Ricknplano's Comments RSS Syndication from SeekingAlpha.com http://seekingalpha.comuser/250535/comments http://seekingalpha.com/article/161463-toyota-tests-and-rejects-lithium-ion-batteries-for-the-prius?source=feed#comment-677058 677058 Tue, 15 Sep 2009 08:02:08 -0400 http://seekingalpha.com/article/159020-phevs-and-evs-plugging-into-a-lump-of-coal?source=feed#comment-655006 655006
When subsidizing industries at the level of customer purchase the government should be equally non-specific. Giving a $7,500 subsidy to buy a pure EV but no subsidy at all to buy a Prius does not accomplish the duel goals of maximizing reduction of gas consumption and maximum reduction of CO2 as John eloquently argues. Giving manufacturers and researchers help to develop products can be good, but then let the market decide what vehicle makes sense without market distortions at the consumer level that direct purchases that do not make economic sense without the incentives.

If the goal of the customer level incentives is instead to maximize the incentive to build better batteries, then the subsidy makes more sense but again can be better accomplished at the research level.

A clear explanation of why any subsidy exists can allow clear debate. John makes an excellent argument for use of lots of small subsidies (lots of Prius) rather than a few large subsidies (Volts) if the goal is energy and CO2 reduction. If the goal is better batteries then probably research grants make sense and no consumer level incentives should exist at all. Let the market decide if the technology is ready for mass adoption.]]> Mon, 31 Aug 2009 13:26:31 -0400
When subsidizing industries at the level of customer purchase the government should be equally non-specific. Giving a $7,500 subsidy to buy a pure EV but no subsidy at all to buy a Prius does not accomplish the duel goals of maximizing reduction of gas consumption and maximum reduction of CO2 as John eloquently argues. Giving manufacturers and researchers help to develop products can be good, but then let the market decide what vehicle makes sense without market distortions at the consumer level that direct purchases that do not make economic sense without the incentives.

If the goal of the customer level incentives is instead to maximize the incentive to build better batteries, then the subsidy makes more sense but again can be better accomplished at the research level.

A clear explanation of why any subsidy exists can allow clear debate. John makes an excellent argument for use of lots of small subsidies (lots of Prius) rather than a few large subsidies (Volts) if the goal is energy and CO2 reduction. If the goal is better batteries then probably research grants make sense and no consumer level incentives should exist at all. Let the market decide if the technology is ready for mass adoption.]]> http://seekingalpha.com/article/155805-vinod-khosla-s-stance-on-the-future-of-lithium-ion-batteries?source=feed#comment-629692 629692
The comment of Franklin76 is a credentialled confirmation of the same analysis John has been giving us for months. Welcome to the conversation.

There may soon be new developments with NiMH. A Bosch-Samsung venture purchased Cobasys from Chevron/Energy Conversion Devices. Bosch-Samsung created a joint venture called SB Li Motive to move forward with the NiMH technology that has languished under Chevron ownership.

There are new advances being made with capacitors as well. Since capacitors have a different storage/discharge profile than batteries there appears to be opportunity combining those two approaches using advances in energy management technology such as that created by Tesla and Ricardo, Inc. which have become possible with new computer hardware and software.

Don points out that there are great technologies right now. The successful companies will be those that can integrate the best battery/capacitor/system management technologies with a careful eye on the economics appropriate for the intended use and user.

Today I read that Toyota will not be able to meet their production goals (and demand) for Prius this year due to battery production constraints. I am sure Toyota is actively considering battery alternatives even as I write.]]> Fri, 14 Aug 2009 09:51:55 -0400
The comment of Franklin76 is a credentialled confirmation of the same analysis John has been giving us for months. Welcome to the conversation.

There may soon be new developments with NiMH. A Bosch-Samsung venture purchased Cobasys from Chevron/Energy Conversion Devices. Bosch-Samsung created a joint venture called SB Li Motive to move forward with the NiMH technology that has languished under Chevron ownership.

There are new advances being made with capacitors as well. Since capacitors have a different storage/discharge profile than batteries there appears to be opportunity combining those two approaches using advances in energy management technology such as that created by Tesla and Ricardo, Inc. which have become possible with new computer hardware and software.

Don points out that there are great technologies right now. The successful companies will be those that can integrate the best battery/capacitor/system management technologies with a careful eye on the economics appropriate for the intended use and user.

Today I read that Toyota will not be able to meet their production goals (and demand) for Prius this year due to battery production constraints. I am sure Toyota is actively considering battery alternatives even as I write.]]> http://seekingalpha.com/article/149970-grid-based-energy-storage-notes-questions-and-heresies-from-infocast-storage-week?source=feed#comment-597948 597948
First, thank you another excellent article. Keep'em coming.

Second, I am surprised you take the time to respond in detail to some of these comments but kudos to you for taking that effort.

Third, I too would like to see Don and Speculawyer do a series of articles. I know Don has an excellent product and a lot of knowledge in the field. Speculawyer needs his own forum and teaming with Don could allow him to clarify and focus his energies.

Finally, the right side of my brain wants to believe Axion will produce a battery with huge market acceptance but the left side of my brain says where are the third party verifications? Don has third party verification for his excellent LiFe battery from Sandi Labs. CSIRO has the 100,000 mile Honda test report. Firefly has a battery you can buy. Where is the third party verification for Axion? How much will the battery, or even the anode insert, cost, wholesale and retail? How do we know it is price competitive with NiMH or lithium? So until I see an actual battery, or third party verification, and some actual pricing information that suggests the price/performance ratio is as favorable as I hope it is, I have to wait to invest. ]]> Wed, 22 Jul 2009 10:53:11 -0400
First, thank you another excellent article. Keep'em coming.

Second, I am surprised you take the time to respond in detail to some of these comments but kudos to you for taking that effort.

Third, I too would like to see Don and Speculawyer do a series of articles. I know Don has an excellent product and a lot of knowledge in the field. Speculawyer needs his own forum and teaming with Don could allow him to clarify and focus his energies.

Finally, the right side of my brain wants to believe Axion will produce a battery with huge market acceptance but the left side of my brain says where are the third party verifications? Don has third party verification for his excellent LiFe battery from Sandi Labs. CSIRO has the 100,000 mile Honda test report. Firefly has a battery you can buy. Where is the third party verification for Axion? How much will the battery, or even the anode insert, cost, wholesale and retail? How do we know it is price competitive with NiMH or lithium? So until I see an actual battery, or third party verification, and some actual pricing information that suggests the price/performance ratio is as favorable as I hope it is, I have to wait to invest. ]]> http://seekingalpha.com/article/147067-on-oil-s-sesquicentennial-the-dream-becomes-a-nightmare?source=feed#comment-587050 587050
earth2tech.com/2009/04.../

www.autobloggreen.com/...]]> Tue, 14 Jul 2009 07:55:29 -0400
earth2tech.com/2009/04.../

www.autobloggreen.com/...]]> http://seekingalpha.com/article/147067-on-oil-s-sesquicentennial-the-dream-becomes-a-nightmare?source=feed#comment-575512 575512 Mon, 06 Jul 2009 10:20:25 -0400 http://seekingalpha.com/article/143101-how-growing-hev-markets-will-impact-battery-manufacturing-revenues?source=feed#comment-546908 546908
Many thanks for your continuing wisdom in the area of energy storage investment opportunities.]]> Mon, 15 Jun 2009 08:55:36 -0400
Many thanks for your continuing wisdom in the area of energy storage investment opportunities.]]> http://seekingalpha.com/article/133466-the-plug-in-vehicle-scam?source=feed#comment-480520 480520
John Kennedy once said, "some people enjoy the comfort of an opinion without the discomfort of thought".

Thank you for your excellent thought used to support your opinions on energy storage issues. ]]> Tue, 28 Apr 2009 08:41:01 -0400
John Kennedy once said, "some people enjoy the comfort of an opinion without the discomfort of thought".

Thank you for your excellent thought used to support your opinions on energy storage issues. ]]> http://seekingalpha.com/article/133466-the-plug-in-vehicle-scam?source=feed#comment-480515 480515
Well written and nice mix of metaphor with the reference to the Cardiff Giant and allusion to the famous phrase "sucker born every minute".

I hope you are wrong but believe you are right about the enduring carbon based fuels economy. Even though the market can stay irrational longer than you can stay solvent, the facts will eventually prevail.]]> Tue, 28 Apr 2009 08:38:25 -0400
Well written and nice mix of metaphor with the reference to the Cardiff Giant and allusion to the famous phrase "sucker born every minute".

I hope you are wrong but believe you are right about the enduring carbon based fuels economy. Even though the market can stay irrational longer than you can stay solvent, the facts will eventually prevail.]]> http://seekingalpha.com/article/132295-solar-panels-and-parking-lots-an-extraordinary-dual-use?source=feed#comment-474333 474333 Thu, 23 Apr 2009 12:17:28 -0400 http://seekingalpha.com/article/130460-lead-acid-batteries-how-cheap-beat-cool-at-google?source=feed#comment-462630 462630
The comments of Mr. DePew seem to support most of what Mr. Peterson has been saying about the relative cost of technologies. I think the new generation of LAB using carbon anodes (Firefly) and capacitor type hybrids (CSIRO and Axion) will all be huge success for storage where price is key and weight/size are less important. Lithium will rule where weight and size are critical and price is less so. The interview can be heard at www.evcast.com. ]]> Tue, 14 Apr 2009 09:30:25 -0400
The comments of Mr. DePew seem to support most of what Mr. Peterson has been saying about the relative cost of technologies. I think the new generation of LAB using carbon anodes (Firefly) and capacitor type hybrids (CSIRO and Axion) will all be huge success for storage where price is key and weight/size are less important. Lithium will rule where weight and size are critical and price is less so. The interview can be heard at www.evcast.com. ]]> http://seekingalpha.com/article/130094-energy-storage-chrysler-a123-alliance-likely-to-spark-interest-in-sector?source=feed#comment-456000 456000
I follow John's articles and I get the impression that John is critical of the cost of lithium, not the technology, and is skeptical of projected cost reductions and market penetrations. Lithium is without a doubt the best technology where size and weight are critical and cost is secondary, like watch batteries or laptop computer batteries. For applications like cars, buses, trains, or electrical grid backup, wind power smoothing and backup, etc., where cost is critical and size/weight are secondary I sense that John favors existing low cost battery and flywheel technologies and emerging new lead acid technologies like those from Axion, CSIRO and Firefly. His is an informed approach and his arguments make sense. I am sure he can defend himself quite adequately, but as a reader I take issue with your comment which seems to question the integrity of his arguments. Of course he would like the market to prove him correct and make his stocks go up, but then don't we all.]]> Wed, 08 Apr 2009 09:17:12 -0400
I follow John's articles and I get the impression that John is critical of the cost of lithium, not the technology, and is skeptical of projected cost reductions and market penetrations. Lithium is without a doubt the best technology where size and weight are critical and cost is secondary, like watch batteries or laptop computer batteries. For applications like cars, buses, trains, or electrical grid backup, wind power smoothing and backup, etc., where cost is critical and size/weight are secondary I sense that John favors existing low cost battery and flywheel technologies and emerging new lead acid technologies like those from Axion, CSIRO and Firefly. His is an informed approach and his arguments make sense. I am sure he can defend himself quite adequately, but as a reader I take issue with your comment which seems to question the integrity of his arguments. Of course he would like the market to prove him correct and make his stocks go up, but then don't we all.]]> http://seekingalpha.com/article/126053-lead-carbon-batteries-a-game-changer-for-alt-energy-storage-part-ii?source=feed#comment-427734 427734
I researched the recent MIT report in some detail. While it is excellent news for lithium technology and for us all by extension, it is still lithium (expensive) and so the same arguments versus lead apply. On the margin it might make lithium more reasonable a choice, but in cases where the cost benefits support a low cost battery the LAB will still prevail. Now, if you read something about cutting costs by a factor of a hundred, then we have a story.

Rick]]> Mon, 16 Mar 2009 11:58:01 -0400
I researched the recent MIT report in some detail. While it is excellent news for lithium technology and for us all by extension, it is still lithium (expensive) and so the same arguments versus lead apply. On the margin it might make lithium more reasonable a choice, but in cases where the cost benefits support a low cost battery the LAB will still prevail. Now, if you read something about cutting costs by a factor of a hundred, then we have a story.

Rick]]> http://seekingalpha.com/article/126053-lead-carbon-batteries-a-game-changer-for-alt-energy-storage-part-ii?source=feed#comment-427364 427364
Excellent post. Thank you for going into detail on some to the questions that have concerned me as well as Mr. Smith.

I am looking forward to the next earnings report and conference call. Maybe the company has some insight into the selling pressure on the stock. Could that be related to the Mega-C stockholders?]]> Mon, 16 Mar 2009 08:56:15 -0400
Excellent post. Thank you for going into detail on some to the questions that have concerned me as well as Mr. Smith.

I am looking forward to the next earnings report and conference call. Maybe the company has some insight into the selling pressure on the stock. Could that be related to the Mega-C stockholders?]]> http://seekingalpha.com/article/121971-why-pure-play-energy-storage-companies-could-double-for-investors?source=feed#comment-399638 399638
I enjoy starting my Monday with a good read courtesy of your active mind and busy fingers. Upcoming earnings conference calls will allow opportunity to ask questions of company officials. Hoepfully we will learn more about specific company plans regarding the stimulus grants.]]> Mon, 23 Feb 2009 07:44:38 -0500
I enjoy starting my Monday with a good read courtesy of your active mind and busy fingers. Upcoming earnings conference calls will allow opportunity to ask questions of company officials. Hoepfully we will learn more about specific company plans regarding the stimulus grants.]]> http://seekingalpha.com/article/120764-doe-report-lithium-ion-batteries-are-not-ready-for-prime-time?source=feed#comment-392373 392373
Thanks for your article. Some good comments above but the tone of some comments was more argumentative than instructive which serves no one really.

Renzo, my kudos to anyone who uses both apotheosis and Arrhenius equation in the same comment. Also you are right to mention thorium fission as the future of nuclear. Others above are also right to mention the long lead for nuclear plants. Together these two arguments tell me to start now on safer nuclear and also to implement shorter term solutions like smart grids, wind and solar (with storage systems to smooth the supply) and CNG and even coal where necessary.

I will also share a fact I recently learned about natural gas. While it is a clean burning fuel, it is not such a clean fuel to access. Here in the Dallas Ft Worth area we are in the midst of a drilling boom into what is called the Barnett Shale. Recently the EPA announced that the methane and CO2 emissions from the gas wells in the area now exceed the emissions from all the vehicles in this area of over 6 million people. That was news to me for what I thought was a more green alternative to coal and oil. I am not sure if those emissions end once the drilling is completed or if that is an ongoing issue with gas wells. Perhaps other readers can educate me.

All of us want to be green if reasonable and feasible. We will disagree about what exactly is reasonable and feasible, to an extent, but John is right to point out that few of us will be economic martyrs if the cost of lithium is substantially above that of a lead alternative. Axion, CSIRO and Firefly all have good LAB alternatives coming to market that will (probably) find their respective niches regardless of lead content.

Questions about this industry that nag me remind me of Donald Rumsfeld when he said, "We know what we know and we know what we don't know. What worries me are those things we don't know that we don't know". By that I mean there are constant efforts to improve all battery and capacitor technologies. None of the technologies are standing still. There could be an announcement tomorrow that makes my conclusions today obsolete. While the technological changes may not change radically or swiftly, I just do not know what I don't know about this industry. With time I may be more comfortable in my knowledge level. That is one reason I read these postings and one reason I have yet to invest heavily. I want to see sales and performance charts and warranty claims data and profit projections from these new companies with new ideas. As John has so elequently argued, manufacturing and marketing a profitable product is a lot different than a lab report. And while I share much of John's enthusiasm for his former employer, my desire for such proof goes as much for Axion as it does for any lithium manufacturer.

I also wonder about the intellectual property of Axion versus that of Firefly and CSIRO. They seem to be following the same general idea of substituting carbon (the more surface area the better) for lead in the anode of the battery and then trying also to improve the cathode. Improving the cathode seems to be more challenging. To what extent does the IP of Axion, for example, protect it from challenges by its LAB competition, in particular that of CSIRO and its U.S. licensee, East Penn? Could CSIRO have priority IP claims that may stifle Axion at some point? Will Firefly prove to have a better design once they perfect their carbon cathode design?

I have more questions than answers and welcome comments from anyone with insight into these matters.]]> Tue, 17 Feb 2009 14:16:31 -0500
Thanks for your article. Some good comments above but the tone of some comments was more argumentative than instructive which serves no one really.

Renzo, my kudos to anyone who uses both apotheosis and Arrhenius equation in the same comment. Also you are right to mention thorium fission as the future of nuclear. Others above are also right to mention the long lead for nuclear plants. Together these two arguments tell me to start now on safer nuclear and also to implement shorter term solutions like smart grids, wind and solar (with storage systems to smooth the supply) and CNG and even coal where necessary.

I will also share a fact I recently learned about natural gas. While it is a clean burning fuel, it is not such a clean fuel to access. Here in the Dallas Ft Worth area we are in the midst of a drilling boom into what is called the Barnett Shale. Recently the EPA announced that the methane and CO2 emissions from the gas wells in the area now exceed the emissions from all the vehicles in this area of over 6 million people. That was news to me for what I thought was a more green alternative to coal and oil. I am not sure if those emissions end once the drilling is completed or if that is an ongoing issue with gas wells. Perhaps other readers can educate me.

All of us want to be green if reasonable and feasible. We will disagree about what exactly is reasonable and feasible, to an extent, but John is right to point out that few of us will be economic martyrs if the cost of lithium is substantially above that of a lead alternative. Axion, CSIRO and Firefly all have good LAB alternatives coming to market that will (probably) find their respective niches regardless of lead content.

Questions about this industry that nag me remind me of Donald Rumsfeld when he said, "We know what we know and we know what we don't know. What worries me are those things we don't know that we don't know". By that I mean there are constant efforts to improve all battery and capacitor technologies. None of the technologies are standing still. There could be an announcement tomorrow that makes my conclusions today obsolete. While the technological changes may not change radically or swiftly, I just do not know what I don't know about this industry. With time I may be more comfortable in my knowledge level. That is one reason I read these postings and one reason I have yet to invest heavily. I want to see sales and performance charts and warranty claims data and profit projections from these new companies with new ideas. As John has so elequently argued, manufacturing and marketing a profitable product is a lot different than a lab report. And while I share much of John's enthusiasm for his former employer, my desire for such proof goes as much for Axion as it does for any lithium manufacturer.

I also wonder about the intellectual property of Axion versus that of Firefly and CSIRO. They seem to be following the same general idea of substituting carbon (the more surface area the better) for lead in the anode of the battery and then trying also to improve the cathode. Improving the cathode seems to be more challenging. To what extent does the IP of Axion, for example, protect it from challenges by its LAB competition, in particular that of CSIRO and its U.S. licensee, East Penn? Could CSIRO have priority IP claims that may stifle Axion at some point? Will Firefly prove to have a better design once they perfect their carbon cathode design?

I have more questions than answers and welcome comments from anyone with insight into these matters.]]> http://seekingalpha.com/article/116418-how-to-determine-value-of-alternative-energy-stocks?source=feed#comment-366407 366407
As I read your article I felt I was reading a well reasoned interesting article with caveats about investors using the information only to assist, not to determine, investment selection. I have enjoyed and learned from your articles and I understand your bias towards Axion which is not without merit.

Long ago I wrote a little saying, With people infinite patience is next to infinite wisdom. If it helps, keep that in mind when your get inflammatory criticism. I appreciate your thoughts as do most readers. Please keep it up. ]]> Mon, 26 Jan 2009 10:13:39 -0500
As I read your article I felt I was reading a well reasoned interesting article with caveats about investors using the information only to assist, not to determine, investment selection. I have enjoyed and learned from your articles and I understand your bias towards Axion which is not without merit.

Long ago I wrote a little saying, With people infinite patience is next to infinite wisdom. If it helps, keep that in mind when your get inflammatory criticism. I appreciate your thoughts as do most readers. Please keep it up. ]]> http://seekingalpha.com/article/114218-will-the-audacious-bailouts-for-alternative-energy-happen?source=feed#comment-355351 355351
Excellent comment about EREV. Dean Kamen, inventor of the Segway, hydroflex irrigation pump, water filtration devices, homechoice dialysis , and many other world changing devices has chosen to use a stirling engine in combination with an electric motor for an EREV he built for himself. Mr. Kamen is one of the smartest inventors in the world so his decision to use a constant output stirling engine and EREV design versus any other design puts you in good company.

Rick]]> Wed, 14 Jan 2009 09:20:10 -0500
Excellent comment about EREV. Dean Kamen, inventor of the Segway, hydroflex irrigation pump, water filtration devices, homechoice dialysis , and many other world changing devices has chosen to use a stirling engine in combination with an electric motor for an EREV he built for himself. Mr. Kamen is one of the smartest inventors in the world so his decision to use a constant output stirling engine and EREV design versus any other design puts you in good company.

Rick]]> http://seekingalpha.com/article/114218-will-the-audacious-bailouts-for-alternative-energy-happen?source=feed#comment-353268 353268
Whoever made the quote it is inspirational and was well used in your comments above.

In Texas we pay from $0.12 - $0.18 per Kwh (yes, ouch!). So from my perspective you were indeed much too gentle on the economics of EV's.

As to HEV's, there is some merit as the Prius has demonstrated. There is an interesting after market manufacturer, Poulsen Hybrids at www.poulsenhybrid.com/ who would be an excellent niche market for Axion batteries. I sent an email to Axion suggesting Axion sales rep's might want to contact Ulrik Poulsen but received no response. Maybe he is too small a potential player for their interest. But he has ambitious plans and they are a good fit.


]]> Mon, 12 Jan 2009 10:38:28 -0500
Whoever made the quote it is inspirational and was well used in your comments above.

In Texas we pay from $0.12 - $0.18 per Kwh (yes, ouch!). So from my perspective you were indeed much too gentle on the economics of EV's.

As to HEV's, there is some merit as the Prius has demonstrated. There is an interesting after market manufacturer, Poulsen Hybrids at www.poulsenhybrid.com/ who would be an excellent niche market for Axion batteries. I sent an email to Axion suggesting Axion sales rep's might want to contact Ulrik Poulsen but received no response. Maybe he is too small a potential player for their interest. But he has ambitious plans and they are a good fit.


]]> http://seekingalpha.com/article/113121-cleantech-the-sixth-industrial-revolution?source=feed#comment-347456 347456
Might I add that the stocks that make one money are not always the stocks you expect to make money. Remember, markets can remain irrational longer than you can remain solvent. Since markets are made of individual decisions, some of the persons who regularly post comments should make it clear why markets remain irrational in spite of evidence to the contrary. As you have said, you can explain it for them but you can not understand it for them. Let us hope that the best companies actually do win. Best wishes for the new year.

Rick]]> Tue, 06 Jan 2009 11:30:11 -0500
Might I add that the stocks that make one money are not always the stocks you expect to make money. Remember, markets can remain irrational longer than you can remain solvent. Since markets are made of individual decisions, some of the persons who regularly post comments should make it clear why markets remain irrational in spite of evidence to the contrary. As you have said, you can explain it for them but you can not understand it for them. Let us hope that the best companies actually do win. Best wishes for the new year.

Rick]]> http://seekingalpha.com/article/113121-cleantech-the-sixth-industrial-revolution?source=feed#comment-347448 347448
Yes, your ability to explain yourself has risen remarkably and I think your depth of knowledge has risen as well, as you consider and respond to comments. The comments have improved as well, e.g. Mil Ovan et al.

As always, thanks for sharing your insight.

Rick]]> Tue, 06 Jan 2009 11:23:31 -0500
Yes, your ability to explain yourself has risen remarkably and I think your depth of knowledge has risen as well, as you consider and respond to comments. The comments have improved as well, e.g. Mil Ovan et al.

As always, thanks for sharing your insight.

Rick]]> http://seekingalpha.com/article/111835-alternative-energy-storage-needs-to-take-baby-steps-before-it-can-run?source=feed#comment-335568 335568
Happy holidays and best wishes to you for the new year. Another excellent article. Thank you.]]> Mon, 22 Dec 2008 09:21:53 -0500
Happy holidays and best wishes to you for the new year. Another excellent article. Thank you.]]> http://seekingalpha.com/article/106229-alternative-energy-storage-cheap-will-beat-cool?source=feed#comment-307772 307772
Nice article as usual. Your last article was the best I have seen you write and I appreciate the global overview it gave. You might mention in this and subsequent articles that the storage competitors are not all public companies.

I listened to John Granville on the recent conference call, as I am sure you did as well, and I was pleased to hear how up beat he sounded. I think things are happening nicely there. However, I believe it is still too soon to invest due to the large number of shares outstanding and the need to get a huge buildup in sales before the share value goes up appreciably.

Thanks again for your efforts and your articles.]]> Mon, 17 Nov 2008 09:11:30 -0500
Nice article as usual. Your last article was the best I have seen you write and I appreciate the global overview it gave. You might mention in this and subsequent articles that the storage competitors are not all public companies.

I listened to John Granville on the recent conference call, as I am sure you did as well, and I was pleased to hear how up beat he sounded. I think things are happening nicely there. However, I believe it is still too soon to invest due to the large number of shares outstanding and the need to get a huge buildup in sales before the share value goes up appreciably.

Thanks again for your efforts and your articles.]]> http://seekingalpha.com/article/103484-rising-tides-in-alternative-energy-storage?source=feed#comment-297434 297434
Do the folks at AXPW consider the new UltraBattery from Csiro in Australia to infringe upon their patents? It seems to be a similar concept with similar cost/benefit and uses but I do not know enough about the design to know if it infringes on the patents.]]> Mon, 03 Nov 2008 13:29:21 -0500
Do the folks at AXPW consider the new UltraBattery from Csiro in Australia to infringe upon their patents? It seems to be a similar concept with similar cost/benefit and uses but I do not know enough about the design to know if it infringes on the patents.]]> http://seekingalpha.com/article/99675-alternative-energy-storage-and-blood-in-the-streets?source=feed#comment-283923 283923
Many thanks for the link and for your excellent insight. My fundamental analysis suggested a tough time getting enough income to justify a stock price much above the present level. The large block sales and sudden withdrawal of insider buying, together with the fundamentals, confirm that concern. And now the plan to increase shares. I will keep a link to Axion but will look elsewhere for investments for the next year or two and then revisit the stock. Best wishes to you in this market. ]]> Thu, 16 Oct 2008 14:59:01 -0400
Many thanks for the link and for your excellent insight. My fundamental analysis suggested a tough time getting enough income to justify a stock price much above the present level. The large block sales and sudden withdrawal of insider buying, together with the fundamentals, confirm that concern. And now the plan to increase shares. I will keep a link to Axion but will look elsewhere for investments for the next year or two and then revisit the stock. Best wishes to you in this market. ]]> http://seekingalpha.com/article/99675-alternative-energy-storage-and-blood-in-the-streets?source=feed#comment-283064 283064
I see that Axion has a proposal to increase the authorized shares from 50MM to 100MM at the upcoming annual meeting. Fully diluted the outstanding shares are currently at almost the full 50MM authorized.
This can only mean the company is either actively planning to issue more shares or at least have that option available should cash needs require it.

If another 50MM shares are issued, at whatever price, then the existing holders are diluted. The question is always whether the cash raised is enough to offset that dilution. Looking past that I am trying to see what that means to an investment in Axion stock.

If I wanted to buy Axion today at $1.50 and hopefully roughly triple my investment, a reasonable expectation for a speculative investment, then I would be hoping for earnings sufficient to, at some point in the future, support a $5 stock after the company starts really producing product and revenues. Assuming a conservative market price of about 10 times earnings then we need net earnings of about $0.50 per share to support a $5 stock. If there are potentially 100MM shares outstanding then we will need net earnings of about $50MM. To get $50MM net earnings with a 10% net margin on sales we need sales of $500MM. If our wholesale per unit price is $250 per battery then we need to sell 2M batteries per year or about 8,000 batteries per day. First, is there sufficient market to expect that many sales? But if so, can Axion build that many batteries or even that many PbC electrodes.

If I understand correctly the capacity limit of the current manufacturing facility is 3,000 per day. I suppose earnings can come from licensing agreements but my understanding of the companies objective is to make the PbC electrodes at their facility and ship them to others. Unless additional factories can be bought or built I do not see where there is enough physical capacity to get the sales to make the stock significantly higher than the current price. Where do you see the additional revenues developing? I am open to your explanation, just curious and cautious. I want to understand where the revenues will come from and how we get from here to there.

Thanks.]]> Wed, 15 Oct 2008 13:05:41 -0400
I see that Axion has a proposal to increase the authorized shares from 50MM to 100MM at the upcoming annual meeting. Fully diluted the outstanding shares are currently at almost the full 50MM authorized.
This can only mean the company is either actively planning to issue more shares or at least have that option available should cash needs require it.

If another 50MM shares are issued, at whatever price, then the existing holders are diluted. The question is always whether the cash raised is enough to offset that dilution. Looking past that I am trying to see what that means to an investment in Axion stock.

If I wanted to buy Axion today at $1.50 and hopefully roughly triple my investment, a reasonable expectation for a speculative investment, then I would be hoping for earnings sufficient to, at some point in the future, support a $5 stock after the company starts really producing product and revenues. Assuming a conservative market price of about 10 times earnings then we need net earnings of about $0.50 per share to support a $5 stock. If there are potentially 100MM shares outstanding then we will need net earnings of about $50MM. To get $50MM net earnings with a 10% net margin on sales we need sales of $500MM. If our wholesale per unit price is $250 per battery then we need to sell 2M batteries per year or about 8,000 batteries per day. First, is there sufficient market to expect that many sales? But if so, can Axion build that many batteries or even that many PbC electrodes.

If I understand correctly the capacity limit of the current manufacturing facility is 3,000 per day. I suppose earnings can come from licensing agreements but my understanding of the companies objective is to make the PbC electrodes at their facility and ship them to others. Unless additional factories can be bought or built I do not see where there is enough physical capacity to get the sales to make the stock significantly higher than the current price. Where do you see the additional revenues developing? I am open to your explanation, just curious and cautious. I want to understand where the revenues will come from and how we get from here to there.

Thanks.]]> http://seekingalpha.com/article/98890-alternative-energy-tax-credits-for-the-storage-sector?source=feed#comment-277977 277977
Thank you for the additional info on Axion. I noticed at the Merriman Investors Conference they were using a significantly lower cost per KWH for PbC than on their website. That makes their technology seem much more competitive than the data on the website and helps me understand your optimism. I am also glad to learn their cash will carry them through mid-year. Thanks again for your insight. And though I am not expecting the new tax credits to have any measureable impact on overall demand, it helps a little and good news is hard to find in the stock market at the moment.]]> Thu, 09 Oct 2008 15:06:31 -0400
Thank you for the additional info on Axion. I noticed at the Merriman Investors Conference they were using a significantly lower cost per KWH for PbC than on their website. That makes their technology seem much more competitive than the data on the website and helps me understand your optimism. I am also glad to learn their cash will carry them through mid-year. Thanks again for your insight. And though I am not expecting the new tax credits to have any measureable impact on overall demand, it helps a little and good news is hard to find in the stock market at the moment.]]> http://seekingalpha.com/article/97805-the-great-bank-rush-of-2008-what-s-the-money-for?source=feed#comment-268434 268434
With several weak banks that should have failed, including WAMU, failing Congress has swallowed the Cool Aid and decided to use a sledgehammer to swat a fly. Yes there was some weakness in credit markets. Some banks needed to fail due to poor management but we have seen the good banks swirling around them like vultures waiting for the certain death. After the dust settles the same loan officers will still be making loans to the same customers but the bank name on the documents will change.

Some other tweaking of the credit markets like establishing an exchange for Credit Default Swaps (CBOE, Mercantile, et al) and reinstating the uptick rule and also reinstating the 8% margin limits that our good Senator Gramm got repealed in 1999, all these changes are sufficient to fix the markets.

Will my suggested changes prevent a recession? No, but transferrring wealth from taxpayers to banks will not either. Taxpayer cash for Wall Street Trash is a bad deal. Unfortunately convincing congress that the sky is not falling seem impossible.

]]> Mon, 29 Sep 2008 11:07:14 -0400
With several weak banks that should have failed, including WAMU, failing Congress has swallowed the Cool Aid and decided to use a sledgehammer to swat a fly. Yes there was some weakness in credit markets. Some banks needed to fail due to poor management but we have seen the good banks swirling around them like vultures waiting for the certain death. After the dust settles the same loan officers will still be making loans to the same customers but the bank name on the documents will change.

Some other tweaking of the credit markets like establishing an exchange for Credit Default Swaps (CBOE, Mercantile, et al) and reinstating the uptick rule and also reinstating the 8% margin limits that our good Senator Gramm got repealed in 1999, all these changes are sufficient to fix the markets.

Will my suggested changes prevent a recession? No, but transferrring wealth from taxpayers to banks will not either. Taxpayer cash for Wall Street Trash is a bad deal. Unfortunately convincing congress that the sky is not falling seem impossible.

]]> http://seekingalpha.com/article/93630-another-week-of-no-money-supply-growth?source=feed#comment-257175 257175 Wed, 17 Sep 2008 13:45:36 -0400 http://seekingalpha.com/article/95552-energy-storage-opportunities-vs-irrational-expectations?source=feed#comment-257011 257011
On the other hand hybrid cars, trucks and trains are price competitive now and will continue to grow in use as is pointed out in comments above. A good lead acid alternative to lithium is attractive for these uses since the wieght difference may only be 50 or 60 pounds in a car while the price difference should (barring huge technological changes) be well worth the weight penalty. Apparently Axion and Firefly both think they have such lead acid alternatives coming soon.

But comparing only lithium and LAB ignores the other technologies out there including NiMH and others. Efforts are ongoing to reduce the cost and increase the performance of these technologies as well, of course, and the ultimate winners are not clear. What is typically true, as John points out here and in other posts, is that the winner is not always the best technology. First a rising tide lifts all boats and the near term increasing demand may make lots of winners in this field who do not necessarily have the "best" technology. Secondly a technology is one part of a big puzzle. Management is crucial, financing, good sales force, manufacturing capacity, etc. So the long-term winners will likely be more contingent upon the synergy and competence of the entire company rather than the specific technology. Short-term winners, most of the companies in the field. Long-term winners, well financed companies with good management and good production / sales teams. Warren Buffet likes to say he buys managment teams, not companies. For the long-term that is usually the way to go.]]> Wed, 17 Sep 2008 11:18:42 -0400
On the other hand hybrid cars, trucks and trains are price competitive now and will continue to grow in use as is pointed out in comments above. A good lead acid alternative to lithium is attractive for these uses since the wieght difference may only be 50 or 60 pounds in a car while the price difference should (barring huge technological changes) be well worth the weight penalty. Apparently Axion and Firefly both think they have such lead acid alternatives coming soon.

But comparing only lithium and LAB ignores the other technologies out there including NiMH and others. Efforts are ongoing to reduce the cost and increase the performance of these technologies as well, of course, and the ultimate winners are not clear. What is typically true, as John points out here and in other posts, is that the winner is not always the best technology. First a rising tide lifts all boats and the near term increasing demand may make lots of winners in this field who do not necessarily have the "best" technology. Secondly a technology is one part of a big puzzle. Management is crucial, financing, good sales force, manufacturing capacity, etc. So the long-term winners will likely be more contingent upon the synergy and competence of the entire company rather than the specific technology. Short-term winners, most of the companies in the field. Long-term winners, well financed companies with good management and good production / sales teams. Warren Buffet likes to say he buys managment teams, not companies. For the long-term that is usually the way to go.]]>