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 (345)
Track new comments
  • AlbertinBermuda
    , contributor
    Comments (794) | Send Message
     
    Still buying.

     

    Great expectations for ePower.
    26 Jun 2014, 06:57 AM Reply Like
  • greentongue
    , contributor
    Comments (964) | Send Message
     
    "Any Day Now" ... again.
    26 Jun 2014, 08:04 AM Reply Like
  • H. T. Love
    , contributor
    Comments (18451) | Send Message
     
    06/25/2014: EOD stuff partially copied from the blog (up now).
    # Trds: 21, MinTrSz: 500, MaxTrSz: 55000, Vol: 161508, AvTrSz: 7691
    Min. Pr: 0.1500, Max Pr: 0.1600, VW Avg. Tr. Pr: 0.1513
    # Buys, Shares: 10 31536, VW Avg Buy Pr: 0.1551
    # Sells, Shares: 10 119972, VW Avg Sell Pr: 0.1503
    # Unkn, Shares: 1 10000, VW Avg Unk. Pr: 0.1520
    Buy:Sell 1:3.80 (19.53% "buys"), DlyShts 50536 (31.29%), Dly Sht % of 'sells' 42.12%

     

    Today's close was brought to you by a single buy of 1,680 shares for $0.1539 at 15:27:40, three seconds after a sell of 4K shares for $0.1500 at 15:27:37, which was but one trade in a string of eight at <= $0.151 totaling 100,472 shares from 13:40 onward. All but one trade of 1K shares were sells.

     

    Today reminds me of the trading typical of the last week of a month and the first week of the following month. VWAP is flattish or slightly up, rather than trending lower. Yeah, it's only one day, but after the heavy selling and VWAP of the prior three days even a relief rally looks good. Of course, buy percentage was still only 19.5% and sell percentage was still 74.3%, so it's not all that much of a relief.

     

    Only the VWAP up a piddling 0.62% could be considered “relief”. And the three trades totaling 8K shares at $0.16 was a relief I guess. One was at 9:52 and two were at 10:05.

     

    The large bids at $0.15 – 298K from CDEL, ETRF 100K and ATDF and NITE for smaller quantities occasionally, were here again. Another 59K was sold into it. At day's end CDEL still had 243K bid.

     

    Yesterday's question was are the sellers out or not. The answer seems to be not yet.

     

    We again managed to improve the buy percentage - we got to 19.5% from yesterday's 13.3% and the prior 2.8%. Still not great, but better. The daily short sales percentage behaved, moving from 12.55% to 31.29% today.

     

    Recent VWAPs oldest through today ...

     

    Today's low, high, VWAP, trade volume, and daily short sales moved 0.00%, 4.64%, 0.62%, -62.12% and -5.54% respectively. Price spread today was 6.67% vs. 1.93%, 2.80%, 2.32%, 1.64%, 1.91%, 4.26%, 4.53%, 1.95% and 5.61% on prior days.

     

    The larger trades (>= 15K) occurred on 2 of the 21 trades, 9.52%. These 75,000 shares were 46.44% of day's volume, and traded at a VWAP of $0.1503. Both were “sells” - one of 55K at $0.15 and one of 20K at $0.1510.

     

    The other 19 trades, 90.48% of the day's trades, traded 86,508 shares, 53.56% of the days volume. The VWAP was $0.1523. 10 trades, 52.63%, were buys and ...

     

    All the usual is in the blog here.
    http://seekingalpha.co...

     

    HardToLove
    26 Jun 2014, 07:52 AM Reply Like
  • Edmund Metcalfe
    , contributor
    Comments (2367) | Send Message
     
    Lunchtime!
    26 Jun 2014, 08:05 AM Reply Like
  • Ricknplano
    , contributor
    Comments (319) | Send Message
     
    Has epower completed mpg testing on the new motor and control system? I missed it if that info was already given.
    26 Jun 2014, 09:20 AM Reply Like
  • John Petersen
    , contributor
    Comments (30494) | Send Message
     
    We're still working to optimize acceleration, cruising speed and hauling capacity. Once we get the operating details dialed in we'll be ready to do the fuel economy tests which should only take a couple days.
    26 Jun 2014, 09:32 AM Reply Like
  • iindelco
    , contributor
    Comments (10198) | Send Message
     
    John, Is it primarily software tuning at this time. This meaning calibrating the system and getting the sub-systems to play nice together. Or are other hardware options still on the table?
    26 Jun 2014, 10:07 AM Reply Like
  • John Petersen
    , contributor
    Comments (30494) | Send Message
     
    The software, electronics and batteries are working just fine, but now that we're working with 55,000 to 70,000 pounds of combined gross vehicle weight, we need to fine tune some of the gearing to optimize acceleration, cruising speed and hillclimbing.

     

    Many of these issues will go away with a better transmission, but that's a next generation enhancement. The good news is that it's all truck stuff rather than system problems. The bad news is that it all takes time.

     

    If it was easy, somebody else would have already done it.
    26 Jun 2014, 10:17 AM Reply Like
  • iindelco
    , contributor
    Comments (10198) | Send Message
     
    Thanks. Nice to hear the sub-systems on the "e side" are playing nice.
    26 Jun 2014, 10:35 AM Reply Like
  • dastar
    , contributor
    Comments (287) | Send Message
     
    JP - Thanks for the ePower update.
    26 Jun 2014, 10:48 AM Reply Like
  • wtblanchard
    , contributor
    Comments (2435) | Send Message
     
    >JP "Many of these issues will go away with a better transmission, but that's a next generation enhancement."

     

    1) is that THE next generation enhancement?

     

    2) Sorry if you've already covered this, but what if anything are you willing/able to share about even a rough time frame, or alternatively, even some preconditions for building a "next generation?"

     

    For example, is the current plan that every truck produced for the rest of this year will be the "current" generation?

     

    3) is there a certain amount of data you feel you need on the current generation?

     

    Thanks for any detail you can offer.
    26 Jun 2014, 12:11 PM Reply Like
  • metroneanderthal
    , contributor
    Comments (1511) | Send Message
     
    John,
    Thanks for the update, have been wanting to ask.
    26 Jun 2014, 12:18 PM Reply Like
  • John Petersen
    , contributor
    Comments (30494) | Send Message
     
    We have a wish list of components we'd like to upgrade over time to improve performance, efficiency or both. In many cases the job of getting other components to talk to each other properly requires a lot of vendor support. As long as we're relying on the kindness of vendors instead of writing a big check and telling them to get it done ASAP, the timing is out of our control. We don't plan on doing any upgrades this year because we think the current tractor will be good enough for the meat of our target market. We also want to get a 10 to 25 unit fleet on the road accumulating mileage so that we can respond to durability questions with history instead of speculation.
    26 Jun 2014, 12:25 PM Reply Like
  • Ricknplano
    , contributor
    Comments (319) | Send Message
     
    Thank you
    26 Jun 2014, 06:50 PM Reply Like
  • iindelco
    , contributor
    Comments (10198) | Send Message
     
    Thought for a second Axion had a new TM. :-(

     

    BATTERY PAIN SCALE

     

    http://bit.ly/1qeiM5P
    26 Jun 2014, 09:30 AM Reply Like
  • iindelco
    , contributor
    Comments (10198) | Send Message
     
    Interesting the partnerships forming to get access to China.

     

    Market News - Chaowei Power (00951) sees significant drop in 1H profit

     

    "... that the group places significant emphasis on developing new products and market, international joint venture cooperation with Moll Group forms a product technology and market foundation for entry into automotive start and stop battery market, the board of Chaowei Power remains confident about the group's long-term prospects."

     

    http://bit.ly/1qenroh
    26 Jun 2014, 09:50 AM Reply Like
  • Retired Aviator
    , contributor
    Comments (2269) | Send Message
     
    OT slightly

     

    I rarely get any strong sense of shorter term market direction but I've got a strong feeling now that US stocks are headed lower in 2014. With the Dow recently hitting an all time high of 16,900, rising almost without significant correction since 2009, I'm thinking a 5-10% correction is overdue. So I have shifted a lot into cash lately expecting to scale back in when or if the Dow falls to 16,000 or lower.

     

    I'm wondering if others also expect US stocks to fall in the next few months? Consider this comment a poll and please click "Like" if you are expecting stocks to fall.
    26 Jun 2014, 11:47 AM Reply Like
  • WayneinOregon
    , contributor
    Comments (1135) | Send Message
     
    I'm also expecting a correction this year, and have wondered how this would impact Axion. My guess is relatively little. Good news announcements would most likely override any major market fluctuations, just as lack of news has kept the stock from performing as well as the overall markets.
    26 Jun 2014, 12:05 PM Reply Like
  • Shirleyr
    , contributor
    Comments (117) | Send Message
     
    I shifted to 70% cash this week. My experience includes being caught in the 1987 crash on full margin. I am a little more conservative in my retirement years. :) I have invested more in AXPW this week.
    26 Jun 2014, 07:17 PM Reply Like
  • John Petersen
    , contributor
    Comments (30494) | Send Message
     
    My first IPO as stand-alone issuer's counsel cleared the SEC in the second week of October, 1987. The client already had indications of interest for 200% of the offering, but wanted 300% to 400% to ensure a solid opening. They decided to delay the offering for a couple weeks to build a bigger book. I'll bet you have a pretty good idea of how that plan worked out.
    26 Jun 2014, 07:26 PM Reply Like
  • geopark
    , contributor
    Comments (321) | Send Message
     
    I too am planning for a correction, however, I have been 'expecting' it since last fall and now believe the party may continue for a time, maybe into scary October or even into 2015. I have now sold most positions with gains except those I am willing to 'hold through' (100K Axion shares included).
    27 Jun 2014, 09:39 AM Reply Like
  • Retired Aviator
    , contributor
    Comments (2269) | Send Message
     
    Holy crap on getting caught in the crash of '87 on full margin! I never touch any margin, ever. I'm impressed that you lived to tell the tale.
    27 Jun 2014, 11:00 AM Reply Like
  • Shirleyr
    , contributor
    Comments (117) | Send Message
     
    The upside was I had write-offs for many years. And I made a lot of inner changes given how I felt about myself. It was my second year of investing, so getting wiped out early was a benefit when I look back now.

     

    And J.P., I trust that your client learned immensely from that experience and came okay in the long run.
    27 Jun 2014, 06:35 PM Reply Like
  • John Petersen
    , contributor
    Comments (30494) | Send Message
     
    The client and the underwriter both went bankrupt in the aftermath of the '87 crash. The lawyer suffered a high five digit loss on the account receivable that never got paid.

     

    The education was worth every penny.
    27 Jun 2014, 06:49 PM Reply Like
  • RBrun357
    , contributor
    Comments (792) | Send Message
     
    That's what is great about life, it keeps giving us more and more chances to become even more educated even if we don't want it!

     

    Axion has been educational for me! I seem to get smarter each and every day! ;-)).
    27 Jun 2014, 07:19 PM Reply Like
  • John Petersen
    , contributor
    Comments (30494) | Send Message
     
    I still expect our current doldrums to become a lesson for the ages in supply and demand dynamics for those who are open minded enough to pay serious attention and watch the patterns develop. I really feel sorry for those who left the game early and will miss the chance to learn first hand. Losses only hurt for a little while, but real investors are like fishermen and the stories that stay with them forever are the ones that got away.

     

    It still hurts when I remember that I bought the core producing properties of GPOR (East Hackberry, West Hackberry and West Cote Blanche Bay) for $100 million in the early 90s and we lost them because we bought a happy-talk story from the investment bankers about the wonders of debt financing instead of raising the equity like I wanted.
    27 Jun 2014, 07:34 PM Reply Like
  • Shirleyr
    , contributor
    Comments (117) | Send Message
     
    Interesting analogy with the fish. Reminds me of Hemingway's little story. I think the main point to remember is not to give up, that whatever suffering comes with the experiences of these kinds, there will be an important lesson that cannot be valued using a monetary amount.

     

    It would be a bonus to have AXPW be the big one; one to truly weigh the scales.
    27 Jun 2014, 09:17 PM Reply Like
  • RBrun357
    , contributor
    Comments (792) | Send Message
     
    I am still "full in" but I also have history with another company where I stayed full in for over 13 years until BK finally ended that story! It had a sad ending but I proved to myself that I had the ability to stay the course even when the rear view mirror informed me that I should have made better decisions!

     

    The good news is that this time is different!
    27 Jun 2014, 09:26 PM Reply Like
  • Masi
    , contributor
    Comments (485) | Send Message
     
    We had a 10% correction (my label/understanding) ending Feb 3rd of this year. The drop in 2009 was almost 50%. I would call that a crash much more than a significant correction. Is a 10% drop more of/like a pullback instead of a correction to some of you? The reason I ask is because I would like us to be on the same page when these words/labels are mentioned. The crash of 87 was a 34-35% drop and everyone I know calls it the crash of 87 as Shirleyr did.

     

    If you could, would Retired Aviator, WayneinOregon and geopark give a reply. I'm not leaving you out Shirleyr as we seem to be on the same page. I understand that this is a 3 day old thread but your responses would be greatly appreciated.

     

    As a place to start, I would call a drop of 2-3% up to 5-6% a pullback. 6% to around 10-12% a correction. Up to 20% a major/significant correction and more than that a crash. Am I in the same ballpark as you guys?

     

    To Shirleyr, OMG, full margin in the 87 crash! Glad your still with us.:>)
    29 Jun 2014, 12:36 AM Reply Like
  • Retired Aviator
    , contributor
    Comments (2269) | Send Message
     
    Masi> I think your terms are fair.
    29 Jun 2014, 12:43 AM Reply Like
  • Ranma
    , contributor
    Comments (2026) | Send Message
     
    I've been trying to research the 87 crash, but no specific cause has been determined. What would you say was the reason? As I understand it, the market had been overbought for some time, with high margin debt, and perhaps it triggered a chain reaction? I think I also read that computers enabled the reaction.
    29 Jun 2014, 01:14 AM Reply Like
  • Masi
    , contributor
    Comments (485) | Send Message
     
    The SEC announced several investigations, combine that with herd mentality and a fairly new thing to the system called computer program automation. Here is some stuff from INVESTOPEDIA.....

     

    "The SEC was unable to halt the shady IPOs and conglomerations, so the market continued to rise unabated throughout the '80s. Even institutional investors and large mutual funds, increasing their dependency on program trading, began to adhere to the mantra, "if a stock isn't gaining big time, find one that is."

     

    Then, in early 1987, there was a rash of SEC investigations into insider trading. For the most part, people were aware of the tendency of Wall Street to look out for itself, but the barrage of SEC investigations, rattled investors. By October, investors decided to move out of the crooked game and into the more stable environment offered by bonds or, in some cases, junk bonds.

     

    As people began the mass exodus out of the market, the computer programs began to kick in. The programs put a stop loss on stocks and sent a sell order to DOT (designated order turnaround), the NYSE computer system. The instantaneous transmission of so many sell orders overwhelmed the printers for DOT and caused the whole market system to lag, leaving investors on every level (institutional to individual) effectively blind.

     

    Herd-like panic set in and people started dumping stock in the dark without knowing what their losses were or whether their orders would execute fast enough to keep up with plummeting prices."
    http://bit.ly/1lq05Ew
    29 Jun 2014, 03:31 PM Reply Like
  • geopark
    , contributor
    Comments (321) | Send Message
     
    Hi Masi,

     

    Just back from the weekend and catching up. Investopedia has definitions for your terms and some agree:

     

    "Correction . . A reverse movement, usually negative, of at least 10%"

     

    Definition of 'Stock Market Crash'
    A rapid and often unanticipated drop in stock prices. A stock market crash can be the result of major catastrophic events, economic crisis or the collapse of a long-term speculative bubble. Well-known U.S. stock market crashes include the market crash of 1929 and Black Monday (1987).

     

    Technical Analysts (Chartists?) have their own varied definitions I believe. Others around these parts likely have more to offer than me on that front; however, I have used the Fibonacci ratios of 23.6%, 38.2%, 50%, 61.8% and 100% with some success when I want to purchase or sell positions.

     

    geopark
    30 Jun 2014, 09:09 AM Reply Like
  • John Petersen
    , contributor
    Comments (30494) | Send Message
     
    I just published a new article that asks whether residential PV solar is more trouble than it's worth.

     

    http://seekingalpha.co...

     

    Without enough storage to abate inherent intermittency, I think the answer is yes.
    26 Jun 2014, 12:00 PM Reply Like
  • Edmund Metcalfe
    , contributor
    Comments (2367) | Send Message
     
    worth to who?
    27 Jun 2014, 02:00 AM Reply Like
  • John Petersen
    , contributor
    Comments (30494) | Send Message
     
    Whenever I write a policy-focused article the question is value to society as a whole, because rooftop solar is clearly worthwhile for the promoters that are gaming the system and PV owners who are screwing their neighbors.
    27 Jun 2014, 06:41 AM Reply Like
  • Deamiter
    , contributor
    Comments (164) | Send Message
     
    John, you touched on air pollution in the article, and while I know you try to avoid discussion of global warming (and I've got the same inclination on SA) you're ignoring the fact that solar DOES displace sources of electricity -- primarily coal and natural gas that are both dirtier in terms of particulates (coal) and that result in the emission of 10-20 times the greenhouse gasses (as estimated by NREL, weighting gasses by their relative global warming potential).

     

    I heartily agree on all your points -- subsidies designed to encourage installation of solar raise the cost of traditional sources of electricity by causing many plants to idle on sunny days (reducing emissions more than reducing costs) and feed-in tariffs push the burden of infrastructure to those without solar panels. Certainly these policies are not sustainable and will have to be modified along with billing schemes for electricity if the number of residents installing residential solar panels continues to grow!

     

    I'm not going to argue here that shifting costs to encourage solar manufacturing and installation toward driving down solar electric costs long-term are a beneficial step toward reducing the acceleration of global warming. I just suggest that you acknowledge the reasoning behind these policies even if you might question both the premise (greenhouse gas emissions are driving global warming) and the subsidy mechanisms in question (particularly feed-in tariffs and tax credits).
    27 Jun 2014, 09:04 AM Reply Like
  • John Petersen
    , contributor
    Comments (30494) | Send Message
     
    Firstly, solar does not displace coal because coal is baseload power that runs 24/7. What solar displaces is natural gas.

     

    The reason I try to avoid discussing global warming is twofold. I think climate change advocates have done a fine job establishing a correlation, but I'm unconvinced they've proven causation. More importantly, I'm a fatalist who understands that emissions growth is most closely correlated with population growth and barring a plague that takes out 80% of the population the directionality of CO2 emissions is not going to change significantly.

     

    http://bit.ly/17fnZiE

     

    It's one of those Blood, Sweat and Tears things. "I can swear there ain't no heaven but I pray there ain't no hell."

     

    In the final analysis I see massive spending on alternative power systems as an immense misallocation of capital away from productive endeavor and into duplicative infrastructure. I think it's a very bad thing to make the environment marginally cleaner while making it massively harder to provide useful employment for a rapidly growing segment of the population.
    27 Jun 2014, 09:14 AM Reply Like
  • D-inv
    , contributor
    Comments (4234) | Send Message
     
    "... emissions growth is most closely correlated with population growth ...."

     

    Couple that reality with the reality that the most effective population growth limiting mechanisms are income and education.
    27 Jun 2014, 09:42 AM Reply Like
  • Deamiter
    , contributor
    Comments (164) | Send Message
     
    I definitely see your point about how solar promoters are "gaming the system" are dead on and even if climate science has demostrated a harm from greenhouse gas emissions, the main reason for the convoluted nature of solar subsidies is political.

     

    That said, I do think you do readers a disservice by failing to even mention that these subsidies wouldn't exist without widespread concern over greenhouse gas emissions (if not nation-wide, but certainly in the communities that pass many of these laws). That the subsidies are convoluted and easily gamed says a lot about our political system (where a bizarre feed-in tariff is somehow preferable to a carbon tax) but asking the question, "is residential solar more trouble than it's worth" without even touching on what supporters suggest it might be worth seems nearly as unfair as the feed-in tariffs we're discussing!

     

    I strongly value all your articles, and I'm not suggesting that you jump into climate science, it just seems weird (to me) to claim that "there's a very good argument that residential PV solar is more trouble than it's worth" by highlighting a bunch of reasons why it's trouble and then utterly ignoring what it's worth -- not even claiming that it's worthless, just ignoring half of the equation altogether!
    27 Jun 2014, 10:08 AM Reply Like
  • John Petersen
    , contributor
    Comments (30494) | Send Message
     
    This world is full of solar advocates who do a wonderful job of expressing the positive case for solar. I fell no particular obligation to make their case for them.

     

    I was trained as a lawyer. That means my function is to make the best case I can in reliance on the certainty that the other side will make the best case they can. Once both cases have been made, the decision will be made by a jury of 12 good and true.

     

    As far as I'm concerned balance is for weenies who don't know where they stand and I've long believed that if you don't for something you'll fall for anything.
    27 Jun 2014, 10:17 AM Reply Like
  • Retired Aviator
    , contributor
    Comments (2269) | Send Message
     
    John> That CO2 is a 'greenhouse gas' is a matter of scientific fact i.e. it is well understood that CO2 gas traps heat that would be otherwise dissipated. It is simple in scientific terms and repeatable in lab experiments. Simple, like that hydrogen and oxygen combine to form water is simple. There is not much to it so no room for debate. We know CO2 levels have risen decade by decade. We know CO2 is produced by burning fuel which humans are doing on an unprecedented scale. 'Nuff said.

     

    Where the correlation/causation debate is valid is in things that are complex, not simple. Like the question of whether coffee's antioxidants reduce the chances of getting certain cancers. Highly, highly complex issue with more moving parts than can even be identified.
    27 Jun 2014, 11:12 AM Reply Like
  • John Petersen
    , contributor
    Comments (30494) | Send Message
     
    I can't imagine a more complex system than the climate of a planet that's impacted by an almost infinite variety of terrestrial and non terrestrial forces.

     

    Frankly I find the assumption that the actions of a few can change planetary outcomes arrogant beyond belief.

     

    If humanity overstresses the carrying capacity of the planet nature will respond in its own vicious way to eliminate the excess stress. The options it can call on include disease, pestilence rising sea levels and any number of other uncomfortable outcomes. Humanity will either adapt or lose its position as the dominant species on the planet; except of course for cockroaches.
    27 Jun 2014, 11:48 AM Reply Like
  • Mr Investor
    , contributor
    Comments (3108) | Send Message
     
    When the problem gets big enough, mankind will solve it enough. In the long run, that has been true since mankind first existed, through a very long list of major problems---wars, pathogens, floods, an ice age, evil empires, bad '70s fashion, etc. Prognosticators have called 3,000 of the last zero wipe-outs.

     

    We're nothing if not adaptable. We'll eat almost anything, live almost anywhere, do almost anything to survive.
    27 Jun 2014, 12:17 PM Reply Like
  • Retired Aviator
    , contributor
    Comments (2269) | Send Message
     
    So congratulate victims of Katrina, Sandy, sea level rise taking their land that they are so 'adaptable'? No effort should be expended to mitigate these problems because after all we do so love our SUVs?
    27 Jun 2014, 12:52 PM Reply Like
  • mrholty
    , contributor
    Comments (1109) | Send Message
     
    I really don't want to continue this topic on the APC but what the hell does Sandy have to do with Global Warming. There have been many hurricanes in NY area before. Long Island Sound was created by a hurricane in the 20s or 30s if my memory serves.
    27 Jun 2014, 01:00 PM Reply Like
  • Mr Investor
    , contributor
    Comments (3108) | Send Message
     
    RA, was ur post a reply to mine? I can't tell.
    27 Jun 2014, 01:11 PM Reply Like
  • LT
    , contributor
    Comments (5550) | Send Message
     
    Why don't you make a case for the subsidies to fossil fuels too ?
    And with fossil fuels the owner and neighbor you mentioned are paying these subsidies...with solar subsidies by gov't they are still both paying for it. Only one chooses to take advantage of it and the other does not.
    27 Jun 2014, 01:15 PM Reply Like
  • Edmund Metcalfe
    , contributor
    Comments (2367) | Send Message
     
    I totally agree. Global warming is just the latest in a never-ending series of trumped-up horrors that the government creates, invents and fans to garner support for their never-ending power-mongering. Shame on you who rise to rant and shill for them.
    27 Jun 2014, 01:17 PM Reply Like
  • Retired Aviator
    , contributor
    Comments (2269) | Send Message
     
    I bring up Sandy because it was no doubt directly experienced by some readers of APC. Nobody can prove Sandy would have been less devastating without CO2 levels what they are. I don't claim to. But to ignore melting polar caps, melting glaciers all around the world, a marked increase in the number and severity of intense storms, floods and droughts around the world, all this evidence in the wake of climate scientists having predicted these things decades ago is to do the ostrich.
    27 Jun 2014, 01:50 PM Reply Like
  • Retired Aviator
    , contributor
    Comments (2269) | Send Message
     
    EM> Nice string of evocative language but show me some evidence.
    27 Jun 2014, 01:52 PM Reply Like
  • Edmund Metcalfe
    , contributor
    Comments (2367) | Send Message
     
    RA> See paycheck.
    27 Jun 2014, 01:54 PM Reply Like
  • D-inv
    , contributor
    Comments (4234) | Send Message
     
    "Nobody can prove Sandy would have been less devastating without CO2 levels what they are. I don't claim to. But to ignore melting polar caps, melting glaciers all around the world, a marked increase in the number and severity of intense storms, floods and droughts around the world, ...."

     

    No one can prove CO2 had anything to do with 'Sandy' one way or another. You effectively assert otherwise.

     

    And WHAT "marked increase in number and severity of intense storms, floods, droughts? Statistical analyses of event records have not supported any such claims.
    27 Jun 2014, 02:39 PM Reply Like
  • nogoodslacker
    , contributor
    Comments (1171) | Send Message
     
    Evidence that a warming climate will increase the frequency of hurricanes and tropical cyclones is fairly weak. However, there is better evidence that warming has increased the severity of such storms.

     

    http://bit.ly/1jVZQRy

     

    http://bit.ly/1jVZSsM
    27 Jun 2014, 02:54 PM Reply Like
  • Retired Aviator
    , contributor
    Comments (2269) | Send Message
     
    EM> Re: my paycheck.

     

    I cannot be a paid shill as I have no paycheck whatsoever. You lose whatever small vestige of crediblity you might have had remaining with a comment like that.

     

    Again, if you want to make a case you'll need evidence and sound logic rather than baseless accusations and strings of snarky labels.
    27 Jun 2014, 03:38 PM Reply Like
  • Retired Aviator
    , contributor
    Comments (2269) | Send Message
     
    If you insist I imply too strongly that any one storm was worse due to global temperatures, then I retract for that storm. Hardly matters. A veritable avalanche of evidence remains that global warming is real and greenhouse gas induced, and that the unknown consequences could be catastrophic on a global scale.

     

    Funny how so many conservatives who are so cautious about the slightest 'slippery slope' in arguments on many social issues, throw all caution out the window when caution about even the possibility of climate change would mean curbing some personal consumption by having a car that gets better mileage or turning the thermostat down.

     

    I've never understood how a conservative mentality about slippery slopes ("conservation" is right in the name) can morph to 100% certainty that climate change is not real, or not man-induced, or just no big deal. I guess it's the old notion that a man won't understand a new idea to the extent that his livelihood (consumption/lifestyle) depends on not understanding it.
    27 Jun 2014, 03:50 PM Reply Like
  • John Petersen
    , contributor
    Comments (30494) | Send Message
     
    As far as I'm concerned climate change, politics and religion are all in the same class of belief system and should only be discussed behind closed doors with one you love, assuming he or she will tolerate your point of view. We have more than enough polarization to go around in this forum and don't need any more.
    27 Jun 2014, 04:02 PM Reply Like
  • Deamiter
    , contributor
    Comments (164) | Send Message
     
    Sorry, didn't mean to set that off!

     

    I really liked your comment about not feeling any need to be balanced -- that's very fair from my point of view!
    27 Jun 2014, 05:04 PM Reply Like
  • John Petersen
    , contributor
    Comments (30494) | Send Message
     
    Only liars pretend to be balanced. Real human beings can only speak from the perspective of the shoes they stand in. I may tone down my rhetoric occasionally to avoid inciting a riot, but I won't change or whitewash my opinions to suit others.
    27 Jun 2014, 05:16 PM Reply Like
  • Mr Investor
    , contributor
    Comments (3108) | Send Message
     
    I suggest we steer this back to investments. After all, this is an investment site for those seeking alpha. To me, the global warming theme can be a fascinating investment topic. It is large, affects many stocks one way or another, including AXPW IMO, and it doesn't care what one thinks personally.

     

    Some of the most interesting potential outcomes are too long-term to be actionable yet for the average retail investor, best I can tell so far. For example, if one thinks that the millions of people and things in the barely above sea-level US Southeast coastal areas are at increasing danger of flooding, how does one play that via the stk mkt?

     

    What about the shorter-term potential stk plays? Any good ideas that we don't cover here already?
    27 Jun 2014, 05:28 PM Reply Like
  • D-inv
    , contributor
    Comments (4234) | Send Message
     
    "http://bit.ly/1jVZQRy

     

    http://bit.ly/1jVZSsM"

     

    SkepticalScience.com is the most misleading blog name I have encountered.
    27 Jun 2014, 05:35 PM Reply Like
  • nogoodslacker
    , contributor
    Comments (1171) | Send Message
     
    Their name might be misleading but everything on there is backed up with links to research and data. That's what I like about it. I've been following climate science for about 20 years now. I even spent three summers in grad school doing research up on the Greenland Ice sheet where they drilled the deep ice cores. Skeptical Science is one of the best sites I have found for tracking down links to climate data and research.
    27 Jun 2014, 05:49 PM Reply Like
  • 212138
    , contributor
    Comments (193) | Send Message
     
    >EM Your previous post prompted the following thought; I'm not replying to or criticizing you: It seems many of us like to promote the idea of a "boogieman" to help establish our predjudicial points of view on a host of topics. I noticed others doing it first and then I noticed myself doing it as well. I don't think the boogieman strategy often brings those with an opposing point of view your way. It just cheapens the debate; and sometimes, especially with men, if we're tired or maybe not having a good day of it with our articulation skills, we might succumb to the temptation to push our opinion. Then, out comes the "boogieman" pitch. I could make a list of the "boogiemen" I've seen put forward on this board recently but I think it better for those who have used that strategy to self identify and through the process of introspective reflection try to improve their own thought life and maybe raise the quality of the daily dialogue a notch or two. An occasional rant is of course good for the soul and respected by most but when it becomes daily fare it's time to "rebalance", oops, sorry!. I respect all of the regulars on this board, you are, in general, intelligent, articulate and respectiveful. Winning ways modeled by winning people. So let's up the game! Try to avoid the demagogery and demonization of persons you oppose. If you have a legitimate and objective case to make for or against someone or something then present the facts. But don't use advocacy journalism to make your point; make the case based on facts you have confirmed, not on hearsay! Then let each of us make up our own minds whether we agree with you or not. For example, I don't agree with much of the global warming hype or federal policies "designed" to "address" the "problem". I don't trust government; I trust myself. Especially when tax money is being wasted pursuing a utopianistic future "Nirvana" to the expense of allowing technology to advance "naturally". I.e.: step by step. Now if you are a warmer and believe it, that's fine. I'll make up my own mind! I don't need, want, or trust government or academic "experts" most of the time. See! I don't agree with you, you don't agree with me. It's OK! Let's agree to disagree! (p.s.: This was not a rant, if it had been a rant, a government "expert" would have intervened for your protection.")
    27 Jun 2014, 07:39 PM Reply Like
  • Edmund Metcalfe
    , contributor
    Comments (2367) | Send Message
     
    I hear you, 21238.
    Perhaps my response was too succinct.
    The government did take half my earnings last year and those of my children. That's a confirmed fact and that's a low estimate. My earnings are my freedom, my rights, and my power to do what I want for whom I want and how I want. To me, this price for governance is tyrannical and was certainly unthinkable for a median earner such as myself now struggling to make ends meet as a single earner in a very modest suburban townhome. "That will never happen", but it has. And every year (or more often) there are proposals to raise taxes (like the 12-cent gas tax last week). Taxes, fees, etc. have grown inexorably over the years and there is no limit in sight. How have they managed this? They run themselves out of our money, then extort more. The people MUST PAY. I weep for the generations to come who must pay the debt this generation has burdened them with. They use fear-mongering, manufacturing economic crises like bubbles and cliffs and they never let one go to waste. They use boogiemen, in other words.
    I appreciate the kind words as well.
    I prefer to stick to Axion-relevant topics, by the way. They don't make me feel anywhere near as sick to my stomach.
    27 Jun 2014, 09:04 PM Reply Like
  • D-inv
    , contributor
    Comments (4234) | Send Message
     
    " Skeptical Science is one of the best sites I have found for tracking down links to climate data and research. "

     

    I find the site dogmatic and biased and prefer not to use it at all.
    27 Jun 2014, 09:56 PM Reply Like
  • 212138
    , contributor
    Comments (193) | Send Message
     
    Amen Edmund! I have personally given up trying to save humanity from this folly. If anyone cares to listen I'll take the time but otherwise, I just stand back and watch. I am not grieving nor smirking. It's kind of like watching rescue personnel trying to talk a jumper off a bridge but despite all the wise encouragement there he goes. Best to keep your emotions out of of it and just try to do the best for you and yours. In the end, if we survive the interim, there may be another cleansing. I hope so!
    28 Jun 2014, 08:39 AM Reply Like
  • greentongue
    , contributor
    Comments (964) | Send Message
     
    Sadly, we would not like "the solution" either.
    Unchecked growth with no expanding frontier never ends well.

     

    We remember back when there was a frontier and compare with now. That is unrealistic.
    If we would spend resources on creating a new frontier, there might be a different outcome but until then ...
    28 Jun 2014, 09:49 AM Reply Like
  • Ranma
    , contributor
    Comments (2026) | Send Message
     
    Once I learned about how the government controls and taxes, I was never satisfied to be an regular employee. It's a free for all society now, and once I have my investments and online businesses be successful, I'll be able to move to wherever the taxes are least. If my generation is entitled it's because we were sold a lie.

     

    As for global warming, I've heard it from the head of a NASA program that collects warming data. He said the data shows that warming is happening and it's manmade.
    28 Jun 2014, 02:59 PM Reply Like
  • jakurtz
    , contributor
    Comments (1898) | Send Message
     
    Without stating an opinion on climate change one way or the other, it is a godsend for Keynesian economics. Krugman once said that we should fight a make believe war on Mars to jump start economic growth. Well, spending billions on fighting climate change whether it is man made or not fits the desired outcome beautifully. The never ending trillions we will have to spend indefinitely to keep the earth from getting too hot or too cold is a keynesian wet dream.

     

    Invest accordingly.
    28 Jun 2014, 03:41 PM Reply Like
  • John Petersen
    , contributor
    Comments (30494) | Send Message
     
    The problem with that theory is the duplicative energy infrastructure investments have very little additive impact on GDP once they're installed. If you spend $100 million on a factory you expect it to produce $100 million of products per year and create a ton of jobs. If you spend the same $100 million on renewables you'll generate $10 million of revenue per year, your utility will lose $10 million of revenue per year, and the fuel suppliers to your utility will lay people off.
    28 Jun 2014, 04:41 PM Reply Like
  • jakurtz
    , contributor
    Comments (1898) | Send Message
     
    What if we look at renewable the same as technology. Computers aren't a one time purchase. We will be forever updating wind turbines and solar panels with newer technology. Never being able to completely displace fossil fuels because of population and middle class growth, i would think the net effect would still be cumulative to gdp. It's some something where as the alternative is nothing? Are you saying that from a Keynes perspective one would rather ramp up the use of fossil fuels as that would have a larger impact on growth? Maybe it creates a goldilocks economy, not too hot not too cold.
    28 Jun 2014, 06:05 PM Reply Like
  • John Petersen
    , contributor
    Comments (30494) | Send Message
     
    Abundant cheap domestic energy and plentiful natural resources of all kinds were always the principal driver of economic growth in the US.

     

    When I was far younger, the battle was to make resource companies clean up their act and the progress that's been made since the Cuyahoga River fire in 1969 is awe inspiring.

     

    Renewables may derive energy from abundant sources, but the power they produce is neither abundant nor cheap and America will have to choose between jobs and abolishing the fossil fuel industry.

     

    For the entire history of humanity the dream of one generation has always been that the next one would have a better easier life. It's been the way of the world for as far back as I can trace my family history. I'll tell you flat out that I don't believe life will be easier or better for my kids and I worry that it could get downright ugly for my grandkids.

     

    I truly hope my crystal ball is wrong about how the future will unfold, but the only sage advice I'd offer your generation is be careful what you wish for because you just might get it.
    28 Jun 2014, 07:03 PM Reply Like
  • jakurtz
    , contributor
    Comments (1898) | Send Message
     
    Good stuff.

     

    You know how they measure climate change? They just keep putting the thermometer closer to the edge of the shade. (That's a joke)
    28 Jun 2014, 07:51 PM Reply Like
  • John Petersen
    , contributor
    Comments (30494) | Send Message
     
    I figured as much ;-)
    28 Jun 2014, 07:55 PM Reply Like
  • jakurtz
    , contributor
    Comments (1898) | Send Message
     
    I don't know. I can't figure out whether I am just old-fashioned, conservative and stupid, or if the hubris of this generation really does rival the one that attempted to build the tower of Babel to heaven. Either way nature will sort it out nicely.
    28 Jun 2014, 08:45 PM Reply Like
  • John Petersen
    , contributor
    Comments (30494) | Send Message
     
    The problem is that science has never found a cure for stupid and I read a lot of stupid comments from zealots. If that type ends up in a majority position, things could quickly devolve into chaos.
    28 Jun 2014, 08:56 PM Reply Like
  • dastar
    , contributor
    Comments (287) | Send Message
     
    In the pursuit of a cure for stupid, they should start with the YabadabaDoodle message boards. Lot's of prime test candidates there.
    28 Jun 2014, 08:58 PM Reply Like
  • Masi
    , contributor
    Comments (485) | Send Message
     
    "Frankly I find the assumption that the actions of a few can change planetary outcomes arrogant beyond belief."

     

    John, does this statement refer to the combined countries and their populations around the word trying to reduce greenhouse gasses, or the total population who heat/air-condition their homes and all who drive cars. Because either one (reducing/or heating/driving is probably at least a billion. If just 1/3 of the earths population drives an ICE car it would total 2.39 billion. That is hardly "a few". Could you please elaborate?
    29 Jun 2014, 01:12 AM Reply Like
  • Masi
    , contributor
    Comments (485) | Send Message
     
    RA, don't forget the fires. Last year we had the most and the largest forest fires in recorded history. The "fire season" is now months longer than just a few years ago. Australia and Russia also had the same situation as the U.S. These fires throw enormous amounts of carbon particles into the atmosphere.
    29 Jun 2014, 01:24 AM Reply Like
  • Masi
    , contributor
    Comments (485) | Send Message
     
    "A veritable avalanche of evidence remains that global warming is real and greenhouse gas induced, and that the unknown consequences could be catastrophic on a global scale."

     

    Touche RA
    29 Jun 2014, 01:28 AM Reply Like
  • Masi
    , contributor
    Comments (485) | Send Message
     
    John, How is what you said about renewables any different than if a gas fired electric utility was built and the effect it has on the coal fired utilities and the miners? What am I missing? It cost about 450 to 500 mil to build a Nat Gas fired plant. 100K customers avg $150/mth nets you 144mil/year. That's at least 300 mil short comparing to your factory example and all those coal related workers have lost. What am I not relating to here? When computers came along typewriters diss appeared along with those manufacturing and related (ink, ribbons) jobs. There are thousands of those examples, from the industrial revolution and it is continuing now with this technical revolution. It almost sounds like your against progress. I am not trying to be combative. So could you have substituted a gas power plant with the renewable example? Or, were you thinking individual homes with solar as compared to an industrial solar farm?
    29 Jun 2014, 02:44 AM Reply Like
  • John Petersen
    , contributor
    Comments (30494) | Send Message
     
    I'm thinking of the inefficiencies created in the capital markets when too much money goes into duplicative infrastructure that adds little or nothing to the overall economy and not enough money goes into other asset classes.

     

    We already have a generating infrastructure. The battle between renewable and conventional power is basically a zero sum game. Instead of seeing huge amounts of capital flow to the zero sum I'd rather see the capital flow to something additive.
    29 Jun 2014, 06:47 AM Reply Like
  • Billion003
    , contributor
    Comments (269) | Send Message
     
    Ranma,
    I have some stories about NASA and NASA employees that I could tell you.
    29 Jun 2014, 10:03 AM Reply Like
  • Billion003
    , contributor
    Comments (269) | Send Message
     
    Jakurtz,
    So true...busy work for the masses coupled with its own Armageddon scenario.
    29 Jun 2014, 10:07 AM Reply Like
  • Retired Aviator
    , contributor
    Comments (2269) | Send Message
     
    Masi> Carbon particulates or ash just rains down elsewhere and becomes fertilizer. I think you meant carbon dioxide which is so problematic as its percentage of the air grows.
    29 Jun 2014, 04:22 PM Reply Like
  • greentongue
    , contributor
    Comments (964) | Send Message
     
    C02 poisoning will provide a practical limit to the amount we generate.
    29 Jun 2014, 07:40 PM Reply Like
  • Edmund Metcalfe
    , contributor
    Comments (2367) | Send Message
     
    gt, CO2 is a more a fertilizer than a poison. Plants make sugar from it, and from the sugar, cellulose. Without CO2 there would be no plants.
    30 Jun 2014, 08:18 AM Reply Like
  • Patrick Young
    , contributor
    Comments (1922) | Send Message
     
    John> Here is an example of a wildly successful public spending campaign: http://bit.ly/1nYZgFs
    $220 million dollars helped create over 1500 jobs and attract private investments of over $2.2 billion.

     

    By comparison, Atlanta spent $147 million on a single high school, and I know of a high school planned for Bridgeport, CT that will cost $150 million.
    30 Jun 2014, 11:35 AM Reply Like
  • John Petersen
    , contributor
    Comments (30494) | Send Message
     
    I dunno Patrick. It's tough when States have to spend $220 million to attract a lousy $2.2 billion that creates 1,500 jobs.

     

    The State spending works out to ~$150,000 per job and the capital investment works out to $1.5 million per job.
    30 Jun 2014, 11:39 AM Reply Like
  • DRich
    , contributor
    Comments (4825) | Send Message
     
    >Patrick Young ... $147M USD on a high school. Here in Texas they spend $60M USD on a high school football stadium that can't be used due to structural failures and there are plans to build a $90M one.
    30 Jun 2014, 11:44 AM Reply Like
  • mrholty
    , contributor
    Comments (1109) | Send Message
     
    DRich-

     

    That $60M was for the stadium, a performing arts center etc and lots of other stuff. More importantly for the district they used that investment to point to how they invest in the schools and have had way above average growth in population into the district.

     

    I may not agree with a lot of it but there is an economic return there.
    30 Jun 2014, 03:08 PM Reply Like
  • alpha5one
    , contributor
    Comments (146) | Send Message
     
    Scientists at USC have developed a water-based organic battery that is long lasting, built from cheap, eco-friendly components. The new battery -- which uses no metals or toxic materials -- is intended for use in power plants, where it can make the energy grid more resilient and efficient by creating a large-scale means to store energy for use as needed.

     

    http://bit.ly/1qeUb0L
    26 Jun 2014, 12:03 PM Reply Like
  • ARGE
    , contributor
    Comments (724) | Send Message
     
    Sounds a lot like the battery Bill Gates is funding.
    26 Jun 2014, 04:43 PM Reply Like
  • alpha5one
    , contributor
    Comments (146) | Send Message
     
    Yo John,

     

    Any thoughts on ZBB's Chief Technology Officer resigning? The stock has taken been dropping since then.
    26 Jun 2014, 12:05 PM Reply Like
  • wtblanchard
    , contributor
    Comments (2435) | Send Message
     
    Before he resigned, and not that long ago:

     

    "Feb 12, 2014
    ZBB Announces Senior Management Changes
    Completes Integration of Tier Electronics

     

    MILWAUKEE, WI--(Marketwired - Feb 12, 2014) - ZBB Energy Corporation (NYSE MKT: ZBB), a leading developer of intelligent, renewable energy power platforms and hybrid vehicle control systems, today announced changes to its senior management and the completion and integration of its acquisition of Tier Electronics, LLC.

     

    On January 21, 2014, ZBB Energy Corporation (the "Company") made the last payment due under the promissory note issued as part of the purchase price for the acquisition of Tier Electronics LLC. As a result of the payment in full of this promissory note and the recent relocation of Tier's employees to the Company's facility, the integration of Tier's operations into the Company is now complete.

     

    Following the expiration of his employment agreement on February 7, 2014, Jeff Reichard, President of Tier and the Company's Chief Technology Officer, entered into a Professional Services Agreement with the Company pursuant to which Mr. Reichard will continue to serve as the Company's Chief Technology Officer. Mr. Reichard will also continue to serve as a member of the Company's Board of Directors. Under this agreement, Mr. Reichard will be paid for his services at an hourly rate commensurate with the salary and benefits he was receiving under his employment agreement and was awarded a total of 40,000 restricted stock units that will vest based upon the satisfaction of certain performance vesting requirements."
    26 Jun 2014, 12:49 PM Reply Like
  • wtblanchard
    , contributor
    Comments (2435) | Send Message
     
    Hard to figure which is more important ...

     

    I sure wouldn't discount the silence from ZBB that we've become accustomed to ... and the fact that RedFlow, a (their main?) flow battery competitor, has been making some noise lately

     

    Item 5.02. Departure of Directors or Certain Officers; Election of Directors; Appointment of Certain Officers; Compensatory Arrangements of Certain Officers.

     

    On June 2, 2014, Mr. Jeff Reichard resigned as Chief Technology Officer and as a Class I director of ZBB Energy Corporation (the "Company") effective immediately. Mr. Reichard remains under contract as an electronics product consultant to the Company.
    26 Jun 2014, 12:54 PM Reply Like
  • wtblanchard
    , contributor
    Comments (2435) | Send Message
     
    via Forbes, a fairly accomplished person I'd say ... and perhaps some would say a "serial entrepreneur" ... maybe that's part of what's happening ... or maybe working for ZBB management wasn't exactly inspiring :-)

     

    "Jeffrey A. Reichard joined the Company in January 2011 as Vice President of Electronics Development and was promoted to Chief Technology Officer in September 2012. Mr. Reichard founded Tier Electronics, LLC in June 2003 and currently serves as its President. Tier Electronics specializes in power converters and conversion systems for alternative energy and power quality applications and operates as a wholly-owned subsidiary of the Company. From June 2000 to June 2002, Mr. Reichard served as Vice President of R&D at American Superconductor Corp. (Nasdaq: AMSC), an electricity solutions company. Mr. Reichard founded Integrated Electronics in March 1996, and rapidly grew the company by developing products at the leading edge of innovation, and offered significant price and performance advantages. Acquired by American Superconductor in 2000, Integrated Electronics developed the converter that became the standard for AMSCs power quality products. Mr. Reichard earned a Bachelors of Science degree in Electrical Engineering from Marquette University."
    26 Jun 2014, 01:02 PM Reply Like
  • wtblanchard
    , contributor
    Comments (2435) | Send Message
     
    Hmmmm ....

     

    ZBB Energy CEO Unloads $121,626 in Stock (ZBB)
    June 27th, 2014

     

    http://bit.ly/1jUA3t9

     

    "CEO Eric C. Apfelbach sold 71,968 shares of the stock in a transaction dated Thursday, June 26th. The shares were sold at an average price of $1.69, for a total transaction of $121,625.92. Following the completion of the sale, the chief executive officer now directly owns 158,194 shares of the company’s stock, valued at approximately $267,348. The sale was disclosed in a filing with the SEC, which can be accessed through "
    27 Jun 2014, 08:51 AM Reply Like
  • D Lane
    , contributor
    Comments (1539) | Send Message
     
    Thanks WTB!

     

    Might mean a buying opportunity is getting closer.
    27 Jun 2014, 09:27 AM Reply Like
  • wtblanchard
    , contributor
    Comments (2435) | Send Message
     
    Not sure what you mean by closer ...

     

    Anyone up on the rules regarding how such sales can be timed related to news which be seen as insider information?

     

    I guess no one would complain/sue if it was good news ...

     

    I take it this wasn't part of a periodic sale which I believe has very different rules.

     

    My guess is there isn't going to be any kind of news for a while ... which is par for the course for ZBB.

     

    And so my guess is a slow drip downward for ZBB.

     

    Sounds vaguely familiar ...
    27 Jun 2014, 10:08 AM Reply Like
  • John Petersen
    , contributor
    Comments (30494) | Send Message
     
    Insider selling is the clearest possible sign that there's nothing significant going on behind the curtain.
    27 Jun 2014, 10:18 AM Reply Like
  • Stefan Moroney
    , contributor
    Comments (2662) | Send Message
     
    I guess the pendulum swings back to Axion, haha.
    27 Jun 2014, 11:44 AM Reply Like
  • WayneinOregon
    , contributor
    Comments (1135) | Send Message
     
    FWIW, I'm not convinced the NS-999 rollout is fully priced into the current pps. My best guess is most everybody who’s currently in a wait and see mode are pretty much in the “show me” category. To me, a 999 rollout is definitely in that category.

     

    The relatively modest BySolar order (that was long over due, similar to the 999) immediately catapulted the pps from .139 to .175 (~25%). Even though it couldn’t be sustained because of a dearth of other sales news in the following weeks, it did jump upon the initial announcement.

     

    I expect something similar from a 999 announcement. Perhaps a bit of this is already priced in, but I would be surprised if it was fully priced in. Given the Bysolar announcement created an initial 25% rise, I expect at least a 10%+ from an NS announcement.
    26 Jun 2014, 12:06 PM Reply Like
  • Rick Krementz
    , contributor
    Comments (2810) | Send Message
     
    Wayne - When I've said the 999 rollout is "baked in", that doesn't mean a short term spike is unlikely. For a trader it may make an opportunity. However, just as the Bysolar blip reverted, I fully expect a 999 rollout to do the same, eg, blip up then revert. Something else is needed to change the needle for long term shareholders.
    26 Jun 2014, 01:12 PM Reply Like
  • DRich
    , contributor
    Comments (4825) | Send Message
     
    >WayneinOregon ... As far as the Axionista crowd is concerned, my view of the NS999 rollout is & has been priced into the shares for quite some time. I know I'm not going to rush out and double down on share count with the announcement. I'm hoping (best case) to draw in some new interest from those that invest in the rail sector and maybe Axion can garner some interest from financiers with a time horizon longer than next quarter.
    26 Jun 2014, 01:15 PM Reply Like
  • nogoodslacker
    , contributor
    Comments (1171) | Send Message
     
    Any bump or blip that we get with the rollout of NS999 will depend on what kind of fanfare NSC makes and what they say about plans for future of electric trains. Anything to change the perception that NSC has lost interest in the concept will help. On the other hand, if it looks like two more years of yard testing before making any kind of commitment, it could actually hurt the stock price.
    26 Jun 2014, 02:46 PM Reply Like
  • iindelco
    , contributor
    Comments (10198) | Send Message
     
    NGS, I agree with your thoughts. Any positive announcement has to include both a thumbs up on the technology and some sense of timing that is favorable to Axion's near term needs. Unfortunately, with Axion's cost of money problem they can't afford greatness someday anymore.
    26 Jun 2014, 03:08 PM Reply Like
  • wtblanchard
    , contributor
    Comments (2435) | Send Message
     
    Aquion Blog post:

     

    A Look at Aquion's Latest Off-Grid Installation at the Redwood Gate Ranch

     

    TAGS: AHI Battery, Off-Grid & Microgrids

     

    http://bit.ly/1qeWDEu

     

    Contains a link to a "white paper" on the project.

     

    "The final system is composed of the following:

     

    Three AHI M100 battery modules (54 kWh)

     

    30 kW Dynapower inverter

     

    GELI Site Control and Web Interface

     

    40 270W PV modules

     

    Solar panel mount

     

    Battery combiner box

     

    Solar combiner box

     

    30 kW backup diesel generator"
    26 Jun 2014, 12:13 PM Reply Like
  • John Petersen
    , contributor
    Comments (30494) | Send Message
     
    alpha5one> IIRC the CTO was the former boss of the control electronics subsidiary ZBB bought a while back. I think the impact of the loss depends on where you see ZBBs future. If it's going to be a battery company the resignation shouldn't matter much. If it's going to be a control electronics company, the loss could be substantial.
    26 Jun 2014, 12:30 PM Reply Like
  • mrholty
    , contributor
    Comments (1109) | Send Message
     
    Thanks for the post WT.

     

    Aquion is not as far along in its development as Axion but you wouldn't know it. Details of installations with pictures help tell a hard to understand story.

     

    I think AXPW price would be 2x more what it is today which would help with financing if the story was simply told in a easier to understand fashion.
    27 Jun 2014, 08:43 AM Reply Like
  • Rick Krementz
    , contributor
    Comments (2810) | Send Message
     
    Aquion has batteries for sale, dealers, and appears to be really "in business". I am presently mulling over a proposal to buy 18 kWh for myself.
    27 Jun 2014, 10:52 AM Reply Like
  • iindelco
    , contributor
    Comments (10198) | Send Message
     
    Why those rotten Koch brothers!

     

    Why the shift to alternate energies continues, despite shale boom

     

    http://reut.rs/1qf80fu
    26 Jun 2014, 01:03 PM Reply Like
  • Masi
    , contributor
    Comments (485) | Send Message
     
    They are using every dirty trick in the book to try and stop common sense and the future. The more than 100 billion the 2 brothers are worth just isn't enough. I feel so bad for them:<(

     

    There are about 2 new stories a month now revealing how they or one of their many political groups continue to ram anti renewable laws through federal, state, and even local city council meetings all over the country. But of course, money is speech now.

     

    I need to quit typing now as my blood pressure has just launched one of my eyeballs across the desk.
    26 Jun 2014, 02:46 PM Reply Like
  • iindelco
    , contributor
    Comments (10198) | Send Message
     
    Masi, Better get that eye before the dog gets a hold of it! ;-D
    26 Jun 2014, 03:11 PM Reply Like
  • D-inv
    , contributor
    Comments (4234) | Send Message
     
    Masi, you might consider finding some help for that condition. Digging a little deeper into economic realities could help. Damn little baseline or peaker U.S. electric power is produced with oil these days and oil price changes have little influence on U.S. electric power prices.
    26 Jun 2014, 03:46 PM Reply Like
  • Masi
    , contributor
    Comments (485) | Send Message
     
    I think you missed my point entirely D-inv. No where in my post did I mention the price of electricity. And it's not just the Kochs. (they were mentioned in ii's article) It is the whole fossil fuel industry, (oil, nat gas, coal) from the drillers/frackers all the way to the refineries and distributors. For over forty years they have put forth false studies, spent 100s of billions lobbying, spent 10s of billions on campaign adds and contributions to do all they can to stop the renewable fuel and related industries from becoming a viable mix within our energy polices.

     

    They pollute the air, dump trillions of gallons of poisons into our water supplies and almost the entire cost of healthcare and clean-up is dumped right on the shoulders of every American and wrold-wide citizen. Every past present and future CEO and upper mgmt should be in prison for crimes against humanity and cruelty to animals. Then they the should be put on chain gangs so they can physically clean up our rivers, oceans and lands and personally wash every creature they soaked with that rotten sludge. They should then have to pay out of their own pocket for the medical care they will need for all their skin lesions and cancer they will have contracted.

     

    If we added in all the costs of the medical and the clean-ups and the loss of wages to the price of a barrel of oil or gas btu's and never forget the wars, renewable energy would be way cheaper by far. I just feel that we the taxpayer have been conned and ripped off and abused long enough.

     

    I'm not naive. I know we need oil especially for plastics and thousands of other chemicals and yes, fuels. But to keep all our eggs in the one basket is insane.

     

    Oh jeez, now the other eye popped out. :-)
    O.K. Have a great week-end you all.
    26 Jun 2014, 05:31 PM Reply Like
  • D Lane
    , contributor
    Comments (1539) | Send Message
     
    Bravo Masi!

     

    The other thing though is that we as a culture and society are complicit in it. We are addicted to the cheap energy. We have been willing to ignore much of the pollution as long as its not in our own backyard.
    26 Jun 2014, 06:28 PM Reply Like
  • ARGE
    , contributor
    Comments (724) | Send Message
     
    re: "launched one of my eyeballs"
    Whole new meaning if looks could kill.
    26 Jun 2014, 07:22 PM Reply Like
  • Masi
    , contributor
    Comments (485) | Send Message
     
    On that I agree D Lane. It's kinda like the frog in the water. The ICE and fuel oil spurred massive economic growth along with thousands of chemicals and plastics. It made it easy to heat our homes and able to get jobs further from home. And who didn't like those Sunday drives. Before we (society) knew about the bad and dangerous effects, it had become so engrained into our lifestyles we saw no other alternative.

     

    But now there are no more excuses. It should be the baby-boomer (my) generation that changes this not our children and grandchildren. We were informed about the pollution and cancer and dangers in high school. Carter put Solar panels on the White House for goodness sake. It was just like learning about the dangers of smoking. Of course smoking wasn't infused into every product we used from cradle to grave.
    26 Jun 2014, 07:28 PM Reply Like
  • D-inv
    , contributor
    Comments (4234) | Send Message
     
    Masi, I've read some distored views of the oil and gas industry in the past but yours 'tops the cake'. I'll limit my remarks on those views n this forum to simple observation that we have profound differences of opinion on fossil fuels and renewable energy technologies.
    26 Jun 2014, 10:23 PM Reply Like
  • Edmund Metcalfe
    , contributor
    Comments (2367) | Send Message
     
    The "bad and dangerous effects" are not nearly as negative as the good effects are fantastically positive.

     

    That said, as a chemist, I'd rather not burn oil or natural gas. I'd rather burn coal and work on carbon sequestration and strategies along that vein.
    27 Jun 2014, 02:07 AM Reply Like
  • WayneinOregon
    , contributor
    Comments (1135) | Send Message
     
    Is the following really true? If so, it would put alternative energy subsidies in a whole new light...
    ---
    "the federal government is subsidizing the fossil fuel industry to the tune of a half-trillion dollars a year in tax breaks, according to the International Monetary Fund."
    27 Jun 2014, 10:21 AM Reply Like
  • H. T. Love
    , contributor
    Comments (18451) | Send Message
     
    WiO: IIRC JP has touched on these before and pointed out that many of the supposed "breaks" are akin to the normal deductions allowed in other industries.

     

    HardToLove
    27 Jun 2014, 10:41 AM Reply Like
  • John Petersen
    , contributor
    Comments (30494) | Send Message
     
    WIO> The numbers seem preposterously large since total US oil production is only a third of a trillion per year, but without the source data there's no way to analyze them.
    27 Jun 2014, 11:03 AM Reply Like
  • tripleblack
    , contributor
    Comments (13589) | Send Message
     
    John, you had me at "preposterous". Downstream of that, its just another dumb article with no logical backup.
    27 Jun 2014, 12:02 PM Reply Like
  • D-inv
    , contributor
    Comments (4234) | Send Message
     
    Agree that without source data (and methodology statement) rigorous assessment of reported IMF estimate is not feasible. One does need to consider more than oil alone for ballpark evaluations, though. Coal and natural gas also come into play.

     

    There is no question, though, that numerous estimates of very large U.S. subsidies to fossile fuel industries have been alleged without defensible substantive foundation.
    27 Jun 2014, 12:46 PM Reply Like
  • Edmund Metcalfe
    , contributor
    Comments (2367) | Send Message
     
    Bunch of BS. The "tax breaks" are not subsidies. They are tax relief. If the industry had to pay the half trillion, they would have no choice but to turn around and get it from us, the people. Tax breaks help create jobs. Tax breaks help people keep money in their pocket. What's wrong with tax breaks? NOTHING!!! I want a tax break. I want my business to get a tax break. I want you to get a tax break.

     

    The people pay all these so-called "business taxes" - business taxes are just a back door means of bending us over and over and over again. Threee times at least. The final straw is the product costs more and so they also collect more sales taxes.

     

    I am against all government taxes on business profits. Businesses can and should be assessed for their use of public resources like water and electricity and roads and regulators and inspectors and the like, but we (should) all understand they will have to pay these costs by raising the prices on their products. You'll never get any product from the government at a fair price; we need our markets to be free and our businesses to thrive. The only part of the economy thriving is the government - that's screwed up!!! They make you pay through the nose (to put it politely, which they don't) for everything they "provide" so they can live high on the hog and horse. It is hard to disagree with those who say screw the government every chance you get, because they are screwing us every day of our lives.
    27 Jun 2014, 01:34 PM Reply Like
  • Masi
    , contributor
    Comments (485) | Send Message
     
    Maybe this will shed some light. The study is old" and I am searching for more.

     

    "The Environmental Law Institute did a study (PDF) on this last year, tallying up how much the U.S. spent, either in grants and direct spending or tax subsidies and foregone revenue, to support fossil fuels and renewable energy from fiscal years 2002 to 2008."

     

    "The data is distressing at a global level as well. A new Bloomberg New Energy Finance study finds that all the world's governments spent $557 billion to subsidize fossil fuels in 2008, while spending only $43-46 billion to subsidize clean energy. The U.S. and Europe made up most of the latter figure, with Europe's "feed-in tariffs" (PDF), which require utilities to buy clean energy and are considered one of the more effective means of spurring renewable energy investment, making up most of its share."

     

    By Dylan Matthews | August 4, 2010; 3:02 PM ET
    Categories: Energy
    http://wapo.st/1m5P9St

     

    edit:

     

    MIT
    TECHNOLOGY
    REVIEW

     

    Kevin Bullis
    July 29, 2010
    Fossil Fuel Subsidies Dwarf Support for Renewables

     

    A report from Bloomberg New Energy Finance details international government energy spending on biofuels and renewable energy.

     

    "Fossil fuels are the backbone of economies worldwide, so governments spend a lot to support them. A new report from Bloomberg New Energy Finance says altogether governments spent between $43 anf $46 billion on renewable energy and biofuels last year, not including indirect support, such as subsidies to corn farmers that help ethanol production. Direct subsidies of fossil fuels came to $557 billion, the report says."
    http://bit.ly/1qCds9Y

     

    edit 2:
    Big Oil's 100-Year Incentive Birthday Bash Hosted by...Biofuels?

     

    Meg Cichon
    March 15, 2013 |

     

    "Happy birthday, Big Oil! A group gathered in Washington D.C. this week to celebrate 100 years of tax subsidies for the oil industry – but attendees certainly weren’t oil-industry insiders – quite the opposite, in fact. The party consisted of more than 50 members of the American Coalition of Ethanol (ACE) and the Iowa Renewable Fuels Association (IRFA), who were in town to meet with members of Congress during the ACE fly-in meeting."

     

    "And what better way to celebrate a birthday than with a custom cake crafted by the infamous Charm City Cakes – it modeled the U.S. Capitol building with an oil rig affixed to its roof, spewing hundred-dollar bills.
    http://bit.ly/1qCey5w
    27 Jun 2014, 05:06 PM Reply Like
  • Masi
    , contributor
    Comments (485) | Send Message
     
    This ones rich. Charles Koch complains about tax subsidies for nat gas subsidies.

     

    "Big Dogs of the Oil Patch Tangle Over Gas Subsidies

     

    Wall Street Journal -- Investor T. Boone Pickens has a vision of American highways in which trucks are powered by natural gas—and nudged along by government subsidies. Charles Koch, one of the richest men in the country, is gunning hard to block taxpayer money from boosting his fellow billionaire's dream."

     

    "Mr. Fink, the Koch executive, said he didn't know the dollar value of OPEC oil the Corpus Christi refinery processes. "Even if we weren't in the business, we would be opposing subsidies,"

     

    http://bit.ly/1m5SnFk

     

    Maybe EPower can team up with T. Boone....
    27 Jun 2014, 05:27 PM Reply Like
  • H. T. Love
    , contributor
    Comments (18451) | Send Message
     
    13:00 ATDF offers 83K @ $0.1525. B/a now 10K $0.1501, $0.1525 83K.

     

    CDEL has had the 243K bid @ $0.15 in almost all day.

     

    USA/Ger 0 0. Portugal leads Ghana 1 0 on an unfortunate, for Ghana, carom off a defenders leg.

     

    If Portugal wins, USA makes round of 16 unless USA loses by 5 goals.

     

    HardToLove
    26 Jun 2014, 01:08 PM Reply Like
  • Masi
    , contributor
    Comments (485) | Send Message
     
    HTL, we made it!!!! USA moves to round 16 with a 1 to 0 loss to Germany. They are beating the odds even in the rain.
    26 Jun 2014, 03:24 PM Reply Like
  • H. T. Love
    , contributor
    Comments (18451) | Send Message
     
    Masi: Yep. If we can get a little rest to get our legs back, we might have a chance. The coach, Jurgen Klinnsman(sp?) and the commentators have mentioned the potential effects of the 1,680 mile travel on the team when their opponents don't have to travel.

     

    One suggested that "playing favorites" was going on.

     

    Klinnsman comments that regardless they just go out and do the job.

     

    When we hired him my hopes went up a lot. Looks like they were justified so far.

     

    MHO,
    HardToLove
    26 Jun 2014, 03:42 PM Reply Like
  • thotdoc
    , contributor
    Comments (1850) | Send Message
     
    MASI-In case my FYA comment is deleted. What you did was stupid and incredibly self centered. Do you not realize people are waiting to go home from work to watch the game.
    26 Jun 2014, 05:27 PM Reply Like
  • Masi
    , contributor
    Comments (485) | Send Message
     
    I'm so sorry doc. The news of us moving on was on every tv station and came thru on both our cell phones. There are people in the streets across America celebrating. Also I was responding to an earlier post.
    26 Jun 2014, 05:48 PM Reply Like
  • RBrun357
    , contributor
    Comments (792) | Send Message
     
    thotdoc,

     

    That certainly does not seem to have been "thought out" by you! At least I am hoping that was a knee jerk reaction on your part.

     

    Not very impressive!
    26 Jun 2014, 06:09 PM Reply Like
  • tripleblack
    , contributor
    Comments (13589) | Send Message
     
    Fans are fans.
    26 Jun 2014, 06:21 PM Reply Like
  • Mr Investor
    , contributor
    Comments (3108) | Send Message
     
    Spoiler Alert!

     

    This just in: Bulls acquire LaBron, Melo and Love, win next year's championship.
    26 Jun 2014, 06:48 PM Reply Like
  • Masi
    , contributor
    Comments (485) | Send Message
     
    You know thotdoc, your swearing at me (in all caps) was uncalled for and really blew me away. Your second post is quite nasty also. It is obvious that you had made the decision to keep yourself in total blackout mode. You made the choice not to know the outcome of the game. Did you not answer your cellphone all afternoon? No media what-so-ever. But yet you came to a public forum, on the internet 2 1/2 hours after the game had ended and went ballistic because a discussion about the U.S.A. team had occurred?

     

    That is all I'm going to say.
    26 Jun 2014, 08:36 PM Reply Like
  • Patrick Young
    , contributor
    Comments (1922) | Send Message
     
    Blah blah blah. It is such a waste of time to complain about the silly things people say. If anything, it's paying a disservice to freedom of speech. If a verbal statement is "offensive", the blame for the harm done is solely on those who are offended. Obviously physical imprisonment or violence, legal exclusion and overt discrimination on the basis of anything besides individual merit should be suspect, if not illegal, but verbal abuse between adults is pretty low on my ethical objection meter.
    26 Jun 2014, 08:58 PM Reply Like
  • thotdoc
    , contributor
    Comments (1850) | Send Message
     
    RB-

     

    I'm human first and not everything is thought out.
    26 Jun 2014, 10:22 PM Reply Like
  • thotdoc
    , contributor
    Comments (1850) | Send Message
     
    Masi-
    You get what you deserve.
    26 Jun 2014, 10:22 PM Reply Like
  • RBrun357
    , contributor
    Comments (792) | Send Message
     
    thotdoc,

     

    Quite obvious!

     

    Still regrettable!
    26 Jun 2014, 10:54 PM Reply Like
  • brianfscott
    , contributor
    Comments (50) | Send Message
     
    Indeed nasty inappropriate and uncalled for. While i have no interest in World Cup soccer, it is no problem to ignore posts that do not interest me. It is impossible to ignore FYA posts, especially from an unrepentant sinner.
    26 Jun 2014, 11:21 PM Reply Like
  • iindelco
    , contributor
    Comments (10198) | Send Message
     
    Thotdoc, I can understand your disappointment as it appears you are really dedicated to the sport. I also hoped that this minor incident would fade away without it being built into a second stage "butter side up vs down" wall. Seems that's not happening.

     

    I do have to disagree with your posturing here. IMO, given that this is an open air environment, you are wrong in your perspective as it relates to learning about a sports score after the fact in the concentrators.

     

    I know you are highly intelligent and I will think no less of you as an outcome of this incident. But you do need to take a step back and think about what has transpired.

     

    My wish would be that you come back and make an apology.

     

    I want no direct response to my position here. I'm certainly not without flaws. I'm just momentarily gifted with the opportunity to throw in an opinion to ring the bell to regroup.
    27 Jun 2014, 12:31 AM Reply Like
  • wtblanchard
    , contributor
    Comments (2435) | Send Message
     
    I would note that there have been brief threads on the "other football" as well as at the least the NCAA college basketball tournament in the last year here.

     

    So expecting this to be a totally sports free zone, especially over something "really big" is, at the least, ignoring APC history.
    27 Jun 2014, 10:45 AM Reply Like
  • Edmund Metcalfe
    , contributor
    Comments (2367) | Send Message
     
    I sympathize, thotdoc, but it's on you. I'm the guy that "liked" your deleted response - passion and fanaticism are so human and I like people - and really, it's just a few "sticks and stones", people, not an everyday thing.

     

    I wouldn't have said anything, but I just clicked on thotdocs "bio" and his website (link below) and you have got to be kidding - ROFL.

     

    http://bit.ly/1m5g94n

     

    American football has an apt response to your "faceplant rant", thotdoc: "Come on , maaaaan!"

     

    That said, I hope you have another reason to get fan-a-tastically fanatic - Go USA soccer!!!
    27 Jun 2014, 01:49 PM Reply Like
  • Edmund Metcalfe
    , contributor
    Comments (2367) | Send Message
     
    oooops, I messed up the nursery rhyme; what I meant was: it's just a few "names", people.
    27 Jun 2014, 02:09 PM Reply Like
  • iindelco
    , contributor
    Comments (10198) | Send Message
     
    Signed as expected.

     

    Bill’s Passage Boosts California Distributed Energy and Storage

     

    http://bit.ly/1jnMqhs
    26 Jun 2014, 01:29 PM Reply Like
  • Masi
    , contributor
    Comments (485) | Send Message
     
    A little off topic. APNT announced today the proxy to vote on the merger will be out Jul 10th. Stock was up 19.4%, now up 6.6%. My GLUU is also up .38 or 9.3%. I needed that.

     

    I don't care so much about my eyeball any more. :>)

     

    P.S. Maybe some news from NS tomorrow and AXPW goes up 18.3%!!
    26 Jun 2014, 03:15 PM Reply Like
  • iindelco
    , contributor
    Comments (10198) | Send Message
     
    :-) Gimme power and make it available often. (-:

     

    Automakers could set up the mainstream use of electric turbos

     

    "The electrical supercharger is better than both conventional turbo or supercharging because it lack the main two setbacks – the lag in the first case and the fact it wastes power while idle for the latter. The electric turbo gives – just like any electric motor – all of its torque from 0 rpm and when not in use it can be switched off."

     

    http://bit.ly/1qgjyiK
    26 Jun 2014, 06:23 PM Reply Like
  • D Lane
    , contributor
    Comments (1539) | Send Message
     
    Eaton Drops Hybrids in North America
    http://bit.ly/1qgmgod
    Cites Expiring Incentives, Diesel Price Stabilization, Rise of NGVs

     

    Eaton confirms that it is exiting the market for hybrid electric vehicles in North America, dropping both power takeoff offerings for utility trucks and fuel-saving parallel drives for delivery trucks, effective immediately.

     

    “The decision was dictated by weakened market demand, especially in the United States,” says an Eaton spokesman.

     

    “We’ve notified our customers,” he told F&F.

     

    Contributing factors include expiring government incentives, a general stabilization in diesel prices, and the rise of natural gas as a heavy duty vehicle fuel, the spokesman said.

     

    Continuing in China and Europe

     

    Eaton dropped its HLA – Hydraulic Launch Assist – parallel hydraulic hybrid product line for refuse trucks in 2013.

     

    Eaton will continue to support some 3,900 hybrid electric vehicles currently deployed in North America, the spokesman says.

     

    And, he said, Eaton will continue its R&D efforts aimed at improving its hybrid electric technology. “We’re moving forward in China and Europe,” he said.

     

    “We see great opportunity in both of those regions.”

     

    ---
    Interesting. I might add that it appears to me that their hybrid solutions were not winners in the market. Competing products from such as Wrightspeed and Odyne soldier on.
    26 Jun 2014, 06:36 PM Reply Like
  • H. T. Love
    , contributor
    Comments (18451) | Send Message
     
    D Lane: Don't forget (PCAR) has efforts on-going with HD trucks too. I know they've been running a (CPST) around the track and likely have other efforts of which I'm not aware.

     

    HardToLove
    27 Jun 2014, 06:53 AM Reply Like
  • metroneanderthal
    , contributor
    Comments (1511) | Send Message
     
    If the Iraq problems expand, I wonder what will happen to the stable diesel price.
    27 Jun 2014, 07:15 AM Reply Like
  • D Lane
    , contributor
    Comments (1539) | Send Message
     
    Thanks HTL, wish I knew more about the PCAR hybridization effort. Seems there has been so little news that its not even on my radar. And I am long CPST.
    27 Jun 2014, 09:29 AM Reply Like
  • D Lane
    , contributor
    Comments (1539) | Send Message
     
    Good point metro
    Prices are already up here on the news from Iraq.
    27 Jun 2014, 09:30 AM Reply Like
  • DRich
    , contributor
    Comments (4825) | Send Message
     
    We here can all hope that diesel & gasoline spike into the $7.00 + price range, even if it is just a temporary spike, on some sort of regional disruption. It would do wonders for battery technology in the transportation sector and, who knows, even Axion. Disaster may be our best hope.
    27 Jun 2014, 11:11 AM Reply Like
  • D-inv
    , contributor
    Comments (4234) | Send Message
     
    Expansion of 'iraq problems' poses no significant real threat to world oil prices unless 1) ISIS captures control of enough oil production to generate ongoing funding for military hardware and munitions or 2) spills over into Kuwait and/or Saudi Arabia.
    27 Jun 2014, 12:55 PM Reply Like
  • greentongue
    , contributor
    Comments (964) | Send Message
     
    An excuse to raise prices does not require a "real threat".
    27 Jun 2014, 01:39 PM Reply Like
  • Retired Aviator
    , contributor
    Comments (2269) | Send Message
     
    Crude is only up $2/bbl with the Iraq mess.
    27 Jun 2014, 01:55 PM Reply Like
  • Kenneth_2003
    , contributor
    Comments (58) | Send Message
     
    UGH... Long time lurker here but geez. I just resisted the temptation to dive into RA & Edmunds climate change argument but congrats you just sucked me in.

     

    "An excuse to raise prices..." An an excuse for whom to raise prices? Oil is traded on markets around the world and priced according to its quality compared to a number of global standards; West Texas Intermediate, Louisiana Light Sweet, Brent, etc. So on a global market where oil is traded first on futures markets before the contracts are finally closed and the commodity moves on spot who is going to raise the prices? It certainly isn't the E&P (Exploration & Production) Companies, "big oil" as the ignorant masses like to refer to it. Or is "big oil" actually the hundreds of thousands of independents working world wide that collectively produce more than the majors? In the end no oil companies, regardless of size can move the global price of oil any more than a butterfly in Brazil can make it snow on Long Island. To think otherwise would require collusion by thousands of players across multiple facets of the industry; private, public, and state. Even OPEC can't control their own members. Any belief that the oil industry controls prices is a utter nonsense.
    27 Jun 2014, 08:11 PM Reply Like
  • Retired Aviator
    , contributor
    Comments (2269) | Send Message
     
    Kenneth> You're right. I have had a dickens of a time trying to convince people that commodity prices that are 'spot quoted' cannot be set by producers, are not where the physical supply and demand curves meet, and are the province of the marginal bidders and offerors on a given day. Spot markets are truly tail wagging the dog situations but very very few understand this. Amazing. I've known folks who've studied precious metals supply and demand for years and still think that physical demand somewhere has to move the price in the paper markets.

     

    Hopefully you were on the good guys side in the climate change debate. :)
    27 Jun 2014, 11:25 PM Reply Like
  • 481086
    , contributor
    Comments (3442) | Send Message
     
    D-inv, I'm often with you in spirit in many arguments, but WRT Iraq and oil, I would just point out that if memory serves they export upwards of 3mil bbls a day via the southern export terminals and pumping stations. Those facilities used to be known as the crown jewels and were critical nodes. Whether ISIS judges them to be targets for destruction or capture we cannot know. At present they probably don't have the capability to take and hold them. And certainly they would be defended by all the power the Shia (ie Iran) can bring to bear, but were they to be seriously damaged, which would be a lot easier, there most certainly would be a significant impact to world prices and supplies. If there were to be extensive damage they could conceivably be offline for many months. Other producers could make up some of the difference of course, but I would think that taking 3mil bbls per day out of circulation for an extended period is definitely going to leave a mark...
    27 Jun 2014, 11:41 PM Reply Like
  • 481086
    , contributor
    Comments (3442) | Send Message
     
    That's because most of the oil is produced and exported in and through the south, ie the shia stronghold areas, which I believe so far have not been disrupted. If the gov't collapses though it could be jump ball.
    27 Jun 2014, 11:45 PM Reply Like
  • D-inv
    , contributor
    Comments (4234) | Send Message
     
    481' ... Haven't tried to follow Iraqi oil sector for some time but understand current violence does impinge on Iraqi refining capacity while not impacting oil producing areas (Kirkuk region in North & Shia dominated South).
    28 Jun 2014, 12:24 AM Reply Like
  • 481086
    , contributor
    Comments (3442) | Send Message
     
    true statement D, though as far as exports go, Kirkuk is of much less magnitude. Also, if we think our electrical grid is bad, Iraq's is horrid. So much of their electricity is generated from liquid fuels. The Bajji refinery is key to that fuel and to keeping the country running internally. If it falls (a big if) it will be a very huge blow...
    28 Jun 2014, 12:56 AM Reply Like
  • Kenneth_2003
    , contributor
    Comments (58) | Send Message
     
    Depending on your point of view, yes I'm on the good guys side. ;)
    28 Jun 2014, 10:47 AM Reply Like
  • Billion003
    , contributor
    Comments (269) | Send Message
     
    I had hoped the hydraulic hybrid technology would catch on. Didn't Renault try using it in automobiles?
    30 Jun 2014, 11:21 AM Reply Like
  • Billion003
    , contributor
    Comments (269) | Send Message
     
    Kenneth,
    Well said but it hard to reason with religious beliefs.
    30 Jun 2014, 11:24 AM Reply Like
  • Kenneth_2003
    , contributor
    Comments (58) | Send Message
     
    Had a paleo-biology prof once comment at the beginning of a semester, as he realized that the subject matter might be a delicate issue for some, "Religion is not a science and science is not a religion."
    1 Jul 2014, 09:24 AM Reply Like
  • Billion003
    , contributor
    Comments (269) | Send Message
     
    His statement does not hold true anymore. Its would be good fodder for a lengthy 'over coffee' conversation.
    1 Jul 2014, 09:53 AM Reply Like
  • Edmund Metcalfe
    , contributor
    Comments (2367) | Send Message
     
    The Copernican Principle alone made a religion of science. Obviously it's gone far beyond that nowadays.
    1 Jul 2014, 10:20 AM Reply Like
  • Kenneth_2003
    , contributor
    Comments (58) | Send Message
     
    The statement holds quite true I believe, sadly people are no longer sufficiently educated or possess the will to make the distinction.

     

    The foundations for religion, any religion, are in faith. Religion and its beliefs cannot be tested or verified by any means. Science on the other hand is founded and rooted in the scientific method. An observation is made, a hypothesis is formed, and an experiment derived to test the hypothesis by elimination and isolation of variables. The hypothesis either holds or must be altered. Of course hypothesis' that stand up to scrutiny can be elevated to a theory, and ultimately to scientific law. Nothing in any modern or ancient religion can be tested in this way. I cannot conduct a test to conclusively prove or disprove the existence of a deity. That must be made by faith alone.

     

    In this case the class we were taking would be studying the fossil record and the evolution of species. For students holding deep religious views the class could be troubling and the professor was putting to rest any discussions before they started. He went on to explain how it is possible to hold religious views and being true to your faith while honoring the scientific method.

     

    Both science and religion have their place, and both have questions that the other cannot answer.
    1 Jul 2014, 11:29 AM Reply Like
  • Edmund Metcalfe
    , contributor
    Comments (2367) | Send Message
     
    You cannot conduct an experiment to prove the planet WILL undergo warming. You cannot conduct an experiment to prove speciation DID occur. You cannot observe Dark Matter. You cannot prove multiverses exist. Some theories suggest there are black holes and dark matter right in front of your eyes. Don't believe it. Or do.

     

    God is far more likely to have created man than any forces proposed by science. Men throughout history have claimed to have seen God, known God, found God and claimed He made us. Had that happened to me, I probably would have said: Yes, Lord, whatever you say. And really, the chance of man being created by chance events is INCREDIBLY if not infinitesimally small. Enter the Copernican Principle, short version: There is NO GOD ALLOWED in science. So you choose to believe it must have happened as the scientists say or as the others say. Faith.

     

    Many concepts in science challenge one to believe something that cannot be proven, so they are in part faith. Science requires faith. Even to believe that scientific "laws" will always be obeyed requires faith.

     

    Faith and science are inseparable; I think of them as the left and right legs I walk on. I can do without one or the other, but balance and beauty will be compromised and the journey to truth and understanding made harder.

     

    That's my faith anyway.
    1 Jul 2014, 12:22 PM Reply Like
  • greentongue
    , contributor
    Comments (964) | Send Message
     
    I fear APH will shut down the Concentrator again.
    1 Jul 2014, 02:10 PM Reply Like
  • iindelco
    , contributor
    Comments (10198) | Send Message
     
    Saleri pense produire 50 % de pompes à eau variables d'ici 2020

     

    http://bit.ly/1qgn9gF

     

    Looking for 50% electric variable displacement water pumps for engine cooling by 2020. Looks like BMW is the most interested but they are also working with VW Group, Jaguar, Volvo, Porsche, Hyundai and Mercedes-Benz.

     

    If anyone speaks French and can share better than I points of interest we'd be much obliged.
    26 Jun 2014, 06:40 PM Reply Like
  • H. T. Love
    , contributor
    Comments (18451) | Send Message
     
    06/26/2014: EOD stuff partially copied from the blog (up now).
    # Trds: 17, MinTrSz: 160, MaxTrSz: 13000, Vol: 75823, AvTrSz: 4460
    Min. Pr: 0.1501, Max Pr: 0.1600, VW Avg. Tr. Pr: 0.1515
    # Buys, Shares: 9 21823, VW Avg Buy Pr: 0.1532
    # Sells, Shares: 7 49500, VW Avg Sell Pr: 0.1507
    # Unkn, Shares: 1 4500, VW Avg Unk. Pr: 0.1520
    Buy:Sell 1:2.27 (28.78% "buys"), DlyShts 2363 (03.12%), Dly Sht % of 'sells' 4.77%

     

    Today we traded $11,487.45 of shares. In light of the few trades and small volume, there's no breakdowns by time or price today – just not worth the effort.

     

    We had one buy of 363 shares at $0.16 at the open. Combined with some of the other buys at $0.1540, we can total to the day's short sales of 2,363.

     

    The 243K bid at $0.15 from CDEL appeared at 10:23 today. It could have been there from the open but was masked by higher bids, beginning with $0.152 x 8.5K, by CDEL from 9:30 until 10:23 or so.

     

    There were no larger trades today.

     

    Although we managed to improve the buy percentage again, it's should not be given any weight with this kind of volume.

     

    Recent VWAPs oldest through today: $0.1517, ...

     

    We traded completely above and closed above my short-term descending resistance again. I'm figuring it's out of play now as the near-term outlook is that $0.15 will continue to hold and the line is well below that now.

     

    The longer-term rising support I described a few days back (short form: low of 2/24 through the low of 6/23) was broken today by the low and the close. For now I suspect it also will not affect anything. If we start to get a rise in share price, the line may come back into play as resistance, so I'll leave in place.

     

    We are still roughly mid-point of the Bollinger range, $0.14~0.145 - $0.1775.

     

    Today's low, high, VWAP, trade volume, and daily short sales moved 0.07%, 0.00%, 0.11%, -53.05% and -95.32% respectively. Price spread today was 6.60% vs. 6.67%, 1.93%, 2.80%, 2.32%, 1.64%, 1.91%, 4.26%, 4.53% and 1.95% on prior days.

     

    The usual, but less numbers are in the blog here.
    http://seekingalpha.co...

     

    HardToLove
    26 Jun 2014, 07:04 PM Reply Like
  • brianfscott
    , contributor
    Comments (50) | Send Message
     
    thotdoc: Shame! Congrats on attaining zero credibility!
    26 Jun 2014, 10:13 PM Reply Like
  • bazooooka
    , contributor
    Comments (3516) | Send Message
     
    I too didn't want to know the score and I avoided all Internet (and TV, radio, etc) knowing that I might be lucky if I can get home for lunch and watch on my DVR before someone inadvertently spoils it for me.

     

    Anyhow, I think people should expect this to be discussed on the Internet. Heck, If it wasn't for off-topic stuff we'd all die from boredom watching paint dry.
    26 Jun 2014, 10:37 PM Reply Like
  • mrholty
    , contributor
    Comments (1109) | Send Message
     
    Agreed. It makes me think of this.

     

    http://bit.ly/1m4qihN
    27 Jun 2014, 08:48 AM Reply Like
  • Masi
    , contributor
    Comments (485) | Send Message
     
    Thank You. That was great.
    27 Jun 2014, 11:09 AM Reply Like
  • Stilldazed
    , contributor
    Comments (2151) | Send Message
     
    Hiya Bazo,
    There's paint to watch? Darn it, I've been watching the grass I've been told not to water for growth. ;-)
    27 Jun 2014, 04:23 AM Reply Like
  • tripleblack
    , contributor
    Comments (13589) | Send Message
     
    I hate grass. Far as I am concerned, its just miniature kudzu.
    27 Jun 2014, 09:39 AM Reply Like
  • Edmund Metcalfe
    , contributor
    Comments (2367) | Send Message
     
    No way! You can smoke kudzu?
    27 Jun 2014, 10:15 AM Reply Like
  • tripleblack
    , contributor
    Comments (13589) | Send Message
     
    Yes. And eat it, too.

     

    Of course, there is no accounting for some folks' taste.
    27 Jun 2014, 12:04 PM Reply Like
  • iindelco
    , contributor
    Comments (10198) | Send Message
     
    Butt alas the leaves are rather small. So not much use for what I was thinkin.
    27 Jun 2014, 12:10 PM Reply Like
  • wtblanchard
    , contributor
    Comments (2435) | Send Message
     
    Energy developer Highview to raise £400,000

     

    Last updated: 26th Jun 2014

     

    http://bit.ly/1jUCDiR

     

    "Highview Power Storage, which has a fully operational pilot plant in Slough, said it plans to use the investment to enter the first commercial stage of its development cycle.
    Highview is raising the investment through equity crowdfunding platform SyndicateRoom.

     

    ...

     

    Earlier this year, Highview received more than £8m from the Department of Energy and Climate Change to build a commercial scale liquid air energy storage (LAES) system. The project will be hosted by waste management company Viridor and located in Greater Manchester, to be completed in mid 2015."
    27 Jun 2014, 09:03 AM Reply Like
  • D Lane
    , contributor
    Comments (1539) | Send Message
     
    Bullish on alt energy:
    http://bit.ly/1jUJTLw
    "The bottom line is that the alternative energy market continues to grow rapidly. Even those who are loyal oil & gas investors must admit that the growth potential in the alternative energy space – particularly solar and wind – is absolutely astounding. And this is not a trend that will peter out any time soon.

     

    In fact, according to Bloomberg's New Energy Finance, 70 percent of new power generation capacity added between 2012 and 20130 will be from alternative energy technologies. This is huge.

     

    Point is, there is no reason for you to not have at least a small portion of your portfolio dedicated to the alternative energy space." --By Jeff Siegel
    27 Jun 2014, 09:32 AM Reply Like
  • LT
    , contributor
    Comments (5550) | Send Message
     
    re: Iindelco's article above on Solar,

     

    There are many hidden costs to fossil fuel pollution. Below are some things to watch....

     

    Also as to Solar subsidies, as Iinde's article pointed out that fossil fuel subsidies are 6x what solar & wind are,

     

    Alternative energy is here to stay, most all articles have it scaling in continuously and to start is was a 20 year plan, and we are 5 years into that...with quite startling results as efficiency has doubled, costs is half what it was 5 years ago and nearing parity with the grid .. and it's just getting started.

     

    Axionistas should praise and push this because every installation has the potential for a Power Cube. Below are just a few links, Google solar panel efficiency and costs...and
    Watch China as they gradually scale towards cleaner burning fuels and Clean Energy.

     

    Doubling of Beijing’s cancer rate spurs pollution fears
    http://on.mktw.net/1m4...

     

    Solar efficiency headed toward 60-80% (up from 15-25% now)
    http://bit.ly/1m4xpqv

     

    U.S. Utility-Scale Solar 60 Percent Towards Cost-Competition Goal

     

    February 12, 2014 - 11:05am
    http://1.usa.gov/1m4xpqy
    27 Jun 2014, 09:32 AM Reply Like
  • John Petersen
    , contributor
    Comments (30494) | Send Message
     
    Navigant has just put out a report suggesting that residential generation and energy storage will flatline for the next decade with a CAGR of 2.7%.

     

    http://bit.ly/1m4C7Va

     

    I find it amazing given the ~80% CAGR they're predicting for grid scale applications of advanced batteries over the next decade, but it's entirely consistent with my thesis that the growth will all be focused in commercial and utility users rather than individuals.

     

    http://bit.ly/1m4C7Vf
    27 Jun 2014, 10:02 AM Reply Like
  • LT
    , contributor
    Comments (5550) | Send Message
     
    a different opinion on the 2.7%

     

    3 Companies Poised To Benefit From The Switch To Solar
    http://seekingalpha.co...

     

    Summary

     

    Within the next five years, 57% of global energy consumers would be interested in solar panel or connected-home solution installation as more people seek to lower their energy bills.

     

    Seven percent of energy consumers worldwide are currently interested in solar panel installation options.
    27 Jun 2014, 08:50 PM Reply Like
  • John Petersen
    , contributor
    Comments (30494) | Send Message
     
    Since Navigant (formerly Pike Research) has been one of the most bullish cleantech analysts for years, I find their summary conclusion startling to say the least.

     

    Unfortunately they won't give me courtesy copies like Lux does and I don't have $4,000 to spend on a report.
    27 Jun 2014, 08:57 PM Reply Like
  • Retired Aviator
    , contributor
    Comments (2269) | Send Message
     
    How is going from $55b to $72b "flatlining"? I call it a 30% increase. It's also a measure of revenues paid to homeowners in dollars. A better measure of PV adoption would be kWh generated by homeowners.
    27 Jun 2014, 11:35 PM Reply Like
  • John Petersen
    , contributor
    Comments (30494) | Send Message
     
    Compared to past growth rates that frequently exceeded 30% a year, 2.7% a year is flatlining. If you'd prefer the kinder gentler term plateauing that suits me too.
    28 Jun 2014, 06:57 AM Reply Like
  • wtblanchard
    , contributor
    Comments (2435) | Send Message
     
    So ... who wants to call Axion and ask for the new California/Hawaii sales persons/team TG promised us by the end of the quarter?

     

    Tick tock.

     

    End of the quarter ... seems like a CFO might come in handy as well.

     

    Anyone know what the SEC requires of AXPW w.r.t. having a CFO sign anything w.r.t. quarterly reports?

     

    Anybody got the number for this guy?

     

    http://bit.ly/1m4G4t2
    27 Jun 2014, 10:24 AM Reply Like
  • iindelco
    , contributor
    Comments (10198) | Send Message
     
    Why am I thinking...

     

    http://bit.ly/1m4HQu8
    27 Jun 2014, 10:35 AM Reply Like
  • Mr Investor
    , contributor
    Comments (3108) | Send Message
     
    http://bit.ly/1jVgPUh

     

    and, at 1:55---http://bit.ly/1m4Ut8w (although it's all too funny. Caution: Swear Alert)
    27 Jun 2014, 11:41 AM Reply Like
  • Masi
    , contributor
    Comments (485) | Send Message
     
    Did you watch the "were are they now" video after the "What about Bob"? The kid that played "Ziggy" has since graduated from MIT in 2000 with a physics degree and in 2006 from Yale Law with a Juris Doctor degree. Quite impressive and very different from what usually happens to child actors/actresses in tinsel town.
    27 Jun 2014, 11:54 AM Reply Like
  • Billion003
    , contributor
    Comments (269) | Send Message
     
    Has there been any discussion on when the Axion stock holders meeting will be? Will the board be present at the meeting?
    27 Jun 2014, 10:32 AM Reply Like
  • AlbertinBermuda
    , contributor
    Comments (794) | Send Message
     
    I bet the Board will be there with broad grins if there has been an announcement and not if there has not.
    27 Jun 2014, 11:30 AM Reply Like
  • iindelco
    , contributor
    Comments (10198) | Send Message
     
    Last year it was held on Sept. 26th.

     

    http://bit.ly/1jVho0q

     

    The year before it was held on June 21.

     

    http://bit.ly/1jVhmp4
    27 Jun 2014, 11:43 AM Reply Like
  • Billion003
    , contributor
    Comments (269) | Send Message