux specifically noted that in their model "cost is defined as the amount required by the manufacturing of the battery itself, and does not include profit margins or factors like research and development." Since the report specifically covered consumer, military and automotive batteries, it highlights the flaw in Tesla's claims.

     

    While ideologues are crowing about battery costs plummeting, those low costs are savaging the income statements of the battery manufacturers who aren't covering their costs, much less making a profit. From the look of things, all the big boys will be out of business in short order unless some sanity returns to the market and companies like Panasonic start charging a fair price instead of selling at a loss based on future expected economies of scale that are highly unlikely to materialize.
    31 Mar 2013, 02:04 PM Reply Like
  • Stilldazed
    , contributor
    Comments (2127) | Send Message
     
    JP,
    Thanks for the clarification.
    31 Mar 2013, 02:15 PM Reply Like
  • Stilldazed
    , contributor
    Comments (2127) | Send Message
     
    After re-reading my comments, I can see that some people may not grasp that I was trying to discuss 3 separate issues ( sometimes hard to take what's in my head and make sense for the perceptions of others).

     

    I was trying to project the sustainability issue (that came through), the battery failure issue and the consumer acceptance/confidence issue. 3 separate issues that the way I chose to write seemed to be accepted as 2 issues (this comment is just to clarify my thinking, or lack there of;-).
    31 Mar 2013, 02:41 PM Reply Like
  • VictorG45
    , contributor
    Comments (40) | Send Message
     
    A short article on solid state batteries .

     

    http://bit.ly/16daVqp
    1 Apr 2013, 12:11 AM Reply Like
  • froggey77
    , contributor
    Comments (2769) | Send Message
     
    Well I'll get some month ending stuff out of the way.
    I'm a bit behind on my reading, Ive been watching the monetary train wreck of Cyprus.

     

    Lets see Tesla promised exciting news which was delayed until Tuesday.
    It has been suggested the Gen 3 would be pushed up as the X was delayed but not happening.
    Elon Musk Says 3-4 Year Wait On Entry Level EV,
    He said 200+ mileage, but smaller than previously thought.
    Blankinship announced more SC coming soon.
    There’s more on the way after this round of Supercharger expansion, but there will still be vast swaths of the US without Superchargers for years to come.
    So a new EV coming soon and the SC network seem unlikely to be it.
    Leasing has been suggested but a company that claims a backlog for a year that doesn't seem likely unless that claim is false and a deal for leasing cars it doesn't seem exciting. (To me)
    Tuesday will tell.

     

    Fisker Hires Bankruptcy Lawyers After Dongfeng Motors Drops Out Of Bidding
    http://bit.ly/XjSzFv

     

    Better Place Reports Loss Of $454 Million In 2012, Is “Going Concern”
    http://bit.ly/10kK6Pt

     

    The reason EVs sell so well in Norway?
    $8,200 in Per Vehicle Incentives every year you own the car. Free parking VS $5,000 a year etc.
    http://bit.ly/XjSzFz

     

    Nissan Leaf is now built in a third factory. (UK, Japan, US Tennessee)

     

    World Full Year 2012: Discover the Top 1000 best-selling models!
    http://bit.ly/10kK5eg

     

    Apparently the BMW i3 Range Extender will not charge the battery.
    It is designed to limp to a charging station when the battery shuts off.
    It seems far more reasonable that you could start it early, on a trip, so while it is not enough to fully run the car, it would slow the draining of the battery pack. As far as I can tell this is not the case.

     

    "David Buchko, BMW advanced powertrain and heritage communications, told AutoblogGreen that:
    The i3 range extender is meant to enable the car to go a little further than the pure BEV on those rare occasions when driver needs to go a little further. It is not intended for daily use. We've said that the REx [range extender] will double the effective range of 80-100 miles. I have not seen anything to suggest that it would not be capable of doing so."
    http://aol.it/10kK5ej

     

    India becomes the next country with a mostly old dirty coal fired power plants powering their grid to subsidize EVs
    http://bit.ly/XjSzFB
    30 Mar 2013, 10:22 PM Reply Like
  • JRP3
    , contributor
    Comments (7996) | Send Message
     
    You left out Model S wins World Green Car of the year:
    http://aol.it/XkM19D

     

    Also, the Model S may be the best selling large luxury auto in the US:
    http://bit.ly/124ljA5
    31 Mar 2013, 12:07 PM Reply Like
  • froggey77
    , contributor
    Comments (2769) | Send Message
     
    Jrp3
    What the Model S might be, will sort of, come out (As Tesla doesn't report monthly sales) with the numbers Monday or Tuesday.
    31 Mar 2013, 06:42 PM Reply Like
  • JRP3
    , contributor
    Comments (7996) | Send Message
     
    Tesla sales exceed targets:
    http://bit.ly/178RzpK
    1 Apr 2013, 09:09 AM Reply Like
  • froggey77
    , contributor
    Comments (2769) | Send Message
     
    1,000-Mile Aluminum Air Battery Consumes Aluminum as Fuel; Dreamy Battery Tech is Only Feasible in Dreams
    http://bit.ly/YWmWmC
    Is a 1,000-mile electric vehicle battery even possible? Well, Phinergy, an Israeli startup, claims it certainly is, but we have serious doubts.

     

    Here’s a look at the claims presented by Phinergy:

     

    Aluminum-air battery
    Capable of powering an electric vehicle for up to 1,000 miles
    Energy density that begins to rival gasoline and diesel
    Production volumes starting in 2017
    Signed contract with global automaker
    Phinergy’s prototype Al-air battery has been tested and proven to work

     

    Okay, all sounds well, but aluminum-air technology is doubtful for several reasons. First, carbon dioxide released within the battery corrodes aluminum. Perhaps, Phinergy found a way to prevent corrosion.

     

    Second, the battery must be refilled with water once every 200 or so miles. This is not only inconvenient, but could pose a threat of danger if the water levels run too low or the person filling the battery adds the wrong fluid (maybe gasoline by mistake).

     

    Finally, and this is a hurdle that seems impossible to get over, aluminum-air batteries actually consumer the aluminum plates in use. This means that the plates must be replaced. Phinergy says “recharged,” but that’s the startup’s way of skirting around describing what actually must be done. After 1,000 miles, the spent aluminum plates must be removed and replace with new plates. That’s inconvenient, expensive, probably dangerous and so impractical that we say aluminum-air technology is still only a pipe dream, nothing more.

     

    Here is another article that goes a little deeper into the tech. It also disagrees with one point Insideevs makes. The video states Phinergy has found ab answer to CO2 ruining the battery.
    http://bit.ly/XRpPiD
    31 Mar 2013, 07:08 PM Reply Like
  • Rick Krementz
    , contributor
    Comments (2376) | Send Message
     
    froggey, I think the writers missed some of the points about Al-O battery.

     

    Oxidizing aluminum has good energy density, nominally more than twice that of gasoline (83 vs 34 MJ/liter). See http://bit.ly/ykIqFb.

     

    There should not be any CO2 emissions - I think the writer is confused. 4 Al +3 O2 ==> 2 Al2O3. No C involved. CO2 may be a contaminant if it creates Al4C3, but that is a problem of absorbing CO2, not emitting.

     

    A quick change battery has some advantages; Better Place is trying to market the concept. The fully oxidized Al plates presumably would not be disposed, but reduced (charged). No mention in the article of the round trip efficiency, however.

     

    Putting gasoline into the electrolyte tank is not recommended, but I doubt it would be catastrophic. I assume the battery would be damaged or destroyed, but unlikely to burn or explode. In any case, putting gasoline into the radiator, topping off the batteries with diesel, or filling the gas tank with windshield washer fluid is not recommended, and does not seem to be serious problem.

     

    Not discussed is that Al-O batteries get heavier as they discharge. Fully oxidized Al weighs about twice as much as pure Al. The Al is not "consumed" in the sense that hydrocarbons are burned and blown out the exhaust. Al oxidizes, but stays in the vehicle to be re-processed.

     

    Al is very scalable. It is one of the most common elements and already is produced in huge volumes, and could be expanded.

     

    Al-O batteries may have some application. I think they are many years before being practical for vehicles, but it is not totally wishful thinking. As always, the details matter - # of cycles, safety, round trip energy efficiency, etc. I do not know enough to make any guess about these other factors.
    31 Mar 2013, 08:14 PM Reply Like
  • froggey77
    , contributor
    Comments (2769) | Send Message
     
    Rick
    Thanks I was not sure about their answer and included the second link because of it.

     

    I was thinking of the battery replacement idea. Replacing the plates every 1,000 mi?
    We'll have to see what they come up with.

     

    The video says $2.00 a kilo. Which would include costs for recycling. Put it in the recycle bin.
    They claimed cost would = 90mpg.

     

    " As always, the details matter - # of cycles, safety, round trip energy efficiency, etc. I do not know enough to make any guess about these other factors. "
    Frankly your guess would probably still be better than mine.
    31 Mar 2013, 09:22 PM Reply Like
  • Rick Krementz
    , contributor
    Comments (2376) | Send Message
     
    froggey - I didn't mean the Al plates were thrown in the recycling bin. I assume they would be recharged, but they require a more sophisticated process than simply a two wire hookup. Perhaps in an alkaline solution, under inert gas, or something.

     

    I am not interested enough to try to calculate a pseudo mpg. Virgin Al appears to be less than $1/lb http://bit.ly/YznDRG , so recharging would presumably be even cheaper.
    31 Mar 2013, 09:29 PM Reply Like
  • John Petersen
    , contributor
    Comments (30170) | Send Message
     
    From what I understand, aluminum air requires some terribly sophisticated alloys because the oxidized aluminum builds up on the surface and quickly renders the electrodes nonfunctional. They're also not rechargeable and the only choice is to resmelt, really and reform.
    31 Mar 2013, 10:28 PM Reply Like
  • 481086
    , contributor
    Comments (3444) | Send Message
     
    A battery swap/refresh you could get away with only monthly might not be that onerous...provided the infrastructure gets out there. It's curious though that in their solution, the li-ion battery seems to be a vital part.. maybe the Al-air battery just doesn't have the power output or can't load follow very well.. and if lithium ion is necessary to it, then there's going to be scalability problems... but still, given the high energy density, sounds at least somewhat more promising than a lot of other sketchy schemes...
    1 Apr 2013, 03:14 AM Reply Like
  • BugEYE
    , contributor
    Comments (194) | Send Message
     
    I think Al-air battery would fit in the public transportation sector if it meets certain criteria such as power, cycles, price and safety. But for passenger cars, refilling water (Does the waste water need special treatment?) and changing Al-tanks seem too complicated for ordinary Joes.
    1 Apr 2013, 03:29 AM Reply Like
  • froggey77
    , contributor
    Comments (2769) | Send Message
     
    US Military to Soon Own Largest Federal Fleet of V2G Plug-In Vehicles
    500 PHEV tanks on 6 bases is the plan at the moment.
    http://bit.ly/XRqcJK
    If the pilot program proves a success, then the US military will slowly incorporate V2G at 30 bases across the country and will purchase a total of 1,500 plug-in vehicles to bolster the V2G program.
    31 Mar 2013, 07:12 PM Reply Like
  • John Petersen
    , contributor
    Comments (30170) | Send Message
     
    Does that mean future battlefield preparation will include joint CIA-Tesla advance teams to install SuperChargers along the road to Kabul?
    31 Mar 2013, 07:57 PM Reply Like
  • Futurist
    , contributor
    Comments (2127) | Send Message
     
    No John,
    It means that someone important believes that the California "electric buy back" program will actually pay for a vehicle. This is a pipedream.

     

    As the article says: Leafs only $199 PER MONTH and you can get $200 back selling electric at night, back to the grid. OK. What about that down payment and extra fees the ad talks about? What about the extra cost of the charging station? What if you want to drive at night?
    OMG.
    But what if the US military needs to drive over a hundred miles without sacrificing the nations security?
    Please don't ask that question
    31 Mar 2013, 08:19 PM Reply Like
  • iindelco
    , contributor
    Comments (9461) | Send Message
     
    Futurist, I'll be more blunt. What a crock of s&*t.
    31 Mar 2013, 08:46 PM Reply Like
  • froggey77
    , contributor
    Comments (2769) | Send Message
     
    Ah I was mislead by the article.

     

    The initial phase of the project aims to have as many as 500 V2G-capable electric vehicles deployed at six installations later this year. Most of the vehicles will be trucks and buses -- classes of vehicles that represent a sliver of the current electric vehicle market. None will be tactical vehicles like tanks or Humvees, which the Pentagon purchases through a separate track.

     

    I could see where the military might want quieter tanks. Grid capable in remote regions. Etc.
    But no it appears they swallowed the 'pay for themselves' hook line and sinker.
    The PR is here:
    http://bit.ly/1784MPq
    31 Mar 2013, 09:55 PM Reply Like
  • Mayascribe
    , contributor
    Comments (9908) | Send Message
     
    With all these new anti-idling laws, how come new higher tech cars come equipped such that one can use an iPhone to remote start, and then let the car idle until they get there?
    31 Mar 2013, 08:41 PM Reply Like
  • DRich
    , contributor
    Comments (4597) | Send Message
     
    >Mayascribe ... I figure you've seen the commercial of the family returning from Florida vacation to a blizzard, but a warm car interior. Probably the reason we need low-sulfur gasoline.
    31 Mar 2013, 08:45 PM Reply Like
  • Mr Investor
    , contributor
    Comments (2737) | Send Message
     
    What's really needed is remote hotel loading, such that the car's imterior is warmed, but the engine's kept off. No modern car really needs the engine warmed, for it's own sake.
    31 Mar 2013, 10:51 PM Reply Like
  • JRP3
    , contributor
    Comments (7996) | Send Message
     
    You can do exactly that with an EV. Pre heat or cool it without turning it on. People are doing it already from their smart phones.
    1 Apr 2013, 09:15 AM Reply Like
  • Mr Investor
    , contributor
    Comments (2737) | Send Message
     
    Since this is an Axion investment site, the obvious idea is that it might be able to be done with a two battery PbC system. Not sure if there would be enough juice in the PbC. If not, then maybe just heat the most important thing--the driver's seat and maybe the front passenger's, too.
    1 Apr 2013, 10:31 AM Reply Like
  • iindelco
    , contributor
    Comments (9461) | Send Message
     
    Mr. I, In an EV, where you have far less waste heat vs an ICE, electric seats seem a great solution. A few times on business trips and in my wife's current car, I've found these to be a great feature. It has to be pretty cool outside where this does not suffice. This is however not a great solution for families in need of car seats which would be the primary concern for heat.
    1 Apr 2013, 11:17 AM Reply Like
  • Mr Investor
    , contributor
    Comments (2737) | Send Message
     
    iinde---I was talking about the situation where the cold, parked vehicle could be warmed via remote command. I would think that with only one battery to do that, the two battery PbC system might have enough juice to at least heat some seats. Could be a nice feature for the system, that some of us hadn't thought of before. Many cars already have electrically heated seats, and some have remote control features. Kinda flips the airport test around from a negative to a positive.
    1 Apr 2013, 11:35 AM Reply Like
  • mrholty
    , contributor
    Comments (1025) | Send Message
     
    In my mothers car the heated seats are most used in the summer by my kids who before getting in the back seat lean into the front seat to turn the seat warmers on so that Grandma suddenly exclaims.
    Why is my damn butt so hot?"

     

    Laughter and giggles for 10 minutes for that. Grandma thinks its pretty funny as well.
    1 Apr 2013, 11:50 AM Reply Like
  • iindelco
    , contributor
    Comments (9461) | Send Message
     
    Mr. I, Understood and agree.
    -
    Mr. H, Very funny. See, creative people can make more than one use out of a tool! Warmth and glowing entertainment. ;))
    1 Apr 2013, 12:01 PM Reply Like
  • Al Marshall
    , contributor
    Comments (528) | Send Message
     
    Just bought a new car for my wife the other day (Camry Hybrid). She considered "Bottom warmers" (we have young daughters) to be absolutely essential.
    1 Apr 2013, 12:43 PM Reply Like
  • iindelco
    , contributor
    Comments (9461) | Send Message
     
    APM, Curious. Front seats only or do they offer front and rear. I have never seen this option for rear but I would suspect in luxury vehicles and perhaps hybrids/EV's they might now be available.
    1 Apr 2013, 01:08 PM Reply Like
  • Mayascribe
    , contributor
    Comments (9908) | Send Message
     
    DRich: Correct. I did see the commercial about 40 times while watching NCAA hoops. There are many models out there with remote starting. I found the location of this commercial odd; an airport, where the EPA is targeting excess CO2 emissions.
    1 Apr 2013, 01:49 PM Reply Like
  • Occam's_Razor
    , contributor
    Comments (1488) | Send Message
     
    JRP3: It's also interesting that the Prius has a "solar roof" option that uses solar cells (on the car's roof) to circulate ambient air throughout the vehicle (presumably while your in shopping, eating, etc.) These solar cells (to my knowledge do nothing wrt to battery: either charging / discharging). Being that I live in Phoenix... I like the idea.
    2 Apr 2013, 12:04 AM Reply Like
  • Occam's_Razor
    , contributor
    Comments (1488) | Send Message
     
    apmarshall: my wife and I looked at the Ford Fusion (both hybrid and energi (plug-in). Ford has done well... but I had a rude awakening when I opened the trunk of the energi.... Oppps... where's all my space???.... oh... yea.... the battery...

     

    I realized that driving a BMW 7 with a "crazy big" trunk has spoiled us. Now how do we downsize?

     

    The Camry was to other one that caught our eye. I think you made a good choice.
    2 Apr 2013, 12:11 AM Reply Like
  • Al Marshall
    , contributor
    Comments (528) | Send Message
     
    Front seat only in the Camry.
    2 Apr 2013, 12:37 AM Reply Like
  • iindelco
    , contributor
    Comments (9461) | Send Message
     
    Message-Quit cherry picking

     

    ALABC Files Witness Statement with House Subcommittee on Energy & Water Development

     

    http://bit.ly/16cI1qe
    31 Mar 2013, 08:42 PM Reply Like
  • froggey77
    , contributor
    Comments (2769) | Send Message
     
    More stuff:
    EDITORIAL: Unplug the electric subsidies
    Billions more still won’t make customers buy toy cars
    Monday, March 18, 2013
    http://bit.ly/125B4H0

     

    <President Obama stopped by Argonne National Laboratory in his Chicago hometown on Friday to demand Americans hand over another $2 billion in subsidies for electric cars. Liberals love trading in sensible sedans for these trendy “green” golf carts. Being seen behind the wheel of a quirky looking hybrid tells the world that “I care” about the environment.
    Such motorists just don’t care enough to use their own money. So Mr. Obama seeks another cash infusion for “what should be our top priority as a nation.” It’s not as if Uncle Sam has been ignoring the toy cars.....>

     

    Perhaps you remember this.
    Nissan CEO Ghosn: China to Save Electric Vehicle Industry by Forcing Consumers to Buy
    http://bit.ly/ZZeKgN

     

    It seems BYD is also depending on China to bail out the electric Cars
    China will re-start plug-in vehicle subsidies, says BYD chair
    <China, which ended its three-year electric-vehicle subsidy program in December, will resume it as soon as April, Reuters reports, citing BYD chairman Wang Chuanfu.>

     

    Buffett’s BYD Threatened by Prius in China Hybrid Shift

     

    <Policies favoring Warren Buffett-backed BYD Co. (1211) and other electric-vehicle makers were meant to help China vie for global leadership in a technology the government expected to replace clunkers that run on gasoline. Except, as Chairman Mao Zedong put it, “seek truth from facts,” and the fact is: EVs flopped.
    Consumer appetite failed to materialize even with financial incentives that halved the price tag of a BYD e6. The 27,800 EVs on Chinese roads are fewer than 6 percent of the government’s 2015 target -- and 0.02 percent of the total civilian fleet. For now, China needs to promote other technologies to cut the tailpipe fumes choking its cities, says one minister.

     

    “We’re very anxious” about worsening air pollution, Miao Wei, industry minister and a three-decade veteran of China’s auto industry, said during last week’s annual National People’s Congress in Beijing. “I’ve never believed that you can gain global leadership in one leap.”
    Translation: China may need to support more conventional technologies to lower pollution levels. Miao said he’s seeking support from other government branches to raise hybrid subsidies, aiming to unveil the policy plan in the first half.
    Even Science Minister Wan Gang, one of the leading advocates of electric cars, is warming to the idea. At last week’s gathering of more than 5,000 lawmakers and officials, he said the switch to EVs will take more time than planned.
    Expand Subsidies
    “Subsidies should be based on the fuel consumption and emissions of the vehicle,” Li Shufu, chairman of Volvo Cars- owner Zhejiang Geely Holding Group Co., said at the Beijing meetings. “The government should expand subsidies to include more types of vehicles, including all sorts of hybrids.”
    More subsidies for the Prius would offer Toyota a better chance to achieve in China the kind of success enjoyed by the 15-year-old gasoline-electric model in the U.S. and Japan. The Toyota City, Japan-based automaker sold 362,845 Prius cars globally last year, making it not only the top-selling hybrid but also No. 3 among all car lines in the world. In China, sales only reached 2,434 units last year, China Association of Automobile Manufacturers data show. >

     

    How much will go where?
    Well see.

     

    It seems some of the new policies will help local companies against foreign companies.
    New policies to promote new energy vehicle development to be released soon
    http://bit.ly/125B4H2

     

    <Gasgoo.com (Shanghai March 12) - New policies to encourage new energy vehicle development will be released over the course of this year, the Beijing Times reported today, citing a statement made by Ministry of Industry and Information Technology Minister Miao Wei. The new policies will try to help alleviate the high costs new energy vehicle enterprises bear, helping them to make new innovations.
    "Developing new energy vehicles involves intensive long-term planning," Mr. Wei said. "The Ministry of Industry and Information Technology is currently working on stimulatory policies exclusively aimed at the manufacture of energy efficient and new energy vehicles," he stated, adding that the department was striving to release the policies within the next few months.>
    31 Mar 2013, 08:47 PM Reply Like
  • LT
    , contributor
    Comments (5001) | Send Message
     
    IMO, China will always seek to help it's own before allowing foreign companies any advantage....

     

    I will bet that you see A123 put on the map with the next round of subsidies.
    31 Mar 2013, 09:18 PM Reply Like
  • Johhny rambo
    , contributor
    Comments (117) | Send Message
     
    Here we are, yet again guessing the "tone of a comment" or analyzing the verbal tonality of a comment on the cc, so we can attempt to guess the financing outcome ?

     

    Imagine when Steve Jobs was still alive,(rest his soul) the AAPL blogs guessing the tone of his delivery as opposed to the actual factual information being delivered. "Oh he didn't sound like he meant that the I-phone is going to take over the world, we better not invest then"

     

    We (some of us) guess because there is never proper factual information that provides us with what we really need to hear - " we actually have a sh%$@@!# of PBc sales, and intend to find a proper strategic partner who can grow old with us, instead of being bent over the barrel every 6 mos"
    31 Mar 2013, 09:16 PM Reply Like
  • John Petersen
    , contributor
    Comments (30170) | Send Message
     
    December 2009, February 2012 and April 2013 is not every six months Johnny. Aside from that, I agree that sales to the right customers would be nice.
    31 Mar 2013, 10:32 PM Reply Like
  • billa_from_sf
    , contributor
    Comments (370) | Send Message
     
    http://nyti.ms/10nESlZ
    31 Mar 2013, 11:35 PM Reply Like
  • H. T. Love
    , contributor
    Comments (17876) | Send Message
     
    Billa: Thanks for an informative article.

     

    "A handful of firms including Citigroup and Knight Capital pay retail brokers like TD Ameritrade and Scottrade for the opportunity to trade with ordinary retail investors before the orders can reach an exchange, a phenomenon known as internalization".

     

    I wonder if this translates into inter-broker or intra-broker trades and if it affects OTC. If Knight Capital, and maybe others, "pay" for the privilege of trading with us, what dies that say about their portfolio position? Of course, I wonder because I'm looking for the cause of the falling daily short sales in APXW. I also wonder if it might explain the price action when we are pretty sure the "big uglies" aren't present any more.

     

    HardToLove
    1 Apr 2013, 08:38 AM Reply Like
  • John Petersen
    , contributor
    Comments (30170) | Send Message
     
    At the risk of reigniting an old debate I'll once again remind you that market makers do not carry long or short positions in sub-$1 OTC stocks like Axion because long positions are haircut to zero and short positions while short positions are fully accounted for when FINRA does its regular audits and net capital checks. The FINRA audits are always unannounced and done as of the day before the auditors arrive.

     

    Axion's reported FINRA shorts have fallen into mid-single digits because the big uglies are gone and no significant trading is coming from long-term holders who still have physical stock certificates.
    1 Apr 2013, 08:55 AM Reply Like
  • billa_from_sf
    , contributor
    Comments (370) | Send Message
     
    I don't think dark trading has anything to do with Axion right now and in fact was remiss in not preceding my link with "OT," but I found the practice reported in this article, especially the extent of it, quite disconcerting.

     

    Trying to evaluate transparently traded stocks is hard enough. Trading in pigs in a poke is a sucker's game.
    1 Apr 2013, 01:07 PM Reply Like
  • H. T. Love
    , contributor
    Comments (17876) | Send Message
     
    JP: Just because I don't want you to think I'm ignoring you ...

     

    We are operating in different time-scales and regimes I think. I'm thinking of long positions of a few days supply, at most, in the portfolio of a well-capitilized MM such a Knight Capital Management. At ~$0.30 for 1-2 hundred K shares, I don't have the concerns about being marked to $0 as a major issue on any individual stock as long as their aggregate positions are well within their risk-management protocols.

     

    The problem, for me, is I *don't* know. Without some definitive (at least) circumstantial proof, I'll be asking such questions as long as I breathe.

     

    And, of course, without some strong indications one way or the other, I can't tell you that you are wrong. So generally I try to not reply.

     

    HardToLove
    1 Apr 2013, 02:56 PM Reply Like
  • John Petersen
    , contributor
    Comments (30170) | Send Message
     
    I used to talk with market makers on a daily basis and knew all about their house rules for trading sub-$10 stocks. Back in the day, there was no way in hell that a market maker would hold an open position in a low-priced stock like Axion. The rules may have changed if a new generation of riverboat gamblers has ascended to power, but what I've seen of market maker regulation and oversight indicates increased conservatism. My experience is dated enough that I can't swear that things haven't changed, but the change you keep looking for is 180 degrees out of synch with my somewhat dated knowledge of how market makers used to operate.
    1 Apr 2013, 03:15 PM Reply Like
  • H. T. Love
    , contributor
    Comments (17876) | Send Message
     
    Thanks John. It's changes that keep me ... "suspicious": HFT, "dark pools", "flash orders", co-location, ... and now "internalization".

     

    HardToLove
    1 Apr 2013, 03:22 PM Reply Like
  • LT
    , contributor
    Comments (5001) | Send Message
     
    Tesla announces it's first profit Sunday, delivers 4750 new cars. Has a unique deal on the cheap Model S with software update.

     

    http://yhoo.it/Z3a0Ve
    1 Apr 2013, 04:58 AM Reply Like
  • BugEYE
    , contributor
    Comments (194) | Send Message
     
    "Those customers who signed up for a 40 kWh car will get a 60 kWh car instead — but one whose software will only allow the car to access 40 kWh of energy."

     

    How generous or they know smaller pack would deliver their promise.
    1 Apr 2013, 08:15 AM Reply Like
  • Amouna
    , contributor
    Comments (1616) | Send Message
     
    In other words, he either means that temporarily he has got a sweet deal from Li-ion manufacturers where they are selling him 60kWh packs for the price of a 40kWh, or he is being generous. The moment Panasonic adjust their prices - because they won't be running a money losing business just so that TSLA can sell its cars at a profit- this gig is up.

     

    Oh, and I still want to see further demand materialize for the medium to long term. Either way, there is just too much hype surrounding TSLA for me to invest in it...
    1 Apr 2013, 08:24 AM Reply Like
  • John Petersen
    , contributor
    Comments (30170) | Send Message
     
    I'm fascinated by the fact that Tesla has eliminated the 40 kWh battery pack as an option. I suspect the real reason for the change was that Tesla couldn't get the required power from 40 kWh of consumer grade cells. Tesla's already announced plans to delay their "consumer priced" Gen3 model. Eliminating the 40 kWh pack on the Model S suggests to me that tomorrow may never come for a low-priced Tesla.
    1 Apr 2013, 09:00 AM Reply Like
  • Amouna
    , contributor
    Comments (1616) | Send Message
     
    John,

     

    Do you think that their expectations of turning profitable now is a bit of a stretch? I can't understand how someone can look at their sales for Q1 and extrapolate from there that demand can only ramp up. They may make a nice car, but I find it ludicrous that some people think TSLA will crush the likes of BMW and Daimler Benz who have been in the business of car making for a century...

     

    I saw the Tesla test drive from DC to Boston along the supercharger highway. The fact that one has to stop for charging three times - and each time for a duration of 1h or more- makes it a very time consuming travel. It is IMO a product unlikely to gain mass acceptance, except among the super rich who would to ride in a luxury toy during their leisure time!
    1 Apr 2013, 09:09 AM Reply Like
  • LT
    , contributor
    Comments (5001) | Send Message
     
    Don't forget that drive was in the cold, and improperly charged too.

     

    I am neutral on TSLA, as someone said, "alot of hype" forcing it higher (along with short squeezes regularly). The one thing I believe is in it's favor is strong mgt. (both financially & intelligent) and it's partnerships. For now they have the electric car design.

     

    For some reason, I think they make it. Stock price is a different animal.
    1 Apr 2013, 09:16 AM Reply Like
  • JRP3
    , contributor
    Comments (7996) | Send Message
     
    Tesla doesn't buy packs, they buy cells and assemble their own packs. This was a smart financial decision, with only 4% of orders being the 40kWh pack it wasn't cost effective to assemble a separate pack architecture so they just put in a software limited 60kWh pack to fill the existing 40kWh orders and then removed the 40kWh option for the future. Frankly I wondered about the Gen3 car eating into the sales of the 40kWh pack anyway so this change removes that possibility.
    1 Apr 2013, 09:24 AM Reply Like
  • Amouna
    , contributor
    Comments (1616) | Send Message
     
    JRP3,

     

    So they have a battery "factory" to assemble the battery packs inside the car factory?
    1 Apr 2013, 09:27 AM Reply Like
  • Amouna
    , contributor
    Comments (1616) | Send Message
     
    LT,

     

    The big worry for me is they are financially overstretched. I agree with you that they have the Federal government in their pocket, so it makes things like obtaining grants/loans, preferential terms on repayments much much easier than their competition.

     

    Whether this is sustainable is an entirely different story. I would probably buy the stock, but not at the current valuation.
    1 Apr 2013, 09:31 AM Reply Like
  • LT
    , contributor
    Comments (5001) | Send Message
     
    it's not the gov't I was referring to....It's Toyota and the other big boyz.
    They could decide that Tesla has the design and it's cheaper to partner with them and let them prosper than to compete and spend the money to design their own.

     

    Auto OEM's may be different than before '08.
    1 Apr 2013, 09:34 AM Reply Like
  • John Petersen
    , contributor
    Comments (30170) | Send Message
     
    Tesla did a credible job of hitting their production numbers for Q1. Delivering 4,750 cars is no mean feat and I think it's important to give credit where credit is due. Now the time of ugliness starts where analysts and stockholders will be expecting steadily increasing revenue and earnings and the stock price will suffer if Tesla doesn't meet those expectations.

     

    In my experience, the most fun in a company's life-cycle is when everybody is paying attention to revenue growth and nobody cares about current profitability. Once you get into the quarterly grind of meeting analysts expectations, the fun evaporates and the long hard slog begins.

     

    The big question in my mind is whether Tesla will be able to create sustained demand at the 5,000 vehicle per quarter level. Every EV launch to date says no – demand peaks shortly after launch and then trails off as the committed buyers get their heart's desire and demand dries up. Tesla may be different, but I wouldn't pay 25 times book value to bet they'll break the mold and have more demand than they can satisfy.
    1 Apr 2013, 09:38 AM Reply Like
  • LT
    , contributor
    Comments (5001) | Send Message
     
    JP, that was my point on "stock price is another animal" (or story)
    1 Apr 2013, 09:45 AM Reply Like
  • iindelco
    , contributor
    Comments (9461) | Send Message
     
    How nice. It's like putting a 30 gallon gas tank in your car and only allowing access to 20 gallons. Hey, Just carry this around for me.

     

    Or is it as John suggests and they are worried about people fully utilizing the battery more often and they need for the software to slowing dip into this added capacity over time. Much as GM does with the Volt.
    1 Apr 2013, 09:56 AM Reply Like
  • Oz_Rob
    , contributor
    Comments (520) | Send Message
     
    Yes Amouna, they buy the cells and other pack components then assemble the packs in house. Each of the packs requires a production line and with only 4% of orders ofr the 40kwh pack the tooling costs and compliance costs to produce the 40kwh pack could never be made up in sales. As a result they are honouring current 40 kwh orders with software limited 60kwh packs and no longer offering the 40kwh option. The customers spoke loudly and they wanted the larger packs in the overwhelming majority of cases.
    1 Apr 2013, 09:57 AM Reply Like
  • iindelco
    , contributor
    Comments (9461) | Send Message
     
    In the end if TSLA makes money and survives it will be a great feat for a small group of entrepreneurs. What does it mean to the viability of pure electric cars to solve the problems associated with having so many people running around using energy in the manner we do for personal transport? It's insignificant in the big picture. The current cost structure places it in the odd toy category and there is no proof to suggest it's going to make it to an eye level shelf or an end unit in the department store. Or you can jump on the dreamer band wagon and build a bridge without support to utopia and say I see a day.....
    1 Apr 2013, 10:06 AM Reply Like
  • Carnardie
    , contributor
    Comments (259) | Send Message
     
    "I suspect the real reason for the change was that Tesla couldn't get the required power from 40 kWh of consumer grade cells."

     

    With last year's Toyota RAV4EV having a Tesla designed and built battery pack of 42kWh, and doing 0-60 in about 7 seconds, I suspect your suspicions are wrong.
    1 Apr 2013, 10:11 AM Reply Like
  • John Petersen
    , contributor
    Comments (30170) | Send Message
     
    Iindelco> It's worse than that if you take out your trusty calculator. The 60 kWh battery pack boasts a 230 mile range and comes with an 8-year 125,000 mile warranty, which works out to an average of 42 miles per day, or just over 20% of battery capacity.

     

    The other 80% of the battery capacity is dead weight for over 95% of the average user's driving needs. I think I'll take two.
    1 Apr 2013, 10:38 AM Reply Like
  • John Petersen
    , contributor
    Comments (30170) | Send Message
     
    The RAV4 weight is 4,032 pounds compared with 4,647 pounds for the Model S. Like I said, "I suspect the real reason for the change was that Tesla couldn't get the required power from 40 kWh of consumer grade cells."
    1 Apr 2013, 10:42 AM Reply Like
  • iindelco
    , contributor
    Comments (9461) | Send Message
     
    Thanks John! I didn't even dig into the reality of the issue very deeply and it just seemed kind of odd to say we're adding all this mass and cost which will be to no advantage to the final customer. (The creative customer or market will find a way to tap into it). Plus we know someone has to pay for it. So is it the individual customer paying for it and getting nothing for their money or is it spread over the entire fleet? All in all it seems like an indicator that something is wrong. Or is the ill plural.

     

    In the end it will be interesting to see if the Pied Piper of Hamelin's tune is long lasting. The market signal today is yes as it has been for some time. But the market is not always correct but then, nor am I!
    1 Apr 2013, 11:29 AM Reply Like
  • John Petersen
    , contributor
    Comments (30170) | Send Message
     
    The excess 80% of cost and mass isn't useless – it relieves range anxiety silly boy. It destroys the economics and any pretense of green but it relieves range anxiety in a big way.
    1 Apr 2013, 11:34 AM Reply Like
  • iindelco
    , contributor
    Comments (9461) | Send Message
     
    John, Great for those that can afford to pay large sums of money for just in case. We do it with ICE's but in the case of petrol it's 20 or 30 USD of just in case range. Or with high end sports cars the added torque is for just in case I feel like havin' some fun. Also wasteful, so perhaps more closely related to an EV with a battery sized for once or twice a year events at a huge premium.

     

    But you're right. The large battery in the Tesla is great insurance for the seller so they don't have a Leaf type situation.
    1 Apr 2013, 12:13 PM Reply Like
  • Amouna
    , contributor
    Comments (1616) | Send Message
     
    How harsh are their testing protocols? The last thing a TSLA customer would want is to fry while driving in the case of battery failure. If major Lithium battery manufacturers and customers like Boeing are not immune from the danger of batteries causing fire, then it is hard to imagine how TSLA can prevent this type of incident from happening.
    1 Apr 2013, 02:47 PM Reply Like
  • Carnardie
    , contributor
    Comments (259) | Send Message
     
    "The RAV4 weight is 4,032 pounds compared with 4,647 pounds for the Model S."

     

    The RAV4EV has a 154hp motor, the 40kWh Model S was to have a 235hp motor. To think that Tesla couldn't get 175kW of power out of a 42kWh battery is ludicrous.
    1 Apr 2013, 03:18 PM Reply Like
  • John Petersen
    , contributor
    Comments (30170) | Send Message
     
    The Broder incident was instructive. Remember how Mr. Musk whined that Mr. Broder hadn't used the "range charging mode" to top off the battery? That tells me their normal charging mode leaves some headroom of un-utilized capacity (10% to 20%) and normal daily cycling only uses 10% to 20%. The bottom line is that Tesla is keeping the batteries in the sweet spot for both safety and cycle life while scrupulously avoiding the issue of waste.
    1 Apr 2013, 03:19 PM Reply Like
  • froggey77
    , contributor
    Comments (2769) | Send Message
     
    Amouna
    I use options to strictly limit risk.
    I'm just learning and only use throw away money.
    Basically I follow Tesla's hype cycle.
    Long a month or so before a Q announcement and short starting about a week before the actual announcement and for a bit after. (As people figure out how reality doesn't fit the hype.)
    1 Apr 2013, 04:01 PM Reply Like
  • John Petersen
    , contributor
    Comments (30170) | Send Message
     
    I might accelerate that short a bit froggy since Pacific Crest is reporting that Tesla's Q1 profit came from a one-off reversal of their derivative warrant liability from acceleration of the DOE loan.
    1 Apr 2013, 04:16 PM Reply Like
  • Mr Investor
    , contributor
    Comments (2737) | Send Message
     
    After I read the Pac Crest comments, I bought some puts this morning. Still up on them, but that could change based on whatever they announce tomorrow, among other things. We'll see soon.
    1 Apr 2013, 04:35 PM Reply Like
  • froggey77
    , contributor
    Comments (2769) | Send Message
     
    JP
    Yeah I took 1/3 out today.
    I didn't find the Pacific Crest info until I was no longer in position to safely access my account.
    But tomorrow is the big news. I'd have left half in anyway. If It all goes I'm still up for the trade.
    And I may exit tomorrow, minimum of another 1/3 will come out. I may even be short, by the end of the day. If not I'll wait until it settles down. Then see how it looks over a few days. It would't be the first time I was on both sides of the trade expecting a move one way or the other.
    Of course last time I tried it the stock went nowhere and I lost on both sides of the trade. :-( Small amount's, still learning.
    1 Apr 2013, 04:57 PM Reply Like
  • Occam's_Razor
    , contributor
    Comments (1488) | Send Message
     
    "But Tesla also revealed it was eliminating the lowest-cost planned variant of the Model S, the 40-kWh edition that had been slated to cost $52,400, or $10,000 less than the 60 kWh model. Tesla says only 4 percent of its customers had placed reservations for the 40 kWh car, which had an advertised range of 160 miles. Those customers who signed up for a 40 kWh car will get a 60 kWh car instead — but one whose software will only allow the car to access 40 kWh of energy."

     

    Hmmm..... I want that deal!!! Can I get it???
    2 Apr 2013, 12:21 AM Reply Like
  • Occam's_Razor
    , contributor
    Comments (1488) | Send Message
     
    JP et al, I suspect the phasing out the smaller battery pack is more about battery endurance over time (as in years). To your point above, John, if you only cycle a much *smaller* percent of the battery capacity, you are less likely to have egg on your face after, say, eight years of charging, no?

     

    I'm agnostic on Tesla and I hope they succeed with their niche. It has become such an emotional topic, however, that I usually refrain from commenting on anything 'Tesla'
    2 Apr 2013, 12:28 AM Reply Like
  • LT
    , contributor
    Comments (5001) | Send Message
     
    Here's a new car system for you techies to research....interesting combination of 4 techs : Called GAGE200
    http://yhoo.it/Z3apqT
    1 Apr 2013, 05:04 AM Reply Like
  • jveal
    , contributor
    Comments (657) | Send Message
     
    Envision Solar reports on 2012.
    http://reut.rs/16eusqj
    1 Apr 2013, 08:52 AM Reply Like
  • Mac325
    , contributor
    Comments (21) | Send Message
     
    Given Axion's recent mention of EV charging stations and prior relationship with Envision I thought this section of their release was notable:

     

    "Envision Solar's latest product, the EV ARC™, is a cost-effective, easy-to-install, standalone solar charging station that requires no foundation, no trenching, no building permit and no grid connection. One of the main prerequisites to mass adoption of EVs is having a sufficient number of charging stations. EV ARC™ captures and stores up to 22.5 kWh per day of power in each integrated unit, sufficient to charge one electric vehicle each day."

     

    Link to EV ARC product video:

     

    http://bit.ly/10qMFzs

     

    It looks like the version with battery storage built into the base is shown around the 2:40 mark. I'm not sure how to convert 22.5 kWh per day into a pbc equivalent. Would it be around 40?
    2 Apr 2013, 01:06 AM Reply Like
  • jveal
    , contributor
    Comments (657) | Send Message
     
    Mac325,

     

    I like the idea Envision is attempting to develop. Solar panels and batteries are costly enough, add in costs of a sturdy foundation and it is impossible to get a return on investment. If they can perfect a way to build the unit without foundation construction it will bring it closer to a commercial possibility.
    2 Apr 2013, 06:38 AM Reply Like
  • 481086
    , contributor
    Comments (3444) | Send Message
     
    it's one instance where the substantial weight of the PbC may be an advantage...put enough of them in the base and they'd provide pretty good balast/stability...
    2 Apr 2013, 07:13 AM Reply Like
  • Futurist
    , contributor
    Comments (2127) | Send Message
     
    Maybe I just don't get it. But it seems to me that building a massive solar structure to charge one car per day is more wasteful than the EV itself. But I give them credit. The EV ARC looks nice.
    2 Apr 2013, 07:34 AM Reply Like
  • John Petersen
    , contributor
    Comments (30170) | Send Message
     
    I'm with you Futurist. There are so many valuable things a block of PbCs could be doing that it would be a crying shame to waste them on charging stations for vehicles that are tremendously wasteful to begin with.
    2 Apr 2013, 07:37 AM Reply Like
  • 481086
    , contributor
    Comments (3444) | Send Message
     
    Near the bottom of all my kit I've got a small satchel of "if you can't beat 'em, join 'em" gear...

     

    Confess that in moments of weakness I start to eyeball that stuff.

     

    and it's ballast. I know.
    2 Apr 2013, 07:44 AM Reply Like
  • JRP3
    , contributor
    Comments (7996) | Send Message
     
    "There are so many valuable things a block of PbCs could be doing that it would be a crying shame to waste them on charging stations for vehicles that are tremendously wasteful to begin with."

     

    So if Axion gets a large order for PbC's for EV charging you hope they'll turn it down, right?
    2 Apr 2013, 09:24 AM Reply Like
  • John Petersen
    , contributor
    Comments (30170) | Send Message
     
    No. I'd never turn down an order as long as it was a cash purchase. Besides, even if Tesla buys a mess of PbCs tomorrow and puts them to work doing something silly, the PbCs would have years of useful life when Tesla goes under and I'm sure somebody will use them for something worthwhile.
    2 Apr 2013, 09:35 AM Reply Like
  • Stilldazed
    , contributor
    Comments (2127) | Send Message
     
    Looks like another cool factor overcoming commonsense. I live in sun country, but we get high winds a couple times a year (Santa Anna winds) strong enough to blow over big rigs. So this cool thing that only recharges one vehicle a day, takes a lot of space and has a lot of potential wind lift would have to be repaired or replaced how many times a year?
    2 Apr 2013, 01:31 PM Reply Like
  • froggey77
    , contributor
    Comments (2769) | Send Message
     
    Still
    "and has a lot of potential wind lift"
    That was my first thought.
    Second was how many cars, plugged in and not, would it take with it?
    2 Apr 2013, 07:26 PM Reply Like
  • John Petersen
    , contributor
    Comments (30170) | Send Message
     
    With the weight of the battery packs the EVs will be toting around it would take more than a strong wind to budge them.
    2 Apr 2013, 07:44 PM Reply Like
  • froggey77
    , contributor
    Comments (2769) | Send Message
     
    I was thinking of falling over, on top of them battery packs and all, But a Wizard of Oz moment would be fun. :-)
    2 Apr 2013, 07:52 PM Reply Like
  • John Petersen
    , contributor
    Comments (30170) | Send Message
     
    Spinning like a top and dropping the cars at Oz Aluminum Recycling?
    2 Apr 2013, 08:10 PM Reply Like
  • froggey77
    , contributor
    Comments (2769) | Send Message
     
    LOL
    2 Apr 2013, 08:27 PM Reply Like
  • JRP3
    , contributor
    Comments (7996) | Send Message
     
    I assume even though a pad and foundation may not be necessary they'd still drive in some ground anchors.
    3 Apr 2013, 09:38 AM Reply Like
  • AlbertinBermuda
    , contributor
    Comments (733) | Send Message
     
    Sounds mighty like a kite waiting for a breeze to me.
    3 Apr 2013, 09:47 AM Reply Like
  • alpha5one
    , contributor
    Comments (133) | Send Message
     
    Discovery Opens Door to Efficiently Storing and Reusing Renewable Energy

     

    Two University of Calgary researchers have developed a ground-breaking way to make new affordable and efficient catalysts for converting electricity into chemical energy. Their technology opens the door to homeowners and energy companies being able to easily store and reuse solar and wind power. Such energy is clean and renewable, but it's available only when the sun is shining or the wind is blowing. The research by Curtis Berlinguette and Simon Trudel, both in the chemistry department in the Faculty of Science, has just been published in the journal Science.

     

    http://bit.ly/Z3vTDR
    1 Apr 2013, 08:53 AM Reply Like
  • tripleblack
    , contributor
    Comments (13507) | Send Message
     
    Interesting. Its the old idea (take surplus electricity, use it to make hydrogen and oxygen, and store the energy in that form) enabled with a new idea, ultracheap catalysts. Remove all the other considerations, and the key is all in the catalysts.

     

    One of the more common long time ideas: No batteries involved. You just store the fuel and run it through a fuel cell to cover low spots when your wind/solar array cannot generate sufficient power.

     

    This is one to follow to see whether it grows beyond the science fair stage. Prior iterations with similar ideas (and there have been a goodly number of them) litter the halls of academia, and failed because they could not be made to work in the real world or were simply uneconomical. This latest concept, which purports to make the current crop of catalysts obsolete at a single slurp (and by the way cuts through a number of Gordian knots) has to be added to the watch list.
    1 Apr 2013, 09:37 AM Reply Like
  • Mr Investor
    , contributor
    Comments (2737) | Send Message
     
    If they can make a super cheap catalyst to convert CO2 into C + O2 or something else innocuous, that would even be more of a game-changer.
    1 Apr 2013, 10:11 AM Reply Like
  • D Lane
    , contributor
    Comments (1348) | Send Message
     
    More here (From MIT Tech Review):
    http://bit.ly/10p9weH
    1 Apr 2013, 12:09 PM Reply Like
  • Futurist
    , contributor
    Comments (2127) | Send Message
     
    Very interesting article.
    I like the part that said the proffessor's last business endeavor, based on his invention, has changed direction.

     

    This time the business plan is this:

     

    "It intends to create a commercial prototype of a freezer-size electrolyzer that would convert a few liters of water a day to electricity for consumers by 2015."

     

    I wish Firewater all the good luck in the world. But how much hydrogen power can you get out of a few liters of water?
    2 Apr 2013, 07:51 AM Reply Like
  • Rick Krementz
    , contributor
    Comments (2376) | Send Message
     
    There have been two major challenges of electrolyzing H2O then producing electricity.

     

    1) The low round trip efficiency. I don't believe anyone outside of a lab has gotten round trip (including pressurization/storage of H, and thermal losses) to anywhere close to 50%.

     

    2) The high cost of catalysts. There have been a lot of research developing lower cost catalysts with a variety of approaches. Very thin coatings, as has been engineered for automotive exhaust systems, is fairly cost effective and scalable. (Every car sold in the US has a catalyst).

     

    My understanding is that the operating losses (round trip) is the killer. Modern electrolysis converts about 50-70% energy into H, but then there is the significant problem of storage. Compression or liquefaction consumes 10-35% of the energy content of the H. Fuel cells are about 50-60% efficient. 70% x 90% x 60% < 38%

     

    Note: There will probably be troll responses about c. 90% fuel cell efficiencies (if you include low grade heat). Round trip mean electricity in to electricity out. Low grade heat can't keep the lights on.
    2 Apr 2013, 12:10 PM Reply Like
  • LT
    , contributor
    Comments (5001) | Send Message
     
    9:44 AM Kandi Technologies (KNDI +4.1%) rises after reporting a 204% Y/Y increase in electric vehicle sales. The company also said revenue and operating income for the full year rose 61% and 75% respectively although GAAP net income fell sharply on increased R&D, higher taxes, and fair value adjustments of financial derivatives, among other factors. Comment! [Tech]
    1 Apr 2013, 09:47 AM Reply Like
  • LT
    , contributor
    Comments (5001) | Send Message
     
    I have often wondered IF, Tesla might someday hit China with success ?
    1 Apr 2013, 09:47 AM Reply Like
  • Amouna
    , contributor
    Comments (1616) | Send Message
     
    Seems AXPW is the only one still left in the dust. Hopefully TG can close a good deal with long term investors and get to commercialization in earnest, so we can transit for penny stock status into something more credible...
    1 Apr 2013, 09:55 AM Reply Like
  • alpha5one
    , contributor
    Comments (133) | Send Message
     
    Here, here!
    1 Apr 2013, 10:12 AM Reply Like
  • Alphameister
    , contributor
    Comments (1428) | Send Message
     
    From my horoscope for today: "After you plant a seed in the ground, you don't dig it up every few hours to see how it's doing." ;)
    1 Apr 2013, 11:03 AM Reply Like