Seeking Alpha

Mayascribe's  Instablog

Mayascribe
Send Message
Trade stocks by day, and at night am writing a historical epic about the ancient Mayan civilization. "Maya: Spirits Of The Jaguar" is a sweeping saga set in the ancient and magical Mayan landscape where a wronged family struggles against prophecy, power, treachery and forbidden love,... More
  • Axion Concentrator 41: Beginning Jan. 2, 2012 220 comments
    Jan 2, 2012 6:24 PM
    I believe it is important to note in the Thomas Granville interview posted by jlyleluce in the past Concentrator that the PowerCube costs about $900,000 and uses just over 600 PbC batteries. Further, that the initial PowerCube at the Axion Power New Castle, PA plant was designed such that people could walk inside of the Cube to see it. With out the walk-in arrangement, the .5 megawatt PowerCube will have a 20 foot long imprint, which I assume can then be doubled to a full megawatt of over 1200 "transportable" batteries that can be hauled aboard a single tractor trailor bed.

    At the late November unveiling of the PowerCube, Thomas Granville told me that the PowerCube can be "moved" as a utility or company deems neccesary due to the change in the seasons.

    Beneath is the pasted in interview (and special thanks to jlyeluce for the link!):


    How Axion Uses Their Energy Storage Technology To Make Money From PJMinShare6

    Tom Granville, CEO of Axion Power International, discusses the battery solutions that his company offers to customers and how Axion is taking advantage of a new FERC ruling to generate an additional revenue stream from the the grid.

    Full Transcript:

    Ben lack:Briefly talk a little bit about the company why you guys are in business and what your typical customer is?
    Tom Granville:Axion Power International was formed in Toronto in 2003 and it was formed primarily to obtain license rights to a unique hybrid battery/supercapacitor technology. The long term goal, however, was to purchase the patents and the company from the actual scientists that did the years of research on the carbon and actually came up with the concept and idea for this “hybrid”. We formed Axion in September of 2003. We negotiated a license agreement with the scientists in November 2003 and as part of that license agreement, in order to buy the patents with cash, shares of stock and options, we needed to be a public company according to the inventors. So, we found a clean shell, Tamboril Cigar Company which was a Hunt Brother’s shell. The shell expired at the end of 2003 and that’s actually how I spent my new year’s eve in 2003. We closed that 10:30 at night Eastern Time. With a group from Switzerland who had ownership of a public Hunt Brothers shell and we became a public company at that point in time. The first week in January of 2004, we bought the patents and the following week, we bought the company and moved forward to develop a product that was commercializeable.We were all great believers in the technology, the potential of the technology but what the scientists had developed and what was commercially feasible were two different things.

     

    In the process of moving the technology forward, we found an opportunity here in New Castle, Pennsylvania to obtain a full blown laboratory and a battery production company called New Castle Battery Company. A 75,000 sq/ft plant, equipment and inventory was being foreclosed on by a bank with a first position. We moved forward, we closed with the bank and bought everything for literally pennies on the dollar. We made the bank whole and the bank dealt with the other creditors. We were then able to transition the company down here, so that by the beginning of 2007 the entire operation was here in New Castle, Pennsylvania.

    The old New Castle Battery Company had been making SLI batteries and other products for decades, literally. So, we inherited the line and some of the key personnel from the old company. We signed a long term lease on the property and began to truly move toward commercialization of our propriatary lead-carbon product. We continued to make other specialty battery products that New Castle had made for years. Things like the 16v race car battery and collector car batteries for antique cars, but that was a very limited market and still is. We still continue to make those products.

    We make other specialty lead acid battery products as well, but our real task here and our real reason for existence is the PbC® battery, our proprietary PbC battery which is comprised of an activated carbon negative electrode, which gives the battery its unique properties. Those unique properties include long cycle life, 3-4 times longer when compared to lead acid batteries; much greater charge acceptance than lead acid batteries, especially in partial state of charge applications, 10-20 times better charge acceptance; and a much less expensive price than lithium-ion or nickel metal hydride – a third to a quarter of the price of those technologies. Our product incorporates the lead acid battery structure, in that we use the same case, cover, separator, electrolyte and positive plate. Everything is the same as a lead acid battery except for the proprietary negative electrode that utilizes activated carbon in the construct of the negative plate.

    These negative plates can be stacked, and are stacked, in our manufacturing process right on the line, so that as a battery comes down the line, one of the new activated carbon plates is utilized instead of the traditional lead plate negative. It’s the same form factor. The battery is the same footprint as a standard lead acid battery. In fact, when you weld the cover on, you can’t tell the difference between our battery and a lead acid battery. That is until you actually pick it up and you realize it’s about 30% lighter because we’ve taken the lead out of the negative side.

    Ben Lack:Axion is in a unique position to take advantage of current energy storage opportunities because you really play in the States. Talk to us a little bit about the recent FERC regulation that’s allowing small electric providers to supply power to larger power grids and how small businesses are taking advantage. Your company is one of two companies to kind of take advantage of this new ruling. Tell us a little bit about how you found out about the ruling, what the ruling is and why your company has decided to take advantage of it.
    Tom Granville:Well, we were actually assembling the PowerCube™, our trademark PowerCube™, in advance of the FERC discussions. We received a grant from the state to help us develop that PowerCube. The PowerCube™ has wide range application for utility, for wind, for solar and for other storage applications.About a year ago, Veridity, a strategic partner of ours from the other side of the state, (Philadelphia area is where they are headquartered now – they were in Valley Forge) , approached us and we began discussions about the anticipated new FERC regulations and how we might be able to participate in conjunction with PJM in utility market applications. In addition to that, Viridity has been a strategic partner of ours, and we have submitted several RFPs with them for other applications for that Cube product. Applications such as military bases, replacing gensets that burn diesel fuel , also an oil rig application again doing the work of existing gensets. These applications can be satisfied using the Cube technology. The specific application that we’ve entered into with PJM is here at our New Castle plant. I’m sure you’re familiar with PJM , they are the largest RTO in the world literally. It’s pretty amazing what they generate. They delivered 682 terawatt-hours of electricity in 2009, for example. They are ahead of the curve on the opportunity generated by the FERC ruling that now allows systems smaller than 1/2MW to connect to the grid. PJM was confident this change would happen and that it would be a first step for them in moving to take advantage of things like community storage, and to take advantage of the opportunity to work in the demand-response and curtailment markets as well. So, the FERC regulation, for the first time allowed power to come directly on the grid from smaller sources and allowed for the RTOs to take advantage of power systems that were less than a half a megawatt, all the way down to 100kva. Our Cube is actually a half a megawatt but we’re starting out at lower levels and building from there. We’re starting out at 100kva, 100 up and 100 down so literally 200, and building on that until we reach our capacity here on the PJM network. Our battery also has unique properties in that it can respond in milliseconds. The requirement is to respond in three minutes or less, but our ability to respond in ~50 milliseconds is going to be very important to the structure of demand-response beginning in 2012, when the RTOs will begin to “pay for performance”. In other words, the faster you can respond to their signal for curtailment, or frequency regulation, the more they will pay for that service.What we will do, how we will utilize it in the beginning, is we’ll bid to PJM through Viridity’s proprietary electronics. We’ll bid into the PJM system the night before as to what pricing we’ll accept for curtailment or for frequency regulation. We can bid it that way with a specific number, or we can bid at PJM’s suggested value and take what they are offering that day. So far, we’ve done both.
    Ben Lack:What’s been more profitable?
    Tom Granville:It’s been more profitable when we price it out. However, we haven’t always been successful in obtaining our bid price. We found that it’s gone for lower pricing.
    Ben Lack:What would you say was your success rate?
    Tom Granville:It’s very early. We just started this literally 9 days ago. The first day in action was the 28th. We did a trial run on the 22nd, I believe it was, but really the first day was on the 28th. So, it’s very early and we’re still doing some testing, as well with Viridity. We are the first ones to utilize their system with a PowerCube™ actually. Our Cube will be bi-directional, it will be different than the waterworks project for example, which can’t provide energy back to the grid. We can do that. We’re not set up to do that right now but we will be doing that in the next several weeks. Right now, we can do is curtail the power use that we have in the plant, when PJM requires it or when they ask for it or when we’re the successful bidder and then we run the plant with our Cube batteries until we can come back online. We will recharge the batteries in off-peak time, so that we’re prepared for the next event. Of course we can also accept power from PJM as part of our frequency regulation service and be paid for that. In the future, we’ll be able to both curtail power as well as respond to a need by PJM for more power on the grid, and we’ll accomplish that by feeding our power from the Cube right into the grid.
    Ben Lack:In the 9 days that you’ve been testing, has the testing gone smoothly?
    Tom Granville:As smoothly as one could expect, I guess. If the truth be known, it’s gone smoother than I thought it was going to because it was so brand new and, you know, we were working 20 hours/day in the days leading up to going on line as we worked out the bugs with the utility and with Viridity and since it’s the first time they had done this , you can imagine the software nightmares that were incurred. Our Axion team deserves all the praise on this end, for bringing this project to fruition. So, I’m very encouraged by the way it’s gone. Certainly it’s not been without pot holes but it’s gone much more smoothly than I anticipated, let alone hoped for.
    Ben Lack:In the 9 days that you’ve been testing “inaudible-14:04” initial phases, you mentioned that you are, the night before, putting in your own pricing for what you’ll accept and then there’s also a pricing that PJM recommends. What’s the difference in that range between the pricing you’ll accept and the pricing that PJM is recommending?
    Tom Granville:I’d rather not get into that but you’re not talking about 25%, you’re talking about a number much lower than that. Just to give you a range.
    Ben Lack:Why are you in this business?
    Tom Granville:We are in the business of showing the application for the Cube and how the Cube can be of service to a utility, or to a plant, or to a wind farm, or a solar farm, or to a number of other applications. We’re going to be able to do, with this Cube, much more than just demand-response and frequency regulation. We’re going to be able to do power smoothing, UPS backup and be able to try our hand at peak shaving. All of the above will be items that can be accomplished through the Cube. The oil rig application, which we see as a big opportunity going forward. It will give oil well drillers the ability to shut off ancillary motor generator sets that they just run on idle standby. They run these in the event that they need a quick boost of power if the bit gets locked in the hole or for some other reason they might need fast power. It takes the motor generator set, depending on the manufacturer, between 6-8 minutes to power up completely including the lead time for someone to manually go over and start it assuming that the automatic transfer, for some reason, would fail. We can provide instantaneous power for them, so they can shut those gensets off and they don’t run idle and they don’t emit all kinds of CO2and NOX emissions and burn literally thousands of gallons of diesel doing nothing.

     

    This Cube is the test tower, if you will; it’s our display model. The reason we made it over size, was so that people can get into the Cube and walk around and look at it and see exactly how it operates. This is a 40 foot container that we have here on site. Future containers will only be 20 feet and they’ll be able to contain the same amount of power. Future electronics will be separate from the Cube. They’re in our Cube right now, but for larger storage projects, we’ll have multiple pods, if you will, all connected to the power module. We’re actually doing testing, in the Cube, for the Norfolk Southern hybrid locomotive application. In that application, we will have large strings of batteries similar to those that are contained in this Cube. It’s important to have the batteries equalized and in sync, if you will, and this Cube provides us with the opportunity to test that string equalization feature of our proprietary PbC® lead carbon battery. The batteries, and battery strings, work in unison in providing uniform discharges resulting in less reliance on our propriatary battery management system.

Back To Mayascribe'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 (220)
Track new comments
  • Mayascribe
    , contributor
    Comments (9912) | Send Message
     
    Author’s reply » Last comment made in the previous Concentrator fro bangwhiz:

     

    Very useful Axion document posted on Brand X by Indelco described as "TG's old CERA presentation." Lots of info on the oil rig application as well as other target markets. Pdf is here:http://bit.ly/sujUdU\

     

    I don't know when this presentation occurred, or what or where it was. JP?
    2 Jan 2012, 06:25 PM Reply Like
  • John Petersen
    , contributor
    Comments (30185) | Send Message
     
    Tom spoke at CERA week 2010 in Houston. I'm not entirely clear about which slides he used because the deck seems a bit disjointed. There is a press release on Axion's website that describes CERA Week more fully.
    3 Jan 2012, 12:00 AM Reply Like
  • Mayascribe
    , contributor
    Comments (9912) | Send Message
     
    Author’s reply » Please remember to thumbs up this concentrator, which can be located right above the first comment. Thanks!
    2 Jan 2012, 06:26 PM Reply Like
  • wtblanchard
    , contributor
    Comments (2431) | Send Message
     
    Nice data source on the Quercus/Gelbaum sales:

     

    http://bit.ly/oNHcd3
    2 Jan 2012, 10:57 PM Reply Like
  • bangwhiz
    , contributor
    Comments (2248) | Send Message
     
    Like it WTB. I bookmarked it for future quick reference. Great find.
    Showed Quercus sales from 12/19 thru 12/27 of 245,000. Didn't have sales posted for the 28th thru 30th which had two 1M plus share days depending on how you count OTCBB sales.

     

    In any event, using 10% of sales for Quercus for the 3 missing days in December and assuming 10% of daily volume then those three additional days Quercus could have unloaded another 273,960 - for a total of 518,960 by Dec 30 of the new Form 4 850K sale registration on 12/19/11.

     

    That would leave 331,040 shares to be sold under the current registration. If volume averaged 250K per day in January then Quercus would be done by Jan 15 (assuming 10% of volume) under the current registration. I suppose they would just file a new Form 4, but JP is the go to guy on that question.

     

    If you assume Quercus sells all of its remaining 3.2M shares at 10% of volume and volume averages 250K per day Quercus would not finish selling all its shares until mid-summer. This albatross is going to hang around our neck until around the end of Q2 if daily sales average 250K in 2012.

     

    JP will probably correct my average daily volume numbers, but December sales were so high I doubt if average volume numbers based on December sales would accurately estimate average daily volume for 2012. We'll find out more tomorrow.
    3 Jan 2012, 12:27 AM Reply Like
  • John Petersen
    , contributor
    Comments (30185) | Send Message
     
    A consistent seller is never a problem unless they're willing to sell an unlimited number of shares into the market every day. Quercus has a 9 month history of almost never accounting for more than 10% of daily volume. That is not an albatross. It's just an assured source of supply which is something every market needs.

     

    The problem over the last 9 months is that Special Sits wanted to sell it's position as quickly as possible and didn't feel constrained by the fact that other holders might want to sell at the same time. They started pushing around the pay window by dropping their offer to a level that would bring the market to them in preference to everybody else. That left Quercus and all of the other people who wanted to sell in a position where they had to match or better the offer if they wanted to get any shares off. That's the reason that you saw a gradual but smooth decline in the price.

     

    It's like two really fat guys who want to leave a nightclub. If they're gentlemen and willing to take turns things flow smoothly. If they're competitive and willing to fight about who's going to leave first, there is a big crush.

     

    If I'm right about Special Sits being gone with no other big sellers waiting in the wings, Quercus will almost certainly hang back and let the price rise if that's what the price wants to do. If I'm right about the bulk of the float being in the hands of our Concentrator buddies things could change very quickly because the market is used to the idea that it can buy 150,000 shares a day. If a smaller number of shares is offered, the buyers will outnumber the sellers and the price has to rise.
    3 Jan 2012, 01:19 AM Reply Like
  • H. T. Love
    , contributor
    Comments (17886) | Send Message
     
    WTB: great find. I wonder if I might be able to integrate with the other data points I collect. Have to give a try and see.

     

    Thanks,
    HardToLove
    3 Jan 2012, 06:20 AM Reply Like
  • bangwhiz
    , contributor
    Comments (2248) | Send Message
     
    JP> "A consistent seller is never a problem..." I would like to see where the price would be without their constant selling presence.
    3 Jan 2012, 09:53 AM Reply Like
  • Mayascribe
    , contributor
    Comments (9912) | Send Message
     
    Author’s reply » wtb: First...fabulous website! I Favorited it. Thanks.

     

    Second...only 245,000 Quercus shares sold in all of December?

     

    Where are the blueberries, syrup and "New Hope Mills" pancake batter?

     

    Lately, we've eaten that for breakfast!
    2 Jan 2012, 11:07 PM Reply Like
  • John Petersen
    , contributor
    Comments (30185) | Send Message
     
    Quercus hasn't filed a Form 4 to cover the last three days so my guess is the total for December will come in closer to 518,000 shares. Unless demand falls way off, their sales should be little more than daily speed bumps on a go forward basis.

     

    The last year has been tough because we had two persistent sellers in competition with each other. Any time that happens it drives the price down. There's no reason for one seller to drop his price unless he figures that he can sell more shares every day if he does so. If I'm right and Special Situations is now but a memory 2012 will look nothing like 2011.
    3 Jan 2012, 12:23 AM Reply Like
  • lsd_lsm
    , contributor
    Comments (134) | Send Message
     
    Hope you are correct, sir!
    3 Jan 2012, 02:47 AM Reply Like
  • FocalPoint Analytics
    , contributor
    Comments (6004) | Send Message
     
    I decided to take a peak at the Form 4s. http://tinyurl.com/7jo...

     

    Quercus Trust (California live oak), the Gelbaum’s, sold 14,983,978 shares last year. They still own 3,582,451 shares as of the last Form 4 filed on December 27, 2011. So far they have sold 80.7% of their holdings as of March 1, 2011.. So we have another 20% to go.

     

    Shares Axion owned as of March 1 18,566,429
    Shares Axion owned as of December 21 3,582,451

     

    I thought the Gelbaum name sounded familiar. David Gelbaum is the CEO of Entech Solar. He is a huge investor in clean tech the Sieral Club and many other highly relevant causes.
    3 Jan 2012, 07:05 AM Reply Like
  • John Petersen
    , contributor
    Comments (30185) | Send Message
     
    Quercus invested $18 million in Axion in 2008. For that investment it received 8,571,429 shares of common stock and 10 million warrants that were originally exercisable at $2.65 and are currently exercisable at $0.75 per share.

     

    Since Quercus has not exercised any of the warrants and its last Form 4 shows 3,427,451 shares of common stock remaining, its total sales to date amount to 5,143,978 shares.

     

    The warrants expire in 2013 on the anniversary dates of the three investment tranches Quercus made in 2008.
    3 Jan 2012, 09:03 AM Reply Like
  • jakurtz
    , contributor
    Comments (1930) | Send Message
     
    FPA,

     

    I believe MrHolty found Gelbaum injected money into his Entech Solar at about the same rate he was receiving capital from his sales of Axion. It makes sense, him being the CEO of Entech, to try to keep it alive with capital he can get out of Axion, probably one of his more liquid and stable company's. Him still having over 10M warrants in Axion won't exactly be chump change should Axion do what we are all hoping it does.
    3 Jan 2012, 12:12 PM Reply Like
  • John Petersen
    , contributor
    Comments (30185) | Send Message
     
    It will take some solid performance for Quercus to come out whole on Axion. They invested $18 million in 2008 and will have to pay another $7.5 million to exercise the warrants, bringing their cumulative total to $25.5 million if all the warrants are exercised.

     

    My back of the napkin calculation says they cleared about $3.5 million from last year's sales. If you add it all together, they'll need a price of $2.20 on the 10 million warrant shares to cover their losses from last year and break even overall. Frankly I'd love to see them make a pile of money, but that's the cheerleader in me talking.
    3 Jan 2012, 12:27 PM Reply Like
  • Futurist
    , contributor
    Comments (2127) | Send Message
     
    FPA,
    Gelbaum is a name we on the Axion Concentrator know very well. He was a large investor in the last financing round that saved Axion from the clutches of the Exide evil empire.

     

    His mutual fund has been selling some shares of several companies in order to fund redemptions and in order to not have to sell shares in weaker companies the fund owns.

     

    Gelbaum still has enough warrants on Axion stock to make the investment worthwhile. Every once in a while a poster will make the assumption that Gelbaum is selling because he doesn't believe in Axion. Most believe that to be a false assumption. Hope this helps you understand the dynamics better.

     

    Every time I start feeling bad about my clean tech portfolio I stop and think of poor Mr. Gelbaum. Here is a guy way out in front of the curve in his investment strategy with as bad a timing strategy as I have ever witnessed.
    Just goes to show you. Being early to the party is not always a good thing
    3 Jan 2012, 07:31 AM Reply Like
  • John Petersen
    , contributor
    Comments (30185) | Send Message
     
    Please allow me to correct a couple minor misconceptions. First, the Gelbaum investment was an $18 million financing that closed in three tranches in 2008; $4 million in January; $4 million in April and $10 in June. He paid $2.10 per share if you don't attribute any value to the warrants. The Quercus financing carried Axion through the crash and paid for the design and fabrication of the Gen1 electrode line.

     

    The Quercus trust is not an investment fund, it's a family investment trust and the half-billion it invested in cleantech companies in 2007 and 2008 was all Gelbaum money. Quercus hasn't been selling to fund redemptions. It's been selling its more liquid portfolio investments to support its weaker investments.

     

    His original plan was very smart. He wanted to provide early round financing for a large portfolio of public and private cleantech companies and then bring in his VC buddies for later rounds at a higher price. The 2008 crash absolutely destroyed that plan as his VC buddies started dropping like flies and scaling back their investments. That left Quercus with way too many hungry mouths to feed.

     

    This Concentrator series started with Maya's report on Axion's shareholder meeting where David Anthony, Quercus' board representative, explained why Quercus was forced to sell at huge losses. It's worth re-reading from time to time:

     

    http://seekingalpha.co...
    3 Jan 2012, 09:22 AM Reply Like
  • Futurist
    , contributor
    Comments (2127) | Send Message
     
    John,
    Thanks for cleaning up those errors. It is important to note that this is actually private money at work and not an unknown money manager in the mutual fund world. Thanks for pointing that out.

     

    Obviously Gelbaum has a significant belief in clean tech. I hope his Axion investment makes him 100 Million. I wish him that simply because I am that caring a fellow.
    3 Jan 2012, 08:55 PM Reply Like
  • John Petersen
    , contributor
    Comments (30185) | Send Message
     
    I'd love to see him make two or three times that much.
    3 Jan 2012, 11:49 PM Reply Like
  • Mayascribe
    , contributor
    Comments (9912) | Send Message
     
    Author’s reply » JP: I'm definitely into that thought!

     

    Futurist: Do you realize how many new AC millionaires that idea would create?

     

    I want my Axionista T-shirt made out of emu.
    4 Jan 2012, 12:27 AM Reply Like
  • FocalPoint Analytics
    , contributor
    Comments (6004) | Send Message
     
    Yes, they are getting killed with redemptions. The presence of the warrants is nice, but we all have a very good idea that Axion is a winner. I hate to see anyone take such a shackling. This man does good works.

     

    We also have another 3.5 million shares that have the potential of going on the market. He started selling back in March when Axion was at .75. It’s now at .27.

     

    I suspect the lower the stock goes, the greater the incentive to buy given all the positives that have been uncovered about this stock. I see strong insider buying., and I see concentrators buying … that’s good.

     

    Is there any way to know the total number of shares sold and bought by month for 2011? I would love the see the shape of the resultant curve for the ratio of buy to sells. I suspect it will be concave… If we had that data, we could fit the curve and come up with another estimate of the bottom. As you can see, I am a bottom feeder… I would like to double down but before I do that, I would like to have an estimate of the bottom.
    3 Jan 2012, 08:22 AM Reply Like
  • lsd_lsm
    , contributor
    Comments (134) | Send Message
     
    FPA -

     

    "I see strong insider buying" - where do you see that?
    3 Jan 2012, 08:56 AM Reply Like
  • FocalPoint Analytics
    , contributor
    Comments (6004) | Send Message
     
    Sorry, mis-spoke on that... I was looking at the buying on the insider page.. did not notice the date.... the insider buying was in the past.
    3 Jan 2012, 09:04 AM Reply Like
  • John Petersen
    , contributor
    Comments (30185) | Send Message
     
    In any given month the number of shares bought has to equal the number of shares sold. In OTCBB stocks, you'll generally get a pretty good idea of the number of shares that moved from the hands of a selling stockholder to the hands of a buying stockholder if you divide the reported trading volume by two, which eliminates the infamous OTCBB double count.

     

    I just posted a table that summarizes the monthly trading volume for the last four years.

     

    http://seekingalpha.co...
    3 Jan 2012, 09:35 AM Reply Like
  • FocalPoint Analytics
    , contributor
    Comments (6004) | Send Message
     
    ahhh thanks John... the number of shares are equal. I did not know that. So the only thing that changes is the valuation. So all you have to do is plot the difference in average valuation from one month to the next... that gives a rate of change curve.

     

    I will be looking at your volume table. Thanks again.. I see there is quite a change this year.
    3 Jan 2012, 09:48 AM Reply Like
  • John Petersen
    , contributor
    Comments (30185) | Send Message
     
    The reason I included all four years of data is that if you compare the numbers you'll see three consecutive years of 200%+ volume growth.

     

    2009 volume = 377% of 2008 volume
    2010 volume = 307% of 2009 volume
    2011 volume = 353% of 2010 volume
    3 Jan 2012, 10:05 AM Reply Like
  • Ricknplano
    , contributor
    Comments (304) | Send Message
     
    The bottom was almost certainly last week due to tax loss selling.
    3 Jan 2012, 08:30 AM Reply Like
  • FocalPoint Analytics
    , contributor
    Comments (6004) | Send Message
     
    .25 ?
    3 Jan 2012, 08:51 AM Reply Like
  • jveal
    , contributor
    Comments (657) | Send Message
     
    The last 30 minutes of trading last Friday gave many of us hope for today's market. I've got my Schwab account open and at 8:54 AM it shows a bid of $0.27 for 15,000 shares and an ask of $0.28 for 10,000 shares. If this holds we will be starting where we left off Friday.
    3 Jan 2012, 08:55 AM Reply Like
  • Gerry W
    , contributor
    Comments (59) | Send Message
     
    Hi Axionistas,
    It was I who posted the article on Gumshoe .They are running a competition to win a silver dollar ,which I very much need after my axion buys. There was only enough room (150 words) to give an introduction to my favorite investment for 2012, I appreciate any further imput which may be appropriate .I feel Gumshoe is a good site ,and Travis is an honest guy. Just doing my bit to spread the Axion brand.
    3 Jan 2012, 09:17 AM Reply Like
  • dogday1
    , contributor
    Comments (56) | Send Message
     
    Thumbs up for initiative getting the word out. Double thumbs for ambition,
    Axion brand . Not just a PbC battery ,or a Power cube, but a brand,
    I like the sound of that ,Walmart Sony, Apple, Axion, YES.
    3 Jan 2012, 06:30 PM Reply Like
  • lsd_lsm
    , contributor
    Comments (134) | Send Message
     
    Way OT - Awhile back, I posted about a small company called Cytomedix (CMXI.ob) and I hoped Axion would soon begin the same trajectory upward. They had another positive announcement this morning.

     

    http://yhoo.it/sruzWM
    3 Jan 2012, 09:22 AM Reply Like
  • jveal
    , contributor
    Comments (657) | Send Message
     
    5000 shares sold in the pre-market at 9:20 AM for $0.29!!!!!!

     

    Bid for 5000 at $0.29 and ask at $0.30 for 10000 shares.

     

    Let's go!!!!
    3 Jan 2012, 09:25 AM Reply Like
  • H. T. Love
    , contributor
    Comments (17886) | Send Message
     
    (AXPW): Noticing the bid/ask this A.M? Started off $0.27/$0.33 IIRC, then $0.27/$0.28, balanced.

     

    Now a pre-market trade at $0.29 when bid at $0.28 cancelled and came back (FANC MM) @ $0.29. Ratio of $02.7/$0.29 then was 4:1.

     

    Now B/a $0.29/$0.30.

     

    Don't let the stout lady roll over onto you.

     

    Yes, it's early but this seems the first I've recall pre-market acting this way.

     

    It matches what I was thinking last Friday when we had price and buy:sell moving our direction in the afternoon and the change in daily short sales percentage towards a more normal range (although it's still way lower than it ought to be - but that could have been the dregs of the long positions in MM portfolio resulting from earlier-received sell orders which would cause them to short into the market).

     

    We'll see how it goes, but I'm optimistic ATM.

     

    Hm, bid just moved to $0.291.

     

    JP's mentioned sellers crowding the door, what about buyers?

     

    HardToLove
    3 Jan 2012, 09:30 AM Reply Like
  • wtblanchard
    , contributor
    Comments (2431) | Send Message
     
    Seen a couple of references to pre-market trades recently.

     

    I thought there was no pre or post market trading in OTC-BB stocks.

     

    I think there may be corrections issued out of prime-time, but it's my belief they're not actual trades that you should put any stock in w.r.t the time they appear in your data stream.

     

    When I have Level II up after hours, I do see what I take to be the closing bid-ask for a bunch of market makers, but I don't think you can assume they will be there when trading officially opens. I could see that if that is so, some people may be led astray into putting in orders for once trading opens that are not optimal.

     

    Anyone have the facts?

     

    Are market makers allowed to post bids and offers before the market opens, but no actual trading is allowed? If so, how soon before trading opens?

     

    Even if they are allowed, they're probably also allowed to pull them just before opening and change them to something a bit different.
    3 Jan 2012, 11:31 AM Reply Like
  • H. T. Love
    , contributor
    Comments (17886) | Send Message
     
    I can't speak authoritatively, but AFAIK, normal extended-hours trading is permitted. It's much less common though than for equities listed on the major exchanges.

     

    I have seen that some brokerages don't permit (their retail investors?) to trade out of hours because it is considered so risky due to low liquidity and predators haunt those hours.

     

    The market-makers can do about anything they want, it seems.

     

    They have "positioning" bids and asks they can enter. They may hang around for a long time and then disappear at any moment. Like you, I watch Level 2 on AXPW and many others. I see what you see and also I watch "Time and Sales". The same thing is shown there.

     

    Trades you'll never see on Level 2 or Time & Sales, AFAIK, are the ones I see reported on the ADVFN "Trades" screen.

     

    E.g., and representative of many, two trades this A.M . at 02:05:24 and 03:xx.xx this A.M. on CPST - both 50,912 at $0.0001.

     

    I suspect these are some kind of "bookkeeping" entries. To what purpose I have no idea. Very common, very.

     

    HardToLove
    3 Jan 2012, 11:58 AM Reply Like
  • JohnM121
    , contributor
    Comments (397) | Send Message
     
    The Axionistas just left an all-you-can eat buffet. It's going to take a little time to get hungry again any start paying for food again.
    3 Jan 2012, 09:59 AM Reply Like
  • John Petersen
    , contributor
    Comments (30185) | Send Message
     
    Last June I wrote an Instablog about the blogger's real influence and the way markets develop.

     

    http://seekingalpha.co...

     

    As near as I can tell, the Axionistas are all to the left-hand side of the chasm. The people on the right side of the chasm are waiting for a price trend to change, a financing to be completed, a contract to be signed, a revenue level to be attained or some other identifiable business event that gets them over their personal wall of worry.

     

    If the price starts to ramp smoothly from here, I suspect that a lot of people who've been waiting in the coffee shop for the train to finish boarding will be running to catch the last open door before the train clears the platform.
    3 Jan 2012, 10:18 AM Reply Like
  • John Petersen
    , contributor
    Comments (30185) | Send Message
     
    FINALLY A SUBSIDY I WON'T WHINE ABOUT

     

    "Like Germany's feed-in-tariffs for solar power, there has been a flurry of recent grid storage regulatory activity in the U.S. that began with FERC's approval of the pay-for-performance ruling and continues with the introduction of the creatively named Storage Technology for Renewable and Green Energy Act of 2011 (STORAGE Act) on November 10. This piece of legislation allows a 20% investment tax credit of up to $40 million for grid storage systems and a 30% ITC for businesses and homeowners for on-site storage projects, up to $1 million."

     

    http://bit.ly/ug8ddb
    3 Jan 2012, 11:28 AM Reply Like
  • LabTech
    , contributor
    Comments (1777) | Send Message
     
    I have to admit I have mixed feelings about this. On one hand it will probably help sell PowerCubes and promote power companies to embrace ways of using less fossil fuel. On the other hand it is helping to sell PowerCubes and other storage devices, not on their merits alone, but on the fact that you can get a tax write-off if you buy them, something we've all been railing against for EVs. I'd rather the market embrace the PowerCube for the money savings it can provide on it's own rather than for that fact that the government will hand them my taxpayer money to do so.
    As I said...mixed feelings.
    3 Jan 2012, 03:26 PM Reply Like
  • Al Marshall
    , contributor
    Comments (528) | Send Message
     
    Great article! Two items which haven't been highlighted yet that really struck me:

     

    1. "In New York, for example, nameplate wind power capacity makes up 10% of the state's installed capacity but accounts for less than 1% of the actual statewide generating capacity due to its modest capacity factor." I take that to mean that wind, on average supplies only 10% of its rated capacity. Is that correct?

     

    2. "California aims to put itself at the epicenter of grid storage demonstrations with its $2 per watt incentive for advanced energy storage systems under its Self-Generation Incentive Program (SGIP), recently extended until 2016, and Assembly Bill 2514 which will require load serving entities to procure energy storage systems."

     

    Isn't that $2m per megawatt? The regulation can be downloaded from a link located in the upper right-hand corner of this page:

     

    http://1.usa.gov/xcvlHW

     

    The regulation is 103 pages long. I flipped through it quickly, and have highlighted below what appeared to be relevant to my untrained eye regarding storage.

     

    It lists the $2/watt number with a footnote that the Advanced Energy Storage system must be able to discharge its rated power for two hours. If I recall correctly, that would mean that rather than a 2:1 inverter/axion batttery ratio, we'd have a 1:1 ratio. So, for a $2m, 1 megawatt system, we'd need two power cubes supplemented by two more containing only batteries. Would that be, very roughly, $1m x 2 plus $300k x 2 or $2.6m?

     

    If all that is true, then the incentive would cover more than 75% of the cost of the system excluding installation?

     

    From page 37, the full incentive is available for projects up to 1 MW, 50% for 1-2MW, and 25% for 2-3MW.

     

    From page 55 (note page numbers are those of the .pdf not those printed in the regulation):

     

    "9.10 Load Following Requirement for Advanced Energy Storage To be eligible for SGIP incentives Advanced Energy Storage systems coupled with wind generation must have the ability to handle hundreds of partial discharge cycles each day. Whereas stand-alone Advanced Energy Storage systems or those coupled with other SGIP eligible generating technologies must meet the site specific requirements for on-site peak demand reduction and be capable of discharging fully at least once per day. All Advanced Energy Storage systems must have the capability to discharge over a two hour period at rated capacity."

     

    Page 66 lists in-eligible projects. The only example that could remotely apply is:

     

    "Field demonstrations for proof-of-concept operation of experimental or non-conventional systems partially or completely paid by research and development funds"
    Later on that same page it goes on to explain that some grid-related applications like DG (Distributed Generation services) are ineligible.

     

    Here's a concern on page 70:

     

    "14.5 Commercial Availability Commercially available factory new generating equipment is eligible for incentives. Generating systems that utilize new technologies that are critical to its operation must have at least one year of documented commercial availability to be eligible, or meet the requirements of Section 9. “Commercially available” means that the major generating system components (e.g. the generator set, primary heat recovery system and gas cleanup equipment) are acquired through conventional procurement channels, installed and operational at a Site."

     

    Page 78 shows that the maximum incentive budget for Program Year 2011 is about $75m.

     

    “17 StatewideProgramBudget... Annual incentive budgets for Program Year 2011 authorized by the CPUC for each Program Administrators are as follows: Pacific Gas and Electric Company $33,480,000 Southern California Edison Company $26,040,000 California Center for Sustainable Energy $10,230,000 Southern California Gas Company $7,440,000”

     

    Now, I assume that represents the payments to the utilities overseeing the program rather than the total benefits received by applicants.

     

    Page 84: Program year runs from January 1st to December 31st.

     

    Page 94: “Example #7: Incentive Calculation for Advanced Energy Storage System A customer proposes to install a 1 MW Advanced Energy Storage system and a natural gas fueled 1 MW fuel cell cogenerator. The total project cost is $7 million. Given a 30% investment tax credit (and based upon the formula in section 6.6) the SGIP incentive cannot exceed 30% of the eligible project cost. Since the Advanced Energy Storage capacity is not additive with the companion fuel cell, the Advanced Energy Storage system receives $2.00/Watt for 1,000 kW of capacity and the fuel cell receives $2.25/Watt for 1,000 kW of capacity. Last Printed 11/8/2011 SGIP Handbook 2011 v9.docx 84 The incentive would be calculated as follows: Advanced Energy Storage = 1,000,000 Watt Fuel Cell = 1,000,000 Watt Project Cost Cap on SGIP Incentive = $7,000,000 x 30% = $2,100,000 Maximum SGIP Incentive = 1,000,000 Watt x $2.00/Watt + 1,000,000 Watt x $2.25/Watt = $4,250,000 Since total incentive of $4,250,000 is higher than the Project cost cap the SGIP incentive is $2,100,000.”

     

    Hopefully this is helpful. No doubt I’ve missed key aspects of the program. Still, it appears that storage applications are getting some respect. Regulators seem to understand that building windmills without storage doesn’t do much for you.
    3 Jan 2012, 05:12 PM Reply Like
  • Mayascribe
    , contributor
    Comments (9912) | Send Message
     
    Author’s reply » apmarshall62: Great work. Thanks.

     

    [extract from your above comment] "It lists the $2/watt number with a footnote that the Advanced Energy Storage system must be able to discharge its rated power for two hours. If I recall correctly, that would mean that rather than a 2:1 inverter/axion batttery ratio, we'd have a 1:1 ratio. So, for a $2m, 1 megawatt system, we'd need two power cubes supplemented by two more containing only batteries. Would that be, very roughly, $1m x 2 plus $300k x 2 or $2.6m?"

     

    Along the lines of the inverter, I would think that the cost of a 1 megawatt PowerCube would not be twice the cost of a $900,000 half megawatt PowerCube, as per the TG interview above.

     

    I would like to hear from other battery geeks in here if that not only will one "housing unit" be scaling savings down in costs of the 1 MW over the half MW PowerCube, but also, that the very expensive inverter costs would decrease as well.
    3 Jan 2012, 05:27 PM Reply Like
  • John Petersen
    , contributor
    Comments (30185) | Send Message
     
    Using the system cost figures from the Sandia cost study I wrote about a couple weeks ago, a 1MW/2MWh lead carbon installation would cost $400,000 for the Power System and $660,000 for the Energy System while a comparable lithium-ion installation would cost $400,000 for the Power System and $1,200,000 for the Energy System.

     

    http://seekingalpha.co...

     

    $1,060,000 vs $1,600,000 – For cost savings of that magnitude I can live with another container.
    3 Jan 2012, 11:57 PM Reply Like
  • wtblanchard
    , contributor
    Comments (2431) | Send Message
     
    Sorry if this has already been posted ... got browser tabs open with stuff from many different sources.

     

    summary article:
    Massive battery energy storage station kicks off in China

     

    http://bit.ly/upCmuw

     

    More detailed from BYD of China:
    China’s State Grid and BYD Launch World’s Largest Battery Energy Storage Station

     

    http://bit.ly/uL94dr
    3 Jan 2012, 11:36 AM Reply Like
  • LabTech
    , contributor
    Comments (1777) | Send Message
     
    Interesting to note in the comments of the first article that the first commenter pointed out the fact that the writer was mixing up MW with MW-h. The writer's response was basically to say, "hey, I just repost this stuff, no one expects me to understand the difference." With insight like that, no wonder Axion has a hard time getting the press to take notice or understand the PbC.
    3 Jan 2012, 03:17 PM Reply Like
  • renim
    , contributor
    Comments (1091) | Send Message
     
    the reporter is just being careful to pass on the Chinese figures as reported. generation capacity was in MW, storage was in MWh

     

    elsewhere we see the BYD's 36 MWh system is 6 hours @ 6 MW
    at about $650 per kwh including electronics.

     

    other Li ion suppliers were awarded for 16MWh, 9MWh and a 2MWh
    4 Jan 2012, 10:19 AM Reply Like
  • John Petersen
    , contributor
    Comments (30185) | Send Message
     
    Senator Wyden's Press Release on the legislation is here:

     

    http://1.usa.gov/rz8DVF
    3 Jan 2012, 11:38 AM Reply Like
  • LT
    , contributor
    Comments (5014) | Send Message
     
    WTB & JLP...3 great finds! Looks as though we are getting some great breakthroughs on energy storage .. and PJM is right in the center of things...
    Will this be one of the first big markets for AXPW now?
    3 Jan 2012, 11:49 AM Reply Like
  • lsd_lsm
    , contributor
    Comments (134) | Send Message
     
    Nice quote in that article - "The bill does not pick “winners and losers” and allows the market to decide which technologies are the best and not specifically singling out any one resource."
    3 Jan 2012, 12:07 PM Reply Like
  • wtblanchard
    , contributor
    Comments (2431) | Send Message
     
    Nice to see bi-partisan support, but Lord knows if anything can get passed. If we can keep Obama from coming out in support of it, we might have a chance :-) Sad, but true.

     

    I would like to see the details, if they don't involve 400 pages of reading. Would like a Buy-American component, but am reminded of GM's issues with China over their subsidies for Electric Cars and attempts to force GM to share their Volt technology to qualify for their subsidies, and what the WTO rules are about the issue.

     

    Also reminded of Boone Pickens trying to get the Natural Gas bill passed related to truck engines. One point he made about that one was that it only lasted a fixed period (5 years?) instead of being open ended which made sense to me.
    3 Jan 2012, 12:48 PM Reply Like
  • Mayascribe
    , contributor
    Comments (9912) | Send Message
     
    Author’s reply » JP: Ahh! That's great news. I like that it (could) offer significant subsidies all the way down to the individual homeowner.

     

    May I borrow a Steelers chant and convert it to, "Here we go MiniCube, here we go! BOOM! BOOM!"

     

    We need to keep tracking this STORAGE Act.

     

    Terrific digging, JP.
    3 Jan 2012, 12:50 PM Reply Like
  • LT
    , contributor
    Comments (5014) | Send Message
     
    How much testing must be done with the Power Cube that is being run with PJM & Viridity until it can be online and sellable?

     

    How much more Battery Management System testing must be done to accommodate one of these large installations like in China?
    3 Jan 2012, 11:51 AM Reply Like
  • John Petersen
    , contributor
    Comments (30185) | Send Message
     
    The most fascinating line in the story Mayascribe used as a lead-in for this Concentrator was the Granville quote that said:

     

    "About a year ago, Veridity, a strategic partner of ours from the other side of the state approached us and we began discussions about the anticipated new FERC regulations and how we might be able to participate in conjunction with PJM in utility market applications. In addition to that, Viridity has been a strategic partner of ours, and we have submitted several RFPs with them for other applications for that Cube product."

     

    When I combine that with Tom's statement in the last CC that the PowerCube was Axion's first product, I have to assume they're actively marketing the PowerCube to potential customers today. Given Viridity's strength with the DoD and the fact that Tom used the term "RFP," which stands for "Request for Proposal" my guess is that they're jointly bidding military and other governmental or quasi-governmental projects.

     

    It's hard to predict how much data a potential customer will want, but businesses are not generally as risk averse and data obsessive as utilities that have to answer to regulators.
    3 Jan 2012, 11:57 AM Reply Like
  • Mayascribe
    , contributor
    Comments (9912) | Send Message
     
    Author’s reply » JP: No doubt in my mind that the military is getting more involved. As you know, I've been to New Castle twice, and each time TG has mentioned the military. It wasn't that TG was mentioning all the other applications for the PbC along with the military, it was the tiniest "upbeat inflection" I discerned in his voice when I heard him speak of the military.

     

    In poker speak, bangwhiz knows that it's not what you say, it's how you say it, that great poker players pick up on.

     

    In a way I compare this to when I had heard TG speak of Detroit OEMs in the plural; the first time I heard him use OEMs in the plural was on the CC before the July 20 Shareholders' Conference, and then again at the Shareholders' Conference. I recall reporting this OEM plurality in the very first Notes and More From the Axion Power Shareholders' Conference, before most of us knew about GM.

     

    When I write the "themes" into each Instablog before publishing, I've lately been tempted to move both Oil Rig and Military ahead of Automotive and Railroad.

     

    Just as the Viridity announcement caught us all by surprise, I'm beginning to think you're right and the Military may do the same (except that now this column is onto this idea).

     

    Another way to think of this is how quickly after the FERC rules changed did the PowerCube unveiling occur? Yes, all parties concerned, Viridity/PJM/Axion knew the changes were going to occur, and got a head start, but....

     

    ....psst...things are heating up in the Strait of Hormuz.
    3 Jan 2012, 12:37 PM Reply Like
  • wtblanchard
    , contributor
    Comments (2431) | Send Message
     
    Of course answering to Congressional Committees is no walk in the park either :-)
    3 Jan 2012, 12:51 PM Reply Like
  • H. T. Love
    , contributor
    Comments (17886) | Send Message
     
    Maya said "In poker speak, bangwhiz knows that it's not what you say, it's how you say it, that great poker players pick up on"

     

    Same with the market?

     

    Friday we had improving price along with buy:sell in the afternoon.

     

    This morning, picking a time when we had some reasonable volume accumulated at 10:28:26, our buy:sell was 1:2.059.

     

    I believe it just hit 1:1, but won't know until ~12:55 (15 minute delay on the ADVFN 'cause I'm a "bottom-feeder and won't pay for real-time, just not worth it).

     

    But s of 12:20:09 it was 1;1.119 and 24K shares @ $0.30 traded since then, as well as one 5K block at $0.295.

     

    For me, this is a continuation of the "tell" I *think* I saw start developing last week. Need the day to end well and see short sales increasing on our lowered volume to gain a little confidence.

     

    HardToLove
    3 Jan 2012, 12:47 PM Reply Like
  • H. T. Love
    , contributor
    Comments (17886) | Send Message
     
    (AXPW): Confirmed buy:sell is tracking similar to Friday.

     

    12:39:46, buy, sell, unknown 111,262, 97,703 and 37,000 respectively.

     

    Buy:sell 1.139:1 and buy:(sell+unknown) 1:1.21.

     

    HardToLove
    3 Jan 2012, 12:58 PM Reply Like
  • Mayascribe
    , contributor
    Comments (9912) | Send Message
     
    Author’s reply » HTL: I want to add that it just could be that the small nibbling 2000 or 5000 share orders will be what first pushes up share prices.

     

    Betting we close above 30 cents today.
    3 Jan 2012, 01:38 PM Reply Like
  • H. T. Love
    , contributor
    Comments (17886) | Send Message
     
    I believe so too. The larger orders from institutionals (if any), hedgies (if any), ... will often occur as privately negotiated "cross trades" that appear in the NASDAQ-designated times.

     

    While we have (relatively, compared to major-exchange listed equities) lower volume these crossing trades can whipsaw us. When the turn-over that JP has mentioned comes into play, these trades will hold less sway because they won't be needed as much and will occur less frequently.

     

    Further, these smaller trades are more likely to stay off the market for longer periods, IMO. So each one is likely to reduce supply for the longer-term.

     

    All MHO,
    HardToLove
    3 Jan 2012, 01:47 PM Reply Like
  • battman
    , contributor
    Comments (373) | Send Message
     
    HTL, how would you see the trading this week, or few weeks that would give you the sign that you would think Axion has finally finished the overselling phase it has been stuck in?
    3 Jan 2012, 03:21 PM Reply Like
  • Mayascribe
    , contributor
    Comments (9912) | Send Message
     
    Author’s reply » battman: Pretty much everyone who comments in this thread believes that Special Situations is done selling, which has created a very special situation for all of us brave enough to hold, or to keep buying.

     

    Suggesting you read back through the last 10 or so Concentrators.

     

    If Special Situations is done, and if it's true that between the Axion board members, the investing houses and we Axionistas make up an overwhelming majority of share owners, then you can throw out all the technicals, because the squeeze to get on the train has begun about an hour before last years closing bell.

     

    The next stop (resistance level) is about 50% up from 30 cents.
    3 Jan 2012, 03:28 PM Reply Like
  • H. T. Love
    , contributor
    Comments (17886) | Send Message
     
    Battman: confirmation of what I *suspected* last week.

     

    - reducing volume, for at least a short period,
    - continuing improvement in the buy:sell ratio,
    - daily short sales getting nearer normal (indicating that more of the selling is liquidity provision rather than response to sell orders which (eventually?) deliver shares to the market maker in many cases,
    - all this confirmed by a slow creep up in pps so we know it's not momentum players doing all the buying.

     

    Today's ~13% gain doesn't bother me as I gauging "slow gain" by pennies rather than percentage.

     

    My *ultimate* desire, near-term, is to see us move like this until (after?) the last week in January and see a sudden volume surge with higher prices coming easily. Why? Because this would confirm that many recent sells were by folks who believed in the story but decided to take a tax benefit by recording a loss.

     

    JP doesn't feel this was a big part of what we saw, but I'm strongly suspecting it was.

     

    Anyway, *if* that did play out, it tells us a lot about *true* sentiment that we could not ascertain before.

     

    Keep in mind my experimental nature while considering these thoughts.

     

    MHO,
    HardToLove
    3 Jan 2012, 03:39 PM Reply Like
  • John Petersen
    , contributor
    Comments (30185) | Send Message
     
    All we have is competing theories HTL. We look at the same data from different shoes and reach different conclusions about the mechanism. In this case the likely outcomes of our conclusions are close enough that I won't being wrong as long as you're right.

     

    Wouldn't it be grand if we were both right?
    3 Jan 2012, 03:44 PM Reply Like
  • H. T. Love
    , contributor
    Comments (17886) | Send Message
     
    "Wouldn't it be grand if we were both right?"

     

    Yes! But I don't see "competing theories", although they certainly are. I see all POV's and hypothesis as a necessary part of divining what's truly going on and am glad to see counter-points so that we don't easily get mislead by my SWAGs while I'm learning.

     

    I make it a point to mention yours as a counter-point to my own and to be sure that I (we?) don't get trapped in "group think".

     

    Whichever is right, I'll learn something in the process and be grateful for it.

     

    HardToLove
    3 Jan 2012, 03:50 PM Reply Like
  • battman
    , contributor
    Comments (373) | Send Message
     
    Would the resistance be people selling out who bought at 0.30 or less?
    3 Jan 2012, 04:13 PM Reply Like
  • Mayascribe
    , contributor
    Comments (9912) | Send Message
     
    Author’s reply » 4.4 cents up from the 25.1 cent final 2011 trading session bottom so far today. Bid now $0.29.5, and ask at $0.305.

     

    Just over a quarter million volume. Knowing it's barely more than a half day of trtading so far this year, this is looking quite good, so far.
    3 Jan 2012, 12:58 PM Reply Like
  • wtblanchard
    , contributor
    Comments (2431) | Send Message
     
    BW, I decided to put my comment on your new site here:

     

    In the CYA department, you might consider adding a clause about the "Going Concern" item in the disclaimer. Doing so actually adds to your/our credibility.

     

    If someone is inspired to write another article for the Concentrator crowd, I think an article focused on the "Going Concern" and why we buy anyway might be useful.

     

    It's an interesting question (to me :-) ) whether articles like this need to be published elsewhere, e.g. BW's site and then linked to from the Concentrator.

     

    If BW's site became more likely to be found by search engines (because of eventually using a different URL) then my first impression is that would become a better destination for articles like this.

     

    I'm not at all clear on who actually owns these 2 articles that have been published at the tops of recent Concentrators.

     

    In my opinion, articles like this deserve their own unique WWW location (and title!) and with comments that are uniquely based on what's written in them. Maybe the simple fix (for now) is to start up 2 Concentrators at the same time when we're publishing a major new article like this, along with a plea to keep the comments on the one with the full article text specific to the article. Each new "normal" Concentrator might just have links to recent Concentrator main articles in the required top section.
    3 Jan 2012, 01:37 PM Reply Like
  • Mayascribe
    , contributor
    Comments (9912) | Send Message
     
    Author’s reply » wtb: That, I'm guessing, would result in fragmentation.

     

    I'm liking Bang's archive idea combined with leaving this Concentrator as is. It's worked pretty well so far, hasn't it?

     

    I do encourage anyone who wants to put in a lot effort as futurist and jakurtz did in writing wonderful articles worthy to lead in one or more Concentrators, to write one.
    3 Jan 2012, 03:48 PM Reply Like
  • John Petersen
    , contributor
    Comments (30185) | Send Message
     
    HOUSE BILL PROPOSES REPEAL OF EV CREDIT

     

    http://bit.ly/zSg83t

     

    The sponsor is Mike Kelly, the GM Dealer-Congressman who's had nothing good to say about the Volt.
    3 Jan 2012, 02:30 PM Reply Like
  • LT
    , contributor
    Comments (5014) | Send Message
     
    Kelly is just another republican trying to undo something good that Obama has done...and yes, it will gain traction in election year but will fail to pass and the subsidy will stay in place.
    3 Jan 2012, 02:44 PM Reply Like
  • 481086
    , contributor
    Comments (3447) | Send Message
     
    And there was another cause for much rejoicing: The ethanol subsidies and tariffs are ending:

     

    http://bit.ly/ynQwmI
    3 Jan 2012, 02:51 PM Reply Like
  • John Petersen
    , contributor
    Comments (30185) | Send Message
     
    There are many, including me, who question the fairness of taxing Peter to buy Paul a new car.

     

    Subsidies that increase the productive capacity of the nation have a long and storied history in the law. Subsidies that benefit only the individual recipients strike many as a rape of the treasury for the benefit of the chosen few.
    3 Jan 2012, 02:59 PM Reply Like
  • H. T. Love
    , contributor
    Comments (17886) | Send Message
     
    "another republican trying to undo something good that Obama has done"

     

    Although I realize it's not your intent, I treat posts such as this as "trolling".

     

    It's obvious to any thinking person that "good" depends on whether you believe in the "change" that has been brought. Since the "change" takes money from me to subsidize pure EV purchases by folks much better off than I, it's not good. This invites non-productive argument that wastes bits.

     

    And don't feed me a response containing any crap about how government is so much better at espousing societal change for the benefit of all. When it demonstrates a record better than a *true* capitalist free market (with *appropriate* regulation), then I'll buy the description of "good".

     

    An avowed independent (but on the conservative side),
    HardToLove
    3 Jan 2012, 03:06 PM Reply Like
  • LT
    , contributor
    Comments (5014) | Send Message
     
    John there is no difference in subsidizing new car technology than it is to subsidize the grid storage that was mentioned earlier today, especially if it gets new technology started and off the ground, and does not last forever like the big oil subsidies.

     

    and ... especially if it SELLS PbC batteries for AXPW! (i know the Volt does not have PbC, but someday some car will and so will other apps) The focus on clean energy is what has really brought us all together here and it took gov't help to get things moving in the right direction...
    It's not really that many gov't dollars when you see how few cars they have sold. Would any company be testing much less building any electric or s/s car if the gov't had not got the ball rolling?
    3 Jan 2012, 03:14 PM Reply Like
  • Mayascribe
    , contributor
    Comments (9912) | Send Message
     
    Author’s reply » Guessing that John Q. Public isn't aware of the Solyndra debacle!

     

    Besides, this isn't just a republican trying to appeal the middle to upper class benefitting tax credit, it's a bipartisan effort. Exactly how many jobs has this subsidy created, other than for advertising agencies?

     

    What John Q. Public isn't aware of, nor our governent leaders, is what Johnson Controls knows, that stop/start is coming in a big way.

     

    Bang: When you read this, I suggest that the article JP produced about JCI's crystal ball of S/S should also be placed into your developing website.
    3 Jan 2012, 03:17 PM Reply Like
  • John Petersen
    , contributor
    Comments (30185) | Send Message
     
    I disagree.

     

    The entire history of tax subsidies focused on building capital plant and equipment and encouraging the expansion of businesses that had already proven their economic merit in a free market. The subsidies enriched both the recipient and society as a whole by increasing total economic activity.

     

    New era subsidies for ideas that can't stand on their own economic merit may reduce one individual's cost of consuming a favored good, but they do nothing to increase the common wealth.

     

    A long time ago in a universe far far away I worked as a tax lawyer and was deeply involved in tax policy issues. I can assure you that there is a huge theoretical difference between the subsidies that existed since the civil war and the new generation of Reverse Robbin Hood perversions that seem commonplace today.
    3 Jan 2012, 03:30 PM Reply Like
  • jakurtz
    , contributor
    Comments (1930) | Send Message
     
    JP: "The entire history of tax subsidies focused on building capital plant and equipment and encouraging the expansion of businesses that had already proven their economic merit in a free market."

     

    And I believe those tax subsidies (not free money like the EV grants) to Exxon and American Oil companies give America a little more ability to compete with the OPEC nations, which are really the "evil" oil empires, not oil itself.

     

    I could be wrong but this is how I see it.
    3 Jan 2012, 03:35 PM Reply Like
  • LabTech
    , contributor
    Comments (1777) | Send Message
     
    HTL,
    I understand your displeasure with LT's post, but as I posted above, he is correct about one thing. The STORAGE bill that was just introduced seems to do the same thing the EV tax credits do. They take taxpayer money and give it to a business or a person for doing something that should be in their own best interest to do. While I want companies to buy PowerCubes as much as anyone, I do think it is reasonable of me to wonder if we aren't in favor of STORAGE because it will line our own pockets instead of the shareholders of A123 or Tesla? Subsidies are a slippery slope, no matter who gets them and who they benefit. I like the fact that the STORAGE bill seems to be focused on the storage sector in general, and doesn't pick winners like the EV tax credit and DOE's grants, but I'd still like the market to do what it should without the government greasing the wheels for once.
    Just my honest opinion.
    3 Jan 2012, 03:40 PM Reply Like
  • LabTech
    , contributor
    Comments (1777) | Send Message
     
    481086,

     

    Saw a similar article a couple of days ago. One of the commenters pointed out that, one of the major problems with the corn subsidy was that it prevented movement of VC into crops like switchgrass and other biofuel crops that give higher amounts of energy from the same amount of land and water. Hopefully now that this is ending, there will be more a focus on what works instead of who's getting the subsidy.
    3 Jan 2012, 03:48 PM Reply Like
  • 481086
    , contributor
    Comments (3447) | Send Message
     
    Bingo! And if gov't just has to monkey with the race, rather them add to the winner's purse, than sponsor/subsidize their own team...
    3 Jan 2012, 03:58 PM Reply Like
  • H. T. Love
    , contributor
    Comments (17886) | Send Message
     
    I'll disagree about the subsidy for grid storage, following along JP's basic theme above.

     

    First, the electrical grid has demonstrably proven it's worth to society as a whole. So any benefits that accrue to it are very likely to also benefit society as a whole as a *critical* infrastructure is improved, maybe even to the point of supporting pure EVs *if* they eventually prove to provide benefit to society as a whole, both economically and environmentally of course.

     

    Second, *if* grid storage improvements and the FERC "pay-for-performance" proves successful the ultimate result should be either a reduction in rates to almost every consumer, or at least a slower rate of cost increase, as certain very expensive upgrades are avoided and less expensive (long-term) but less reliable energy generation methods become viable due to the presence of sufficient storage capacity.

     

    "Cost to all, benefit to all".

     

    In no way does this sort of scenario compare to the purchase by private individuals of highly speculative technology at taxpayer expense.

     

    I believe that certain R & D funding would also fit my "grid storage scenario" and have no problem with them either.

     

    MHO,
    HardToLove
    3 Jan 2012, 04:02 PM Reply Like
  • Mayascribe
    , contributor
    Comments (9912) | Send Message
     
    Author’s reply » Correction: Meant "repeal," not "appeal," in the above comment.

     

    Guess I got all wrangled up, because I find the repealing of the tax credit, quite appealing!
    3 Jan 2012, 04:57 PM Reply Like
  • bangwhiz
    , contributor
    Comments (2248) | Send Message
     
    There was a Washington Post editorial I posted this weekend lobbying for the end to EV subsidies.
    3 Jan 2012, 05:15 PM Reply Like
  • LabTech
    , contributor
    Comments (1777) | Send Message
     
    Fair enough.
    3 Jan 2012, 05:15 PM Reply Like
  • wtblanchard
    , contributor
    Comments (2431) | Send Message
     
    It would surprise me if any new subsidies get passed. It seems to me that the growing dare I say bi-partisan consensus is if we are ever going to actually address our budget deficit is to get rid of most all subsidies, greatly simplify the tax code, and then reduce both personal and corporate tax rates.

     

    You'll know we're serious when the mortgage deduction is gone. Canada seems to have survived without it ...
    3 Jan 2012, 06:44 PM Reply Like
  • JRP3
    , contributor
    Comments (8013) | Send Message
     
    Actually what they do is artificially lower the price we pay at the pump which hides the true cost but effectively lowers our push for alternatives since they appear relatively more costly in relation to the subsidized price of oil. EV's suddenly make a lot of sense at $10 per gallon. Drop all oil subsidies and we can drop the pittance of EV subsidies as well.
    4 Jan 2012, 09:40 AM Reply Like
  • John Petersen
    , contributor
    Comments (30185) | Send Message
     
    The subsidies you rail against continually are called tax deductions and while the oil industry once had some pretty juicy ones, they've been minimal since I was a baby lawyer.

     

    Every business on the planet gets to deduct its costs of doing business. Please quit using terms you obviously don't understand. This forum is not like the Seeking Alpha main pages and you are not protected here, except to the extent that Mayascribe is tolerant. He can and will delete off topic and argumentative posts.
    4 Jan 2012, 09:45 AM Reply Like
  • D-inv
    , contributor
    Comments (4135) | Send Message
     
    wtb: "You'll know we're serious when the mortgage deduction is gone."

     

    wtb, I agree and disagree. We will know the Congress has gotten serious about reducing deficits when the subsidies go away, but the home mortgage deduction is not any more of a subsidy than a mortgage interest deduction is to a multifamily apartment developer or to a corporation that has financed development of a business facility or office complex. The subsidy we really need to get rid of is exemption of employer-paid health insurance premiums which are a deduction to the business as employee compensation but is not included in taxable income reported on W-2s.
    4 Jan 2012, 11:37 AM Reply Like
  • John Petersen
    , contributor
    Comments (30185) | Send Message
     
    FWIW, the Swiss have an interesting system for the mortgage interest deduction. To put home owners and commercial landlords on an equal footing, they allow mortgage interest as a deduction but require the owner of an owner occupied dwelling to include the fair rental value of the home as a non-cash income item. The methods for determining fair rental value are pretty generous, but it takes about a 50% bite out of the deduction.
    4 Jan 2012, 11:49 AM Reply Like
  • D. McHattie
    , contributor
    Comments (1844) | Send Message
     
    We have wandered into one of my pet peeves: the mortgage interest deduction.

     

    It is pretty plain regressive tax policy. The higher your marginal tax rate (ie: the higher your income), the more money you get from the government.

     

    D-inv - the multi-unit building or the business facility are investments in productive assets that contribute to the economy whereas a home is just personal consumption.

     

    The government should not be in the business of subsidizing consumption, particularly not subsidizing the consumption of the wealthy at a higher rate than the middle class.

     

    The mortgage interest deduction is several different shades of wrong.
    4 Jan 2012, 01:23 PM Reply Like
  • JRP3
    , contributor
    Comments (8013) | Send Message
     
    You brought up the topic of subsidies, you can pretend tax breaks are not subsidies if you wish.
    If free speech is not protected here that is nothing to brag about.
    5 Jan 2012, 09:05 AM Reply Like
  • John Petersen
    , contributor
    Comments (30185) | Send Message
     
    Mayascribe created this Instablog and has absolute power to decide what is and is not appropriate comment. You have an absolute right to climb on your soapbox in a public park. You do not have a right to haul your soapbox into somebody else's private party, which is exactly what you're doing when you get obstreperous in an Instablog.

     

    Motley fool just printed a wonderful piece about the true cost of alternative energy and the direct subsidies afforded to all the principal actors.

     

    http://bit.ly/yiuOEe

     

    When you can argue the facts like a rational human being, I'm sure people on this concentrator will be happy to give you an ear. Until you rely on facts instead of emotion and religious zeal, our time is too valuable to waste.
    5 Jan 2012, 09:19 AM Reply Like
  • D-inv
    , contributor
    Comments (4135) | Send Message
     
    D.Mc, I marvel at how anyone can say a multi-unit apartment building or business facility is anymore of a productive asset than a single family residential property (which can either be rented or owner occupied). Dwellings serve the same economic function and purpose whether they are rented or owner occupied. The economic costs and benefits to society are functionally the same, differing only in magnitude as do prices for different types of cars, batteries, etc.

     

    JP noted a valid point about the US tax code in observing that the Swiss system requires home owners to impute rental income. THAT is a rational economic consideration just as is mortgage interest costs. What John, and you, do not address is other costs of building and dwelling operations that rental property operators incur and deduct from income streams in computing taxes. Those rental operator costs include structure depreciation, repair and maintenance expenses, water and sewer services, fire and liability insurance premiums, trash removal, State and local real estate taxes, and others. U.S. homeowners are only permitted deduction of State and local real estate taxes (which I believe are typically significantly higher per capita than for multi-family apartment properties). So, US homeowners are neither required to recognize the rental value of their homes (except through local property taxes) nor permitted deductibility of substantial real costs rental operators enjoy. It is pure speculation and guesstimation on your part to presume homeowner "rental" income not taxed exceeds the subsidies accorded to renters through rents based on full deductibility of all economic costs incurred by rental operators but not allowed for homeowners.

     

    I share the view that government has no business subsidizing consumption and particularly not consumption of higher income people which is why I argue employer-paid health insurance premiums should be reported as employee taxable income.

     

    The mortgage interest deduction is a valid economic cost to an investor, whether rental operator or homeowner. You say the mortgage interest deduction is one of your pet peeves. I say attitudes of people such as yourself toward mortgage interest deduction are economically irrational, which when pushed to realization will result in greater concentration rather than more even distribution of wealth and income.
    5 Jan 2012, 01:50 PM Reply Like
  • JRP3
    , contributor
    Comments (8013) | Send Message
     
    What a surprise, it costs more to invest in newer alternative technologies than the old established technologies. One investment supports the status quo, the other not so much. Bottom line going forward we are going to reduce coal usage and we must replace it with something. Short term it will probably be NG but as Glenn Doty has pointed out the full cycle of NG use is not all that clean, and NG is only a temporary band-aid. At some point we are going to have to start investing in nuclear again, hopefully of the LFTR variety. In any case a dollar invested in a better solution is worth more than a dollar invested in keeping us as we are. We progress by taking risks, which costs money.
    6 Jan 2012, 09:31 AM Reply Like
  • jakurtz
    , contributor
    Comments (1930) | Send Message
     
    JRP3 "We progress by taking risks."

     

    Sensible well understood risks, not dumb dumb ones.

     

    Lets drop it now, we all know your fervency. I am glad you are here but the least you can do while here is keep your comments on Axion and leave your other stuff for the many other articles you comment on. We generally don't not get off topic too much around here and fall into endless debates.
    6 Jan 2012, 10:22 AM Reply Like
  • H. T. Love
    , contributor
    Comments (17886) | Send Message
     
    JRP3, it's not just about carbon. There's other considerations that make NG more attractive than it first appears.

     

    http://bit.ly/oOTRzU

     

    HardToLove
    6 Jan 2012, 02:24 PM Reply Like
  • JRP3
    , contributor
    Comments (8013) | Send Message
     
    Petersen took the subject off topic by bringing up EV subsidies. I simply mentioned oil subsidies, which by the way are far greater than Mr. Petersen implies:
    http://bit.ly/wz7NW1
    7 Jan 2012, 09:02 AM Reply Like
  • JRP3
    , contributor
    Comments (8013) | Send Message
     
    Certainly there are benefits to using NG over coal, my point is simply to use it most efficiently in generating plants, not individual ICE's.
    7 Jan 2012, 09:05 AM Reply Like
  • John Petersen
    , contributor
    Comments (30185) | Send Message
     
    Once again your links are irrelevant and misleading. The study mentioned in your most recent link came from the IEA and OCED - two international organizations. It found 250 different types of subsidies worldwide. Only a small percentage of those subsidies exist in the US.

     

    The total value of oil subsidies in the US are roughly $0.28 per barrel of consumed oil. In comparison, the EV Tax credit alone works out to $75 per barrel of oil not burned in an EV.

     

    The entire idea of saving fuel with EVs is STUPID and CATASTROPHICALLY WASTEFUL.
    7 Jan 2012, 09:12 AM Reply Like
  • jakurtz
    , contributor
    Comments (1930) | Send Message
     
    ..and you still can't stop.
    He posted a link to a bill on EV subsidies being repealed, and a few of the regulars had a little comment here and there on subsidies: no harm. However, given your particular reputation and pension for endless debates on these subjects ad nausea in nearly all of JP's articles, I thought it would be considerate of you if you refrained from it here, and stuck to the subject more on topic with Axion.

     

    Like I said, I am sincerely glad you are here and hope you do participate in the Axion discussion, but thought it might behoove you in particular to steer clear of these debates in this forum.

     

    Just my advice but, of course, you can do anything you want and it is up to Maya to decide if you take it too far on the off-topic stuff.

     

    Cheers.
    7 Jan 2012, 09:21 AM Reply Like
  • D. McHattie
    , contributor
    Comments (1844) | Send Message
     
    D-inv, it's really just the regressive aspect of the mortgage interest deduction that bothers me so much and it seems we agree on that.

     

    D
    7 Jan 2012, 11:27 AM Reply Like
  • D-inv
    , contributor
    Comments (4135) | Send Message
     
    D.Mc, I don't see where we agree on anything pertaining to mortgage interest deduction. WHERE is the regressivity in deductibility of mortgage interest??? Know with certainty that rents paid on rental dwellings would be higher absent deductibility of mortgage interest by landlords so renters benefit from it just as homeowners.

     

    If one is concerned about "regressivity" of tax treatment of housing, eliminate relatively recent exemption from taxation of gains/losses on property sales, count as income (and tax) the difference between mortgage balances and "short sale" prices, count outstanding balances on mortgages walked away from as income to "the walkers", weigh carefully the potential tax revenue and added government administrative costs of imputing rental income to homeowners and assess tax on imputed rents if the revenue - cost exceeds the tax revenue lost from granting homeowners deduction rights for all economic costs enjoyed by rental property operators.
    7 Jan 2012, 05:33 PM Reply Like
  • Richard93
    , contributor
    Comments (817) | Send Message
     
    We should already be at Babylon 5 tech oil use in transportation should have ended by 1972. Worse because of the fraud known as Yon Kippur War of 72 the U.S. govt should have made industry stop using oil in its products. Crushing big oil will not happen over night but real change will. OIL in transportation is a direct tax on everyone. I would like to see what is the price paid to transport products to market. A small increase in price would cover new tech in use. The price of diesel is high do to sending more to S A so can't wait for change to come need to make all that money back before taxes go to the moon to pay off Federal debt and other expenses.
    8 Jan 2012, 03:15 AM Reply Like
  • John Petersen
    , contributor
    Comments (30185) | Send Message
     
    This concentrator is an inappropriate forum for digressions into black box solutions that you allude to incessantly and never describe. Please go away if you don't want to talk about Axion Power International.
    8 Jan 2012, 03:23 AM Reply Like
  • Richard93
    , contributor
    Comments (817) | Send Message
     
    If it is me My generator idea may work with the battery storage Axion has made. Together they could replace all the backup diesel generators in use today. Also I believe replace medium size power plants. The set up will be scale able do to need or expectations . Axion's power cube gives flexibility to design a system that work with there customers needs. I expect they will try to sell power in day time in LA if they have enough modules. Will try to charge off peak hours which is considered after 7pm. I am interested in the possibility to work together and make an assessment if they can work together.
    8 Jan 2012, 10:07 AM Reply Like
  • John Petersen
    , contributor
    Comments (30185) | Send Message
     
    If you're trying to attract people who might be interested in investing you're going about it the wrong way. You're also putting yourself at risk under Federal Securities Laws. Please stop.
    8 Jan 2012, 10:57 AM Reply Like
  • Mayascribe
    , contributor
    Comments (9912) | Send Message
     
    Author’s reply » Richard93: These Axion Power Concentrators have now likely exceeded 7000 comments combined. The only comment I have ever deleted is my own.

     

    Feel free to start your own Instablog about your idea (which I am certain defies Seeking Alpha's "Terms Of Use Agreement").

     

    The APCs are not a forum for inventors to raise attention toward their ideas. That is considered spamming.

     

    I will leave your comment on the board for now, but any more spamming will not be tolerated, and will be deleted.
    8 Jan 2012, 12:18 PM Reply Like
  • D. McHattie
    , contributor
    Comments (1844) | Send Message
     
    D-inv, by regressive, I mean that you get to deduct your mortgage interest at your marginal tax rate so the higher your income, the more money the government gives you.

     

    For example, take 2 households who pay the same amount of mortgage interest per year: $20k.

     

    The first household has income of $80k so their federal income tax rate is 25% so the govt gives them $5,000 ($20k * .25).

     

    The 2nd household has income of $200k so their federal income tax rate is 33% so the govt gives them $6,600 ($20k * .33).

     

    The more money you make, the more money the government gives you - that is the very definition of a regressive tax policy.

     

    Even worse off is the renter who may pay the same amount in rent but gets no additional deduction.

     

    If you're in favor of this kind of policy then the only thing that we agree upon is that we disagree. Well... that and Axion Power International :)

     

    D
    8 Jan 2012, 12:47 PM Reply Like
  • Richard93
    , contributor
    Comments (817) | Send Message
     
    Thank you for the information. I enjoy seeing your comments and groups . Best wishes!
    8 Jan 2012, 01:38 PM Reply Like
  • D-inv
    , contributor
    Comments (4135) | Send Message
     
    :-) D.Mc., thanks for elaboration on your notion of regressive taxation.

     

    As a professional economist whose academic training included preparation for a field in public finance, I am well acquainted with the concepts of progressive and regressive taxation. To me your concern about "regressivity" of home motgage interest deduction reflects a highly normative perspective that is inimically to individual initiative. And, you are effectively complaining that our progressive income tax system is not progressive enough.

     

    We do indeed disagree.

     

    The statement, "The more money you make, the more money the government gives you - that is the very definition of a regressive tax policy.." reads as utter nonsense to me.
    9 Jan 2012, 02:32 PM Reply Like
  • mrholty
    , contributor
    Comments (1025) | Send Message
     
    D-Inv-

     

    My read is similar to McHattie's. Same house but person B who makes more than person A gets a larger deduction does seem indicative of a regressive tax policy.

     

    I disagree with your comment that a renter benefits by the Mortgage interest deduction. A price ones pays for the right to rent has little to do with the owners tax statement and more on demand of the housing stock. In fact, if the MID was eliminated housing prices would decrease and theoretically if rents were based on the owners operating costs it would actually be less as the owner would have a lower upfront capital requirement.

     

    What would you define as regressive tax policy? Gasoline taxes or taxes on food are considered regressive as they affect lower incomes more as they are take a greater bite out of a persons income as a % than a person who makes more.

     

    Anywho, we've strayed off the Axion wagon far enough.

     

    Would you not also state that the gasonline tax is regressive as
    9 Jan 2012, 03:21 PM Reply Like
  • D. McHattie
    , contributor
    Comments (1844) | Send Message
     
    I'm saying that the current 'progressive' tax system is not really very progressive when you have major regressive policies like the mortgage interest deduction.
    9 Jan 2012, 03:55 PM Reply Like
  • D-inv
    , contributor
    Comments (4135) | Send Message
     
    MrH,

     

    I agree that the topic is far afield of Axion Power and don't wish to continue the discussion. ( :-) Axion developments are far more interesting.) But, I will respond to your observations and questions.

     

    Rental operators, like other businesses, are likely to set rents (absent government controls) at what ever level they assess the traffic as willing and able to bear. I don't think we disagree on that. Neither do we appear to disagree on market price determination by demand and supply. We do disagree conspicuously on perceptions of MID effects on type of housing supply and housing prices. I would expect elimination of MID for homeowners to have little effect on housing price levels over time with much greater effect on relative size of rental and owner occupied housing units.

     

    Gasoline taxes are not necessarily regressive as many low income people rely on public transportation or otherwise make do without direct purchase of transportation fuels. Payroll taxes (social security, disability, medicare) are regressive for those heavily reliant on employment income. Sales taxes, in general, tend toward "regressive" in a society with low savings rates, particularly exicse and/or ad valorem taxes levied on goods and services with inelastic demand (necessities of life/employment for which there are no or only very imperfect substitutes).
    9 Jan 2012, 08:16 PM Reply Like
  • anthlj
    , contributor
    Comments (228) | Send Message
     
    From Mike Holt, 30th December:
    Happy New Year, John. I wish you and all the other Axion shareholders all the best in 2012 -- especially since I may soon be one of them.

     

    Mike, I noticed that you hold a position as Senior VP, Wealth Management Strategist with The MDE Group. Some discussion here has been devoted to the way institutional investors might view a company like AXPW as it emerges from research to manufacturing. Although I assume your earlier missive referred to a personal acquisition of AXPW stock (which is terrific in and of itself), could you share with the concentrators your professional perspective in respect of institutional interest in AXPW going forward. What are the specific triggers that can bring AXPW onto the radar screen of guys like you?

     

    Thanks much
    3 Jan 2012, 02:53 PM Reply Like
  • Mayascribe
    , contributor
    Comments (9912) | Send Message
     
    Author’s reply » 30,000 shares just passed through at $0.3045. By far the largest buy today.
    3 Jan 2012, 03:10 PM Reply Like
  • LT
    , contributor
    Comments (5014) | Send Message
     
    Today has been a very good day ... no heavy handed selling and a lot of buys taking out the ask and pushing it higher.

     

    also a second welcome to Mike Holt
    3 Jan 2012, 03:20 PM Reply Like
  • bangwhiz
    , contributor
    Comments (2248) | Send Message
     
    The only way anyone can find the site I am building is if they have the URL posted in my instablog, or in some of the Concentrator links. I am not sweating legal issues at this point period. Someone would have to be insane to try and build some legal case against me with my limited assets at this point in my life.

     

    If anyone is wondering what's going on with the site I am developing I am reading all the concentrators and pulling interesting links from everyone of them. There is a snippet of information concerning the link above each one as well as the concentrator number it came from. This data is being done offline in a document and not visible on the site at the moment.

     

    I played with a lot of automated link spiders, custom Google search engines, etc, and the results were not useful. Why? Because the spider couldn't bring you back to the actual comment containing the link, you landed on an index or header page.

     

    Sometimes I have to just pull a lot of data and when I am done and know what I have, then I decide how I want to organize and present it. I may create summaries of the primary focus of the comments in each concentrator also.

     

    If this sounds like a lot of work it is, but trapped in a single family home most of the time caring for my mother I've got plenty of time.

     

    In my earlier manufacturing days when I actually made things (several of which I licensed and were sold worldwide) I learned that your insights come later after you've worked with something for quite while versus "Eureka" moments out of the clear blue. Sort of like HTL's chart and trading analysis. At some point he may discover a great insight that just took a lot of time and effort before recognition.

     

    I suppose I will also comment that I would like the site on its own URL to get out of the straight jacket of Google sites - but there is no reason to make that decision at this point in the process. If that would be a good move I'll propose it to all and explain why and get everyone's feedback. I just hate not working in pure code versus an HTML generator like Google Sites. You can edit the html in Google sites, but it is clunky.
    3 Jan 2012, 03:11 PM Reply Like
  • 481086
    , contributor
    Comments (3447) | Send Message
     
    Bang, you're doing God's work, all over the house. And your last paragraph---I've found that to be very true...
    3 Jan 2012, 03:20 PM Reply Like
  • H. T. Love
    , contributor
    Comments (17886) | Send Message
     
    (AXPW): Just saw our highest *bid* for the day? $0.3001.

     

    Progress in small increments, but progress nonetheless.

     

    HardToLove
    3 Jan 2012, 03:23 PM Reply Like
  • Mayascribe
    , contributor
    Comments (9912) | Send Message
     
    Author’s reply » Yep, HTL! I'm passing out pompoms and soap boxes to all who made the 25.1 cent bottom call in the last Concentrator. Giving myself each of these, too!

     

    What are our colors? Pastels, like Axion's?

     

    I know it's only one session, but today's action was very promising, especially because the previous Concentrator had predicted it.
    3 Jan 2012, 04:07 PM Reply Like
  • H. T. Love
    , contributor
    Comments (17886) | Send Message
     
    So, you missed the trade of 13K at $0.3075? ;-))

     

    That's a retail investor and those shares will *not* be for sale for a while either.

     

    HardToLove

     

    P.S. UBSS was on the ask side all day at $0.31, 60K. If they're patient they'll get it without having to knock down their ask, IMO.
    3 Jan 2012, 04:10 PM Reply Like
  • Mayascribe
    , contributor
    Comments (9912) | Send Message
     
    Author’s reply » I did see UBSS asking the 60K. But they were also on the other side today, bidding, too.

     

    Have we created a quasi Axionista "lockbox?"

     

    FYI: For the time being, I'm keeping the Level 2 operating on my upstairs laptop, so that everytime I go upstairs, I come down with something in hand, as I continue to occupy my new downstairs digs.
    3 Jan 2012, 04:20 PM Reply Like
  • H. T. Love
    , contributor
    Comments (17886) | Send Message
     
    Not a lockbox, quasi or otherwise IMO.

     

    UBS, being a broker as well as a market-maker, will have some folks on both sides - some that bought at ... ~$0.26-$0.2x and see a nice short-term profit in hand. So 60K offered at $0.31 makes sense.

     

    On the other side are those late to the party (bid 100K worth today) that are hoping for some more ~$0.30 and don't have the current trend (*if* my SWAG is right) properly understood and may end up chasing price.

     

    But we've a lot of ground to cover before we know if I'm anywhere near the mark. Macro events could affect us as well. And those $0.30 guys might catch another dip.

     

    But it shouldn't take long for the trend to clarify.

     

    The $0.275 low today was two trades totaling 35K at 10:00:09/19 and that was never seen again. Higher low and higher high today on really decent volume (in the longer-term context).

     

    BTW, I've not done the math yet but the buy:sell is *very* near 2:1 at 15:56, the last trade of the day.

     

    MHO,
    HardToLove
    3 Jan 2012, 04:43 PM Reply Like
  • John Petersen
    , contributor
    Comments (30185) | Send Message
     
    After the last week today seemed a bit slow, but it was still about 5,000 shares up from the 200-day moving average volume.
    3 Jan 2012, 04:58 PM Reply Like
  • John Petersen
    , contributor
    Comments (30185) | Send Message
     
    FWIW, the average trade price today was $0.2918.
    3 Jan 2012, 04:35 PM Reply Like
  • H. T. Love
    , contributor
    Comments (17886) | Send Message
     
    Yes! And the sweet thing on the intraday is that the trend was steady up from 10:10 onward through the 15:49 high of $0.3075.

     

    Volume did retreat, as normal, during this rise, but it didn't disappear. Still had some relatively good one-hour volumes.

     

    The lovely lady in the gaudy garb may be approaching the first refrain in the aria in the next couple days.

     

    HardToLove
    3 Jan 2012, 05:15 PM Reply Like
  • alsobirdman
    , contributor
    Comments (374) | Send Message
     
    What was sweet for me was that I completed the position I wanted as the buyer at the LOD .275. I was happy about that.

     

    Unhappy that my average is .45, but I can live with that.
    3 Jan 2012, 05:36 PM Reply Like
  • H. T. Love
    , contributor
    Comments (17886) | Send Message
     
    Alsobirdman: What's the emoticon for "envy"? :-))

     

    Congratulations on that acquisition!

     

    And welcome to the concentrators!

     

    HardToLove
    3 Jan 2012, 06:45 PM Reply Like
  • bangwhiz
    , contributor
    Comments (2248) | Send Message
     
    Mayascribe> "...psst...things are heating up in the Strait of Hormuz"

     

    Don't those dumb Iranians know that we always wait to start a war until after football season ends - complete with live coverage, embedded reporters, color commentators, the works. Famous Middle Eastern quotes:
    1. "This is the line of death.
    2. "The mother of all battles.
    Is this the next one? “We warn this ship, which is considered a threat to us, not to come back..."
    3 Jan 2012, 05:05 PM Reply Like
  • LabTech
    , contributor
    Comments (1777) | Send Message
     
    Bangwhiz,
    "Is this the next one?"
    I sure hope not. The Iranian government is scared. They've held the loyalty of their people together by fear and by handing out lots of money from oil profits. This latest monetary sanction really hits them in the pocket book, unlike most of the others. We'd be much better off letting them deal with their own people's dissatisfaction than giving them a reason to rally around their government by picking a fight.
    3 Jan 2012, 05:25 PM Reply Like
  • Mayascribe
    , contributor
    Comments (9912) | Send Message
     
    Author’s reply » Bang: Over in the latest Quick Chat, there has been lots of chatting about the Iranian saber rattling, along with some investment ideas, to boot.

     

    I find it intriguing (or counterintuitive) that the more sanctioning the US, and now the EU, slam the Iranians with, all while the Iranians posture to be closing the Strait of Hormuz anytime of their choosing, results in the Iranians making more money, because the cost of oil will only go up. And China and Russia are willing to gobble up every barrel of oil the rest of the world is sanctioned from buying.

     

    In effect, it behooves Iran to keep saber rattling, while also keeping the Strait of Hormuz open.

     

    I'll add that the Iranian rial is dropping like a rock in value.
    3 Jan 2012, 05:36 PM Reply Like
  • bangwhiz
    , contributor
    Comments (2248) | Send Message
     
    There is no way the US Navy won't eventually send a carrier battle group through the Strait of Hormuz. It is just a question of time. If Iran attacks, US will retaliate. If Iran escalates US will escalate. I suspect the Navy will wait a while before they act, it is only prudent to do so - but when they do it won't be a stealth trip.
    3 Jan 2012, 06:17 PM Reply Like
  • LT
    , contributor
    Comments (5014) | Send Message
     
    Where is this "Quick Chat" ? can u send me a link?
    3 Jan 2012, 06:35 PM Reply Like
  • Mayascribe
    , contributor
    Comments (9912) | Send Message
     
    Author’s reply » Here is what I just wrote on Stock Gumshoe:

     

    Travis, you and I have before corresponded, under my cyber name Mayascribe I use on Seeking Alpha. Axion Power is my #1 pick for 2012 (and likely 2013, too). The lineup of BMW, GM, Ford, Norfolk Southern, plus oil rigs, and, I’ve heard in person the CEO, Thomas Granville, mention the military, TWICE, is quite a starting lineup for a $27M market cap outfit. Johnson’s Controls and Exide have each independently approached Axion in quest of why their advanced lead acid battery does not work as well as does Axion’s. Johnson Controls has stated they expect Stop/Start cars and trucks as the future, and in a huge way, not lithium powered EVs…but they don’t yet have a battery ready? Add in Viridity/PJM, who are involved with 54M grid users…Wow!
    3 Jan 2012, 07:08 PM Reply Like
  • LabTech
    , contributor
    Comments (1777) | Send Message
     
    Maya,
    What you say is partially true, however, while China is willing to gobble up the extra oil, they are also putting the screws to Iran in that they are making Iran sell it to them at a premium price. So Iran is making less money on the oil. So while worldwide oil prices are going up, the stuff that China is buying from Iran is going down because they've got no one else to sell it to. China will never join an embargo on Iranian oil, however, they aren't really helping Iran either, while at the same time reducing their own oil costs. In the end all China worries about is China.
    4 Jan 2012, 12:00 AM Reply Like
  • LabTech
    , contributor
    Comments (1777) | Send Message
     
    Bangwhiz,
    All very true, but for now it serves the US more to worry about Afghanistan and let the sanctions do their job on Iran than to drive a task force through the straits just for show. If Iran ever did try to close the straits, the US will have to line up behind all the other Western and Arab countries who can not afford to let that happen even more than the US.
    4 Jan 2012, 12:04 AM Reply Like
  • Mayascribe
    , contributor
    Comments (9912) | Send Message
     
    Author’s reply » Labtech: Quibble. That's just today and tomorrow. Surely, capitalistic China can see the future, where oil demand will increase a lot due to the 3 billion people on this planet about to get electricity for the first time, about to have roads, with neighborhood, or village nighttime lights.

     

    The future of horses and donkeys is bleak!

     

    In the next 10 years, and perhaps you already have witnessed the transformation of any one of the poorest countries in the world; for me, that being what my beloved Honduras has encountered over the last ten years, you would understand that many third world countries create their electricity via diesel generators. Diesel usage is going to increase as this global transformation continues these next ten years..

     

    China has to know that if the premium-priced oil they now get, will cost them way more during this decade if they alllow the Strait of Hormuz to be closed, setting off a war, of which, will now include the Middle Eastern Facebook Generation.

     

    China may worry about only China, but China had better worry if the Iranians execute what they are threatening to do.
    4 Jan 2012, 12:51 AM Reply Like
  • H. T. Love
    , contributor
    Comments (17886) | Send Message
     
    Full listing here.

     

    http://bit.ly/wM0jjh

     

    HardToLove
    4 Jan 2012, 09:17 AM Reply Like
  • 481086
    , contributor
    Comments (3447) | Send Message
     
    And It will be the mother of all strategic blunders on their part, unless they are *much* further along than we think with some of their uh, other projects. There are sure to be nasty surprises in store for all, but hard to see this working out well for them...
    3 Jan 2012, 05:22 PM Reply Like
  • LabTech
    , contributor
    Comments (1777) | Send Message
     
    481086,
    I have little doubt that if Iran was further along with making a bomb, that Israel would have already sent in more bombers. They can't afford to let Iran get the bomb and they've never been shy about using military or intelligence sources to prevent that from happening in the past.
    4 Jan 2012, 12:08 AM Reply Like
  • 481086
    , contributor
    Comments (3447) | Send Message
     
    You are quite likely right, which supports my main point, but still, the costs of being erroneously sanguine on the question could be profound.
    4 Jan 2012, 02:17 AM Reply Like
  • wtblanchard
    , contributor
    Comments (2431) | Send Message
     
    Can't we just make them an offer they can't refuse on some Powercubes and Solar Arrays and call it a day? :-)
    4 Jan 2012, 09:46 AM Reply Like
  • LabTech
    , contributor
    Comments (1777) | Send Message
     
    Off the subject for a moment, I want to ask those of you who have PC's if any of you have figured out how to get the orange tabs to show up for new posts on the concentrators? I was at my in-laws this last week, and whenever I would click on the email link to new posts the orange flags would show up because I was using my in-law's Mac. But when I do the same thing on a PC I don't get the orange flags. Is this just something that only works on Macs or is there a fix for PCs that anyone knows?

     

    Thanks.
    3 Jan 2012, 05:29 PM Reply Like
  • 481086
    , contributor
    Comments (3447) | Send Message
     
    It definitely works on PCs (though not quite 100.0% of the time) .. but at the top of the comments you have to check the "track new comments in this article" box.. I've found it to work both on IE and Chrome browsers that I've tried....
    3 Jan 2012, 05:35 PM Reply Like
  • H. T. Love
    , contributor
    Comments (17886) | Send Message
     
    LabTech: A simple matter of browser width or desktop resolution.

     

    Here's the deal.

     

    Sometime back the brainiacs at SA decided that a fixed-width console at the bottom of the screen with a *ton* of fixed-width empty white space between the major components on the left and those on the right was the way to go.

     

    If your browser is wide enough you will see them.

     

    If you have old eyes like mine and prefer a lower resolution desktop to make all the teeny-weeny scribbles a little bigger, and hence easier to read, you may have a lower desktop resolution like I do and shrink your browser width to fit in the resulting screen.

     

    Since the white space is a fixed width (in pixels), your little flag happily trots off the right side of the screen.

     

    Solution: widen your browser. You may have to increase desktop resolution to get the full browser width to remain all on-screen.

     

    If you can't widen your browser, for whatever reason, just keep clicking "My Feed" to get notified via the list on the right side of the screen.

     

    It's inconvenient, but it works.

     

    <RANT>
    This is another request from about a year ago to which no response of any kind has been received. All they have to do is make that white space proportional and all works.
    </RANT>

     

    HardToLove
    3 Jan 2012, 06:01 PM Reply Like
  • jakurtz
    , contributor
    Comments (1930) | Send Message
     
    LabTech,
    Try downloading Firefox. Most likely it is more an issue with your browser than your platform.
    3 Jan 2012, 06:34 PM Reply Like
  • Mayascribe
    , contributor
    Comments (9912) | Send Message
     
    Author’s reply » Actually, I routinely check in and see several comments I know I have yet to read without orange new comment tabs. Seems SA has a lag. I have a brand new Lenovo Windows 7 laptop, and this still occurs as it does on my piece of crap Vista.
    3 Jan 2012, 07:16 PM Reply Like
  • bangwhiz
    , contributor
    Comments (2248) | Send Message
     
    I'm running Chrome on an old 1.1 Ghz Thinkpad R31 with only 1024x768 at 32bit color and see new comments below comments as usual fine. I have Flash disabled in Chrome so the SA page doesn't take a year to load. Ironically, Level II on OTCBB won't display in Chrome with Flash disabled - just the quote. Maybe it thinks its a pop-up, I'll have to check next time I am on OTCBB.

     

    Tomorrow's trading direction will be interesting. We'll see if this is a head fake or a real up trend. We are right at the recent resistance level with the next level at .35. MACD looks a lot healthier. I know where a bunch of shares have gone that are no longer available - right here!
    3 Jan 2012, 07:19 PM Reply Like
  • Futurist
    , contributor
    Comments (2127) | Send Message
     
    Labtech,
    Firefox has never failed to show the orange flags. Even with the older MS operating systems. MS7 works fine.
    3 Jan 2012, 09:26 PM Reply Like
  • bangwhiz
    , contributor
    Comments (2248) | Send Message
     
    Even Bill Gates dissed Vista! Yuk!
    3 Jan 2012, 09:39 PM Reply Like
  • LabTech
    , contributor
    Comments (1777) | Send Message
     
    Thanks all. Turns out the problem has nothing to do with screen resolution but has everything to do with software. I have email through AOL so I've always accessed the concentrator through that. When I use my desktop AOL software the flags don't show up. If I go to AOL.com via a different internet browser then the flags show up. Wonder why they don't show up in AOL's desktop software?
    4 Jan 2012, 01:04 AM Reply Like
  • LT
    , contributor
    Comments (5014) | Send Message
     
    More electric motors, better mileage in 2012

     

    http://bit.ly/AB7PYM
    3 Jan 2012, 05:58 PM Reply Like
  • H. T. Love
    , contributor
    Comments (17886) | Send Message
     
    Yes LT. And it's a natural AFAICT - using motors for a boost, as in the Buick, at least reduces the most gas-guzzling in part of driving - acceleration of an inert mass.

     

    That, in turn, allows for more finely-tuned intake and exhaust systems (mostly the cam timing, lifts and durations) to be more efficient in the most common rpm range without having to be very powerful at lower and higher rpms, which are usually only for brief periods. The battery and motors can cover such demands by adding to the engine output.

     

    Throw in regenerative braking, s/s, ... and big improvements are to be had.

     

    MHO,
    HardToLove
    3 Jan 2012, 06:58 PM Reply Like
  • LT
    , contributor
    Comments (5014) | Send Message
     
    Anyone got a list of companies who make the inverters? PWER is the only one I know of that I have traded.
    3 Jan 2012, 06:42 PM Reply Like
  • lsd_lsm
    , contributor
    Comments (134) | Send Message
     
    Off the top of my head,

     

    - Princeton Power
    - ZBB energy is getting theirs UL certified as we speak

     

    I looked at couple others, but they escape me now.
    3 Jan 2012, 08:10 PM Reply Like
  • siliconhillbilly
    , contributor
    Comments (2169) | Send Message
     
    AMSC makes utility power level inverters. Started as wind turbine power conditioners but is customizable via software.
    3 Jan 2012, 11:27 PM Reply Like
  • H. T. Love
    , contributor
    Comments (17886) | Send Message
     
    For at least automotive/truck IIRC (UQM) makes them for other manufacturers.

     

    http://www.uqm.com

     

    I have a small starter speculative position in UQM. They are providing motors for the CODA EV effort in SoCal, the Wrightspeed delivery van HEVs, testing with some Euro automakers, etc.

     

    HardToLove
    4 Jan 2012, 09:24 AM Reply Like
  • LT
    , contributor
    Comments (5014) | Send Message
     
    buying frenzy at the open as lurkers may begin to nibble...

     

    HTL.. I looked at UQM chart and it looks like a good place to start...especially at that $1.38 & maybe even here at $1.50..thanks
    4 Jan 2012, 09:34 AM Reply Like
  • H. T. Love
    , contributor
    Comments (17886) | Send Message
     
    LT: Here's a little background with news releases linked in the comments.

     

    http://seekingalpha.co...

     

    HardToLove
    4 Jan 2012, 10:11 AM Reply Like
  • DRich
    , contributor
    Comments (4610) | Send Message
     
    >HTL ... UQM is definitely on the Detroit OEM radar. Former Chrysler Group Chief Operating Officer Eric Ridenour joined the generator and electric motor manufacturer (UQM) on Sept. 1,2010 and will took over as CEO on Dec. 1. Look for a UQM motor in a JEEP model someday soon.
    4 Jan 2012, 10:32 AM Reply Like
  • H. T. Love
    , contributor
    Comments (17886) | Send Message
     
    DRich: "Look for a UQM motor in a JEEP model someday soon"

     

    That would be a nice surprise. Chrysler has not even been on the radar, AFAIK, for adoption of UQM products.

     

    I would really like something like that as we would have an established manufacturer, rather than only start-ups, taking product. This should offer a reduction in risk, even though Chrysler itself is still somewhat uncertain.

     

    That might turn into some Fiat biz too. That might offer some volume sales.

     

    HardToLove
    4 Jan 2012, 10:57 AM Reply Like
  • DRich
    , contributor
    Comments (4610) | Send Message
     
    >HTL ... I don't know where to find it, but 1 year ago (2?) one the commenters on John articles posted a picture from the Detroit auto show. Chrysler had an electric concept car with a drive motor plainly marked with the UQM logo. Wish I could locate that but haven't yet.
    4 Jan 2012, 11:12 AM Reply Like
  • bangwhiz
    , contributor
    Comments (2248) | Send Message
     
    I posted that photo DRich when I wrote up a piece that said UGM was a double in 2010. Totally wrong on the stock, but I moved the price that day. It is in my comments somewhere.
    4 Jan 2012, 12:33 PM Reply Like
  • Mayascribe
    , contributor
    Comments (9912) | Send Message
     
    Author’s reply » LT: Here is a link to the latest Quick Chat, our 219th!

     

    http://seekingalpha.co...
    3 Jan 2012, 07:10 PM Reply Like
  • H. T. Love
    , contributor
    Comments (17886) | Send Message
     
    (AXPW): 1/3/2012 EOD stuff I've been tracking.

     

    Higher low and higher high today. Pps continues to pull away from the falling downtrend support. The falling resistance for that trend seems to be at ~$0.355, very near the flat "top" we saw 12/7-12/14. If a lot of folks that bought in the recent low range see a near 30% gain in less than a month, they might not be able to resist taking profit. So I would expect some resistance in that area at the latest.

     

    We should expect that Quercus Trust will still be providing shares, so that's one reason I've been looking for a "slog" up.

     

    Any catalyst, which would surprise me here, would naturally push us right on up rapidly I think.

     

    Buy, sell and unknown end at 200,710, 108,003 and 37,000 respectively,giving total volume for the day of 345,317 (5K pre-market doesn't show in FINRA volume). Buy:sell ends at 1.858:1 and buy:(sell+unknown) at 1.384:1. Both are nice improvements from recent ratios.

     

    The daily short sales reported by FINRA are also moving in the right direction, indicating less pressure from long positions in the market-maker portfolios IMO. I've mentioned why this is attractive to me, so I won't belabor it again here. But the percentage short sales are around the "normal" area (~36% being a recent extended average I had had calculated from 10/3/11 onward - I ought to do standard deviation one of these days).

     

    I like the way our buy:sell ratio is moving and I think the short sales percentage being where it's at supports a trend up. Last time I was hoping for a higher range and it tanked the price (bad time of the year may have had something to do with that - holidays, possible tax-loss selling and other funds exiting for other reasons that JP has suggested). So I'm going to be happy at this level for now until I'm able to refine my methodology and determine just how usable it is.

     

    1215 TotVol 0324683, Sht 00113909 35.08%
    1216 TotVol 0604796, Sht 00082990 13.72%
    1219 TotVol 0626525, Sht 00060821 09.71%
    1220 TotVol 0171087, Sht 00011207 06.55%
    1221 TotVol 0281522, Sht 00117627 41.78%
    1222 TotVol 0244924, Sht 00086179 35.19%
    1227 TotVol 0999992, Sht 00386219 38.62%
    1228 TotVol 0233822, Sht 00059184 25.31%
    1229 TotVol 1278042, Sht 00098935 07.74%
    1230 TotVol 1220038, Sht 00195752 16.04%
    0103 TotVol 0340713, Sht 00099149 29.10%

     

    HardToLove
    3 Jan 2012, 07:47 PM Reply Like
  • lsd_lsm
    , contributor
    Comments (134) | Send Message
     
    I know its been mentioned before, but this Honda lawsuit story is starting to gain some traction. It specifically addresses degradation of the battery ...

     

    http://yhoo.it/vZ7q0r
    3 Jan 2012, 08:12 PM Reply Like
  • bangwhiz
    , contributor
    Comments (2248) | Send Message
     
    "It specifically addresses degradation of the battery .." hmmmmm.. Yummy!
    3 Jan 2012, 09:42 PM Reply Like
  • Futurist
    , contributor
    Comments (2127) | Send Message
     
    Since size and weight might not be as critical in a Hummer as a passenger car, could this article be the hidden military use of the PBC?

     

    Its probably not expensive enough for the military to accept as a solution but the thought is nice.
    http://yhoo.it/zgLnin
    3 Jan 2012, 09:32 PM Reply Like
  • 481086
    , contributor
    Comments (3447) | Send Message
     
    One important consideration for military applications may be safety/explosive/fire hazard issues and how those relate to ship-board transportability and air-transportability --- for instance loading up a bunch of vehicles with Li-ion batteries on a C-17 may be problematic. Likewise, drive-on amphibious/supply ships can carry dozens to hundreds of vehicles stowed in below decks storage, and Li-ion volatility could also present an issue there. PbC would likely face fewer restrictions in those realms...
    3 Jan 2012, 10:19 PM Reply Like
  • JohnM121
    , contributor
    Comments (397) | Send Message
     
    An often quoted number for fuel cost in a war zone is $400/gal and costs lives in delivering it. Forward bases run on diesel generators. There have been some fielding mini-smart grids to reduce the number of active idol generators and fuel

     

    Here is one that is using NiCd batteries
    http://tinyurl.com/78s...

     

    Somewhere I heard of a battery company that has a rectangular prism shaped box that provides power for peak loading. I just can't remember the name. Good charge acceptance too, as I recall.
    3 Jan 2012, 10:46 PM Reply Like
  • LabTech
    , contributor
    Comments (1777) | Send Message
     
    When I still had holdings in ALTI the US military was serious looking at their Li-Ti chemistry because it could withstand both hot and cold extremes, was stable, and could be recharged quickly. They were looking at ALTI's battery packs for forward battery positions. Of course then the board decided to sell the company to the Chinese and so the US military cut all the research contracts. I would have liked to have seen where the research would have gone, but those were the main factors that they were looking at with ALTI's Li-Ti battery at the time.
    4 Jan 2012, 12:36 AM Reply Like
  • Futurist
    , contributor
    Comments (2127) | Send Message
     
    The study put out by the Navy definitely showed the superiority of the PbC technology for many uses within that branch. I hope the ground forces are also looking at the research. Although my posted Hummer article was tongue in cheek I do suspect some serious consideration by the Army with the PbC in some applications.
    4 Jan 2012, 07:46 AM Reply Like
  • f-kru
    , contributor
    Comments (260) | Send Message
     
    "Axion Power Chosen for Battery Mini Power Cube in Zero Energy Building in Washington DC Naval Yard"
    http://bit.ly/xDcV5b

     

    Here comes the mini-cube - 36 PbCs, underwritten by the US Navy. I bet Rosewater had their hands in this deal.
    4 Jan 2012, 08:02 AM Reply Like
  • John Petersen
    , contributor
    Comments (30185) | Send Message
     
    The most intriguing aspect of the press release was the paragraph quoting Scott Sklar of The Stella Group, Ltd., a cleantech optimization and strategic policy firm that facilitates clean distributed energy projects for commercial, industrial and military applications -- specializing on blending technologies and financing for projects, as well as assisting companies to scale-up market penetration.

     

    http://bit.ly/zfLfHm

     

    Since The Stella Group was an advisor on the DC Navy Yard Project and is active in many of the same areas as Viridity, I think we may be seeing yet another strategic partner stepping into the game.
    4 Jan 2012, 08:28 AM Reply Like
  • f-kru
    , contributor
    Comments (260) | Send Message
     
    Very interesting. The building application is obviously just the tip of the iceberg. It looks like The Stella Group has a very strong relationship with the US DoD.
    4 Jan 2012, 08:42 AM Reply Like
  • H. T. Love
    , contributor
    Comments (17886) | Send Message
     
    JP that link didn't work for me. "Server not found". It was trying to find (without the spaces I added so SA would leave it alone).

     

    http :// the stella group ltd.co/

     

    It's missing the "m" after "co"

     

    Here's their home page for anyone else that has a similar problem.

     

    http://bit.ly/yeFQFu

     

    HardToLove
    4 Jan 2012, 09:37 AM Reply Like
  • LabTech
    , contributor
    Comments (1777) | Send Message
     
    I loved this press release! Granted the sale is small, but the press release was so well written. It pointed out all the advantages that the PbC has over Li-ion and AGM batteries, pointed out that the batteries are recycleable, worked in hot and cold temperatures, and we're made by an American company in an American plant. And it wasn't just TG saying it, it was the rep from Stella Group, which should carry even more weight. This is exactly the kind of PR that Axion has needed for a long time.
    4 Jan 2012, 09:57 AM Reply Like
  • John Petersen
    , contributor
    Comments (30185) | Send Message
     
    Scott Sklar is one impressive guy to be saying nice things about the PowerCube. Some links are just too good to ignore.

     

    http://bit.ly/xuiVoX
    4 Jan 2012, 10:08 AM Reply Like
  • battman
    , contributor
    Comments (373) | Send Message
     
    Another third party validation of the technology. I wonder how many buildings the military can convert to zero energy.
    4 Jan 2012, 10:18 AM Reply Like
  • jakurtz
    , contributor
    Comments (1930) | Send Message
     
    Labtech, I felt the same way about the press release. It summarizes everything so attractive about the PbC not just from Granville but from the Stella Group as well.

     

    I will call this another cute win for Axion Power. When I was describing the company to my wife yesterday (for the first time. Yes, I came out of the closet) I said, "You would really like the company, they're cute."

     

    Based in New Castle PA, they are this small company trying on really big shoes and gosh darn it one day those really big shoes are going to fit. Growing one "cute" project after another. It is just plain fun to watch even if I didn't have a horse in the race.

     

    Does it matter how many PbC's they sold? Like you and LT said, they sold some, I think it is a great step that demonstrates their steady and determined progress. Good for Axion.
    4 Jan 2012, 10:18 AM Reply Like
  • LabTech
    , contributor
    Comments (1777) | Send Message
     
    It should also be helpful that Dr. Sklar is also so entrenched in the renewable energies policy push. This way you have one of "their own" saying there is something better out there that is cost effective, and something we can use for renewables.
    4 Jan 2012, 10:28 AM Reply Like
  • D. McHattie
    , contributor
    Comments (1844) | Send Message
     
    It seems to me that the size of this implementation would act as a great example for Pic and the Rosewater group when selling home systems to high net worth individuals.

     

    It's like the equivalent of saying "this is the same stuff used by NASA!".

     

    They can say "this baby is the same system that's used by the US Navy in their new zero energy buildings!".

     

    I, too, am cheered by this news because, small as it is, it's a real-life sale not to be used just for testing and demonstration purposes.
    4 Jan 2012, 10:31 AM Reply Like
  • Mayascribe
    , contributor
    Comments (9912) | Send Message
     
    Author’s reply » f-kru: Your fantastic find did not properly cut and paste into the header of the next Concentrator. However, I was able to find a "copy" of the Navy MiniCube announcement on GreenTeck Media, which did.

     

    Wonderful news! Thanks.

     

    4 Jan 2012, 12:26 PM Reply Like
  • JohnM121
    , contributor
    Comments (397) | Send Message
     
    Not the exact application we were discussing, but a cube in a Navy yard in Washington DC is a decent start.

     

    http://tinyurl.com/7zt...
    4 Jan 2012, 08:04 AM Reply Like
  • bangwhiz
    , contributor
    Comments (2248) | Send Message
     
    Finally - a damn sale! Jumping Jehoseaphrat! I don't care if its one battery, it is a sale!
    4 Jan 2012, 09:40 AM Reply Like
  • DRich
    , contributor
    Comments (4610) | Send Message
     
    >bangwhiz ... Ahmen! from the peanut gallery.
    4 Jan 2012, 10:35 AM Reply Like
  • LT
    , contributor
    Comments (5014) | Send Message
     
    I am thrilled to finally see some product go out the door (even if it is small) He can give away 36 batteries to get them into circulation for all I care. It is just great to see our product deployed and hopefully more to come as it is proven & becomes an accepted system/product.
    Congrats AXPW !
    4 Jan 2012, 08:40 AM Reply Like
  • John Petersen
    , contributor
    Comments (30185) | Send Message
     
    SCOTT SKALR is an old-line DC warhorse

     

    http://bit.ly/xuiVoX

     

    "Previously, Sklar served as Executive Director for 15 years of two national trade association concurrently, the Solar Energy Industries Association and the National BioEnergy Industries Association. Prior of running trade associations, Sklar was Political Director of The Solar Lobby for two years, -- a renewable energy advocacy group founded by the big nine US environmental organizations. And for three years previous to joining the advocacy organization, served as Washington Director for two years and Acting RD&D Director for one year of the National Center for Appropriate Technology (NCAT), a federally-funded applied technology institution promoting renewables and energy efficiency."
    4 Jan 2012, 08:46 AM Reply Like
  • H. T. Love
    , contributor
    Comments (17886) | Send Message
     
    (AXPW) Opening trade of 60ZK @ $0.315, an "unknown as b/a was $0.31/$0.32.

     

    As could be predicted with the news, we've got good volume with a low and high thus far of $0.30/$0.32.

     

    I hope this doesn't draw in some momentum traders.

     

    HardToLove
    4 Jan 2012, 09:43 AM Reply Like
  • H. T. Love
    , contributor
    Comments (17886) | Send Message
     
    Heh. Meant 60K.

     

    HardToLove
    4 Jan 2012, 10:14 AM Reply Like
  • bangwhiz
    , contributor
    Comments (2248) | Send Message
     
    You know it is going to get choppy HTL. Just keep your seat belt loosely fastened and be careful with your coffee cup.
    4 Jan 2012, 10:45 AM Reply Like
  • Ricknplano
    , contributor
    Comments (304) | Send Message
     
    2012 starting just as we expected...good news starting to dribble in. I expect more PowerCube announcements and an order from Norfolk Southern. The stock is also responding just as expected, slogging upward. I expect about a double by second quarter and triple by year end from today's prices, even with capital issue. If we get an order from BMW or other big name automotive customer then the stock will go up much more than triple, but I am not expecting the auto sector to pop until early 2013 for 2014 auto models.
    4 Jan 2012, 10:30 AM Reply Like
  • sonrisa777
    , contributor
    Comments (122) | Send Message
     
    They have to test the battery with real people driving them before they put it in they new model. So maybe we could see BMW buying batteries for the testing. That could be a great advancement!
    4 Jan 2012, 11:48 AM Reply Like
  • Mercy Jimenez
    , contributor
    Comments (2073) | Send Message
     
    Finally took a starter position on AXPW -- after watching/researching it for some time. This morning's release and the deep understanding provided on this company by John Petersen and all of you on this thread is truly a standout on SA. Thanks much.
    mj
    4 Jan 2012, 10:32 AM Reply Like
  • John Petersen
    , contributor
    Comments (30185) | Send Message
     
    On Maya's behalf let me welcome you aboard. My guess is that you're one of the many who were waiting in the coffee shop till the train finished boarding. We're delighted to have you and hope you'll be an active contributor.
    4 Jan 2012, 10:48 AM Reply Like
  • Ricknplano
    , contributor
    Comments (304) | Send Message
     
    Welcome to the blog. Great level to start the investment. Most here are in at higher prices.
    4 Jan 2012, 10:51 AM Reply Like
  • FocalPoint Analytics
    , contributor
    Comments (6004) | Send Message
     
    Mercy is one of the shrewder investors on SA. That’s a big endorsement :)
    4 Jan 2012, 10:57 AM Reply Like
  • H. T. Love
    , contributor
    Comments (17886) | Send Message
     
    Mercy,

     

    Welcome to the fold.

     

    I hope you come equipped with a strong stomach! Riding this stock, so far, has been much like a flight in a "zero gravity" NASA training flight.

     

    Brown paper bags are strategically placed throughout the cabin! :-))

     

    Useful for stuffing money in as well!

     

    HardToLove
    4 Jan 2012, 11:09 AM Reply Like
  • LabTech
    , contributor
    Comments (1777) | Send Message
     
    "Brown paper bags are strategically placed throughout the cabin! :-))

     

    Useful for stuffing money in as well!"

     

    Yeah, right next to the Jamesson for the days when the sellers have been killing us! ;-)
    4 Jan 2012, 11:32 AM Reply Like
  • Mercy Jimenez
    , contributor
    Comments (2073) | Send Message
     
    I appreciate the welcome. My investing experience resides more in foreign exchanges (Norway, Australia, Canada) and in oil -- producers, drillers, equipment manufacturers, storage tankers, etc -- so I am afraid I will be more of a leech on this thread than I will be a contributor. I will post any market intelligence I pick up generally -- but I will likely come off as a complete neophyte when it comes to batteries -- so please laugh quietly :-). I am most intrigued by the comments here re: future oil rig applications so I will keep my ear to the ground as I read the trade rags.
    Many thanks.
    4 Jan 2012, 11:37 AM Reply Like
  • John Petersen
    , contributor
    Comments (30185) | Send Message
     
    The quick and dirty on the oil rig application is using the PowerCube to replace an idling standby generator which every working rig must have to ensure power integrity at all times. The backup generator will still need to be on-site and ready to go, but the PowerCube can handle transition loads plenty long enough to get the backup running and up to optimal operating condition. The fuel savings are apparently on the order of 11,000 gallons a month.
    4 Jan 2012, 11:53 AM Reply Like
  • wtblanchard
    , contributor
    Comments (2431) | Send Message
     
    Wow, next think you know they'll be paying a dividend :-)
    4 Jan 2012, 11:55 AM Reply Like
  • lsd_lsm
    , contributor
    Comments (134) | Send Message
     
    Took a look at that Canadian Company POOFS.pk that you were posting on the other day with the dividends ... looks interesting.
    4 Jan 2012, 11:59 AM Reply Like
  • Ricknplano
    , contributor
    Comments (304) | Send Message
     
    You might also look at http://bit.ly/yUPfAj for info about the PowerCube as it is applicable to oil rigs. The CEO of Rosewater is an early investor in Axion and good friend of the management team.
    4 Jan 2012, 12:01 PM Reply Like
  • Mercy Jimenez
    , contributor
    Comments (2073) | Send Message
     
    Interesting, John, and thanks for using battery vocabulary 101. So are you willing to speculate as to the type of equipment manufacturer that would likely be attracted to testing the Axion technology for oil rig applications? A number of very different possibilities are running through my head: Keppel as the world's largest oil rig builder; Caterpillar as a large manufacturer of generators for oil rigs; Cameron as more of an integrated oil and gas equipment manufacturer; Twin Disc as a specialized power transmission equipment manufacturer for oil and gas, etc. Just trying to get some context around the type of players which would LIKELY take an interest in testing in this space for longer term payoff.
    4 Jan 2012, 12:31 PM Reply Like
  • Mayascribe
    , contributor
    Comments (9912) | Send Message
     
    Author’s reply » Mercy: Welcome to the Axion Concentrator. It's fantastic to finally have a woman aboard this pirate ship of investors! And a great investing talent to boot!

     

    Aaargh...Welcome aboard, matey!
    4 Jan 2012, 12:32 PM Reply Like
  • John Petersen
    , contributor
    Comments (30185) | Send Message
     
    My guess would be a drilling contractor. The manufacturer doesn't really have any skin in the game once a rig is delivered. The contractor in the field is the one who's likely to (a) realize the cost savings which are admittedly a secondary consideration, and (b) add a resource conservation and green image to an activity that can't claim many wins on that front by burning no more fuel than necessary.

     

    My conversations with Rosewater indicate that the green image is, in many cases, more important than the wallet green savings.
    4 Jan 2012, 12:47 PM Reply Like
  • LabTech
    , contributor
    Comments (1777) | Send Message
     
    An extra pair of ears around here is always apprciated, especially when they are in a field Axion wants to sell in and we don't have others who are involved. Welcome to the concentrator. As far as being a neophyte about batteries, that didn't stop any of us from posting when we first got here...as I'm sure John will concur. :-)
    4 Jan 2012, 01:55 PM Reply Like
  • bangwhiz
    , contributor
    Comments (2248) | Send Message
     
    Mayascribe> Good call on TG's inflection when he said the word "military." Let's make it a point not to play against each other at a poker table. Better we go find different fish ponds to harvest. No use the two of us fighting over them or against each other.
    4 Jan 2012, 10:42 AM Reply Like
  • Mayascribe
    , contributor
    Comments (9912) | Send Message
     
    Author’s reply » Bang: Thanks. But if we did play heads up, right now I'd bring 2000 shares to that table. Late next year (2013), maybe only 200!

     

    I'm still calling for a 1000% gain off the 25.1 cent low in that time frame, including a dilution.

     

    Not yet taking a deep sigh of relief, as we're still within the distributive bottom pattern. But yesterday's and today's action, plus a positive drop in the bucket from the US Navy, (using a black jack term) seems to be shifting the "deck" in our favor.

     

    Finally you have your order!
    4 Jan 2012, 11:59 AM Reply Like
  • pianomanshl
    , contributor
    Comments (313) | Send Message
     
    Oil Rig............coming soon...........
    4 Jan 2012, 10:49 AM Reply Like
  • D. McHattie
    , contributor
    Comments (1844) | Send Message
     
    My thoughts, too, pianoman. We're seeing that TG chooses his words very carefully and never makes even an oblique reference without there being much more behind it.

     

    TG has mentioned oil rigs too many times for there not to be an imminent sale. I'm thinking it will come sometime this quarter, probably small at first but will be a sign of much more to come.
    4 Jan 2012, 10:59 AM Reply Like
  • Mayascribe
    , contributor
    Comments (9912) | Send Message
     
    Author’s reply » This way to the next Concentrator:

     

    http://seekingalpha.co...
    4 Jan 2012, 12:20 PM Reply Like
  • John Petersen
    , contributor
    Comments (30185) | Send Message
     
    AXION STORY OUT ON TORQUE NEWS:

     

    http://bit.ly/zhOSlw
    4 Jan 2012, 11:58 AM Reply Like