Dave K.

Battery Investing for Beginners, Part 4

John,
My position is that the US economic powerhouse can no longer mortgage its future by importing 10 Million barrels of oil a day. This represents a $710 Million a day trade deficit that fails to be balanced. The longer the imbalance remains the weaker the US becomes and the closer its collapse becomes. The real question should be what is the true cost to the US of imported oil? The sooner the US is willing to get off the addiction the better chance it will survive economically. Remember it wasn’t that long ago that England was the world dominate power and before them France and Spain. All failed because they didn’t watch their bottom line… they went broke.
Taxes on gasoline need to be increased until the desire to import oil drops off to a level that can be economically sustained.
Failure to do it means the US will become a has been… like England, France, Spain and other empires before them.

I am a Canadian and always glad to sell oil to the US, but as are each other’s major trading partner what happens to the US will happen to Canada.
I wish to disclose that I work for a company with a competing technology to that of batteries and that LTL’s technology is disruptive that has a speculative component to it.

A123: Bulls Are Powering Up Battery Maker's Options

I need to disclose that I work for a company with a competing technology to that of A123 and that LTL’s technology is disruptive that has a speculative component to it.

Can investors ever trust a company management team that heavily promotes itself before the ownership of the technology its batteries are based on is resolved? In reference to the litigation A123 is under going with Quebec Hydro.
www.bloomberg.com/apps...

Battery Investing for Beginners

Jerry,
If you are looking for detailed information then contact me directly through the LTL website. The post is about batteries and adding a 5 or 10 page document about ultracapacitors to John’s post would be inappropriate. The amount I have added already is stretching good taste. There is no co-development agreement with any University after a major Canadian Institution breached its NDA agreement and initiated an R&D program of its own, using our technology that was disclosed to them. From that point forward we follow our legal advice and will use such institutions for testing only but will not reveal trade secrets to them. As far as power converters go I wish to mention that the energy density of the first generation of our ultracapacitor is nonlinear such that the lower 50% of the voltage curve will only represent 10% remaining power. Yes the dielectric constant increases with increasing voltage prior to leveling off. An example performance plot is part of a pending patent application still in confidential phase. Sorry you have to wait for public releases. For the LTL products the electric power converter only needs to be 25% larger in size, adding <$1,000 to a 100kw system but saving $22,000 on the cost of 50kw battery pack (assumes Lithium not lead acid batteries). The only competing technology that LTL watches is lead acid batteries as they are the lower cost solution for the automotive industry.

On Sep 28 08:37 AM jerrydd wrote:

>
> I see no independent tests of such tech in your post. Please give
> where it has been proven?
>
> How big will a 20kwhr unit be?
>
> Please give URL on the University projects?
>
> And what commercial products you say are out there? URL?
>
> Sorry but too much hype has gone on in this field to believe anything
> that has not been independently tested.
>
> While true 75% of the power is in 50-100% voltage range, that leaves
> 25% unavailable vs 10% in most batteries. But you waste most of the
> electronics as they need to be 2x's as large as battery units do
> even just using down to 50% voltage.
>
> As Lithium, Iron, Phosphate, Magnesium are about as inexpensive as
> they come, I fail to see how you will get yours cheaper/kwhr. And
> don't forget Lithium still has far more room to improve in energy
> density.

Battery Investing for Beginners

Your statement is 5 years out of date. Electrostatic capacitors have increased in energy density over the last few years to commercially available working energy densities of 5 to 10 J/cc, from 0.2J/cc. Electrostatic capacitors are aggressively replacing power electrolytic capacitors in inverters and drive electronics in electric/hybrid cars. Expect them in the very near future to go for the current double layer capacitor markets where they are used with batteries in automotive and industrial drives. These capacitors are principally single polymer dielectrics, not the more complex materials currently under development. Universities such as Penn State and Utah are expecting eventually to achieve energy densities of working range for single polymer systems reported as high as 450J/cc. Compound dielectrics with energy density of 300J/cc represents an increase of 30 in energy density. The EAMEX technology represents a similar increase of 30 times in energy density as compared to current commercial double layer ultracapacitor technology. A number of Research labs are expecting to achieve energy densities similar to EAMEX through different methods. The increase in energy density is about the same as the improvement made over the last 5 years for electrostatic capacitors through improvements in material processing of the same dielectrics used over the last 30 years. LTL’s technology is the manufacturing process that uses the new dielectric materials under development. Yes we have our own proprietary dielectric materials but the manufacturing process is compatible with that under development by most labs working on electrostatic dielectrics.
75% of an ultra-capacitor’s energy is delivered in the 50% to 100% voltage range. Cost increase in electronics is essentially nil for electrocstatic capacitors as they do not require, as much cooling and heating as Lithium batteries nor is there a requirement for protective electronic circuits across each device as required by Lithium batteries. This cost savings offsets the 15% expected cost increase of the electronics. But as the ultra-capacitors are expected to be <30% the cost of current Lithium-ion batteries the overall savings for car companies is expected to be substantial.


On Sep 27 07:07 PM jerrydd wrote:

>
>
> Dave, are there any independent tests of your ultracap? As it's over
> a 100-1000x improvement and other parts of it's website are so far
> out of present tech I have to wonder. Plus I just don't see how you
> can do it in a cap.
>
> Until it can be independently confirmed I wouldn't touch this with
> a 10' pole!!
>
> Plus no mention of the expensive electronics needed to deal with
> the rate voltage to Zero voltage swings needed to get the power out.
>

Battery Investing for Beginners

Hi John good article on batteries but you missed a number of disruptive technologies arising from the ultra-capacitor research market. I am bringing them to your reader’s attention as they are potentially disruptive to the battery industry and for that reason, have to be closely monitored by investors. The technologies are at the development stage and 1- 3 years from manufacture, of course should they work as intended.
Both are disruptive, but different ultra-capacitor technologies, which are targeting batteries with cost of manufacture in the $50 to $150 per kwh range. The low voltage technology is under development by a Japanese company EAMEX and their web link is www.eamex.co.jp/capa2_... and then there is the company I work for website 1-LTL.com whose technology is a high voltage electrostatic technology with a similar cost of manufacture. EAMAX has serious attention from the automotive companies and I expect a lot of money is being poured into research on their technology. LTL is talking to a number of organizations interested in funding its next stage of development.
The web page www.1-ltl.com/capaciti... has a energy storage table with active links to pages that explains the different technologies. Feel free to e-mail me with any updates to battery technologies or costs, as my goal is to keep the table current. Only public information will be entered.
There are a few other companies working in the electrostatic capacitor area but their work is more disruptive to the existing double layer ultra-capacitor manufacturers such as Maxwell. Yes there is EESTOR but they are so far off of meeting their delivery dates I believe they have been dismissed by most investors. An interesting footnote about EESTOR is that LTL believes it may have a critical controlling piece of IP over them and a free, except for our IP, work-around to their technology. LTL’s IP is for manufacturing process for high voltage ultra-capacitors. This has been the company’s strategy all along to own the manufacturing equipment for high voltage ultra-capacitors.
Summary, all battery makers intending to survive long term have to get their cost of manufacture below $250 per kwh range within 3 to 5 years and ideally to less than $150. The green tech and battery market should be seen as similar to the DOT COM era with a number of big winners and losers emerging within 5 years. The market will be very dynamic and expect a few disruptions. That is why forums such as this will be a valuable source of information for investors over the next few years. Dave

Thorium: A Nuclear Power that Green Investors Might Like

Thorium does produce 233U, which can be made into nuclear bombs though it would have to extracted from the fuel rods. However, the material is very difficult to work with because of the presence of 232U, which is very radioactive and the bombs would be easy to detect because of the strong gamma ray background they would produce.
So Thorium isn’t as bad as some of the nuclear fuels but still represents along term source of radioactive waste.
If countries want to go nuclear they should invest in a few wild card fusion technologies in addition to the current program. Fusion reactors though still a ways away doesn’t generate as many of the nasty long-term radioactive waste.
Short term is still renewable wind, solar and geothermal in combination with grid storage. Is nuclear really economical on a cost basis of per watt if you include the long-term disposal of the waste?

Chinese Rare Earth Rationing Shouldn't Sink Wind Power Sector

The problem isn't as serious as it appears. Older mines that were closed due to excessively low prices for the metals are now able to reopen. The US can actually be self sufficient in the metals. SEE
www.reuters.com/articl...

For the latest post about Moycorp reopening its US mine. There are a number of good articles at Reuters and as always a good place for information for investors.
Cheers Dave

Beer, Batteries, and a Solar Power Game Changer

Don't forget the charger and inverter to convert the DC from the battery to AC for the home. This has always been a major expense. Add another $10,000 to $20,000 for the inverter to power an average home without an electric stove, no electric cloths dryer or air conditioner. Add even more to support those items. Only off grid people would be interested.
Dave

Time to Forget About Zenn Motor

I thought Richard Weir's background was marketing not R&D. Guess he was very good at marketing to get this far. So if he is the marketing guru then who is the real technical brains behind the operation?

National Vehicle Electrification: Battery Swap vs. Fast Charging

The problem with the battery swapping is the cost of having the huge inventory of batteries on hand. Alternately a fast recharge station will have its own grid storage so it appears as an average load to a utility. I assume the battery banks will be recharged over the night at the time of lowest cost. It will be able to use the lowest cost energy storage whether lead acid or Sodium Sulfur cells. The cost of the grid storage would be lower than a large stack of more expensive swap out batteries (1/2 to 1/3 the capital outlay). I expect the recharge stations with local storage will often combine renewable power sources such as wind or in some states solar.
The size of the grid tie will depend on the average demand for power not the peak. If you are recharging 50kw-hr cars from 8 am to 8 pm on average then your grid tie requirement is 50/12 or about 4kW per car you intend to charge each day. The grid tie will be about the same as that required by a station swapping out batteries. It is possible to design a fast recharge lead acid battery and expect it to happen to counter other fast recharge battery systems.
The whole area of electric cars and charging stations will be in a bit of a flux for about 8 years before the winners and losers emerge. So expect to change your investments over time.
Personally I wouldn’t consider buying a battery swap car as it would be more expensive and far cheaper to charge it home as the swap out company will have to mark up the electric charge by 50% or more to cover their huge overheads. Cheers

Auto Batteries: Short Term Revenue Growth Favors Lead-Acid by 6 to 1

John, are the lead battery companies you are promoting so scared of 1st Lighten The Load’s technology that you, even being a lawyer, had to take the risk of a cheap libel shot at me. We have had a number of private conversations in the past. From those you know that I am an Industrial Physicist and with nearly 30 years of experience working in leading and next generation technologies, both commercial & military with over 18 years of managerial expertise. I have brought a large number of leading edge products to commercial production. I expect an apology from you or are the negative things others have said about you an understatement?

On Jun 29 03:14 PM John Petersen wrote:

> Dave K, the gulf between an invention and a product is very wide,
> but I wish you well because my fondest prayer is that some genius
> in a garage somewhere comes up with a better solution.
>
> Since lead acid batteries have been starting every car on the road
> for about 75 years, I think the shock and vibration issues have been
> worked out pretty well.

Auto Batteries: Short Term Revenue Growth Favors Lead-Acid by 6 to 1

John, a good article. Though I am a competitor to the battery companies and expect to eventually dominate the energy storage fields. I suggest you get the lead acid companies to do some grass roots promoting. For example add their information to common places such as Wikipedia i.e. en.wikipedia.org/wiki/... because the chart on this link really is very negative towards lead acid. A shocking fact I got from the table is that a number of the Lithium technologies have very short lives 2 to 3 years. I will add my company’s technology on the site when pilot manufacturing takes place, the step I am setting up at this time. One question I do have about the lead acid batteries is are they able to take the shock and vibration of the automobiles? If so then what is wrong, do they need to get a PR firm? Nether the less I always am glad to see that some people are able to see that the end game will be full cost of the storage technology not what is inside because all people care is the full cost of the car not what is inside it.

What Lies Ahead for Hybrid Car Investors?

As the CTO for a company working on electrical energy storage technology in competition to batteries I wish to add is that EVs will be the long term future and it will take 8 years for the technology to settle down/shake out. In the end fast recharge <5 minutes will be the standard and storage technology will be $50 to $150 dollars per kilo-watt-hr. That is the reality of the technology I am working on and it is easily scaled to large volume production. During the 8 year period battery companies will come and go and investors have to try and identify the Google, Microsoft, E-Bay, Amazon of that market sooner rather than latter. My suggestion as a technical expert is look at the battery company’s 1. manufacturing cost per kilo-watt-hour; 2. is it practical for automotive use (robust); 3. is the company over-hyped which in my book is used to hide the loud gobbling sound of the turkey product? Dave Kelly CTO, I can be contacted through 1-ltl.com
Good Luck

Focus on Electric Cars as Oil Prices Rise

I think it is smart for car companies to begin the transition to electric power. This positions them to survive the next oil shock, not a matter of if it will happen but when and how severe it will be. Another trend to look for will be companies second sourcing parts closer to the assembly plants to cut down on transportation costs. This means the next oil shock could further erode over seas parts suppliers market share as the cost of shipping erodes their price advantage. A recent study shows that converting Bio-mass to electricity and running electric cars is much more efficient use of the energy rather than making ethanol from it. This again supports electric cars over ICE power. The article is located at www.sciencedaily.com/r... You can extend the principal further in that it is more economical to convert fossil fuels to electric power rather than burn it in an automobile.

The company I work for is developing electrical energy storage 1-LTL.com so some bias may exist with my responses.

Feeling the Buzz: Ford Goes Electric

I think it is smart of Ford progressing this way. A recent study shows that converting Bio-mass to electricity and running electric cars is much more efficient use of the energy rather than making ethanol from it. The article is located at www.sciencedaily.com/r...

The company I work for is developing electrical energy storage 1-LTL.com so some bias may exist with my responses.