Seeking Alpha

Axion Power Host's  Instablog

Axion Power Host
Send Message
Inactive.
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 (329)
Track new comments
  • isthisonebetter
    , contributor
    Comments (373) | Send Message
     
    why not?

     

    EDIT: happy Friday all!
    17 Jan 2014, 01:21 PM Reply Like
  • Renzo
    , contributor
    Comments (353) | Send Message
     
    Dos

     

    EDIT: Equis
    17 Jan 2014, 01:24 PM Reply Like
  • CO3
    , contributor
    Comments (252) | Send Message
     
    Two's a charm ...
    Right place, Write time again ...
    17 Jan 2014, 01:24 PM Reply Like
  • obieephyhm
    , contributor
    Comments (1595) | Send Message
     
    not quite fast enough.
    17 Jan 2014, 02:08 PM Reply Like
  • iindelco
    , contributor
    Comments (10146) | Send Message
     
    That'll help them out of Bankruptcy.

     

    Air quality district sues battery recycler Exide for $40 million

     

    http://lat.ms/LgBkA2
    17 Jan 2014, 02:38 PM Reply Like
  • JohnM121
    , contributor
    Comments (471) | Send Message
     
    "Exide operates one of two lead-acid battery plants west of the Rockies"
    So, when if or when this one closes, there will be 1 recycling plant for (just a guess) 50 million cars. (California has 28 million)
    17 Jan 2014, 04:41 PM Reply Like
  • iindelco
    , contributor
    Comments (10146) | Send Message
     
    That would be about another 6.25 million batteries annually headed to Mexico if the articles daily recycling number is correct.
    17 Jan 2014, 04:51 PM Reply Like
  • John Petersen
    , contributor
    Comments (30418) | Send Message
     
    Dumping trash over the back fence has never been a problem for governor moonbeam and the conspicuous greens running the PRC.
    17 Jan 2014, 05:23 PM Reply Like
  • ARGE
    , contributor
    Comments (724) | Send Message
     
    That's one way to help the trade deficit, doesn't do much for unemployment...at least not here.
    18 Jan 2014, 07:11 PM Reply Like
  • greentongue
    , contributor
    Comments (956) | Send Message
     
    Throw us a "bone" on Friday would be nice.
    An ePower update if nothing else good is happening.
    17 Jan 2014, 02:38 PM Reply Like
  • LabTech
    , contributor
    Comments (1780) | Send Message
     
    greentongue,
    John already did that yesterday. First truck is being driven around town by ePower, while they check for issues and wait for the insurance paperwork to clear. In the meantime they are working on the second truck.
    17 Jan 2014, 02:51 PM Reply Like
  • iindelco
    , contributor
    Comments (10146) | Send Message
     
    Greentongue, Early for an update but a picture of a venom green rig going down the road would make for a nice closer for the week! 8-O
    17 Jan 2014, 02:54 PM Reply Like
  • John Petersen
    , contributor
    Comments (30418) | Send Message
     
    The truck was insured, registered and on the road yesterday. The team was happy after the first 25 mile shakedown run and eager to see what happens as we add weight. Since the roads are pretty icy right now, we won't get into longer distances and heavier weights for another day or two.
    17 Jan 2014, 02:57 PM Reply Like
  • John Petersen
    , contributor
    Comments (30418) | Send Message
     
    Iindelco> The sleeper is still white, but the day cab is Predator Green.
    17 Jan 2014, 04:51 PM Reply Like
  • iindelco
    , contributor
    Comments (10146) | Send Message
     
    Oh, OK. Thanks John. So I have to wait before I recommend TB catch up with you and apply some big ole pit vipers on the doors! Black Mambas since they are the fastest. Triple Black Mambas.
    17 Jan 2014, 05:05 PM Reply Like
  • John Petersen
    , contributor
    Comments (30418) | Send Message
     
    I don't think snakes on the cab will convey quite the image we're going for. It's more like pre-answering the eternal question "Exactly how green is this tractor?" – VERY VERT
    17 Jan 2014, 05:21 PM Reply Like
  • SMaturin
    , contributor
    Comments (2305) | Send Message
     
    Might this be a better emblem for the door, or perhaps 3D on the hood?

     

    http://bit.ly/1axmyyi
    17 Jan 2014, 05:47 PM Reply Like
  • iindelco
    , contributor
    Comments (10146) | Send Message
     
    Yeah, Understood. You wouldn't have appreciated the site marketing video I did for Valeo either. They used it but it didn't shine. Not my skill set for sure.

     

    Although I did say to someone that they should utilize the phrase 'Valeo Added" and they adopted it a couple years later. Not as a result of my input though. So I can pick up on the obvious. lol
    17 Jan 2014, 05:54 PM Reply Like
  • 481086
    , contributor
    Comments (3442) | Send Message
     
    I've mulled it over, and over, and so far have only been able to settle on two final candidates:

     

    1) Sleek, deadly, flat black. With nothing but a highly-stylized windswept graphic of the mighty C12 atom emblazoned on each door... flawlessly executed of course in electric green chartreuse.

     

    Or

     

    2) A gleaming white Pegasus Unicorn frolicking on a rolling field of fresh green clover...

     

    It's just killing me trying to decide.
    17 Jan 2014, 06:06 PM Reply Like
  • Edmund Metcalfe
    , contributor
    Comments (2153) | Send Message
     
    How about a hottie under a pair of coconut palms?
    17 Jan 2014, 06:17 PM Reply Like
  • mrholty
    , contributor
    Comments (1100) | Send Message
     
    Absolutely. Like the one painted on the bombers in WWII.
    18 Jan 2014, 11:47 AM Reply Like
  • ARGE
    , contributor
    Comments (724) | Send Message
     
    481086, FYI, Pegasus is a proper noun, the name of a horse that could fly, not a species, and he was not a unicorn. Flying horses with wings are flutter ponies (a flying horse without wings is Lyftmara.)
    The only unicorns who have wings are the royals, i.e., princes Twilight Sparkle.
    You would know this if you had a 6 year old daughter into My Little Pony.
    18 Jan 2014, 07:32 PM Reply Like
  • 481086
    , contributor
    Comments (3442) | Send Message
     
    ARGE, as is my wont, it seems that one or the other was just not good enough for me... (though perhaps I should have reversed the syntax so that unicorn could be more clearly seen to be modifying Pegasus and not the other way around) At any rate... as you can probably guess, a mere flying horse, however unique and noble, was not here sufficient to my needs... no, what I needed was something even more... to really dial the glory up to 11, I sought that special connotation of magic and whimsy and wonder that only a unicorn can bring to a conversation. It really did seem essential at the time. I see now however, that I may have slightly overstepped your turf. A thousand pardons sir. ;)
    18 Jan 2014, 08:05 PM Reply Like
  • ARGE
    , contributor
    Comments (724) | Send Message
     
    Just put an empty can of Red Bull next to him, with a now with Axion Power logo on the label.
    20 Jan 2014, 05:17 PM Reply Like
  • D-inv
    , contributor
    Comments (4210) | Send Message
     
    "The only unicorns who have wings are the royals, i.e., princes Twilight Sparkle. You would know this if you had a 6 year old daughter into My Little Pony. "

     

    :-) Vividly confirmed by 3.5 and 6 year old granddaughters yesterday.
    20 Jan 2014, 09:07 PM Reply Like
  • ARGE
    , contributor
    Comments (724) | Send Message
     
    I am also well versed on Thomas the Tank Engine, having a 6 year old boy as well.
    22 Jan 2014, 10:57 AM Reply Like
  • Edmund Metcalfe
    , contributor
    Comments (2153) | Send Message
     
    For those who may have missed it, the color can be seen on the cab in the background in the picture John provided in his update on testing a couple of months ago.

     

    http://seekingalpha.co...

     

    It is not that far from the 2013 Boss Mustang, one of which I saw on my trip up to Boston last weekend:
    http://bit.ly/1fGzrdP
    17 Jan 2014, 05:47 PM Reply Like
  • greentongue
    , contributor
    Comments (956) | Send Message
     
    Hopefully next week a full blown update like
    http://bit.ly/1jykJ4T
    will be posted. Certainly can't hurt to show the world that there are practical options for trucking actually on the road.
    Current, achievable technology, not some future breakthrough dependent solution dependent on safe and cheap li-ion.
    17 Jan 2014, 09:51 PM Reply Like
  • John Petersen
    , contributor
    Comments (30418) | Send Message
     
    I think you're being a little ambitious on timing. The Gen3 prototype is finished and running the way we want it to, but we have a lot of testing and tweaking to do before we'll feel comfortable speaking publicly about our results. It's not the work of months, but it's also not the work of days.
    18 Jan 2014, 08:47 AM Reply Like
  • iindelco
    , contributor
    Comments (10146) | Send Message
     
    NY State Working Hard to Catch up With CA's Energy Storage Requirements

     

    http://huff.to/1mbEkcs
    17 Jan 2014, 06:55 PM Reply Like
  • Edmund Metcalfe
    , contributor
    Comments (2153) | Send Message
     
    oh my, look how HARD they work ... we should count ourselves fortunate ... we are working them too hard ... perhaps we don't pay them enough!?!? BWAAA-HAHAHAHA - - - yeah, riiiiight ... it's remarkable how many subtle forms propaganda takes when an entire industry is dedicated to shilling for the State, to follow sarcasm with fact
    17 Jan 2014, 08:55 PM Reply Like
  • jcrjg
    , contributor
    Comments (174) | Send Message
     
    Was there a volume failure today?
    17 Jan 2014, 09:26 PM Reply Like
  • John Petersen
    , contributor
    Comments (30418) | Send Message
     
    A "Volume Failure" only exists if (a) the average daily value during a measuring period is under $60,000, or (b) the daily value on "more than three days" in a measuring period is under $40,000.

     

    We are in a measuring period and yesterday's volume was under $40,000. We will not have a Volume Failure, however, unless three of the next nine days are also under $40,000.
    18 Jan 2014, 07:08 AM Reply Like
  • RBrun357
    , contributor
    Comments (791) | Send Message
     
    We better hope Axion puts out a press release early next week in order to stimulate some buying activity then!

     

    I picked up another 50,000 shares between Thursday and Friday but I had my eyes shut and my fingers crossed! ;-((
    18 Jan 2014, 09:59 AM Reply Like
  • WayneinOregon
    , contributor
    Comments (1133) | Send Message
     
    RBrun, "I picked up another 50,000 shares between Thursday and Friday but I had my eyes shut and my fingers crossed!"

     

    It would seem the only reason Axion shareholders are either holding and/or purchasing more shares is because they believe and trust TG, including his predictions of near-term sales and revenue. I would think current buyers may even have a little more conviction.

     

    Soooo, congratulations on your new shares. Does your purchase mean you believe and/or trust TG? And if so, why? --- (Not trying in anyway to be facetious; I'm considering purchasing more if the pps reaches .09, but that decision would be based primarily on whether I think sales and revenue are imminent.)
    20 Jan 2014, 01:02 PM Reply Like
  • RBrun357
    , contributor
    Comments (791) | Send Message
     
    WIO,

     

    I can not say that I trust TG to be able to predict the future in regards to timing of sales since as we all know to date he has failed miserably at doing so. I know some give him a pass and say things like TG does not have control of the customers projects or purchase order book but I do not give him the same pass. I expect that when a CEO says significant sales by such and such time I expect those sales to materialize and if they do not I remove my trust.

     

    With that said, I do believe that at some point in time one or more of the sectors that have been testing the PbC technology should eventually pop. Since we have not heard anything to suggest that at least a couple of sectors continue to move forward towards the launch of new technology created around the PbC, I continue to believe the time will come.

     

    Since I am already fairly heavily invested at prices higher than the current levels I will continue to pick up a few more shares as we ride this story into the next chapters. I also believe that even though the PIPE funding is extremely toxic it makes more sense to increase my holdings in order to offset the major dilution that is being created.

     

    Since the day that I started to take a position in Axion my knowledge and faith in the PbC technology has increased immensely even as my faith in the CEO has diminished. When that morning comes (hopefully soon) when we receive the press release proclaiming a significant order and then the very steep climb in sales starts to show, I know that I will be happy that I added during this fire sale. If TG completely blows it and does not come through with any of his prictions then I am out everything invested but right now I place the odds of that happening in the lower percentile range. I am "gambling" on this story making a turn soon and since the outstanding shares will probably put a short term cap or at least a very heavy lid on the stock price I plan to have more shares in my accounts in order to increase my multiplier! 100,000 shares X $2.00 is not as much money as 200,000 shares X $2.00 and so on!

     

    I do believe that Axion could one day be valued at a $1,000,000,000.00 market cap (look at Tesla's crazy $20 billion MC) and that would put the stock price at about $5.00 with 200 million shares outstanding. I also know that I would be very happy to multiply my share count at a measly $400,000,000.00 market cap (ePower alone could do this for Axion) and as my holdings increase around the $.10 range my smile will be even brighter as this story unfolds!

     

    Again, this is pure gambling for me and I do have an addiction! ;-))
    20 Jan 2014, 02:27 PM Reply Like
  • WayneinOregon
    , contributor
    Comments (1133) | Send Message
     
    "With that said, I do believe that at some point in time one or more of the sectors that have been testing the PbC technology should eventually pop."

     

    RBrun, thanks for your thoughts. Pretty similar to mine actually; it's sort of nice to have mine somewhat confirmed by a far more experienced investor. You mention you're a gambler, but my take is you're not a reckless one. So your narrative gives me a pretty good indication of what you feel the risk/reward ratio stands at this point. Like you, despite all the uncertainty, I believe that ratio looks pretty good.
    20 Jan 2014, 03:33 PM Reply Like
  • iindelco
    , contributor
    Comments (10146) | Send Message
     
    Jcrjg, Yes. Someone else will need to qualify if this was in the window from which the price of the next PIPE payment is calculated.
    17 Jan 2014, 09:42 PM Reply Like
  • D-inv
    , contributor
    Comments (4210) | Send Message
     
    FWIW, I interpret the PIPE document as defining a "measuring period" as ANY 16 consecutive trading days in which the daily weighted average trading volume falls below $60k and the $40K volume failure threshold as any four days within any consecutive 16 trading days.

     

    However one interprets the PIPE document, ISTM it is very, very hard to logically attribute yesterday's low trading volume to "selling pressure."
    18 Jan 2014, 09:19 AM Reply Like
  • H. T. Love
    , contributor
    Comments (18412) | Send Message
     
    D-Inv: You got that right! Buy:sell was 1.66:1 (62.47% "buys"). Didn't have first sell until 12:19, 100 shares.

     

    ARCA didn't appear until 12:18. Hm, first 100 share sell one minute later. Wonder if there's a correlation.

     

    Anyway, ARCA was gone by 14:26 AFAICT (did'nt see exactly when the exited). Like before, planted the offer at $0.10 and left it there.

     

    I wonder if it's just a Friday effect or the result of 1/2 the number of shares being issued.

     

    HardToLove
    18 Jan 2014, 09:38 AM Reply Like
  • John Petersen
    , contributor
    Comments (30418) | Send Message
     
    The contract defines the "measuring period" as "the fifteen (15) consecutive Trading Day period ending on the Trading Day immediately preceding such date of determination."

     

    http://1.usa.gov/1753WnN

     

    The installment date for the March payment is the 3rd. Since the market will be closed on February 17th for Washington's Birthday the Installment Notice Date for that payment is January 28th and the pre-installment share delivery date is January 30th. Since the market is also closed for MLK day, there are only six trading days left before the next determination date. Unless three of them come in under $40,000 there will be no volume failure issue.

     

    I'm not sure what to make of yesterday's trading activity because it seems that the PIPErs were unwilling to drop the ask in order to hit the volume numbers and the street was unwilling to boost the offer to hit those numbers.

     

    I absolutely attribute yesterday's low volume to selling pressure because markets are just like any other animal. If you whack them on the nose with a rolled up newspaper every time they get a little exuberant they quickly learn to avoid exuberance. Once that pattern becomes ingrained, the guy who holds the newspaper loses his legal right to complain that exuberance is lacking.
    18 Jan 2014, 09:51 AM Reply Like
  • Mr Investor
    , contributor
    Comments (3083) | Send Message
     
    Over the last 18 months of watching AXPW trade, I've seen our big sellers, whoever they were at the time, take an occasional break, mostly around trading holidays. Given that Monday is one, that's my guess for Friday's low volume.

     

    HTL, the recent Amendment says, " ...the Installment Amount for Installments subsequent to the Installment for the period ending February 3, 2014 was reduced from $250,000 per lender to $125,000..." Not only was the amt not lowered for the shares they rec'd a couple weeks ago, but the formula changed to produce even more shares: " The Company Conversion Price commencing with the Pre Installment for the period ending February 3, 2014 was reduced from 85% to 80% of the VWAP..." I didn't calc the number of shares they rec'd most recently, but it musta been a record high number, given the record low VWAP and the reduction to 80%. A quick look at the trading volume since then tells me they have a lot of shares left---super roughly, half or more.
    18 Jan 2014, 11:58 AM Reply Like
  • H. T. Love
    , contributor
    Comments (18412) | Send Message
     
    MrI: re the # of shares: yes, my roughly 1/2 was just me being lazy. IIRC, some folks corrected me in the past and pointed out an equivalent 6.25% more shares for each $. So it would be 1/2 plus about 1/16th more.

     

    HardToLove
    18 Jan 2014, 12:16 PM Reply Like
  • Mr Investor
    , contributor
    Comments (3083) | Send Message
     
    HTL, because u wrote, "being issued", I thought it helpful to pt out that the recent issuance was actually a record amt instead. The next issuance in a couple weeks will be the 1st one that's roughly 1/2, assuming no material price change, no additional Amendment, etc.
    18 Jan 2014, 12:31 PM Reply Like
  • John Petersen
    , contributor
    Comments (30418) | Send Message
     
    If you assume a VWAP of $0.10, then 11.7 million shares would have been required to satisfy a $1 million payment. Using the lower percentage that number only climbs to 12.5 million. Month to date volume is 9.9 million shares, so the spit-ball estimate of half done seems pretty reasonable.
    18 Jan 2014, 12:47 PM Reply Like
  • D-inv
    , contributor
    Comments (4210) | Send Message
     
    The recent PIPE amendment reads,

     

    " As of January 2, 2014, Axion Power International, Inc. (the “Company”) entered into Note Amendments with each of senior lenders with respect to the $9,000,000 aggregate amount of Senior Convertible Notes (“Notes”) issued by the Company to those lenders on May 8, 2013. All capitalized terms utilized in this Current Report and not defined are used as defined in the Notes.

     

    The terms of the Notes are amended by the Amendments as follows:

     

    1. The minimum $.10 per share VWAP price set forth in the Notes for the Company to be able to effect a conversion of an Installment into Company Common Stock was reduced to $.09.

     

    2. The Company Conversion Price commencing with the Pre Installment for the period ending February 3, 2014 was reduced from 85% to 80% of the VWAP formula specified in Section 8 of the Notes.

     

    3. The lenders waived the requirement to redeem the Pre Installment for the period ending February 3, 2014 triggered by the VWAP of the Company’s Common Stock on December 26, 2013 and December 27, 2013 at a price less than $.10.

     

    4. With respect to all lenders except Parsoon Special Situation, Ltd, the Installment Amount for Installments subsequent to the Installment for the period ending February 3, 2014 was reduced from $250,000 per lender to $125,000, except that at the Company's option, it may request that the Installment Amount be increased to $250,000."

     

    I read that amendment as 1) acknowledgement by all parties that a price default (as defined by the PIPE agreement) occurred on December 26 and December 27, 2) agreement to waive cash redemption plus 25% penalty on the pre-installment payment due for Feb 3 note, 3) establishing a revised, lower future price default threshold of $.09, 4) increasing the share price discount to market for conversion of outstanding notes from 15% to 20% and applying that discount factor to the pre-installment due in January for the note maturing February 3, and 5) reducing installment amounts on remaining outstanding notes due post February.

     

    Exclusion of Parsoon Special Situation from 5) above indicates that lender/investor a) held less than or equal to $125k of convertible notes issued under the PIPE or b) was not a party to the amendment agreement. If not a party to the amendment agreement, Parsoon had either accelerated conversion of all its remaining notes prior to date of the amendment or opted for cash payment plus 25% on remaining notes held and notes subject to conversion at 20% discount to market price were limited to $750k face amount. I strongly suspect b) applies and less than 10 mil shares were issued in early January.
    18 Jan 2014, 05:09 PM Reply Like
  • D-inv
    , contributor
    Comments (4210) | Send Message
     
    "The contract defines the 'measuring period' as 'the fifteen (15) consecutive Trading Day period ending on the Trading Day immediately preceding such date of determination.'"

     

    Said definition omits ANY reference to an installment date, pre-installment date, or any other fixed point in time. The definition clearly defines the applicable 'measuring period' and ANY period of sixteen (16) consecutive days consisting of a "date of determination" plus the immediately preceding fifteen (15) consecutive days. That definition of "measuring period" is applied to determinations regarding both "Price Failure" and "Volume Failure". The "Price Failure" definition specifies a single criterion of 'failure' with the "measuring period." "Volume Failure" occurs upon realization of either of two criteria within the "measuring period." See page 44 of http://1.usa.gov/1753WnN

     

    "(vv) “Volume Failure” means, with respect to a particular date of determination, either (x) the quotient of (A) the sum of the aggregate daily dollar trading volume (as reported on Bloomberg) of the Common Stock on each Trading Day over the fifteen (15) consecutive Trading Day period ending on the Trading Day immediately preceding such date of determination (such period, the “Volume Failure Measuring Period”), divided by (B) fifteen (15) is less than $60,000 (as adjusted for any stock splits, stock dividends, stock combinations, recapitalizations or other similar transactions) or (y) the aggregate daily dollar trading volume (as reported on Bloomberg) of the Common Stock on the Principal Market on more than three (3) Trading Days during the Volume Failure Measuring Period is less than $40,000 (as adjusted for any stock splits, stock dividends, stock combinations, recapitalizations or other similar transactions). All such determinations to be appropriately adjusted for any stock splits, stock dividends, stock combinations, recapitalizations or other similar transactions during such Volume Failure Measuring Period."
    18 Jan 2014, 10:18 PM Reply Like
  • John Petersen
    , contributor
    Comments (30418) | Send Message
     
    It's clear from the disclosure that all of the lenders waived their right to demand a cash payment. We know there were $200,000 in early note conversions by the date of the last 10-Q, but there's no way of knowing whether those conversions were spread among several investors or concentrated in one.

     

    By my count the installment dates were scheduled to run through April, which would have put the last big stock issuance in early March. If you're right about the early conversions being concentrated in Parsoon, the amount would have been big enough to pay off their balance with the February pre-installment, but not big enough to impact the January pre-installment. We're getting close to the end of this selling stockholder hell, but I don't think we're there yet.

     

    Determinations are made during normal business hours on a determination date, a period when the market is open. They are not added to the 15 day measuring period.
    19 Jan 2014, 07:56 AM Reply Like
  • jcrjg
    , contributor
    Comments (174) | Send Message
     
    D-inv,

     

    Thanks for the great posts on the agreement. It is amazing that we are still learning new ways that Axion can be tripped up. Do you have any opinion on the disagreement between John and Maya about whether or not the agreement requires the PIPERs to agree to a new financing if they get paid off?
    19 Jan 2014, 08:40 AM Reply Like
  • D-inv
    , contributor
    Comments (4210) | Send Message
     
    jcr, allow me to lay out one caveat before responding to your particular question. As I read the PIPE agreement (as originally agreed) prepayment of the notes was not an option available to Axion. If that is a valid interpretation then the PIPErs would have to agree to any arrangements leading to prepayment of PIPE notes. (The amended agreement allows for acceleration of payment by Axion.)

     

    Section 7 of the PIPE document addresses PIPEr rights upon issuance of other securities. ISTM that section discusses such rights entirely within context of conversion prices applicable to PIPE convertible securities. As far as I can tell these provisions all relate to protection of PIPErs from dilution of their equity interests.

     

    On page 27 if the PIPE, Section 13 (covenants), item (m) reads, "Restricted Issuances. The Company shall not, directly or indirectly, without the prior written consent of the holders of a majority in aggregate principal amount of the Notes then outstanding, (i) issue any Notes (other than as contemplated by the Securities Purchase Agreement and the Notes) or (ii) issue any other securities that would cause a breach or default under the Notes or the Warrants."

     

    ISTM once PIPE convertible notes are liquidated/retired, Axion is under no obligation to consult with PIPE investors prior to issuance of additional shares provided number of shares authorized by shareholders is sufficient to cover those shares issuable on exercise of PIPEr warrants.

     

    FWIW
    19 Jan 2014, 11:10 AM Reply Like
  • jcrjg
    , contributor
    Comments (174) | Send Message
     
    D-inv,

     

    Thanks for the explanation, that is good news. So with the renegotiation Axion is free to do whatever it wants provided it pays back the PIPErs.
    19 Jan 2014, 12:19 PM Reply Like
  • Mayascribe
    , contributor
    Comments (10418) | Send Message
     
    jcrjg: Disagreement? I don't recall that JP and I disagreed about anything.

     

    My point was that the extension included codicils that prevented Axion from raising more capital until the PIPE deal has been completed, and terminated.

     

    And, IIRC, JP pointed out that if anything significant developed, that there would only be around $2,000,000 left in PIPE shares to deal with, which John painted as not such a big deal now, as opposed to earlier on during the PIPE deal.

     

    I fully agree...if indeed something significant develops.
    20 Jan 2014, 05:30 PM Reply Like
  • jcrjg
    , contributor
    Comments (174) | Send Message
     
    Maya,

     

    On Jan 9 you wrote:

     

    "JP: I agree, and stated that another deal could be worked out. But still, Axion needs the PIPErs permission to do so.

     

    I would love to see that happen!"

     

    I was focusing on whether or not permission was needed. Above you say that permission is needed. I understood JP's post to say that permission was not needed, provided the loan was repaid, which is why the fact of only $2M being left on the loan is relevant. I apologize if I misunderstood your position. I now understand that D-inv's reading of the agreement agrees with JP's and also yours, which I think is great news.
    20 Jan 2014, 07:34 PM Reply Like
  • H. T. Love
    , contributor
    Comments (18412) | Send Message
     
    John: "it seems that the PIPErs were unwilling to drop the ask".

     

    Add in this consideration and see if any new thoughts pop up. I don't know how this might affect the thoughts - just observed behavior.

     

    Most of the time, in observed behavior, the offers really only end up serving to provide a top and allow folks that absolutely want to assure they get some shares to get them AFAICT. I draw this conclusion because even when the offers are being actively pushed down, when ARCA, NITE, ATDF, BTIG, CDEL ... are all being aggressive, most trades are "sells", hitting the bids. This is seen in the low buy:sell trend - buy averages for 10, 25, 50 and 100 days are 38.01% , 33.16%, 33.20% and 31.42% respectively. "Unknowns" are essentially nil. So the difference of those buy averages and 1 are "sells" - hitting the bids. Roughly two of every three trades, on average, hit the bid.

     

    Contrast this to, e.g., 7/3/12: 74.61%, 62.42%, 56.24% and 48.98%. These are some of the best we've ever seen and should not be considered normal for our current environment. But they are demonstrative of my thinking that in the current environment, the offers are essentially just serving to "top" the range, allow those who want to be assured of getting shares do so, and have little to do with "selling pressure" in our current environment.

     

    My thinking is that offers, while useful to allow those absolutely wanting to buy to do so, is not the determining factor in selling pressure. That is indicated rather by the percentage that step around the offers to hit the bids. These are the folks that absolutely want to be assured of dumping their shares.

     

    Add in that when buy % moves higher, as it did today, we almost invariably see high daily short sales percentages. I *think* this is because MMs are the ones on the ask and most of the time, as you have averred in the past, they are generally not long (although I don't give up my short-term long argument for some of them some of the time). Some of these are backed by sell orders from clients, others not - the MM knows that a covering buy at a lower price will occur since the MM is also on the bid and two of three shares traded will hit the bid and be at a lower price.

     

    Today's short sales were 79.50K, 40.81%. Watching the trades Fri. A.M. I thought we would have a high short percentage because of the relatively high early (and final as it turned out) buy percentage. It has been that reliable.

     

    Last, my focus on ARCA's behavior only allows me some "forecasting" ability for the intra-day action. Even when they and others are very active, we often still see relatively "low" buy percentages if the volume is more "reasonable". Today, offers, as you note, were relatively static - varying in range from $0.0998 to $0.1098 (only at the open) and spending most of the day near $0.10 and below (from 10:51 onwards):
    09:30-09:30: 021662 shrs, 11.12% of vol, VWAP $0.1095, 100.0% buys
    09:51-12:19: 057100 shrs, 29.31% of vol, VWAP $0.1009, 099.8% buys
    12:19-14:26: 033125 shrs, 17.01% of vol, VWAP $0.0978, 024.2% buys
    14:30-15:09: 031800 shrs, 16.33% of vol, VWAP $0.0978, 000.0% buys
    15:29-15:58: 051200 shrs, 26.29% of vol, VWAP $0.0994, 068.4% buys

     

    HardToLove
    18 Jan 2014, 10:57 AM Reply Like
  • iindelco
    , contributor
    Comments (10146) | Send Message
     
    Calculating the Value of Energy Storage

     

    http://bit.ly/1f0i572
    18 Jan 2014, 11:36 AM Reply Like
  • iindelco
    , contributor
    Comments (10146) | Send Message
     
    I happen to agree with him on his 3 points. Smart guy.

     

    The 3 keys to selecting the right utility energy storage. (Are you listening California?)

     

    "Mike Hopkins is Ice Energy's executive vice president of corporate development and legal. He is responsible for sales, strategic partnerships, and legal affairs. Prior to joining the company in 2009, he practiced law for 18 years with Bennett Jones LLP, a pre-eminent Canadian law firm and global leader in energy and climate change."

     

    http://bit.ly/1eIS8bN
    18 Jan 2014, 01:00 PM Reply Like
  • H. T. Love
    , contributor
    Comments (18412) | Send Message
     
    01/17/2014: EOD stuff partially copied from blog (up now).
    # Trds: 43, MinTrSz: 100, MaxTrSz: 20500, Vol: 194787, AvTrSz: 4530
    Min. Pr: 0.0961, Max Pr: 0.1098, VW Avg. Tr. Pr: 0.1004
    # Buys, Shares: 21 121687, VW Avg Buy Pr: 0.1021
    # Sells, Shares: 22 73100, VW Avg Sell Pr: 0.0977
    # Unkn, Shares: 0 0, VW Avg Unk. Pr: 0.0000
    Buy:Sell 1.66:1 (62.47% "buys"), DlyShts 79500 (40.81%), Dly Sht % of 'sells' 108.76%

     

    Today's trade value was only $19,561.32. I wouldn't worry about a “Volume Failure”, yet. John Petersen points out in this comment:
    http://seekingalpha.co... “Since the market is also closed for MLK day, there are only six trading days left before the next determination date. Unless three of them come in under $40,000 there will be no volume failure issue”. I suspect that volume won't be so low for 50% of the remaining days.

     

    Today the daily short sales were 108.76% of “sells”. A similar situation occurred 1/6, 130.29%, when we also had low volume and high buy percentage, ~163.3K and 70.3% buys. Before that, we have to go back to 7/29 to find a 122.28% of sells in the daily short sales. That day had good volume and buy percentage though, 921.8K and 63% buys. The common thread seems to be “buys” (hitting the ask) strongly, which is what I've been voicing.

     

    Our “return to normalcy” is still in place because low-volume days, especially around holidays and Fridays is not uncommon. Ditto for high buy percentages when volume is low. E.g. 1/6 had 163.25K and a buy percentage of 70.3% with daily shorts of 34.72 %, near the higher end of our typical range in this environment.

     

    The average of the lowest 20 VWAPs times 80% today is $0.0808 vs. $0.0815, $0.0817, $0.0823, $0.0828, $0.0831, $0.0834, $0.0838, $0.0846 and $0.0849 on prior days. 80% of today's VWAP is $0.0803 vs. $0.0771, $0.0778, $0.0794, $0.0827, $0.0842, $0.0819, $0.0808, $0.0809 and $0.0831 on prior days. These are potential prices for the next tranche of shares to the PIPErs.

     

    Today's low, high, VWAP, trade volume, and daily short sales moved 20.13%, 4.57%, 4.15%, -78.13% and -75.46% respectively. Price spread today was 14.26% vs. 31.25%, 5.76%, 8.33%, 6.47%, 11.13%, 1.90%, 5.80% and 8.08% prior days. As with yesterday, without two early trades (yesterday low, today very high) our high would have been $0.1029 (-2.00%) and our spread would be 7.08%.

     

    On the traditional TA front, we now know how to keep price above my descending resistance – no volume! Traded above that line, ~$0.0987 AFAICT, was good with 70.17% at $0.0990 or above. Allowing for slop in trying precisely reading the level of that line, we traded 62.47% at $0.0998 or above.

     

    Too bad there was little volume today – that makes all of this suspect, along with everything else I normally try to give any weight too.

     

    Yesterday I said the daily short sales is now about the point of starting a leg down again. The buy percentage, along with low volume threw that into the FAIL category.

     

    No discussion of my experimental inflection point calculations seems warranted with such low volume and the resulting abnormal buy percentage. Ignore the inflection point charts too.

     

    Today only 3 of the 43 trades were ~15K or larger (15K, 16K and 20.5K), accounting for 26.44% of volume though. The significant one was the 20.5K one because it was 10.52% of volume at the high of the day, $0.1098. Without this trade, our VWAP would be $0.0993 instead of the $0.1004 we got. Ripple effects would include moving the today's VWAP x 80% price to $0.0794 from the $0.0803 we actually got. Not bad for a $2,250.90 investment. ...

     

    We got a price sag shortly after noon and a small recovery in the last 30 minutes – see the trading breakdowns.

     

    The usual thoughts, but fewer than normal, and stats are in the blog.
    http://seekingalpha.co...

     

    HardToLove
    18 Jan 2014, 08:23 PM Reply Like
  • D-inv
    , contributor
    Comments (4210) | Send Message
     
    "Today's trade value was only $19,561.32. I wouldn't worry about a “Volume Failure”, yet. John Petersen points out in this comment:
    http://seekingalpha.co... "

     

    http://seekingalpha.co... argues a very different interpretation of "Volume Failure" than that ventured by Petersen. Axion Power International is IMO one (1) and only one day shy of a "Volume Failure" and will remain so for the next five (5) trading days unless said volume failure occurs within those five days.

     

    Trading volumes of less than $40K were recorded on Jan. 3, Jan. 6, and Jan. 17, three occurrences in the span of eleven (11) days. Should another volume or price failure occur under terms of the PIPE, there will be "blood in the streets" so to speak and quite a bit of it will be from those intent on acquiring shares at the lowest price obtainable from the PIPErs.

     

    Passage of a federal budget holds some prospect for forward movement in grid/renewable energy storage projects and PowerCube sales.
    18 Jan 2014, 11:23 PM Reply Like
  • isthisonebetter
    , contributor
    Comments (373) | Send Message
     
    D-inv,

     

    citing yourself seems somewhat egotistical. maybe a more tactful approach would suit you in the future. "I argue..." for example, would come across much less trite. This is not judgment on the validity of your statements, just the presentation thereof.
    19 Jan 2014, 03:15 AM Reply Like
  • H. T. Love
    , contributor
    Comments (18412) | Send Message
     
    D-Inv: Is Jan 3 w/i the 15 day period? If not, we get one more day.

     

    I ask because my impression is that the date of determination is generally around the 3rd -5th or so of each month.

     

    Since we have another week+ of trading days, I think Jan 2 should fall out of the window, no?

     

    HardToLove
    EDIT: I should have read the other comments before asking. Sorry for the noise.
    19 Jan 2014, 11:49 AM Reply Like
  • D-inv
    , contributor
    Comments (4210) | Send Message
     
    HTL, my reading of the agreement is that date of determination is ANY date on which a decision (determination) is made with respect to the object of decision.
    19 Jan 2014, 01:48 PM Reply Like
  • D-inv
    , contributor
    Comments (4210) | Send Message
     
    "citing yourself seems somewhat egotistical. maybe a more tactful approach would suit you in the future. "

     

    Perhaps. OTOH, is there another source of similar viewpoint to cite?

     

    ISTM on reading HTL's remark I had a choice of a) remaining silent on a topic I consider of significant importance to myself and many on this board, b) referring readers back to a long, post directly-on-point-to-t... written by myself OR c) repeating that long post and agitate/offend some for repetitious postings and/or filling bandwidth with redundant material and increasing APC loading times. Perhaps your perception of egotism on my part arises from the fact that I formed and expressed an opinion which differs from the one expressed earlier.
    19 Jan 2014, 09:54 AM Reply Like
  • John Petersen
    , contributor
    Comments (30418) | Send Message
     
    Since you've been unusually persistent on this issue I went back and recounted the dates. I learned we were both wrong.

     

    The first trading day of March is the 3rd. After excluding Washington's birthday, the 23rd trading day before March 3rd will be January 28th. The 15 trading days immediately preceding the 28th run from the 6th through the 27th. That means we've already had two low volume days within the relevant measuring period, rather one. So if two days out of the next six come in under $40,000 there could be another round of renegotiation.
    19 Jan 2014, 10:36 AM Reply Like
  • isthisonebetter
    , contributor
    Comments (373) | Send Message
     
    D-inv,

     

    Sorry for the remark. I was venting some feelings on this whole PIPE deal and my comment was misplaced. I do appreciate your contributions here and this topic is paramount right now.
    19 Jan 2014, 10:57 AM Reply Like
  • D-inv
    , contributor
    Comments (4210) | Send Message
     
    Petersen, "measuring period" is not among the standalone terms and/or phrases "defined" in section 29 (certain definitions) of the PIPE agreement. To me that indicates the meaning of "measuring period" is defined in the agreement where and how the phrase is used. Likewise, "date of determination" is not among the standalone terms addressed in section 29.

     

    "Volume Failure Measuring Period" is defined in section 29(vV) and the plain language of that definition is in no way conditioned on, or tied to, anything other than consecutive trading days.

     

    "(vv) “Volume Failure” means, with respect to a particular date of determination, either (x) the quotient of (A) the sum of the aggregate daily dollar trading volume (as reported on Bloomberg) of the Common Stock on each Trading Day over the fifteen (15) consecutive Trading Day period ending on the Trading Day immediately preceding such date of determination (such period, the “Volume Failure Measuring Period”), divided by (B) fifteen (15) is less than $60,000 (as adjusted for any stock splits, stock dividends, stock combinations, recapitalizations or other similar transactions) or (y) the aggregate daily dollar trading volume (as reported on Bloomberg) of the Common Stock on the Principal Market on more than three (3) Trading Days during the Volume Failure Measuring Period is less than $40,000 (as adjusted for any stock splits, stock dividends, stock combinations, recapitalizations or other similar transactions). All such determinations to be appropriately adjusted for any stock splits, stock dividends, stock combinations, recapitalizations or other similar transactions during such Volume Failure Measuring Period."
    19 Jan 2014, 11:58 AM Reply Like
  • John Petersen
    , contributor
    Comments (30418) | Send Message
     
    The issue here is the specific date when a particular determination must be made. For the March installment, the relevant date is January 28th. Under Section 8(a) the company must certify on the 28th that "there is not then an Equity Conditions Failure." Accordingly, the measuring period for the next certification will be January 6th through the 27th and the low volume on the 3rd is irrelevant. The contracts are bad enough. There's no useful purpose to be served by making them appear more onerous than they are.
    19 Jan 2014, 12:17 PM Reply Like
  • D-inv
    , contributor
    Comments (4210) | Send Message
     
    The issues are "Volume Failure" and Volume Failure Measuring Period", NOT "Equity Conditions" or "Equity Conditions Measuring Period" which are defined in Section 29(p) of the PIPE agreement.

     

    Per my earlier statement, "Trading volumes of less than $40K were recorded on Jan. 3, Jan. 6, and Jan. 17, three occurrences in the span of eleven (11) days." Should trading day within the next five (5) trading days record trading volume of less than $40K a "Volume Failure" will occur. Under my reading of the PIPE, holders of senior notes issued under the PIPE would be entitled to demand payment of the next installment in cash.
    19 Jan 2014, 02:37 PM Reply Like
  • AlbertinBermuda
    , contributor
    Comments (783) | Send Message
     
    D

     

    I wonder how many more useless comments will be posted on this topic?

     

    Who really cares?

     

    We can't change anything.
    19 Jan 2014, 02:54 PM Reply Like
  • iindelco
    , contributor
    Comments (10146) | Send Message
     
    Albert, sure you can. You can assess the implications and buy/sell to impact the outcome or take advantage of the impact of a possible cash demand or new contract.
    19 Jan 2014, 03:23 PM Reply Like
  • isthisonebetter
    , contributor
    Comments (373) | Send Message
     
    Aren't both "volume failure" and "price failure" conditions referred to as "equity failure" conditions? What am I missing?
    19 Jan 2014, 03:43 PM Reply Like
  • jcrjg
    , contributor
    Comments (174) | Send Message
     
    Albert,

     

    by this logic, who cares whether the battery works, or if BMW will use it. We can't change those either.
    19 Jan 2014, 03:49 PM Reply Like
  • DRich
    , contributor
    Comments (4825) | Send Message
     
    >jcrjg ... That is a not a reasonable conclusion of AlbertinBermuda's disinterest in the minutia of the PIPE agreement. That is unless you are predicating the literal existence of Axion on this current financial agreement. If this PIPE turns into a mess I agree that it will hurt but not to the point of disaster like the device not working or going out of business.

     

    I agree with AlbertinBermuda's sentiment but I follow it in an effort to learn & understand something I know almost nothing about. Still, it is deep in the weeds and well beyond my ability to do anything about except for the usual binary buy/sell choice we all have available. By this time in the execution of the agreement that choice should be settled.

     

    The thing that seems to me to be horribly unfair to shareholders is the fact that minimum market activity, volume & dollar amounts, are contractually tied to penalties. This, to me, puts more responsibility on the shareholders to perform in support of the corporation than management to do their bit and produce sales & other business activities. They're still getting paid while we not only don't but stand the good chance of losing even more value.

     

    MEH, back to that binary choice. At least I don't have to show up to the office everyday to wonder, worry & work at whatever gets done during a day. I have the luxury of dividing my attention & interest. Next time around I hope they just put all the hurt in one lump and not extend it.
    19 Jan 2014, 04:12 PM Reply Like
  • John Petersen
    , contributor
    Comments (30418) | Send Message
     
    D-inv> My law degree and three decades of practice in the securities field say your interpretation of the contract is wrong. I see no sense in continuing this particular line of discussion since you seem hell-bent on arguing your own twisted interpretation.
    19 Jan 2014, 04:14 PM Reply Like
  • D-inv
    , contributor
    Comments (4210) | Send Message
     
    "Aren't both "volume failure" and "price failure" conditions referred to as "equity failure" conditions? What am I missing? "

     

    Yes. Determinations of either "volume failure" or "price failure" within an "equity conditions measuring period" are sufficient to support a determination of equity conditions failure. What you (and I believe Petersen) are overlooking is that the "equity conditions measuring period" need only include a single day of overlap with a "volume failure measuring period", the day of determination that a volume failure has occurred. That is, IMO the "fifteen (15) consecutive Trading Day period ending on the Trading Day immediately preceding such date of determination (volume failure) need not be subsumed within an “Equity Conditions Measuring Period”, i.e. - "thirty calendar days prior to the applicable date of determination and ending on and including the applicable date of determination (equity conditions failure).
    19 Jan 2014, 08:09 PM Reply Like
  • D-inv
    , contributor
    Comments (4210) | Send Message
     
    " I see no sense in continuing this particular line of discussion since you seem hell-bent on arguing your own twisted interpretation. "

     

    Right back to you on that, Petersen.
    19 Jan 2014, 08:13 PM Reply Like
  • isthisonebetter
    , contributor
    Comments (373) | Send Message
     
    D-inv,

     

    I see what you're saying now. I've never been well versed in legal documents, or English for that matter, so I won't attempt to interpret. Thanks for the response.
    19 Jan 2014, 08:49 PM Reply Like
  • John Petersen
    , contributor
    Comments (30418) | Send Message
     
    D-inv> You seem to think definitions have independent operative impact in a contract. They don't. They are only included for the purpose of interpreting the operative terms. Paragraph 8 is an operative term and the definitions you are twisting into an unrecognizable form are only relevant to the extent that they clarify the requirements of Paragraph 8.

     

    Laymen should never argue contracts with lawyers because they only make themselves seem foolish.
    19 Jan 2014, 09:46 PM Reply Like
  • jcrjg
    , contributor
    Comments (174) | Send Message
     
    D-inv,

     

    Maybe it is to flip to say whether or not the battery works. This is a crucial issue because this is a failure mode of the company. It also effects the leverage of the current shareholders to retain the economic benefit that Axion may produce. Whenever I find something that I thought I knew is wrong I am interested to find out where the problem was. Did I misinterpret something, or trust a source that I shouldn't have. Given all of the talk about the markets for Axion, which I think has been very useful, this small amount about what actually constitutes an volume failure and who has to approve new financing has been well worth it.

     

    Thanks.
    20 Jan 2014, 08:09 AM Reply Like
  • LT
    , contributor
    Comments (5460) | Send Message
     
    If I had made as many "wrong" calls and given so much "bad" advice regarding AXPW and TSLA....I would be very careful who I called foolish.
    20 Jan 2014, 08:14 AM Reply Like
  • John Petersen
    , contributor
    Comments (30418) | Send Message
     
    The market prices for Axion and Tesla have not done what I expected them to do, but predicting the inherently unpredictable and often irrational behavior of markets and customers is far more nebulous than interpreting contracts according to black-letter rules of construction.

     

    Section 29 begins with the sentence "For purposes of this Note, the following terms shall have the following meanings:" There is nothing in any definition that says when the definition matters or what the consequences of satisfying a definition are.

     

    To understand the impact of a particular definition you must dig back into the operative terms of the contract to find out when and how a definition matters. That process takes you straight back to Section 8(a), which is what I've been saying all along.
    20 Jan 2014, 08:31 AM Reply Like
  • mggalla
    , contributor
    Comments (16) | Send Message
     
    don't forget Exide!
    21 Jan 2014, 07:27 PM Reply Like
  • nakedjaybird
    , contributor
    Comments (2840) | Send Message
     
    Old or new news re. Cummin's and hybrid trucks?

     

    http://yhoo.it/1hDuOP8

     

    And from Cummin's:

     

    http://bit.ly/1fMWeEN

     

    If nothing else, here are two treatments of info to pattern the ePower/Axion/Cummin's package announcements (if not endorsements??) ........
    19 Jan 2014, 11:38 AM Reply Like
  • H. T. Love
    , contributor
    Comments (18412) | Send Message
     
    I wonder what the cost is for those Maxwell capacitors, and associated, would be to get 13K farads that comes with a PbC? Don't know, just idle thoughts.

     

    HardToLove
    19 Jan 2014, 12:25 PM Reply Like
  • John Petersen
    , contributor
    Comments (30418) | Send Message
     
    Maxwell targets a price of a penny per Farad in 2.7 volt cells.

     

    For its truck engine start module, it uses twelve 3,000 Farad cells wired in two parallel strings of six cells each that deliver a maximum of 16.2 volts. The total embodied energy of the 12 cell system is ~36 wh.

     

    http://bit.ly/1hDBm0h
    19 Jan 2014, 12:30 PM Reply Like
  • Edmund Metcalfe
    , contributor
    Comments (2153) | Send Message
     
    Brakes last longer. Cool.
    19 Jan 2014, 01:03 PM Reply Like
  • DaveT
    , contributor
    Comments (208) | Send Message
     
    Nice to see Cummins claim "up to 30%" savings and they don't put in a better (smaller, more efficient) engine, means ePower should do better?!

     

    But the worry is that Cummins will offer a much better ROI for the truck owner?
    20 Jan 2014, 12:31 PM Reply Like
  • iindelco
    , contributor
    Comments (10146) | Send Message
     
    The key being "up to 30%"' It's a Bing cherry and it's been picked then presented.

     

    ePower is targeting a good efficiency improvement over what we hope is a large usage audience in a good portion of the US and perhaps further at some point. Let's see what they end up with.
    20 Jan 2014, 01:00 PM Reply Like
  • D Lane
    , contributor
    Comments (1514) | Send Message
     
    Epower won't be competing against the Cummins Crosspoint supercapacitor hybrid product. That product is for smaller trucks and buses (Class 3-7 I believe).

     

    Thats not to say there won't be full hybrid competition for ePower. Parker Runwise has not targeted OTR trucks but I don't know why they couldn't and they have an edge in terms of their proven track record.
    http://reut.rs/1joMMp9
    20 Jan 2014, 01:29 PM Reply Like
  • iindelco
    , contributor
    Comments (10146) | Send Message
     
    D Lane. I'd need to read on it more but I thought the system was geared more toward high load city driving with significant SS opportunities. Perfect example being the refuse trucks they are referring to. Not convinced this is geared toward OTR applications where boost and energy recuperation opportunities are centered more around a level of repetitive grade changes. In theory I guess the hydraulic system could be tuned for OTR but not sure without significant data for system sizing if it makes sense. Surely the refuse market is probably a far better fit and thus an easier target. Plus it's in a location where particulate emissions reductions and lower noise emissions are noticed at a far higher level.
    20 Jan 2014, 02:10 PM Reply Like
  • D Lane
    , contributor
    Comments (1514) | Send Message
     
    iindelco,

     

    You're right, the system has been focused on refuse trucks, and for the good reasons that you cite.

     

    But I am wondering if there is any reason they could not target OTR trucks as well. If ePower can do it, why can't they? They do say

     

    "we will further extend the technology to new platforms and fuel types in the medium and heavy duty segment."
    20 Jan 2014, 02:50 PM Reply Like
  • John Petersen
    , contributor
    Comments (30418) | Send Message
     
    There's nothing I'd like to see better than a thriving market where several competitors can be successful with different approaches.
    20 Jan 2014, 03:42 PM Reply Like
  • iindelco
    , contributor
    Comments (10146) | Send Message
     
    D Lane, below, from their site on hybrids linked in the article you posted.

     

    New platforms might be other city vehicles that have similar operational environments. As for alternate fuels. I think this is mostly an electronic interface and packaging issue. You can imagine that if you packaged it with CNG the platform would be pretty stuffed w/ stuff.

     

    COMPARE RUNWISE TO ELECTRIC HYBRID VEHICLE SYSTEMS

     

    "Without much fanfare, for several years, Parker has been developing advanced series hybrid drives for class 8 refuse vehicles and now prepared for commercialization. Many people are familiar with how electric hybrid technology works thanks to its commercialization in passenger cars. Electric hybrids provide engine management with brake energy recovery, typically limited, however, by the size, weight, cost, and life of the battery installed in the vehicle.
    Electric hybrid platforms are best suited for cars and lighter-duty applications that travel longer distances between stops. Heavier vehicles, or those with more intensive start-and-stop duty cycles, are ideal for hydraulic hybrid platforms. These include refuse trucks, delivery trucks, vans, transit buses, and port tractors.
    Start-and-stop applications that use significant amounts of power are best served by hydraulic hybrid platforms. And, unlike many competing technologies, hydraulic hybrids require no significant breakthroughs in infrastructure, technology, or regulation to become commercially viable – as demonstrated by Parker RunWise®."
    20 Jan 2014, 04:42 PM Reply Like
  • D Lane
    , contributor
    Comments (1514) | Send Message
     
    Right on JP!

     

    Iindelco, "Start and stop applications are best served"

     

    but still ePower is trying to break the mold and others may do the same.
    20 Jan 2014, 06:21 PM Reply Like
  • ARGE
    , contributor
    Comments (724) | Send Message
     
    Seems like the Gen 1 ePower truck was suited for such applications, having no transmission and a top end of something like 40 MPH and 10MPG.
    22 Jan 2014, 11:11 AM Reply Like
  • H. T. Love
    , contributor
    Comments (18412) | Send Message
     
    John, figuring they would want to bring it to 13.5 volts? If so 5 supercaps in series? So $0.05 x 13K = $650? Can that be?

     

    What am I doing wrong there. The PbC for the same farads + battery storage being a lot cheaper?

     

    Even 12.5 volts is 4.6 supercaps.

     

    HardToLove
    19 Jan 2014, 12:37 PM Reply Like
  • John Petersen
    , contributor
    Comments (30418) | Send Message
     
    Twelve 3,000 Farad cells at $30 each works out to $360 for the supercapacitors plus unknown amounts for packaging and electronics. Their current suggested retail price for the truck start module is $800.
    19 Jan 2014, 12:47 PM Reply Like
  • H. T. Love
    , contributor
    Comments (18412) | Send Message
     
    John: So they don't need to bring the discharge from the cells up to system voltage? Or is it the nature of capacitors to achieve whatever voltage is applied? ISTR reading something along those lines some decades ago.

     

    Anyway, it does then look like the PbC is likely to be priced in a range that would let it be competitive in somewhat similar applications, where capacitance and battery are needed. Assuming cost and farads are not the sole consideration for a specific application.

     

    Thanks.

     

    HardToLove
    19 Jan 2014, 12:59 PM Reply Like
  • John Petersen
    , contributor
    Comments (30418) | Send Message
     
    They use twelve cells for the engine start module. The module contains two parallel strings of six cells each that are wired in series. So the maximum voltage at the module level is 16.2 volts.
    19 Jan 2014, 01:08 PM Reply Like
  • H. T. Love
    , contributor
    Comments (18412) | Send Message
     
    Thanks John. That makes me feel a little less ignorant - they did the series wiring.

     

    HardToLove
    19 Jan 2014, 01:14 PM Reply Like
  • newalker
    , contributor
    Comments (152) | Send Message
     
    ...and to use the stored supercap energy, you need follow-on electronics to convert the cap voltage to maintain the desired target voltage. This is because the supercap voltage will drop proportionally as its stored energy is delivered. An alternative to electronics would be to use a huge amount of supercaps so that the drop in voltage during the usage interval is kept small, but this would likely not be economical for high-power applications.

     

    By contrast, a battery will maintain its output voltage while it delivers energy, so the follow-on electronics can be much simpler, or even eliminated, depending on the application..
    19 Jan 2014, 01:22 PM Reply Like
  • iindelco
    , contributor
    Comments (10146) | Send Message
     
    Low volume pricing.

     

    http://bit.ly/1kNmFfQ

     

    Edit: Better for apples to apples comparison.
    19 Jan 2014, 01:23 PM Reply Like
  • H. T. Love
    , contributor
    Comments (18412) | Send Message
     
    Newalker: Good info. There is an exception to the battery thing in the PbC. It's voltage varies proportionally to its state of charge, from all we've learned. This seems to be both a boon and a bane. Boon in that determining SOC is much easier and bane because the voltage is dropping. I also suspect that "KIAS" (King In A String that Tim coined) is another benefit of this variation - the PbCs tend to be self-balancing, greatly simplifying string management as all the battery voltages and SOCs take care of themselves with each cycle bringing the batteries closer and closer to perfectly balanced.

     

    HardToLove
    19 Jan 2014, 01:49 PM Reply Like
  • newalker
    , contributor
    Comments (152) | Send Message
     
    HT, sorry I wasn't more clear. I was speaking in relative terms, for a longer-term rate of discharge. Not to get too arcane, but for a fast high-current discharge, a cap can be more effective in maintaining output volts than a standard battery, but this is where the PbC excels: its output will not drop that much; i.e. it acts like a capacitor. However, for long-term discharge times, the cap voltage will drop a lot, requiring follow-on electronics, whereas the PbC will maintain output within a few volts. Speaking approximately, the advantages of PbC really come into play for both long-term (> 1 sec) low-to-medium current discharge, as well as short-term (< 1 sec) high-current discharge. The cap is only good for short-term discharge.
    19 Jan 2014, 02:19 PM Reply Like
  • H. T. Love
    , contributor
    Comments (18412) | Send Message
     
    Thanks Newalker. I'm constantly learning new stuff from folks that participate here.

     

    Welcome to the concentrators!

     

    HardToLove
    19 Jan 2014, 02:28 PM Reply Like
  • D-inv
    , contributor
    Comments (4210) | Send Message
     
    "advantages of PbC really come into play for both long-term (> 1 sec) low-to-medium current discharge, as well as short-term (< 1 sec) high-current discharge. The cap is only good for short-term discharge. "

     

    Newalker, thanks for the introduction to entirely new dimensions to my 'provincial' understanding of the meanings of long-term and short-term. :-) Guess I'm slow on the uptake there since it is clear my 21 month old grandson thinks in terms of the <1 second, >1 second time frames.
    20 Jan 2014, 09:22 PM Reply Like
  • H. T. Love
    , contributor
    Comments (18412) | Send Message
     
    For the Wheeltug folks, looks like some stiff competition on the horizon.

     

    "Honeywell: Focusing On Green Taxiing System And Divesting Non-Core Business"

     

    http://bit.ly/1kNlZHm

     

    HardToLove
    19 Jan 2014, 01:15 PM Reply Like
  • nakedjaybird
    , contributor
    Comments (2840) | Send Message
     
    HTL - possibly, but I invite you to watch this WT video about the competition: the first 1/2 is the presentation, the second 1/2 is Q&A:

     

    http://bit.ly/16qUur4

     

    Long but informative, if information is desired.

     

    On the other hand, WheelTug has already signed up more than a dozen airlines and more than 700 aircraft for advance allocation of production slots.
    19 Jan 2014, 03:36 PM Reply Like
  • Renzo
    , contributor
    Comments (353) | Send Message
     
    Does anybody think there will be more willing buyers toward the end of the month--after the 30-day wash ends for those who sold shares at a loss in December? I wonder if it could have anything to do with the poor volume of late.

     

    I know I'm one of the soon-to-be interested.
    19 Jan 2014, 05:22 PM Reply Like
  • Patrick Young
    , contributor
    Comments (1896) | Send Message
     
    I dream about green trains now.
    19 Jan 2014, 09:48 PM Reply Like
  • H. T. Love
    , contributor
    Comments (18412) | Send Message
     
    Renzo: *If* the little survey I did a short while back is representative of the larger community of Axion holders, there should be a relatively small percentage of folks that sold for tax purposes and would be positioned to buy again. And we should also allow that some who did sell may choose not to re-enter until (if ever) some catalyst occurs that suggests a good chance of pps appreciation.

     

    In all this "*If*" is the key word.

     

    MHO,
    HardToLove
    20 Jan 2014, 08:55 AM Reply Like
  • Retired Aviator
    , contributor
    Comments (2246) | Send Message
     
    Interesting legal opinion on PIPE investments, specifically convertible deals where the conversion price adjusts (down) to market, i.e. "death spirals:" http://bit.ly/1kOrQMu "No matter what the SEC’s position, issuers should avoid structured PIPEs at all costs and maintain some control over dilution by insisting on limits on adjustments in conversion rates and liquidated damages. "Death spiral" convertible debentures are, in most cases, the kiss of death when it comes to financing for a company seeking to raise capital."

     

    I sure would have liked to see a stipulation of a floor to the conversion price of something in the range of 10 to 15 cents. Remember that when the contract was inked the shares traded at double that range! In fact the contract's conversion price was around $.26, discounted from the market at the time of around $.30 IIRC.

     

    The SEC was scrutinizing PIPE deals NLT 2008 and warning investees, suggesting some level of negligence possible if our former CFO Mr Trego was naive about the terms' consequences. Interesting how a few months after the deal he resigned. Coincidence?
    19 Jan 2014, 10:26 PM Reply Like
  • User 393748
    , contributor
    Comments (275) | Send Message
     
    Hello everyone. This is my first post and allow me to further confuse the issue of "date of determination" as found in the PIPE contract.

     

    In my humble opinion, the date of determination in a Volume or Price Failure refers to the immediately upcoming Installment Date. (See section 8 COMPANY INSTALLMENT CONVERSION OR REDEMPTION.) The payment (Company Conversion) is to be made on the next immediate Installment Date, unless there
    exists as of that Installment Date an Equity Failure.

     

    A Price Failure and a Volume Failure are defined in the definition section 29(p)(x) as an "Equity Condition." Section 29(x)(iii) defines “Installment Date” as meaning ...the first Trading Day of the calendar month immediately following the previous Installment Date....

     

    Both the “Volume Failure Measuring Period” and the “Price Failure Measuring Period” specify a time frame of fifteen (15) consecutive Trading Days ending on the Trading Day immediately preceding such date of determination, and if my quick and general assessment is correct, then "such date of determination" refers
    to the "Installment Date."

     

    The 30 day time frame for the "Equity Conditions Failure" does not apply to the “Volume Failure Measuring Period” or the “Price Failure Measuring Period.” That 30 day time frame does not apply to section 29(p)(x). Section 29 contains 11 subsections, and the thirty day provision only applies to seven of those sections; it does not apply to all of section 29(p) in its entirety.

     

    So, it can be observed that by connecting Section 8 with section
    29(p)(x) ("Equity Condition") and with sections 29(jj) ("Price Failure”) and 29(vv) (“Volume Failure”), the phrase "particular
    date of determination" does refer to a fixed date in time, and that the PIPE holders do not get to pick whichever date they choose so as to declare a volume failure or a price failure. It could well be that as much as two weeks were spent between AXPW and the PIPE holders arguing this point back and forth.

     

    So, based on my analysis so far, the volume failure or price failure time periods are not calcucated in the same manner as a moving average. They are both affixed to particluar ascertainable calendar dates as per the contract. ..

     

    Two basic fundamental points to keep in mind in the interpretation of legal documents (and the PIPE contract would qualify as a legal document) are 1) each word or phrase is to be given meaning, and 2) that one cannot imply that which is not expressed.

     

    So, if the PIPE holders were to get to pick whichever date they choose so as to declare a volume failure or a price failure, then such a provision would have to be clearly and unambiguously spelled out within the four corners of the contract. Since such a provision is not spelled out within the contract, then one cannot isolate that phrase and imply that it means that the PIPE holders have that right of choice and can therefore choose a date to declare a price or volume failure. At the same time, one cannot argue that the phrase "date of determination" has no meaning, because it can be demonstrated that that phrase can be given a reasonable meaning through the interpretaion of the contract as a whole.

     

    If my analysis is flawed in whole or in part, please feel free to so advise.

     

    M5
    20 Jan 2014, 08:53 AM Reply Like
  • Retired Aviator
    , contributor
    Comments (2246) | Send Message
     
    M5> I reached the same conclusion as you but I'm afraid our opinions won't matter a whit. Things legal can be counter intuitive and sometimes counter to common sense. We've all heard of absurd verdicts based on some stickler reading of the letter and not the spirit. So I won't assume that arbitration or a judge will find 'date of determination' to necessarily be the same as 'installment date'.

     

    It's unfortunate that 'date of determination' was not even defined and suggests to me, among other things, that Axion should have had counsel scrutinize this contract much more before signing it.
    20 Jan 2014, 09:12 AM Reply Like
  • John Petersen
    , contributor
    Comments (30418) | Send Message
     
    The most critical date in Section 8 is the 23rd trading day prior to an installment date because that's when the obligation to issue the Pre-Installment Conversion Shares is calculated. There is a true up on the actual Installment Date, but the overwhelming bulk of the shares issuable to pay a particular installment are calculated 23 days beforehand and issued 20 days beforehand. For purposes of determining whether there has been a Price or Volume failure, the 23rd trading day prior to an installment date is the only date that really matters.
    20 Jan 2014, 09:15 AM Reply Like
  • D-inv
    , contributor
    Comments (4210) | Send Message
     
    U~39~ < This 'foolish' layman finds interesting your analysis of "date of determination" in context of Axion's PIPE agreement. The clear objective effort reflected in that analysis merits a response.

     

    We concur in the thesis that "date of determination" "can be given a reasonable meaning through the interpretation of the contract as a whole." In its favor, the meaning you assign appears consistent with (and could support) amendment of PIPE agreement on January 2 (http://bit.ly/1e8B5y5) "... triggered by the VWAP of the Company’s Common Stock on December 26, 2013 and December 27, 2013 at a price less than $.10." However, ISTM the meaning you assign violates the second of the two fundamental points you list as fundamental to interpretation of legal documents and in doing so vitiates other provisions of the PIPE agreement. PIPE provisions seemingly impaired by your interpretation include

     

    1. Section 4(a)(xv) pertaining to events of default which reads, "a false or inaccurate certification (including a false or inaccurate deemed certification) by the Company that the Equity Conditions are satisfied, that there has been no Equity Conditions Failure or as to whether any Event of Default has occurred;", and
    2. elements of Section 8(b) such as " If an Event of Default occurs during any applicable Equity Conditions Measuring Period, then, at the option of the Holder designated in writing to the Company, either (i) the Holder shall return to the Company all, or any part, of such Pre-Installment Conversion Shares delivered in connection with the applicable Installment Date or (ii) the Conversion Amount used to calculate the Event of Default Redemption Price shall be reduced by the product of (x) the Company Conversion Amount applicable to such Installment Date (as adjusted downward proportionally with respect to any Pre-Installment Conversion Shares returned to the Company pursuant to clause (i) above) multiplied by (y) the Conversion Share Ratio (as defined below). If any of the Equity Conditions are not satisfied (or waived in writing by the Holder) on such Installment Date or a Company Conversion is not otherwise permitted under any other provision of this Note, then, at the option of the Holder designated in writing to the Company, the Holder may require the Company to do any one or more of the following: (i) the Company shall redeem all or any part designated by the Holder of the unconverted Company Conversion Amount (such designated amount is referred to as the “Designated Redemption Amount”) and the Company shall pay to the Holder within three (3) days of such Installment Date, by wire transfer of immediately available funds, an amount in cash equal to 125% of such Designated Redemption Amount, ...."

     

    ISTM the alternative meaning of "Date of Determination" previously offered by me is also consistent with circumstances underlying the January 2 amendment and more fully recognizes meaningfulness of other PIPE provisions. A "date of determination" for price or volume failure could fall anywhere within an "equity conditions measuring period" and BEAR ON both "pre-installment" payments and "true up" payments for the next scheduled installment.

     

    FWIW.

     

    20 Jan 2014, 08:28 PM Reply Like
  • User 393748
    , contributor
    Comments (275) | Send Message
     
    I haven't forgotten your reply, I just need a bit of time to compose an answer at the moment.
    21 Jan 2014, 02:19 AM Reply Like
  • User 393748
    , contributor
    Comments (275) | Send Message
     
    JP -- I have had some more time to spend on this and, yes, Section 8(a) does in fact determine the "particular date of determination" as being the date upon which AXPW is to certify that there is no "Equity Conditions Failure" as of that date, that date being the 23rd Trading Day prior to the Installment Date. (See lines 5 through 13). On line 4 of section 8(a), it does contemplate the Installment Date as being the date of determination, but perhaps that applies in the case of the
    first or last Installment Date. Perhaps there is a quick and short answer to this. At present, I am short on time to peruse that issue myself.

     

    Since the term "Equity Conditions Failure" includes a Volume Failure and includes a Price Failure, both the fifteen consecutive Trading Day “Volume Failure Measuring Period" and "Price Failure Measuring Period" begin on the fifteenth consecutive Trading Day prior to the 23rd Trading Day prior to the Installment Date. So, the applicable 15 consecutive Trading Day Failure Period for a Volume or Price failure actually begins 38 consecutive Trading Days prior to their contemplated Installment Date.
    21 Jan 2014, 02:19 AM Reply Like
  • 481086
    , contributor
    Comments (3442) | Send Message
     
    One thing is clear to me---this deal, these documents, the language therein, the entire process and product is abusive, wasteful, and obscene. And shameful. That so much talent, energy, and remuneration should be involved in the creation of such a vile product is an indictment of the entire system. What is the more infuriating is that the complexity is very much the intended feature, not a bug. Its goal was not clarity. Its goal was not reasonable protections for the respective parties; its goal was exploitation and abuse. We've all but proven on these pages that the important terms of this deal are essentially incomprehensible. But these are how sophisticated people make money and steal money. That such things are tolerated and "normal" in our financial world, in the wall street world of "high finance" is sickening. Axion is a plucky, honest outfit, doing its damned-est, by its own best though imperfect lights, to bring forth something of new and real value to the world. It does so swimming in a very tough pond. But it's nothing compared to the financial world. At bottom, wall street is supposed to exist to facilitate capital for such ventures, to help the innovators innovate and producers produce. Instead it is mostly a corpulent cesspool of leeches and parasites. Which is slowly choking, bleeding, and killing the host. Though it pains me to say this, I feel there is an awful, awful bill coming due.
    20 Jan 2014, 05:42 PM Reply Like
  • iindelco
    , contributor
    Comments (10146) | Send Message
     
    48, Just imagine if we didn't have all these lawyers to interpret these documents how bad off we'd be. I think we actually need more! 8-P

     

    Wonder who the people that write the rules design them to advantage? Clearly clarity is not the objective.
    20 Jan 2014, 06:27 PM Reply Like
  • LT
    , contributor
    Comments (5460) | Send Message
     
    48...I disagree, Wall St. did it's job and provided capital for AXPW to operate another year (more than once). The terms reflect the risk with this stock. The protective clauses were to protect the investors money, everything was fine as long as the company could deliver sales and keep the price above .10, and enough volume for them to liquidate their shares before another raise was needed. It's obvious they do not want their money invested in AXPW for any amount of time.

     

    It's not Wall St nor the PIPER's fault that no sales have materialized to keep the contract afloat. Wall St. does not function on hopium when money is involved.

     

    How do we know the tech is as good as we think? How do we know that there are weaknesses with PbC that does not meet the needs of most apps?
    No one else seems to want it and we can't buy a battery to test ourselves. At this point as a "commercial entity" where is the white papers ?
    20 Jan 2014, 06:58 PM Reply Like
  • 481086
    , contributor
    Comments (3442) | Send Message
     
    LT, I agree with your points about the tech, the information available, the white papers. We're operating in the blind on a lot of that in some respects. A datasheet such as what Maxwell provides for their products would be most welcome. But the piper's tactics and subsequent conduct go well beyond protection.
    20 Jan 2014, 07:02 PM Reply Like
  • DRich
    , contributor
    Comments (4825) | Send Message
     
    >iindelco ... Silly you! Do you really have to ask who lawmakers & regulators write rules to advantage?

     

    OK, I'll give you a hint ... their previous and/or future employers.

     

    Although, I enjoy watching this interview from the 60 Minutes where corruption seems all so normal.

     

    http://bit.ly/tQZC4N
    [answer to your question from Jack Abramoff is at the 3:36 mark]

     

    Beyond that it is yours, mine a few million of our disinterested, ideological and other descriptive terms fellow citizens buying the snake oil we are offered. Complain as we do, we actually have the government we want and it works very well
    20 Jan 2014, 07:04 PM Reply Like
  • AlbertinBermuda
    , contributor
    Comments (783) | Send Message
     
    LT

     

    I agree.

     

    A lot of us Axionistas are out here skating on very thin ice.

     

    I have about 400k shares in my pot at about $0.28 each. I had friends in at much higher numbers but they abandoned ship a long, long time ago.

     

    I think that AXION might be a true Game Changer to my retirement program. Since I am already retired I would very much appreciate a move upward today,
    20 Jan 2014, 07:21 PM Reply Like
  • Amouna
    , contributor
    Comments (1825) | Send Message
     
    AlbertinBermuda,

     

    You are already retired and will most likely weather the storm quite nicely if Axion fails. I am in my early 30s and Axion is my first ever big conviction idea, and I am not the type of person who takes decisions lightly. Also, the amount of capital I have committed over time is significant for me.

     

    I am afraid if Axion fails, then that would put me off investing in tiny companies for life, which is not something I want to do.
    21 Jan 2014, 05:19 AM Reply Like
  • H. T. Love
    , contributor
    Comments (18412) | Send Message
     
    Iindleco: "Clearly clarity is not the objective".

     

    A nice ironic turn of the phrase there - "clearly clarity is not ...".

     

    :-))

     

    HardToLove
    21 Jan 2014, 06:59 AM Reply Like
  • iindelco
    , contributor
    Comments (10146) | Send Message
     
    DRich, Nice, not shocked at all. Basically thieves on all sides.

     

    Yes, works just great.
    21 Jan 2014, 10:30 AM Reply Like
  • isthisonebetter
    , contributor
    Comments (373) | Send Message
     
    This may be a silly question as it comes from a place of ignorance and the point is now moot for Axion but since I'm curious, I'll ask: Why didn't Axion consider an additional public offering at say $0.20 (~80% fair market value, if memory serves) and issue ~50,000,000 more shares? Was there not enough liquidity reflected in trade volumes to suggest that there would have been enough interest for this to be successful?
    20 Jan 2014, 06:47 PM Reply Like
  • 481086
    , contributor
    Comments (3442) | Send Message
     
    iinde, and all, spleen vented, apologies. I don't blame the lawyers. It's too easy to blame the lawyers. They only operate in a system of our creation. Agreements, precision, details... all these things are necessary in the course of business and of life. And so are the associated professions and professionals charged with their management. In these realms ambiguity is mostly a thing to be minimized, but as ever finer and more finer meshes are constructed to combat it, the purpose is perverted. What is meant to be an efficient strainer or sieve becomes a clogged mess, through which nothing passes. Ours becomes not a world of pipes, of things flowing, but of plumbers. There is a point where it all becomes grossly counterproductive and even destructive. I've come to believe we're well past that point.
    20 Jan 2014, 06:48 PM Reply Like
  • dlmca
    , contributor
    Comments (385) | Send Message
     
    48

     

    We promote to the Board those who negotiate such deals for our side
    20 Jan 2014, 06:53 PM Reply Like
  • 481086
    , contributor
    Comments (3442) | Send Message
     
    Copy, but I don't think there was incompetence or duplicity on our side. Perhaps excessive sincerity. We were in a tough spot and got taken to the cleaners by professional sharks. It can certainly be argued though that we shouldn't have been in such a tough spot.
    20 Jan 2014, 06:57 PM Reply Like
  • dlmca
    , contributor
    Comments (385) | Send Message
     
    When one goes into a negotiation with the likes of pipers one must remember that the pipers do this all the time. They know exactly how to get as much fleece from the poor sheep as possible

     

    Anyone who takes this on without the best of learned counsel - and more importantly with an out plan set up months before is nothing but a naked sheep among the wolves
    20 Jan 2014, 07:01 PM Reply Like
  • 481086
    , contributor
    Comments (3442) | Send Message
     
    dlmca, as a now shivering sheep, I can't really disagree. And I don't really have any candles. So I'm cursing the cold darkness, yes.
    20 Jan 2014, 07:08 PM Reply Like
  • AlbertinBermuda
    , contributor
    Comments (783) | Send Message
     
    481086

     

    I am in your court.

     

    But at the end of day we the shareholders were not given the opportunity to help AXPW to raise funds.

     

    My impression is that the vast majority of stock that has been sold by the PIPERS has ended up in the hands of existing shareholders.

     

    I have no way to confirm that impression.

     

    My thought is that if the existing shareholders had been given the opportunity to reinvest in AXION that we/they would have done so.

     

    AXION is very much under the gun.

     

    ePower is apparently well on the way in its program and I of course wish them well.

     

    I have no insight re NS or BMW but they are pissing millions into the AXION PbC. program.

     

    There must be a damned good reason for all that cash bleeding!
    20 Jan 2014, 07:37 PM Reply Like
  • isthisonebetter
    , contributor
    Comments (373) | Send Message
     
    AiB,

     

    I agree with you whole-heartedly re: existing shareholders, which is why I asked the question that I did above.
    20 Jan 2014, 08:34 PM Reply Like
  • Mathieu Malecot
    , contributor
    Comments (1225) | Send Message
     
    isthisonebetter: an offering doesn't have the guarantee of buyers. so far the PIPE deal is as brutal as i'd imagined, but it's left us holding a company with cash to maintain ops.

     

    big question is how many more rounds of financing b4 boom/bust and will i sit through them.
    21 Jan 2014, 02:30 PM Reply Like
  • Treehill
    , contributor
    Comments (141) | Send Message
     
    One of the other companies that I have shares in (fortunately not too many) is Ram Power. Before Christmas they found themselves desperate for money and provided their shareholders with rights to buy new shares at 8 cents a share (which is pretty close to what the stock was trading at). The details can be found in Tom Konrad's article linked below.

     

    They were looking to raise about $5 million. What I am wondering about is why couldn't Axion do the same thing? Instead of playing around with PIPErs and irritating shareholders, why not just offer shares directly to existing shareholders?

     

    http://seekingalpha.co...
    20 Jan 2014, 08:31 PM Reply Like
  • Mac325
    , contributor
    Comments (21) | Send Message
     
    Start/Stop article with JCI admitting that Lithium-ion is not up to task:

     

    http://bit.ly/jciartss

     

    “Lithium-ion, for example, cannot start a car,” said JCI vice president Brian Kesseler. The demands on the battery in a start/stop system are substantial, he said. And lithium-ion batteries, though lighter in weight and with higher energy density, don’t like temperature extremes. Lead-acid is a natural choice.
    20 Jan 2014, 09:33 PM Reply Like
  • 42itus1
    , contributor
    Comments (232) | Send Message
     
    >Mac325,

     

    "... And lithium-ion batteries, though lighter in weight and with higher energy density, don’t like temperature extremes. Lead-acid is a natural choice."

     

    Yes, especially the light weight Organic Lead-acid, PbC battery by AXION!
    20 Jan 2014, 10:40 PM Reply Like
  • iindelco
    , contributor
    Comments (10146) | Send Message
     
    Saft’s e6T Li-ion battery under testing for commercial applications

     

    " Saft is working with CALSTART to test its e6T Lithium-ion (Li-ion) battery (earlier post) for use in military and commercial applications. This development marks the first time the military e6T Li-ion battery configuration will be tested for commercial trucks and could result in the power supply’s wide-scale adoption beyond the military.

     

    The partnership is part of a larger program, funded by the US Army, in which CALSTART and participants will evaluate and test 12V Li-ion military format batteries as starter batteries. (Earlier post.) CALSTART will be collecting the data generated from Saft and two additional battery suppliers (Navitas, earlier post and EaglePicher Technologies) during the evaluation and testing. Delivery of the batteries is underway."

     

    "The Saft e6T Li-ion battery system features an advanced, lightweight design within the dimensions of a traditional lead-acid battery, enabling easy installation into the vehicle. The system provides power for starting, lights and ignition, as well as devices critical to safety during silent watch missions..."

     

    http://bit.ly/LB26mX
    21 Jan 2014, 10:43 AM Reply Like
  • newalker
    , contributor
    Comments (152) | Send Message
     
    Interesting, but imo unless they have really solved the thermal instability issue (as far as I can see on their web site they only provide qualitative safety statements), Li-ion will continue to carry a small but very serious safety risk.
    21 Jan 2014, 10:54 AM Reply Like
  • vkvc
    , contributor
    Comments (10) | Send Message
     
    I respect all the views on the pipers and such, as well as the data that seems to indicate so. But from my experience working at one long ago and from contacts in the industry, it's intriguing to me that the pipers would look to profit in such a roundabout way on a nano cap like Axion. It's just too complicated to be worth the time. And these guys have to maintain their reputation too for other deals.

     

    My take is that these guys have a long-only objective and the structures are built in to improve future returns, as the share price dip. Fairly straight forward structures.
    20 Jan 2014, 10:55 PM Reply Like
  • foolcd
    , contributor
    Comments (13) | Send Message
     
    @Treehill
    Sorry I cannot answer under your post but for some reason there is simply no "Reply" button.

     

    I asked precisely the same question as you about right offering on the 27th March 2012 at 01:50AM in the APC81. You can go look back at the answer I received then.

     

    I copy below the answer received from JP:

     

    ** start **
    Rights offerings are odd. When they work they can be wonderful, but when they don't work they can do a lot of damage.

     

    The problem with rights offerings is that they're strictly proportional to holdings, so unless a company has a high level of confidence that ALL its stockholders will participate in a rights offering, it has to come up with standby plans and find somebody else to buy the shares that existing stockholders didn't want or couldn't afford. It can be a very tough sell to a standby underwriter.

     

    The other big problem with rights offerings is that they have to be registered in every state where stockholders live, which can make them very expensive.

     

    The idea of a rights offering has huge emotional appeal to stockholders and management teams. I've been through the discussion with clients more times than I can count over the last 30 years. After all of those discussions of pros and cons, I've never had a client decide that a rights offering was best for them. I keep a very close eye on stock offerings by clients and their competitors. I have not seen a successful rights offering in years.

     

    To take it down to a very personal level, I own 1.5 million shares and a one for one rights offering would have required me to write a $525,000 check on 20 or 30 days notice. Absent a minor miracle, I couldn't have done it.
    ** end**
    21 Jan 2014, 05:26 AM Reply Like
  • dlmca
    , contributor
    Comments (385) | Send Message
     
    Another point I should have made on the pipers and management - is that our management should have developed a presentation with spreadsheet for senior management. That spreadsheet would have tracked the various scenarios that could develop and what risks it posed to the company and its shareholders.

     

    Too difficult you say. Seems to me Tom Conrad and JP have been able to basically sort out what has happened

     

    Properly prepared the scenario that has unfolded would have been one that was considered.

     

    As you can appreciate just running through the scenarios gives one a far better understanding of what can happen and how to negotiate your deal

     

    This presentation and scenarios should have gone to the Board

     

    I am concerned that:

     

    1. the scenarios were never properly developed
    2. if they were TG simply said we have significant news coming so do not dwell on the negative (been there done that with CEO's)
    3. certainly expertise was not called upon to point out the possibilities that lay ahead in the absence of positive news

     

    Of course when you are preoccupied with penny pinching and most concerned with your pay cheque (and special bonus) you can lose perspective on the world around you
    21 Jan 2014, 07:18 AM Reply Like
  • John Petersen
    , contributor
    Comments (30418) | Send Message
     
    dimca> One should always remember that investment bankers and investors frequently lie to issuers about their investment intent and policies, I have never been in a pre-closing sales meeting where the investor didn't assure the issuer "We're long term holders." I've never seen a post-closing market where the investors didn't show their true colors in the most painful manner possible.

     

    My biggest complaint about the securities business is the cozy relationships between investment bankers and investors. While the contracts all say the investment banker is working on behalf of the issuer that's paying the fees, the investment banker's true loyalty always lies with the investor book that writes the checks for dozens of deals per year. Given a choice between protecting an issuer and protecting their book, the issuer will get thrown under the bus every time. There was a lot of truth in 481086's screed about the rampant excesses on Wall Street. Despite all the flaws and excesses, it's still the most efficient system on the planet.
    21 Jan 2014, 08:03 AM Reply Like
  • greentongue
    , contributor
    Comments (956) | Send Message
     
    Since there is no [Reply] button ...
    Something to consider is that no matter how bad things seem for the investors, it is not that bad for Axion. They got the money they needed and there are enough shares spread among investors, that it would be difficult for a hostile takeover to occur.
    21 Jan 2014, 08:32 AM Reply Like
  • LT
    , contributor
    Comments (5460) | Send Message
     
    The PIPE deal has served it's purpose, in keeping the doors open another year. That's all it was ever intended to do. PIPE deals are well known to be the last resort to raise capital.
    I can assure you all parties knew the consequence of this deal going into it and that they did not come telling TG that they were long term investors...they simply said we will fund you but here are the terms, AXPW had the option to refuse or accept. Otherwise:
    They would not have had the clauses mentioned on volume & price failure
    They would not have made AXPW approve another 150 million shares.
    They would not have renogiated the deal, and we'll be lucky if there is not another terms failure.

     

    In fact, current investors are lucky the price did not drop to .05 like Konrad mentioned, that's the reason for such a large amount of new stock approval, worst case scenario covered.

     

    TG, the board, and everyone knew the price would drop when the PIPER's began to unload shares. Without this deal, AXPW would have been exploring "strategic options" and without sales with recurring revenue they may very well be later this year.

     

    It's time to move on, this is what it is and has been well know for several months now. It has given you another year to see if AXPW can succeed. Otherwise, if this is the best deal, what were the other options? We probably would not be here without it.
    21 Jan 2014, 08:37 AM Reply Like
  • John Petersen
    , contributor
    Comments (30418) | Send Message
     
    Navigant has published a forecast on the uptake rate for 48-volt systems in micro-hybrids. Their basic conclusion is that it will be a non-event through the end of the decade and then ramp quickly starting the early 2020s.

     

    http://bit.ly/1mA4GrI
    21 Jan 2014, 08:59 AM Reply Like
  • H. T. Love
    , contributor
    Comments (18412) | Send Message
     
    Watching pre-market spread open up to $0.098 x $0.139, with three MMs on the offer at 5K each, I thouhgt we'll see another open with prices way out of line with the rest of the day.

     

    Sure enough, 2K @ $0.139 in one trade nd spread moves to $0.098/$0.1055 and ARCA's not come in yet.

     

    HardToLove
    21 Jan 2014, 09:34 AM Reply Like
  • jveal
    , contributor
    Comments (659) | Send Message
     
    Several somebodies are playing with the pps. Do the MMs know the PIPErs have pulled back on selling? Just a hopium thought.
    21 Jan 2014, 09:45 AM Reply Like
  • raleigh731
    , contributor
    Comments (306) | Send Message
     
    If the volume is down and the PIPErs still are holding shares, are they going long with their shares?? I hope so! If that were the case, they would be holding for imminent news of some sort...more power cubes, NSC, BMW battery mfg.!?
    21 Jan 2014, 10:14 AM Reply Like
  • Articula
    , contributor
    Comments (276) | Send Message
     
    Like the new look of the concentrator, much slicker. Nice job APH :)
    21 Jan 2014, 10:16 AM Reply Like
  • H. T. Love
    , contributor
    Comments (18412) | Send Message
     
    ARCA in at $0.10 at 10:28

     

    HardToLove
    21 Jan 2014, 10:35 AM Reply Like
  • axion-nl
    , contributor
    Comments (181) | Send Message
     
    almost filled my order of 50k @ 0.0985, holding strong 500K
    21 Jan 2014, 10:37 AM Reply Like
  • dlmca
    , contributor
    Comments (385) | Send Message
     
    LT

     

    Let us hope that the new CFO is qualified and exploring all strategic options well before standing naked before the pipers or other WS vultures

     

    It just may be that TG's vision of holding off dropping his drawers with a key partner becomes a failed experiment. Ego's can cause big problems. As I have suggested - this is a year where the Board should be very involved in setting deadlines, monitoring performance and swiftly making changes as and if needed.

     

    Let's hope for the announcements we have all been promised instead. I always prefer the win win scenario

     

    I too like the new look. Is there a means to indicate like dislike or has this been sacrificed for the cleaner look

     

    While I understand
    21 Jan 2014, 10:57 AM Reply Like
  • Patrick Young
    , contributor
    Comments (1896) | Send Message
     
    I assume this is the North America solar project we sold a PC to?

     

    http://bit.ly/1mAJVMA
    21 Jan 2014, 11:09 AM Reply Like
  • nogoodslacker
    , contributor
    Comments (1157) | Send Message
     
    >>I assume this is the North America solar project we sold a PC to?<<

     

    It is interesting that Princeton Power Systems can trumpet their horn about selling inverters to this Bysolar project, but for some reason Axion feels compelled to keep in under a shroud of secrecy. What gives?

     

    P.S. what happened to the "reply" button?
    21 Jan 2014, 11:12 AM Reply Like
  • D-inv
    , contributor
    Comments (4210) | Send Message
     
    "I too like the new look. Is there a means to indicate like dislike or has this been sacrificed for the cleaner look"

     

    The "new look" omits a "reply" function as well as "likes" indicator. It appears if one wants to reply directly to a comment and have that response interpreted by readers as pertaining to the item triggering the comment, it might be a good idea to quote a portion of the trigger comment.
    21 Jan 2014, 11:15 AM Reply Like
  • Edmund Metcalfe
    , contributor
    Comments (2153) | Send Message
     
    There are a lot of missing REPLY and LIKE boxes. It seems the majority of the missing boxes are associated with the initial comment.
    21 Jan 2014, 11:20 AM Reply Like
  • D-inv
    , contributor
    Comments (4210) | Send Message
     
    "I assume this is the North America solar project we sold a PC to?

     

    http://bit.ly/1mAJVMA"

     

    PY, that reads like a new item to me. It refers to "a 500kW battery inverter system for frequency regulation and emergency backup power."

     

    Didn't the sale announced by Axion pertain to 600 PbC batteries for a 300kW system?
    21 Jan 2014, 11:20 AM Reply Like
  • jveal
    , contributor
    Comments (659) | Send Message
     
    PY and NGS,

     

    It's good to see a little more light on the PC sale. I too wonder why there has not been word from Axion. I suspect the article will be referenced a little later on the web site.
    21 Jan 2014, 11:23 AM Reply Like
  • jveal
    , contributor
    Comments (659) | Send Message
     
    D-Inv, the article mentions 300 KW of batteries from Axion.
    21 Jan 2014, 11:26 AM Reply Like
  • User462699
    , contributor
    Comments (117) | Send Message
     
    "There are a lot of missing REPLY and LIKE boxes. It seems the majority of the missing boxes are associated with the initial comment. "

     

    They're ALL missing from all concentrators. SA seems to have introduced a "new and improved" format ;>p
    21 Jan 2014, 11:34 AM Reply Like
  • John Petersen
    , contributor
    Comments (30418) | Send Message
     
    I'm not all that fond of the new clean look because it will complicate discussions on issues that worked well when there was a reply button. I guess we'll all have to get in the habit of quoting text that we're replying to.
    21 Jan 2014, 11:41 AM Reply Like
  • Stefan Moroney
    , contributor
    Comments (2661) | Send Message
     
    Nice to see an anticipated ROI of 5 years on the project. IIRC, generally there is not a quoted ROI for solar/battery projects.
    21 Jan 2014, 11:46 AM Reply Like
  • jveal
    , contributor
    Comments (659) | Send Message
     
    It's good to see a strong endorsement from Bysolar's president.

     

    “We believe that the application of Princeton Power Systems’ grid-tied inverter and battery controller, in combination with Axion Power’s Lead Carbon (PbC®) battery technology, provide the most effective battery solution for frequency regulation on the grid,” said Alan Cowe, President, Bysolar, Inc. “The ability to handle the repetitive high current charging and discharging in response to PJM’s regulating signal, provides a robust capability for frequency regulation and automatic demand response activity.”
    21 Jan 2014, 11:49 AM Reply Like
  • D-inv
    , contributor
    Comments (4210) | Send Message
     
    "D-Inv, the article mentions 300 KW of batteries from Axion. "

     

    :-) Hadn't read that far into the article, JV. Good catch.
    21 Jan 2014, 11:51 AM Reply Like
  • H. T. Love
    , contributor
    Comments (18412) | Send Message
     
    On my second post to SA support they said they had forwarded the issue to their development crew.

     

    HardToLove
    21 Jan 2014, 11:58 AM Reply Like
  • RuggedDC
    , contributor
    Comments (419) | Send Message
     
    Re: SA

     

    There's an inscrutable icon hotspot between the date and the "Report Abuse" hotspot on every posting.

     

    Does anyone know what it is? what it does?
    21 Jan 2014, 12:02 PM Reply Like
  • H. T. Love
    , contributor
    Comments (18412) | Send Message
     
    RuggedDC: That a url. If you click it it takes you to that comment anew.

     

    If you right-click and compy link location, or some such, you can then paste it somewhere else and when you click that later, back you come.

     

    I looked at it for many months until I figured it out - it's supposed to be chain-links.

     

    HardToLove
    21 Jan 2014, 12:05 PM Reply Like
  • nogoodslacker
    , contributor
    Comments (1157) | Send Message
     
    >>Nice to see an anticipated ROI of 5 years on the project. IIRC, generally there is not a quoted ROI for solar/battery projects. <<

     

    @Stephan. I would love to see the math that went into calculating the 5-yr payback time. If the assumptions are reasonable about how much revenue they can get from frequency regulation services, then this is HUGE.
    21 Jan 2014, 12:07 PM Reply Like
  • Stefan Moroney
    , contributor
    Comments (2661) | Send Message
     
    NGS - I agree as I always want to see the hard data to back up ESS salesmen's claims.

     

    On another note - Hello Viridity ... is anybody home? You commissioned the original PC in November of 2011 ... Over two years and hardly a whisper besides some murmuring on CC's and a potential lead carbon installation at an Army base about a year and half ago (never confirmed whether it was Axion or EP). Show us that this is not another Rosewater relationship.
    21 Jan 2014, 12:16 PM Reply Like
  • D-inv
    , contributor
    Comments (4210) | Send Message
     
    " >>Nice to see an anticipated ROI of 5 years on the project. IIRC, generally there is not a quoted ROI for solar/battery projects. <<

     

    @Stephan. I would love to see the math that went into calculating the 5-yr payback time."

     

    :-) Wonder if those ROI calculations adequately factored in visitations of the Circumpolar vortex to NJ and associated snow fall on those solar panels.
    21 Jan 2014, 12:18 PM Reply Like
  • Patrick Young
    , contributor
    Comments (1896) | Send Message
     
    I don't know much about BySolar or PrincetonPower but I was very encouraged by the endorsement of PbC for grid regulation solutions in general from both companies. "the most effectice battery solution for frequency regulation on the grid" reads like a meme from the offices of Mad Men. It should be in bold somewhere on the Axion homepage. As far as I can see, they have no reason to do any window dressing about the PbC since they could buy anyone's battery system and know what they're talking about regarding the technicals and cost/benefit analysis.
    21 Jan 2014, 12:27 PM Reply Like
  • D Lane
    , contributor
    Comments (1514) | Send Message
     
    Whoa!

     

    Princeton Power Systems, Inc., a global leader in design and manufacturing of technology products and embedded software for energy management, micro-grid operations, and electric vehicle charging, has been chosen by Bysolar, Inc. to provide a 500kW battery inverter system"

     

    I like that word "system". Sounds like Princeton made the decision to go with PbC. Could this be the start of an ongoing relationship, where Princeton tells its customers that they will be getting AXPW? Is Princeton a system integrator who will specify PbC in future installations?
    21 Jan 2014, 12:27 PM Reply Like
  • Edmund Metcalfe
    , contributor
    Comments (2153) | Send Message
     
    with all due respect, there is no way to get used to this. we need the reply button back at the very least. and there should be like and dislike buttons, but i don't care so much about that.
    21 Jan 2014, 12:30 PM Reply Like
  • D Lane
    , contributor
    Comments (1514) | Send Message
     
    Now I'm wondering about the size of Princeton Power System's business.
    21 Jan 2014, 12:31 PM Reply Like
  • D-inv
    , contributor
    Comments (4210) | Send Message
     
    "I looked at it for many months until I figured it out - it's supposed to be chain-links."

     

    Prompted idea that chain-link approach could be an alternative quoting text from an earlier message. That is, http://seekingalpha.co... could have been used instead of quoting the sentence at start of this message.
    21 Jan 2014, 12:33 PM Reply Like
  • Patrick Young
    , contributor
    Comments (1896) | Send Message
     
    Looks like Princeton Power is mostly into defense microgrid projects.
    21 Jan 2014, 12:35 PM Reply Like
  • D Lane
    , contributor
    Comments (1514) | Send Message
     
    Edmund Metcalfe said:
    "with all due respect, there is no way to get used to this. we need the reply button back at the very least. and there should be like and dislike buttons, but i don't care so much about that."

     

    I agree. We need the reply button.
    21 Jan 2014, 12:36 PM Reply Like
  • Stefan Moroney
    , contributor
    Comments (2661) | Send Message
     
    Princeton Power inverters were very prominent at the PbC factory for various uses during the annual meeting. I asked one of the engineers whether the reference to PbC in PP material referred directly to Axion and he said yes.
    21 Jan 2014, 12:37 PM Reply Like
  • Patrick Young
    , contributor
    Comments (1896) | Send Message
     
    At 500kw, This is definitely BySolar's largest project thus far.
    21 Jan 2014, 12:41 PM Reply Like
  • D-inv
    , contributor
    Comments (4210) | Send Message
     
    Stefan, re-Viridity Energy. IINM, Mitsui (a producer of batteries) took a large stake in Viridity several months after Axion's PowerCube was connected to the PJM grid. Other Viridty Energy investors may also have commercial bias toward battery chemistry alternative to Axion's PbC.
    21 Jan 2014, 12:42 PM Reply Like
  • Stefan Moroney
    , contributor
    Comments (2661) | Send Message
     
    D-inv - yes, but TG has alluded that the relationship is alive and well. From the shoes that I am standing in, it does not appear that way.
    21 Jan 2014, 12:52 PM Reply Like
  • Stefan Moroney
    , contributor
    Comments (2661) | Send Message
     
    PP is also working with GE on projects. Interestingly, the ROI language is conspicuously missing from this PR.

     

    http://on.mktw.net/1e4...
    21 Jan 2014, 12:54 PM Reply Like
  • H. T. Love
    , contributor
    Comments (18412) | Send Message
     
    " we need the reply button back "

     

    maybe floods will get SA development out of their slumber ... e-mail floods that is.

     

    support@seekingalpha.com

     

    D-Inv: the trouble with using the link is you can't see what it's saying unless the link is either clicked, and you lose your current page position, or you open link in a new tab.

     

    HardToLove
    21 Jan 2014, 01:00 PM Reply Like
  • Mr Investor
    , contributor
    Comments (3083) | Send Message
     
    Audrey Zibelman, the founder and former CEO of Viridity, left in the middle of last year. IIRC, she said she wanted to make more of an impact. She should have that chance, as she's now the Chair of the NY PSC.
    21 Jan 2014, 01:09 PM Reply Like
  • LT
    , contributor
    Comments (5460) | Send Message
     
    If I'm not mistaken isn't this the project where BySolar used half PbC and half AGM batteries ?
    The PbC for load leveling and frequency response and AGM for storage?

     

    This is the app where the PbC shines, much more than storage alone.
    21 Jan 2014, 01:10 PM Reply Like
  • Stefan Moroney
    , contributor
    Comments (2661) | Send Message
     
    Mr. I -

     

    Could be a part of this renewed push in NY to get start an energy storage race.

     

    http://huff.to/1mbEkcs
    21 Jan 2014, 01:24 PM Reply Like
  • Stefan Moroney
    , contributor
    Comments (2661) | Send Message
     
    Not sure if this has been posted:

     

    Grid Energy Storage - DOE - December 2013

     

    http://1.usa.gov/ILq3GY

     

    DOE has conducted workshops38 with industry, and have developed the following cost and performance targets for near-term and long-term storage technology development for the grid:

     

    Near-term
     Demonstrate AC energy storage systems involving redox flow batteries, sodium-based
    batteries, lead-carbon batteries, lithium-ion batteries and other technologies to meet the
    following electric grid performance and cost targets:39
    – System capital cost: under $250/kWh
    – Levelized cost: under 20 ¢/kWh/cycle
    – System efficiency: over 75%
    – Cycle life: more than 4,000 cycles
     Develop and optimize power technologies to meet AC energy storage system capital cost
    targets under $1,750/kW

     

    Long-term40
     Research and develop new technologies based on advanced materials and chemistries to meet
    the following AC energy storage system targets:

     

    – System capital cost: under $150/kWh
    – Levelized cost: under 10 ¢/kWh/cycle (i.e., economically scalable without subsidies)
    – System efficiency: over 80%
    – Cycle life: more than 5,000 cycles
     Develop and optimize power technologies to meet AC energy storage system capital cost
    targets under $1,250/kW
     For Concentrated Solar Power (CSP)-storage systems:
    – System capital cost: under $15/kWh
    – System efficiency: 95%
    21 Jan 2014, 01:35 PM Reply Like
  • Mr Investor
    , contributor
    Comments (3083) | Send Message
     
    Stefan---makes sense to me. Feels like stationary is finally starting to come together. So many players, w/ long lead times, though, that it's still really hard to see who's going to win and when.
    21 Jan 2014, 01:51 PM Reply Like
  • Stefan Moroney
    , contributor
    Comments (2661) | Send Message
     
    John -

     

    Do you have any insight on the energy vs power numbers quoted by DOE at this point? I have spoken to one engineer at a publicly traded company that is of the opinion they are completely unreasonable.

     

    Is the main cost in the power systems the control electronics or does that number include generally higher priced batteries? The thrust of my question being will PbCs more likely be integrated into power systems? Is frequency regulation considered a power application?

     

    – System capital cost: under $250/kWh
    – Levelized cost: under 20 ¢/kWh/cycle
     Develop and optimize power technologies to meet AC energy storage system capital cost targets under $1,750/kW

     

    – System capital cost: under $150/kWh
    – Levelized cost: under 10 ¢/kWh/cycle (i.e., economically scalable without subsidies)
     Develop and optimize power technologies to meet AC energy storage system capital cost targets under $1,250/kW

     

     For Concentrated Solar Power (CSP)-storage systems:
    – System capital cost: under $15/kWh
    21 Jan 2014, 02:21 PM Reply Like
  • greentongue
    , contributor
    Comments (956) | Send Message
     
    "So many players, w/ long lead times, though, that it's still really hard to see who's going to win and when."

     

    With any luck, Axion and Soon. ;)
    21 Jan 2014, 02:23 PM Reply Like
  • LabTech
    , contributor
    Comments (1780) | Send Message
     
    The PP press release suggests to me that Axion is finally working its business relationships and building on them. BySolar went with Axion's PbC, unsing Princeton Power's inverters, and hooking the system up to PJM's grid. I would be very surprised if the frequency response isn't being run by Viridity. Hopefully, there will be several more press releases this year, and in the future, where you will read all those names again. Now we just need a similar set-up in California and in the island nations and we may start getting somewhere.

     

    PS We need to get the "reply" icon back!!!
    21 Jan 2014, 02:25 PM Reply Like
  • geopark
    , contributor
    Comments (321) | Send Message
     
    I requested to "Customer Support" <support@seekingalp... asking to get the reply button back, per HTL's suggestion. They responded quickly with:

     

    "Due to exceptionally high volume of customer contacts at the moment . . "

     

    geopark
    21 Jan 2014, 02:44 PM Reply Like
  • jveal
    , contributor
    Comments (659) | Send Message
     
    Just received an e-mail from Axion mentioning the Princeton Power article.
    21 Jan 2014, 02:49 PM Reply Like
  • H. T. Love
    , contributor
    Comments (18412) | Send Message
     
    Geopark: That stupid "exceptionally high volume ..." thing is their standard boilerplate for months now. I don't know if they cut back on staff or what.

     

    HardToLove
    21 Jan 2014, 02:51 PM Reply Like
  • Mathieu Malecot
    , contributor
    Comments (1225) | Send Message
     
    if storage happens before rail, it'll be just another surprise for me concerning AXPW.
    21 Jan 2014, 02:56 PM Reply Like
  • H. T. Love
    , contributor
    Comments (18412) | Send Message
     
    Well, Rudy Barrio just sent the BySolar stuff, only a few days behind the great sleuthing by folks here.

     

    "Princeton Power Systems Inverters Selected by Bysolar for Frequency Regulation"

     

    http://bit.ly/1aIIPWK

     

    HardToLove
    21 Jan 2014, 03:04 PM Reply Like
  • John Petersen
    , contributor
    Comments (30418) | Send Message
     
    Stefan> I've had a very hard time making sense of the DOE's goals. Building a storage system with a capital cost of $1,750 per kW, or even $1,250 per kW, seems doable. Building an integrated system with capital costs of $250 to $150 per kWh is ridiculous.

     

    The DOE report says that the storage component of an integrated system is only 30 to 40 percent of total installed cost. The rest is control electronics, engineering, installation and integration. Even if there were no BOS costs, there isn't a battery on the planet that can offer the required cycle life at under $250 per kWh.
    21 Jan 2014, 03:12 PM Reply Like
  • LabTech
    , contributor
    Comments (1780) | Send Message
     
    Since BySolar and Princeton Power are both NJ companies, maybe by working with them Axion can get some traction for sales in the NE US.
    21 Jan 2014, 03:12 PM Reply Like
  • jveal
    , contributor
    Comments (659) | Send Message
     
    JP, it must be the same engineers who want the 8 Kg battery for the 48 volt system in cars.
    21 Jan 2014, 03:22 PM Reply Like
  • H. T. Love
    , contributor
    Comments (18412) | Send Message
     
    From the Bysolar PR: "The battery system provides power in case of a grid outage, and generates revenue with an anticipated return-on-investments of five years".

     

    Not bad for backup power, probably the primary purpose.

     

    HardToLove
    21 Jan 2014, 03:28 PM Reply Like
  • D Lane
    , contributor
    Comments (1514) | Send Message
     
    HTL, providing back-up power is big in NJ since Hurricane Sandy revealed that solar panels on rooftops were shut down along with the grid. . . Sounds like the Bysolar installation with Axion inside is islanded!
    22 Jan 2014, 11:12 AM Reply Like
  • H. T. Love
    , contributor
    Comments (18412) | Send Message
     
    D Lane: yes it is island capable - that's one thing I watch for.

     

    Another item that did well during Sandy was the CPST units. The only failure was completely submerged - all others kept humming.

     

    HardToLove
    22 Jan 2014, 11:16 AM Reply Like
  • D Lane
    , contributor
    Comments (1514) | Send Message
     
    Thats great, I am long CPST.
    22 Jan 2014, 11:29 AM Reply Like
  • wtblanchard
    , contributor
    Comments (2435) | Send Message
     
    I'm guessing Amazon's next big biz reveal will be drones that "clean" those rooftop solar panels during massive snow/sleet storms that create large power outages.

     

    Hopefully they'll use CPST CHP systems to power the fuel pumps for the drones :-)

     

    Although maybe they're spring for these solar powered ones:

     

    http://bit.ly/1g0i9bH

     

    "many future applications of the high-flying, solar-powered UAV, including tracking wildlife, mapping fire, patrolling the U.S.–Mexico border, and even providing cellphone coverage to remote areas. "One of these [UAVs] at 10 miles can replace 100 cell towers," he says. "
    22 Jan 2014, 11:31 AM Reply Like
  • D-inv
    , contributor
    Comments (4210) | Send Message
     
    Dunno 'bout something originating in a place named Moriarty without having Sherlock 'round to check it out.

     

    Li-ion batteries at 65K feet? Does that chemistry work at 65K altitude temperature(s)?
    22 Jan 2014, 11:59 AM Reply Like
  • Amouna
    , contributor
    Comments (1825) | Send Message
     
    I hate the new SeekingAlpha website layout. The old one is so much nicer....
    21 Jan 2014, 03:43 PM Reply Like
  • DRich
    , contributor
    Comments (4825) | Send Message
     
    >Amouna ... I'd LIKE your comment if I could.
    21 Jan 2014, 03:48 PM Reply Like
  • geopark
    , contributor
    Comments (321) | Send Message
     
    Thanks HTL . . Suppose this is just boilerplate too but, just in:

     

    "Thank you for contacting Seeking Alpha. We regret the inconvenience caused however, the issue has been referred on to our technical team for further investigation. This may take sometime and we will keep you posted."

     

    Anyway, I'm filing this in the Alfred E. Neuman dept. for now and going off to work.

     

    BTW . . Kudos and many thanks to all you good sleuther's and thinkers round these parts. Valuable and often enjoyable.

     

    geopark
    21 Jan 2014, 04:07 PM Reply Like
  • raleigh731
    , contributor
    Comments (306) | Send Message
     
    I hope they get this fixed soon...wanted to "like" JP's comments and "reply" to many more. This Bysolar thing could blossom!!