TSVee

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

Hi John,

I have been thinking about the title and tone of this article, and I now have to take some exception to it. I would like to argue that on the basis of things that I believe that you already acknowledge, based on your articles.

a) Lead Carbon is not the only option for consumers. Period.

Bad title. If, as per your previous article, someone is rewriting your titles, they should stop.

b) I can accept that Lead Carbon is a surprise entry into the scripted automotive coronation pageant of King Lithium, but Lead Carbon is still an untested infant. So, consumers and manufacturers will not take it up in the next few years; I believe that the cycle is longer than that.

c) In the world of bulk power storage, grid buffering, and power conditioning, batteries are not the only option, and not even a proven-viable option. Period. So again we wait.

d) In the world of high efficiency transportation, batteries are not the only option, and certainly not the proven option. So we wait.

I think that you have done well in placing Lead Carbon into the line of sight, but there is only so far that you can go in your arguments. You need proof (we all need proof), and we can only await the actions of the players. It's gonna be a while yet. {sigh}

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

I too believe that the topic of power controllers for lead carbon batteries is complicated, but necessary. In the short run, it may be a serious hurdle to incorporation within in the xEV (sic) world. Such hurdles are relevant to uptake, and therefore relevant to (me).

In a perfect world, engineers, meeting with intelligent consumers, would select the winner, looking at the big picture despite minor obstacles. In the real world, the engineers report to morons (such as GM's senior management) and the consumers are largely guided by the information planted or advertised by marketeers who also report to those same morons. And then there are the politicians, who are guided by the lobbyists who also report to those morns. It is little things such as "naaah let's not test that one, it will delay production by almost a year" that select a winner.

Let me rephrase this topic: "it may be that lead carbon is not exactly a plug and play battery substitute in new EV designs." I am hearing a rumbling that "one just cannot swap a lead-carbon battery as a lead acid or Li-Ion or NiMH substitute".

I do not know how to weigh this issue within in this fine article series, since it is a topic which requires some commentary and expertise from (say) Axion, or, say a vehicle power conversion partner, in order to dispel. But, fair is fair in Seeking Alpha, and this question may be a lurker which can only be dispelled by fair and expert commentary.

I'd love to hear that this is not a problem.

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

Personally, I do not believe that the pure EV will ever make it as a "normal" car in the next 20 years. I think that the GM Volt is the right idea, across the board. 40 to 60 miles on electric, but relatively unlimited range in fact, because of a small ICE aboard. As you say, John, if you size the battery for your average commuting travel and rarely need the ICE, you'll save the greatest amount of money.

So the pure EV give people the willies because they think of getting stranded, when in fact that is not gonna happen.

It seems to me that the lead carbon may well be able to be this -- except for one thing that is not clear: Tell me about the voltage curve on a lead-carbon. Is it not true that this requires a *much* more capable power control system? Let's put that factor on the table too.

Nice article.

How to Determine Value of Alternative Energy Stocks

Loren:

On Jan 26 02:32 PM Loren Rogers wrote:

> Ok I get it .. It's because I'm black right? A 30% up swing in one
> day isn't worth a daytrade...never mind you are right I am wrong...forgive
> me for treading on your holier than thou ground... Even a dumb hick
> like me can see the writing on the wall here... for a good time call
> Seeking Alpha...blacks need not apply!

I think, especially as of right now, blacks can apply for *anything*. <grin> Multiple personality disorders are fascinating; on one hand you are actually able to be literate and thoughtful, and on the other hand ... well, let's just say that I prefer the one over the other.

I think that if you've got a reason why BCON is cool, almost everyone here would like to hear it, but be prepared to defend yourself with rational facts and patient argument. You are not alone in liking BCON, but it seems to have some numbers to explain. And John did say it succinctly.

Of course, you'll bet as you wish, but I don't think that anyone here is going to stampede one way or the other. For my own part, I am tired of getting waxed by flitting around as a member of a school of mental-minnows. I want to pick my path seriously in this (one of many) topic areas.

Day trading out. Sober investment in. This area is a long's game in a biiiiig market, sez I. For my own part I need a plate of could-be-a-winner start-ups, and I need some bargoon (sic) definitely-staying alives -- Exide, for example, who will rise up three years from now.

And then, of course, there is this: what is the probability that any of these start-ups which actually proves that it "has something" is gonna be the commercialization vehicle? B U Y O U T. So for me, it's all in the proofs. Well, mostly.

How to Determine Value of Alternative Energy Stocks

Loren:

On Jan 26 06:57 AM Loren Rogers wrote:

...snip...
> John John is at it again...I see now why he/"YOU" is plugging his
> ears...His articles are a farce...pretending to be objective on this
> variety of AE stocks, all so he can pump his own stocks

... snip ...
>"JOHN"... we are
> all hip to the scams...and your perpetuation of them is ...is..well
> it's boring that's what it is!... And while not required but because
> I am not full of shit surelock ...I happen to hold vast number of
> shares in BCON, Beacon Energy Corp and plan to add to my position
> now that it has been factuallt determined that the U.S. navy is very
> interested in their energy storage tech... And since you are now
> my best newest buddy... Let's have a reunion in 5 years and compare
> our stock values in BCON vs. AXPW.OB ......:K

...snip...
> P.S. read how John John as operated , schemed and mannipulated his
> readers over time...draw your own conclustions...better use a brown
> crayon to do it!

Actually, John Petersens's articles are tracking his own evolution of perception in a complicated area, as evidenced by his changing "long" puchases. Do you really think that I am unaware of his declared holdings? If he did not investing, I would not listen so closely. John's articles may keep Axion in the list, by more importantly, they have (for me) vivisected and simplified a complex topic area which has had a number of myth-perceptions around it. I feel grateful for both this work and for the considerable intelligence of the pro and con commentators.

If you had a coherent argument, this would have been a good place to come, but you are ranting like a fool; even if you are somehow right, that was a totally foolish post.

Sp begone, ranting fool. There were a hundred better ways to voice your comments (and when your note gets deleted, I hope they delete this note too.)

God,, I hate ranting. (Am I ranting myself? Dooh!)

Lead-Carbon: A Game Changer for Alternative Energy Storage

Hall: I can see that you are a pretty-good and logical scrapper, and that this one is merely warming up. John has been having all to easy a time of it in this article's commentary, so your thread is probably good for his soul.

John: That was said with some humor.

Both: Allow me to preach the obvious for a few seconds. {Stands on soap box}

In trying to reduce relative "over-under" value to a thirty second generalized calculation of any form, one can only be one of three things: (i) entirely wrong, (ii) mostly wrong, or (iii) naive.

These things are like triangulation; you either need to overlay many shallow angle readings (i.e. multiple technical ratio methods), or you need to add in the wide-angled intersecting clarity of some seriously-company-spec... "perspectives". I'm sure one could write a book on ... oh say ... look at all those books.

So John, I believe that Hall is going to wipe the mat with you on that quickie assertion, because he merely needs to trot out some Jesuit extremes. Not that you are wrong though. More likely, you have entered a possible next line of topic for your articles ... "which companies are the best values intersecting with which technologies are the ones to watch?" That could be a barn burner, and a difficult one.

{exit soap box}

Lead-Carbon: A Game Changer for Alternative Energy Storage

Crocodile:

Thanks for that.

Let's face it, it's a "school-of-fish" market, now that nobody knows what anything is worth anymore.

Lead-Carbon: A Game Changer for Alternative Energy Storage

John,


On Jan 19 01:01 PM John Petersen wrote:

> Searcher, the ultimate payoff would be several senior partners all
> buying electrode assemblies and servicing different markets.

So this is a similar business model to (not technology), say, Firefly's foam electrode model. It seems to me that not just anyone can make these carbon electrodes reliably at present, so licensing the carbon electrode manufacturing may not be wise, stability-wise. That said, eventually, the big fellas will want to do it.

But these are very nice problems to have to deal with. I get ahead of myself.

Lead-Carbon: A Game Changer for Alternative Energy Storage

Renzo:

On Jan 18 01:01 PM Renzo wrote:

> Thank you for another installment in a stellar series of articles.
> The way you logically categorize the technologies and their power/energy
> profiles makes the arcane understandable.
>
> It seems that Axion and ZBB are both looking at a similar niche in
> the grid storage market with their Power Cube and ZESS modules.
> Are these products complementary or competetive? It seems that PbC
> provides better short term (frequency regulation) power, whereas
> Zn/Br is better for longer-term (peak shaving) power. Is this correct?

I did not see a negative lead-carbon assessment for peak shaving in this study, I did see a positive assessment for short-cycle power leveling. zinc-bromide is much more developed than lead-carbon, so we'd all like to see a similar comparison in an arena like shaving. I think these things will be more common now, because we (as in the nation) need to place our bets soon.

Simply, there needs to be another test for the peak shaving application. And that test needs to compare batteries versus each other, but also in terms of other possibilities such as large scale hydro-lift and pneumatic storage. Its a separate issue, and one of several that need to be dissected with the same clarity as this study.

Tredleon:

Your comments seem reasonable, but if you take into account 50% dilution in pricing, you can make your decisions more peacefully. Yah pays to play, and the state of the finances always needs to be factored in.

The extension of your argument is that one should not touch anything that is not loaded with cash; a rather limiting prospect if one is trying to find the next disruptive thing. For me, test results are "everything", but the fact that this is a very different and potentially disruptive technology available from a very well-established domestic manufacturing base is the other "everything".

Lead-Carbon: A Game Changer for Alternative Energy Storage

The test showed recharge rates (and discharge rates), but under this test scenario, not all the one's we'd like to see.

Still, it is a major step forward in showing that lead-carbon is very very different from its predecessors. The combination of what appears to be electrostatic storage in the carbon with electrochemical storage in the lead is a tremendously different thing -- it is not just a matter of longer-lasting electrodes. These are hybrid battery-capacitors.

A 1C Rate is a rate which would fully charge the battery in one hour, as I understand it, and a 4C rate would recharge the entire battery in 15 minutes, in theory. That said, it is important to note that at (this test's) 50% state of average charge and with only +- 10% depth of charge / discharge, the C rates can be high in many technologies. (If one is levelling the output of a wind generator, one does need to move the juice in and out with high C rates, so if the battery could only handle say 0.4C, it would be a not very good.) But in this case, the 4C for both lithium Ion and lead-carbon is pretty darned nice.

Still, we can all see that there are half a dozen different linds of tests needed to characterize the Lead-Carbon concept better.

On Jan 18 12:24 PM joeboat wrote:

> How about the all important recharge rate? Energy storage is not
> very efficient if most must be spilled off during peak production
> due to a batteries inability to absorb.

Lead-Carbon: A Game Changer for Alternative Energy Storage

Remarkable.

Admittedly this is only one type of test, but the lead carbon battery (In this case Ultrabattery) is showing just how radically different the performance is compared to the VRLA lead battery. Its not even the same creature. If this type of life cycle advantage stays true in some other test scenarios such as deep discharge, calendar life, etc, that will say lots about the future. Also, we need to examine real-world figure in terms of comparative energy density and power density.

This, however, seriously seems to be one piece of the puzzle less to query, and it connects your core assertions ... the the "costs less" piece and the "highly domestically manufacturable" piece and the "highly recyclable" piece and the "not subject to huge component price increases" piece.

A few more tests like that, and we have a an alpha-ish clarity. Must feel nice.

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

Hello John and all.

First, I'd like to congratulate you, John, on an excellent article and series of articles. I have read them all now, and I have seen your position grow clearer and yet broader; you are no hack after all. It think you elucidate your position really well.

To the other participants, I'd like to say how much I have enjoyed the insight and intelligence in this group -- and the respect shown here, which makes reading so much easier.

To state my own position on this, I'd say the following:

a) We have to do something. NOW. I believe that electrical storage technology will move forward, and needs some help, but we must be practical. I think, John, you are clearly arguing for practical.

b) I think we agree that all options must be open and that there is no singular winner. It's too big of a market to even worry about singular winners. So its not just batteries, is it?

c) Personally, I'd like to see the following:

(i) Convert the long haul truck fleet to natural gas. Lots of jobs in that conversion. Lots of room on those trucks for the conversion. Lots of LNG. Do it now. We have the technology. Do it now. Force it to happen. Help it to happen. Yes, its government-time. Might as well do something concrete with those trillions.

(ii) Convert the inner city delivery truck system to electric or electric hybrid. Lots of jobs in that conversion. Lots of room in those trucks for that conversion. We have the technology. -- And John, those Lead-Carbon batteries seem perfect -- thousands of cycles, quick charge, deep discharge, highly recyclable, and most of all MASSIVE availability from domestic battery sources over just a few years. Keep the money "in the loop".

(iii) Leave the domestic cars alone. Set mileage standards, and wait for a victor in the battery pack (sic) to emerge. This is a tough nut to crack. But help these battery people with demonstration projects NOW.

(err. I'll get off my soap box.. Merry Christmas.)