Dresser-Rand Group Inc. (DRC)
Trading Center
Loading...
Symbols:
DRC Forum Topics
- All Comments on DRC
- General Discussion on DRC
- Grid-based Energy Storage: Birth of a Giant [view article]
- Battery Technology: A Different Set of Rules [view article]
- The Ins and Outs of Terror-Free Investing [view article]
- Running and Gunning Into Earnings Season: Time to Take Profits? [view article]
loading ...Recent DRC Articles
- Battery Technology: A Different Set of Rules
- Grid-based Energy Storage: Birth of a Giant
- Boone Pickens Moves Into Integrated Oil at Expense of Refiners
- The Ins and Outs of Terror-Free Investing
- Running and Gunning Into Earnings Season: Time to Take Profits?
- One Page Barron's Summary 6/19/06
- Full List of Articles »
Trading Center
Hedge Fund Jobs
Job Seekers: Search jobs by category, get job alerts by email or live feed, apply online See full list of jobs »
Employers: See all recruitment options, get applications online or by email Post a job »
Grid-based Energy Storage: Birth of a Giant [view article]
I'm sure there are lots of cool things that can be done to smooth power on the seconds or minutes time frame, but the important issue is the multi-hour storage possibilities.I think pumped hydro-power is really the only realistic one & that is very limited by geography & environmentalists & other fish freaks.
Solar power is only strong for a few mid-day hours. Wind power can be strong at any time of day with the exception of sun-rise or thereabouts.
While the dependability of wind is poor in small geographic areas, this problem can be largely mitigated re-destributing power over a large geographic region. T.B. Pickens' "wind corridor" is a huge region. The wind is likely blowing somewhere. This requires a high capacity grid that covers the whole corridor & beyond. (We need better grid infrastructure anyway.)
The remaining wind dependability issues can be bridged with nat. gas turbine peakers (& hydro/geo-therm/nuke power). I think this is appropriate use of nat. gas, unlike our main power plant here in central coast CA, that burns nat. gas 24/7. Reply
Battery Technology: A Different Set of Rules [view article]
MayascribeI would think the purpose of the cycle testing is to show the intergity of the technology... how one battery compares to another in a similar situation. To address your comment about the validity of lithium batteries in a car... well I was just trying to show that certain technolgies may not be suited for cars. In regards to the Nanosafe battery by Altair... it's hard to think that a battery with 25000 cycles will be suitable when you consider that the battery will last longer than the car's lifespan... actually at 25000 cycles averaging about 250-300 cycles a year that would put it at about 20 years, it would last longer than the life span of the car twice over. And now let's account for the cost, the original Nanosafe battery in the Phoenix Motorcars vehical's has a cost of about $75,000 just for the battery and the companies were hoping for credits to offset the battery cost. To me this application for that technology is a bit over kill and expensive. Hopefully they can bring costs down and come up with a different format for the Nanosafe to adhere to the upcoming HEV, PHEV, and BEV markets about to be put into play. However, I do see a need for this type of technology in cars for fleet vehicles... thus the contract Phoenix has with PG&E to supply these BEVs. I just don't see it as something at this moment in time for the average consumer market.
And yes it does skew the math a little bit if you start to consider regenerative brake systems. I was just using my stats as a basis of product compaison. All these new technologies have to undergo 3rd party testing to validate their claims. You should check out Altiarnano's website. You'll read some articles for these types of testingand their progress. I'm not trying to say lithium is not usefull in the car industry... I'm just not convinced that these battery companies have found the right configuartion of their technologies for the car industry. Don't get me wrong.. i'm all for HEV, PHEV and BEVs. It's just that a majority of the products coming out right now are not proven right for the consumers. Remember... a majority of this stuff is still in R&D.
Reply
proclaimer
Grid-based Energy Storage: Birth of a Giant [view article]
To Mark Goldes: Amaizing discovery! After visiting your website I am even more convinced that the future of mankind will be even brighter than I can foresee. I hope that I can get an opportunity to add yours to my list of known discoveries. I can only wonder how many other unbelievable discoveries are about to become known. ReplyBattery Technology: A Different Set of Rules [view article]
John (and Jimmie): It seems to me that you are talking about a complete charge and discharge that would equal one "cycle." Have you considered that the emerging technologies of solar roof panels (or, even solar paint) that will always be charging the battery toward maximum charge, even when the car is turned off? Also, the batteries could also be charging every time the brakes are used. Both these technologies already exist. Just wondering if these two technologies might skew (complicate) your fifth grade mathematics a little.One last question: If you are right about your theory that a lith battery in a car makes no financial sense whatsoever, then why are all 100 major manufacturers of automobiles world wide fast tracking the development of electrically aided vehicles?* Are you wrong, or are they wrong?
*As I wrote earlier, Charles Gassenheimer, CEO of Ener1, said this during the recent Internet conference call. Reply
Grid-based Energy Storage: Birth of a Giant [view article]
Interesting article, however I want to point out some conflicting data regarding ALTI and the $2000 per KW price point. According to the KEMA test report filed with ALTI the 500KWH storage system you mention should read 1.0 MW storage system and they delivered two systems to AES. If your $1,000,000 cost is accurate and if I am following you math properly this translates to 2.0 MW and a price point of $500 per KW. Keep in mind that the AES cost of testing far exceeds the final production based cost AES will untimately incur. ReplyBattery Technology: A Different Set of Rules [view article]
It galls me that only Firefly gets mentioned as synonymous with "foam" battery technology. The original concept , by many years, was Nathan Snapper's and pioneered in the PWTC (Power Tech) battery technology. Without a doubt, PWTC made a mess of it on the business end. ReplyPetersen
Battery Technology: A Different Set of Rules [view article]
Jimmi,You and I are in complete agreement. If an application can use 25,000 charge cycles, then one should buy a 25,000 cycle battery. But if you're only going to use 250 to 300 cycles per year, buying a 25,000 cycle battery is insane.
My mother always told me to buy solid shoes that fit well and matched the the job. So I don't wear my hand made crocodile loafers to garden. The same advice applies to batteries. Reply
Battery Technology: A Different Set of Rules [view article]
"Existing and proposed Li-ion products are high performance miracles that offer energy densities of 150 to 200 Wh/kg and deep discharge battery lives of 8,000 to 10,000 cycles. But a fifth grader with a pencil can figure out that 8,000 to 10,000 cycles at 50 to 120 miles per cycle is 400,000 to 1.2 million miles; a 30 to 95 year bet that the current energy density champ will still hold the crown when we’re long dead and buried."Maybe a 5th grader can figure out the simple math but maybe an educated person will realize that these high performance lithium batteries may not be suited for this application. It seems that the educated engineers at companies like A123 and Altair have expanded their R&D to encompass such applications.
Your disclosure statement regarding AXPW.OB makes it clear that you favor their technology eventhough it is based on engineering promises of performance in the "minutes" category. If you look at this chart from the Axion Power website you'll see the effectiveness of different technologies...
www.axionpower.com/ind...
But the chart does not address the new lithium batteries A123 and Altair are making. The chart states that a regular lithium batter has 3x as much density for both (Wh/kg) and (Wh/l). PbC has a density of 20.5 and 40 respectively and regular lithium batteries have 65 and 120 respectively. The PbC has 1450 useful cycles and the lithium has 1000. And the the cost of ownership for a lithium batter is 2x as much for capacity and 3x as much for per cycle. That's just a regular lithium battery.
Just in regards of the Altair Nanosafe, is has densities of 4000 W/kg and 5000 W/litre. Total cycle life of 25000 charges (not yet proven by a 3rd party but). And costs about $2000 /kWh.
www.b2i.cc/Document/54...
So in essence...
PbC: $610/kWh for about 1600 charges @ 20.5 Wh/kg & 40Wh/l
Nanosafe: $2000/kWh for about 25000 charges @ 4000 W/kg & 5000/l
You do the math!!!
It's really too early to tell which technology will be the most disruptive for which industry. But with the new technologies coming forth, let's try and keep an open mind about how things might play out in the future. Reply
Battery Technology: A Different Set of Rules [view article]
what about Mphase Technologies and their Smart NanoBattery as a pure-play...?:/ Reply
Battery Technology: A Different Set of Rules [view article]
Yuasa, what a joke...standard battery for the invincible Toyota, but as a service manager they never last more than a year (just out of warranty). Take a look at ZPower for a new technology that will blow laptops and cell phones away. Unsure about the cost versus availability in automotive though. ReplyBattery Technology: A Different Set of Rules [view article]
John,Thanks for the article. Great topic, and a good start at a list. One that is a pure play that is not listed is Lithium Technology Corp. (LTHU.PK). They make large size Lithium Ion batteries which allow safer operation, since fewer cells are needed, and have high capacity and current draw rates. They entered the Nurburgring 24 hour race with the Apollo supercar hybrid. The car finished on electric power alone; as a mechanical problem put the gas engine out of commission, but demonstrated very high potential for hybrid racing applications, as it was able to hold with the leaders until having mechanical problems. They are involved with Volkswagen and EnerSys. Reply
Battery Technology: A Different Set of Rules [view article]
Oops! In the previous comment I wrote that Ener1 was in the nascent stages of producing their 40 pound "prius-type" lith battery. My mistake! The battery is already exists, and has been tested by the USA government, as well as gaining approvel for all safety concerns by the three major auto makers in Detroit.My guess is that this smaller battery is the one Ener1 is in (mysterious) negotiations with (some) auto maker. But then again, how far does and UPS truck drive in a year 2014 day, when oil just might be well over 200 bucks a barrel? Reply
Battery Technology: A Different Set of Rules [view article]
Having listened in on the most recent quarterly internet conference given by Ener1 (HEV), John, I think you should know that the 112 mile range lith-ion battery that will begin this December going into theTh!nk City Vehicle (the one I wrote about that weighs 600lbs.) will cost around $17.000. The end cost of the city vehicle is estimated to be in the mid-to-high 30's range. In the USA a terrific percentage of people CAN afford this price, and a terrific percentage of people DO drive under 112 miles/day.
Note: A123 is also in the mix to have their battery put into the Th!nk vehicle. But their battery (I do not know the weight) only goes about 74 miles before needing a recharge (I also do not know the cost of this battery, nor do I know if this is the same battery that GM is putting into the Chevy Volt that has a range of 40 miles before gas needs to kick in).
But that's not the only battery Ener1 is making. They are also in the nascent stages of producing a battery that will dramatically outperform and cost much less that the current Prius battery. I've read that this battery will be in the range of $1500 to $1750, as opposed to the current Prius battery costing $7500 to 8k. Perhaps this is why the Prius will have a lith battery in their 2010 car...to reduce costs? In commenting about one of your previous articles I wrote how this battery outperformed the Prius battery (49 mlies/gallon, as opposed to 72.4 miles/gallon). This battery weighs 40 pounds.
During this internet conference call the CEO of Ener1, Carl Gassenheimer, stated that there are 100 major auto manufacturers in the world and ALL OF THEM ARE FAST TRACKING development of cars and "fleet-type" trucks that will use some form of hybrid technology. "In the works," near years end, Ener1 will be announcing more agreements with at least two of the 23 auto manufacturers they are currently engaging a contract, and they'll have a plant in Indianapolis that will be ready to knock out $450 million dollars worth of Lith batteries during 2009.
Surely lithium technology is not the end-all answer. But it is a viable option, one that I will continue to take risk with my money.
Note: I also have shares in China Bak (CBAK). But the rising inflation and growing costs and uncertainty of their labor force is making me very wary of that stock, even with the knowlege that the "insiders" are all over the Internet predicting that CBAK is a stock that will double witin the next year.
Cheers!
Reply
Battery Technology: A Different Set of Rules [view article]
I'm in general agreement with John regarding the importance and current under-valuation of the energy storage sector. I'm more bullish than he is about lithium battery technology, but his caveats are at least worth considering. Some of the lithium battery plays may be oversold -- particularly those whose primary focus is on plug-in hybrid EV's. It may be that Firefly has a better technology for that application.It's important to distinguish among application sectors. On the low end, in terms of battery size, is the mobile electronics market. That sector still has room for growth, but it's relatively mature. Lithium is unchallenged there, and it's only a question of which company has the best specific technology and best prospects for lower manufacturing costs.
Next up is the market for cordless tools. That market has been dominated by NiCad, with some penetration by NiMH. It's also been largely constrained by the capabilities of those technologies. I think lithium will slowly take over there. More to the point, the capability of some of the newer lithium technologies for high specific power and fast recharging will redefine the market. Premium tools powered by lithium battery packs are already very popular on home construction sites. Some of them are as powerful and as light weight as corded tools, and the freedom from dragging power cords is a big plus. In the near future, look to see commercial-grade cordless chain saws, hedge trimmers, shop-vacs, and other tools making their appearance.
Next is the nearly virgin market for devices in the "personal mobility" class: Segways and electric scooters of varying flavors, along with ride-on lawn mowers, garden cultivators, and such. For that market, the current cost of lithium batteries is somewhat prohibitive. Weight is not so important, but calendar lifetime and low self-discharge are crucial. I don't see a clear winner there.
Now we come to the nascent EV and plug-in HEV market. That's a challenge for any technology: cost, specific power, specific energy, and lifetime are all important. Lithium makes it on all counts except cost, where it's out of the ballpark for the mainstream market. It's not clear (to me) whether its cost can be brought down sufficiently in the near term to enable that market. But it's also not clear that any other technology can meet the other requirements. For me, that's a "wait and see".
Finally, there's the utility power long-term storage market. ("Long term" meaning hours of supply, as opposed to seconds or minutes.) Without a dramatic cost breakthrough, lithium is not a competitor there. The competition is between advanced lead-acid (e.g., Firefly), sodium-sulfer, one or more flow battery technologies, or various non-battery technologies (flywheels or compressed air, for example).
That's actually multiple markets, depending on scale. For backup power to a single home, for example, I think the best bet is advanced lead-acid. For backup to a distribution subnet, compressed air might be a better bet. But the competition is pretty wide open. The only thing I'm sure of is that it will become increasingly important, as solar and wind increase their share of the power market. Reply
Battery Technology: A Different Set of Rules [view article]
History will prove that the 21st century evolution of battery technology will lead the future of electric/hydrogen fuel cell cars using lithium battery technology and ultracapacitor cells. Lead acid batteries and gas were a cheap 20th century solution that will not survive the 21st century. Reply