Old Wizard

Battery Investing for Beginners, Part 2

John, The subsequent comments stenghten my assertion, I think, that China and Asia will lead in the lithium battrery race. The subsequent comments raise the environmental and raw material issues to a more formidable level than what I asserted and indirectly bring in the cost of labor as well. This is part of the reason I believe that our Government is ignoring the reality of their push to phev's, and that their investment strategy is muddled at best. It would be just another Government blunder if the deficit spending was not so great, but at worst it can be disasterous for the future well-being of our country.

Battery Investing for Beginners, Part 2

John, Thanks for the comprehensive article. I have profited from your articles in that I have a much greater appreciation of the whole energy storage evolution. I will disagree with your conclusion that the Chinese battery companies will not play a big part in our world. It is a fact that both GM and Ford are either negotiating with or have chosen asian battery makers over those in the US. Isn't it a familiar story that we invent, often start production domestically and when the product takes hold, the production goes off-shore, usually to asia or other low cost labor places where environmental and other regulations are not so stringent. As a case in point, First Solar's large production expansion has been in Malasia and off-shore. It's latest large contract is in China and the statement from the company spokesman was that such a project would not be possible in the USA because of the difficulty in tranmission and linkage to the grid.

PHEVs and EVs: Plugging into a Lump of Coal

John, Another good article that drives the reader to the application of applied analysis as opposed to myth and heresay. A couple of points: the graph you present shows gas from waste[ I presume this is methane] is a carbon dioxide saver, while natural gas is a contributer. This seems contradictory. The global warming hysteria and fanaticism has permeated the administration and combined with the arrogance it has displayed in other areas, appears to reject reasoned analytical arguments and favor exaggerated claims while ignoring obvious counterexamples to their position based on questionable and unverifiable evidence of man-made global warming. Be as it may, the so called energy plan upon which they have embarked has no coherence, no sense of urgency and no evaluation of unintended consequences. The investment in Petobras, the sponsering of the bill in Congress by Reid to fund some natural gas conversions and the claim that clean coal is the ultimate solution, while forcing the electric car solution and ignoring nuclear, shows that at minimum there is no focused plan. Not having goals that reduce the current account appreciably in 5 and 10 years should be considered more dangerous to the health of the American citizenery than any imminent global warming crisis and those interested in a cleaner environment should not buy the palliative of providing 15% of our electrical energy from wind and solar[ which requires a doubling of our existing capacity every three years to get there by 2022] by 2020. Analyasis of a coordinated and comprehenive plan that results in a detailed energy program with measureable 5 and 10 year milesones, measures of performance that include less negative operating cash flow, significantly less importation of oil, significant new jobs for americans and less carbon dioxide emissions is sorely needed. We, collectively, have the ability to produce such a program, and, as I have suggested to Fitz, I believe that a group of Seeking alpha contributers and commenters could do a pretty good job of putting one together that is actionable in less than 6 months.

How PHEVs and EVs Will Sabotage America's Drive for Energy Independence

Most of the green folks just don't get it. The most telling info was the statement from the Gov. that electric cars could account for 24% of vehicles by 2030. This still will leave over75% of the presumably mostly gas consuming cars on the road. With a current account that will approach a negative 1 trillion per year and with us still highly dependent on imported oil and possibly batteries from China and Japan, it would seem that the path the country is on will not solve our fundamental economic problem- the production of goods and services that we and the world wants to buy. For sure not much hope even at the 2030 time frame at which we may be approaching bankruptcy as a nation. The issue is not whether the technology can be made practical, but what will make a significant impact to the country's operating cash flow in the near term[5 and 10 years]. John, we need not only to teach our congress how to use a calculator, but also provide it with new glasses so that they can see the real problem.

Are Energy Storage Investors Chasing Their Own Tails?

Another good article, John. I caution you not to be too exuberent about GE's announcement. Immelt's stuardship at GE has not been exactly a rollicking success. The stock price, net profit, dividend, and product market share on engines, appliances, lamps and even generators to a lesser extent has decreased during his tenure while the risk in GE capital has increased leading to a downgrading of GE's corporate bonds. Deals like the one made with Warren Buffet weren't particularly advantageous for existing stock holders. The announcement, while making some sense from their new thrust into the green energy era, seems to be playing more to the politics of the country. GE management is on the Obama team and has gotten guarantees that it can go to the Fed loan guarantee window as a back up to shore up the cash requirements in GE Capital. Given the bet Immelt has made on windmill farms, electric grid management and medical record computerization, he must support the administration programs and 100m is good pr. The only problem is that demand at this point is pretty much Gov. fostered and may or may not be real, take longer to develop so that break even can be realized and not represent what the 200k or less user wants, needs or can afford. For example, what real evidence is on the table that leads us to believe that the railroads of the world want to buy and can afford hybrid electric train engines that makes the investment viable and at what point would their new batery venture coincide with a real windmill market. The Gov.'s goal is to provide 20% of todays generating capacity from wind and solar by 2030. Is the payoff from this investment going to break even in the next ten years? If I were running the ship I would be more inclined to build train engines that ran on natural gas, but my measure of performance would be nearer term and not driven by as many unpredictable dependencies such as politics, speed of windmill facility installation, development of high temperature reliable and safe batteries, and the time horizon of when effective electric grid management from wind generated electricity of any magnitude is brought on-line.

White House Report: GM Volt Is Not Ready for Prime Time

John and engstudent, It's nice to find folks who genuinely attempt to do real analysis instead of picking a solution that they like and not analyzing it for its true problem solving merits. The urgency of solving the energy dependency problem is not only security, based on geopolitical considerations, but one of economic viability for our country. The country has run an increasingly negative cash flow with the rest of the world since 1991 and this negative operating cash flow is approaching a trillion dollars/yr. This does not count borrowing to satisfy our yearly domestic budget deficits. Replacing imported oil with a commodity that we have in the USA should be a no-brainer, especially if it can be done quickly. Electric cars and the discussion of the viability of lithium batteries to power them seems to be great but no one really believes that elctric cars or hybrids could make a dent in solving the negative cash flow problem in 5 or even 10 years. This is why I favor the use of natural gas vehicles as a near term solution. It addresses the cash flow problem the earliest, stimulates jobs the quickest, reduces green house gases and air pollutants and really needs no new technological or economic miracle to be cost effective. I hope the Steven Chu who responded to your comments isn't the secretary of the treasury. If it is , we are really in trouble. As engstudent has pointed out, important components for the electric car would not come from the USA. I would also point out to Mr. Chu that if the chinese are ahead of us in lithium battery manufacture it would be difficult to compete with them because of their worker pay scales and safety rules and short of massive govenment subsidies or trade tariffs or embargos, we would always be trying to catch up. Miscellaneous, GM'S eastimated cost for Volt is 40k. A 7500 dollar tax credit at a marginal tax bracket of 25% would result in less than $1900 savings, hardly enough to offset the difference in costs of its competitors. For the corvette man you can buy the new german hybrid that will fit your bill at a price of$87500. For you global warming,greenhouse gas folks, the reason the port of long beach california has required all trucks entering the port to pick up from or deliver goods to ships to be natural gas powered is to reduce air pollution. Nuff said.

Why Pure Play Energy Storage Companies Could Double for Investors

Firfly, It's not just the solar cell farm, the intermediate storage, the storage mechanisms, it's also the right away for the transmission lines, the type of transmission lines, the insertion into the existing grids and the ability of the grid to control itself efficiently when subjected to impulses in demand that constitutes the system problem that must be addressed. Unless the gov jump starts the whole system with large enough[ I refer to them as pilot projects] progress will bog down in interminable legal, technological and cost-effective semi conjectural arguments. The Cape wind project is a case in point;it's been in the works for over 5 yrs and has gotten only 3 of the required 11 permits to proceed. Our technology for alternative energy is far more advanced to accomplish significant alternate energy in less than 10 years than was our technology to go to the moon and we did it in 8.5 years.

Why Pure Play Energy Storage Companies Could Double for Investors

John, I think it will take 20 years with the approach being taken for solar and wind to change much in the way we create relaible energy. The new president states that he wants to double today's capacity to generate electrical energy by renewables, particularly, wind and solar in 3 years. Today the alternative sources account for something less than 1% of our electrical capacity. I believe that our new energy secretary is a smart man, but my fear is that he is an R&d academician and is not geared to the implementation of complex systems. The need to replace 6.5 million barrels of oil/ day we import from unstable and in several cases unfrendly regimes requires a greater sense of urgency. If we are going to allocate over 100b dollars of investment, it should be focused on large scale pilot projects for alternate energy that would provide the forcing function and direction for componet development and deployment. Establishing a bigger goal to be achieved in 5 years would lead to your witnessing some of the unimaginable progress sooner and be a wiser investment strategy for the future well being of the country.

Why Pure Play Energy Storage Companies Could Double for Investors

John, As I have said before, your articles are informative and try to analyze the options in an objective and logical way. My problem with the stimulus is similar to another commenter's. The buckshot bottoms up approach does not put storage mechanisms in any systems or end product goal. For example, if a near term goal of putting x electric cars on the road that have a range of y miles in z years was established, then RD&D evaluation criteria could be used to drive the grant process. Since I believe that battery development is at least as advanced in China, what will drive the process in america that results in energy independence?

Smart Grid's Enabler - Alternative Energy Storage

John And Fitz, I think John's articles are a refreshing attempt to actually do some analysis of alternatives. An observation about the smart grid, If there is so much debate about the method for storing intermittant supply that comes from wind and solar if those two sources are to be significant, what does building out the grid mean? Just a carryover from filter theory, Impulses must be carefully addressed if the system is to be stable.Does building out the grill mean that the control functions will only deal with current sources and attempt to optomize it or is it something more? Since the grid has to deal with peaks and valleys, the more interconnection the more complex the contol function becomes and must deal with many local peaks in what is a non linear problem.

Lead-Acid, Lead-Carbon Batteries: The Only Option for Average Consumer

JP, I have appreciated your articles because they try to analyze what has been a subject with many assertions and wishes other than facts.Our focus in all of the desire to use Hybrids and electric cars seems to be range of driving and reduction of green house gases. As I have commented on Fitz's articles, we appear not to be focused on the more important and urgent problems. We are running a negative operating cash flow as a country and addressing this problem within a five year time frame with substantial steps should be our priority. Your analyses appear to verify that purely electric vehicles will not address the problem. Natural gas, electric hybrids appear to be both the most practical and economic way to address the problem correctly.

Cleantech: The Sixth Industrial Revolution

JP, Another very good article. Did you notice that American super conductor just announced a deal they closed to provide grid regulation for three wind farms in China?

Alternative Energy Storage Stocks: Review and Outlook

JP, Your analysis presented in this article is among the best I've read. The time to market of promising technologies has long been the insumountable obstacle for start-ups and under-capitalized companies. This is one reason why I believe that if some of these technologies are to be realized in our alternative energy thrust, the government,itself, must enable significant pilot projects. In the past much new product development using advanced technologies came from Nasa or the defence dept.. if alternative energy sources are to be implemented here in a timeline that will significantly impact our current account and strategic dependence on hostile suppliers of oil, they must get a significant investment boost from the gov.and help to simplify the regulatory hurdles. Missing this gov. intervention, the cost and investment risk will always favor that which is seen to have a favorable rate of return. Risk associated with fighting interminable legal and reulatory challenges always work adversely in these evaluations. In the Appollo program the investment to eliminate the risk of reducing advanced technologies to practise was largely borne by the Gov.. There has to be a reason why many of the technologies and things invented here are reduced to marketable products in China, Japan and other countries and not here.

Alternative Energy Storage for Global Warming Agnostics

JP, fact is that the US has already spent millions and millions trying to perfect high energy, long lasting and safe lithium batteries for other reasons. These efforts coud support further research into practical commercial use. I agree we should not count on technology that is not ready as our near term solution.Although, I am a supporter of nuclear power, I can't see how we can implement fast enough to make a difference in five years. I do think that solar and wind power should be jump started by significant pilot projects. The limiting timelines in all of these alternatives may well be political and legal obstacles especially for nuclear. I am a proponent of t boone pickens' approach 1] use natural gas and our own off-shore oil resources as a bridge to wind,solar and nuclear.2] My own concept to enable significant pilot projects in wind and solar to drive important technologic innovation which results in electrical grid management, energy storage mechanisms , delivery systems and in the case of solar conversion effeciencies. 3] enable several significant pilot projects for monorail spiders for large urban/suburban metroplexes to change the structural communter driving habits of americans. 4] foster the introduction of electrical and/or hydrogen cell powered cars in the far term. A comprehensive plan that embodies these steps with other promising elements and establishes significant oil importation reduction goals in time;e.g 5 million barrels/day in 5 yrs. and 10million barrels/day in 10 yrs. would create new jobs, reduce this country's negative cash flow, make us independent of hostile supplier's oil ad oh by the way result in less green house gases.

Alternative Energy Storage for Global Warming Agnostics

JP, I agree that if the people who believe in man-made global warming and those of us who believe that energy independence is the most critical problem the US faces, both strategically and economically, drives us to that independence, quickly, the cause of global warming is moot. The problem as I see it is that the true believers in mmgw, will not do the right things soon enough. Cafe standards, taxes on energy companies, carbon off-sets, etc are not what is needed to solve the underlying problem as opposed to a comprehensive near and far term energy plan with near term specific oil importation reduction goals and a consistant implementation plan jump-started with sufficient pilot programs funded by the Gov.. Instead of squandering the forthcoming whopping stimulus money on roads and Christmas tree political and lobbyist self-serving projects, the new administration should have the vision to put such a plan in action. I am apprehensive that the Congress and the people appointed to head up our energy policy will never get there and will prioritize their actions with the true believer fervor of those who are convinced that,as with many in our country today believe, that man especially man in the USA, is the source of global warming and that he should correct this problem even if it means economic retraction.