Ricknplano

PHEVs and EVs: Plugging into a Lump of Coal

Government incentives to jump start new technologies is an established practice worldwide and, in general, works well. But governments sometimes encourage the wrong technology since by definition it is an area of evolving knowledge. I appreciate the recent broad range of battery grants issued by the DOE to hedge their bets.

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.

Why Pure Play Energy Storage Companies Could Double for Investors

John,

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.

How to Determine Value of Alternative Energy Stocks

Hi John,

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.

Alternative Energy Storage Needs to Take Baby Steps Before It Can Run

John,

Happy holidays and best wishes to you for the new year. Another excellent article. Thank you.

Alternative Energy Storage: Cheap Will Beat Cool

John,

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.

Rising Tides in Alternative Energy Storage

John,

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.

Energy Storage Opportunities vs. Irrational Expectations

John, I agree completely about the demand curve for lithium trending towards smaller vehicles, tools and devices where the the size and weight versus cost equation is different than that in cars, trucks, trains or non-motive applications where the size and weight are less critical and the cost for lithium becomes excessive versus acceptable alternatives. Also as demand grows for lithium end product so will demand rise for lithium raw materials which will add to cost and slow the cost reduction curve that is expected from new production and technology. Net net is that it may be a while before mass produced all electric cars are competitive with ICE.

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.

Opportunities in Energy Storage Stocks

Thank you for another excellent article. As relates to Axion, you mention a marketing focus on industrial replacement batteries. I would also expect a market niche particularly appropriate for a battery with long cycle life and fast recharge ability would be garbage and delivery trucks with regenerative breaking. These vehicles do not have weight or size critical requirements (removing two of the primary lithium advantages) and the cost advantage versus lithium lies with PbC. Traditional lead acid batteries do not have enough energy density or power and do not recharge fast enough and have shorter lives in this kind of harsh use environment. Even Firefly carbon foam does not have near the cycle life and do not re-charge nearly as easily as PbC.

Besides the industrial replacement market, where do you see the best opportunities for the PbC technology?