Dave K.'s Comments

Battery Investing for Beginners, Part 4

Wed, 07 Oct 2009 10:38:42 -0400

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

Wed, 07 Oct 2009 10:13:31 -0400

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

Tue, 29 Sep 2009 15:49:25 -0400

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

Mon, 28 Sep 2009 02:39:10 -0400

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

Sun, 27 Sep 2009 15:44:00 -0400

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

Sun, 27 Sep 2009 14:54:49 -0400

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

Tue, 01 Sep 2009 19:44:59 -0400

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

Tue, 01 Sep 2009 10:42:32 -0400

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

Wed, 12 Aug 2009 16:23:16 -0400

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

Tue, 11 Aug 2009 03:24:00 -0400

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

Tue, 30 Jun 2009 02:13:41 -0400

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

Mon, 29 Jun 2009 15:04:15 -0400

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?

Mon, 29 Jun 2009 14:39:41 -0400

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

Fri, 08 May 2009 15:49:22 -0400

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

Fri, 08 May 2009 15:47:06 -0400

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.

Critiquing John Petersen´s `The Plug-in Vehicle Scam`

Mon, 04 May 2009 13:26:24 -0400

I work for a company developing competing technology to batteries for electrical energy storage there are a few facts people keep missing.
The current oil price low is only temporary at best and we are sitting in the eye of a hurricane in oil prices. The good point is that the low oil price is shaking out the weak green companies that were under capitalized.
There are many electrical energy storage technologies emerging from the labs, not all are public. Expect the cost per kilowatt-hour to drop to less than $150 in 5 to 7 years. Government reports still contain a major element of bias towards oil, but I expect that will change over the next 2 years. Lithium will either become much less expensive or fall somewhere along the way. That is how the market works, be lower cost and better or get replaced by something that is.
Fast recharge electric cars will be common in a few years. Fast recharge stations are economically viable and inexpensive to build. For example a 500,000W recharge station manufacturing cost is between 0.10 to 0.05 per watt or $50,000 to $25,000 dollars. A 500,000W recharge station will charge 1kw-hr in about 7 seconds. Industrial versions are already in use in Europe. Better Place battery swap proposal will never be a viable solution over fast recharge and they are already decreasing the battery swap hype and switching their focus to recharge stations.
North America must reduce the amount of energy per unit of manufactured goods to remain completive with the rest of the world. Energy will no longer be nearly free and a major factor to be considered when determining the cost of manufactured goods.
Electric cars are real and coming, if not made in North America then imported, the way the capitalist system works. If North America doesn’t accept the change then it risks being left behind as an expensive place to manufacture and with the loss of manufacturing will go its leadership in R&D. Remember England suffered a similar fate after WWII, history and the US is at risk of repeating their mistakes.

Evergreen Outsources Cell and Panel Production to China's Jiawei Solar

Sat, 02 May 2009 11:57:30 -0400

Evergreen obviously has only half completed its technology. Automating the panel fabrication process removes the labor issue from the equation, which would make their technology economical to fabricate anywhere in the world. Without the low labor panel line Evergreen is vulnerable to competitors a few years down the road. Though international shipping right now is inexpensive with oil prices temporarily low what is their manufacturing costs when shipping to an from China goes up 5 times from today’s prices as the economic recovery takes hold? Just before the economic downturn shipping costs were making it no longer economical to use China for final fabrication by many industries. The additional costs of shipping and having 2 months of product stuck in transit rises capital requirements substantially. This move, though may be looking good on paper at this time, could represent future problems for Evergreen if it doesn’t manufacture product in the country of their major customers.

Response to Jack Lifton's 'Lithium Batteries: Nothing But Illusion'

Thu, 23 Apr 2009 17:57:09 -0400

Lisa, (or anyone)
If Lithium is 1% the cost of the battery then the expensive part of the battery or manufacturing process has been missed. If it isn't Lithium making the batteries expensive then what is? Knowing this will allow an educated decision by investors whether the Lithium batteries will become competitive in price.
I represent a competing electric energy storage technology, so same interest in their costs just different reason for needing to know. Dave

Nissan to Help China Popularize Electric Cars

Sun, 12 Apr 2009 14:36:47 -0400

I am glad to see that their car will have a fast recharge capability of 14 minutes similar to what I had been publicly proposing since 2007. However, the real advantage and cost savings will be when the batteries are replaced by ultra-capacitors about ¼ the price of Lithium-ion batteries in less than 3 years. The existing electric car infrastructure should be compatible with both storage technologies except the ultra-capacitors will have charging times of less than 5 minutes. Dave

Cleantech, Optimism Squared and the Battery Industry

Mon, 06 Apr 2009 03:45:24 -0400

Try google.com, before replying next time as I have proven you wrong time and time again but you keep on trying.

I am very familiar with the work of Penn State and have been talking with a chemist, in a competing group to the ones involved with Strategic Polymer Sciences. Their polymers contain fluorine, which make them extremely expensive to manufacture and may represent an environmental disposal problem. The polymers they use are approximately 10 times the price of nonhalogenated (sp) polymers to manufacture. That is why 1-LTL isn’t considering their approach as economically viable for commercial applications and definitely not environmental friendly. You would have to get to 3,000J/cc to make the material viable and what they are 30J/cc I believe.

Time for you to quit, you are still zero unless you are a paid heckler, which means you won't go away as its your job.

O
n Apr 04 06:00 PM aquaculture wrote:

> Sorry, wrong. Can be found in the white papers here:
> strategicpolymers.com
>
> And BT is not a polymer.
>
> And no not off-topic. Cleantech, batteries and (Optimism)^........

Cleantech, Optimism Squared and the Battery Industry

Sat, 04 Apr 2009 16:42:19 -0400

Actually,
The highest polymer dielectric constant is 100,000, that I have found published and Research continues as to whether to what extent it will be useable. Not the one 1-LTL is working on/using and you won’t be able to find out, a few have already tried. For the record single crystal BT is about 100,000, (Japanese Research) but then growing single crystals and making capacitors economically is the problem. It hasn’t stopped pending and issued patents for single crystal capacitors rather than ceramic capacitors which are in actuality a fused poly-crystal structure.
Our conversation is way off topic as it is suppose to be about the battery industry and it is best to drop it at this point.

On Apr 04 02:00 PM aquaculture wrote:

> Dave k
>
> Above you gave link and said: (quote) "replaced with a material having
> dielectric constant about 6000"
> Highest known polymer dielectric is a little over 50.
> No 100 x energy density in that either...
>

Cleantech, Optimism Squared and the Battery Industry

Fri, 03 Apr 2009 17:22:09 -0400

John,
I wish to apologize having to reply to Aquaculture's criticisms, but I was left no choice. It is not my intention to get into side arguments that are off topic. It is unfortunate he didn't bother to e-mail me first and get his assumptions checked out. However, the readers did get a couple more links of ultra-capacitor electrical storage technology to watch out for.
Dave K.

Cleantech, Optimism Squared and the Battery Industry

Fri, 03 Apr 2009 17:15:08 -0400

Hi Aquaculture,

Excuse me but what part didn’t you get? Why would I wish to follow your flawed and incorrect comparison of apples to oranges? 1-LTL doesn’t use a ceramic-based capacitor dielectric, except for very low energy density, high frequency capacitor applications, but not for energy storage. Secondarily, our ceramic polymer dielectrics, for high frequency applications have dielectric constants that actually increase with increasing applied voltage and only show signs of saturation as they approach break down or their intended working voltage. Yes ceramic capacitors have a dielectric saturation problem, for some but not all formulations, a going up in smoke problem, because they lack self-healing and well ceramic is just brittle and breaks real easy, THAT IS WHY WE DON’T USE THE TECHNOLOGY. So please read this carefully THE 1-LTL ULTRA-CAPACITOR DOES NOT USE A CERAMIC BASED DIELECTRIC as the primary energy storage component in our ultra-capacitor technology.

You are applying apples to oranges and wrong because;

1. A Polymer based capacitor’s dielectric energy density is limited by the initial dielectric constant in combination with their break down voltage and does not have a dielectric saturation problem.

2. Double layer ultra-capacitor energy density is limited by the electrode surface area and electrolyte properties. Sorry no dielectric saturation problem here either. Their apparent dielectric value increases with increasing voltage but such effects are attributed to pseudocapacitance effects. Here is a link go read, bucky-central.me.utexa... Oops sorry you are wrong once again no dielectric saturation. Let me see 150 to 175 Farad per gram at up to 2.7 Volts. Energy 1/2CV squared => ½*125*2.75 *2.75 = 456 J/gram or by multiplying by 1000 and then dividing by 3600 gives 126 w-hr/kg. Oh yes you can argue the number should be 50 or 150 or 75 but the article proves the point I had to make. The capacitance versus voltage curves doesn’t show a dielectric saturation problem. Guess you have just been caught being wrong once again. Oops ultra-capacitor @ 125 w-hr/kg, will it be practical, will it emerge from the lab, look out batteries. There are many other published research articles with similar claims.

Neither of the above 2 capacitor technologies have a dielectric polarization problem. 1-LTL’s is polymer based and does not have a dielectric saturation problem either. So how wrong do you have to be before you quite talking about something you clearly don’t have a clue about?

So much for your pseudoscience and you have been caught red handed as a rude nasty little FAKE! So ignore the facts if you wish but please go elsewhere if you wish to make a fool of yourself.

I support my claims, whenever possible using technical sources, which are at, arms length to 1-LTL. If you are going to comment back I expect the same from you. In the future you should at least put in a few words such as “I am most likely wrong but feel” or try “I know nothing about the technology but I think that” or even better “ I am making the following up”.

As far as you having any expertise in patent applications, don’t even open that door.

Thank you for your big fat juicy mistakes, as you have been very entertaining for me.

Dave

On Apr 03 07:59 AM aquaculture wrote:

> Dave K.
>
> No you have not answered any criticism regards 1-ltl.
> No I do not accept that your tech is credible.
> The opposite!! (now that its clear youre not following the route
> I outlined above)
>
> Its not a matter of me not understanding self-healing. The problem
> is you not understanding dielectric saturation (strong electron-ion
> correlation as field stengthens, leading to cancellation between
> ionic- and electronic polarization in ceramic dielectric!)
> K varies as ~1/E over much of voltage range resulting in approx.
> LINEAR increase in energy density with field.
> You believe (common mistake!!!!!) using a 6000 K material will give
> you 100 x energy density.
> You calculate total energy stored as 1/2 CV^2 without reporting any
> breakthrough on saturation issue. This invalid calculation 1/2 KE^2
> then gives (.5)(8.85x10^-12 F/m)(6000)(10.6^8 V/m)= ~3x10^8 J/m3
> = ~300 J/cc.
> That's optimism squared!
> In reality you're lucky to get 2J/cc with the link you gave...

>
> Your website has been in the air a long time, yet:
>
> -no patent (even though there are hundreds of US patents which make
> the same mistake out there -sometimes I wish the Swiss would examine
> all patents!)
> -no energy storage measurements
> -no permittivity versus field data
>
> If you want to be succesfull in this field, the order to do things
> would be:
> -to get a lot of Schaum's outlines, practice solving millions of
> problems incuding calculus.
> -get mr Feynmans trilogy and complete at least part 1 and 2, be able
> to validate everything he says.
> -then IF you get a good idea in the kitchen:
> 1.make it,
> 2. test it,
> 3. go to mr Peterson and get a patent,
> 4 get 3rd party verification of your measurements,
> 5 and THEN you can launch a website promising all the goodies to
> mankind.
> And not the other way round...

Cleantech, Optimism Squared and the Battery Industry

Thu, 02 Apr 2009 14:44:14 -0400

Hi aqua
Actually you have failed to understand the self-healing process that is used by the energy storage technology. The self-healing electrode structure is not an external fuse but internal, where a defect or weak spot is disconnected from the remaining bulk of the part. The following link, plasma.ece.utk.edu/pub... is from an independent research group and provides some details about how the process takes place. The exact method and construction of the self-healing structure is dependent on the materials used in the capacitor’s construction and end application. The capacitors they are testing are designed specifically for energy storage.
The difference between the 1-LTL (1st Lighten The Load Inc.) capacitor structure and those in the article is in their construction. The dielectric constant (the part where the energy is stored) of the capacitor in the article is 4 to 8 depending on the plastic film that is used with break down voltage of 350 V/micron, about 9,000 Volt per thousands of an inch. The 1-LTL ultra-capacitor construction is different in that the dielectric layer has been replaced with a material having dielectric constant about 6,000 but with a much lower breakdown voltage, about 100V/micron. This gives an energy density about 100 times that of a commercial metalized film capacitor. Our technology at 300J/cc is only 3 times the energy density of a soon to be commercial double layer-ultra-capacitor which are about 30 w-hr/kg while 1-LTL’s claim is 100 w-hr/kg. The press release for the double-layer capacitor is www.jeol.com/NEWSEVENT...
The advantage of our technology over double layer ultra capacitors is in working voltage and in single unit size and cost of manufacture. Double layer capacitors are from 1.5 to 3.5 volts while the 1-LTL’s ultra-capacitors have single unit voltages from 10 through 100,000’s of volts. This makes them easier to use in almost all energy storage applications from automotive through electric grid storage. The question isn’t if batteries will be replaced by ultra-capacitors but it is when and who will have the lowest cost to fabricate technology. In the end it will be cost of manufacture and the operating cost of the storage technology that will win. Whether it is made using green apples or oranges really doesn’t matter to the consumer so long as it is inexpensive, recyclable and can be called a green environmental friendly technology.
I hope this has answered your criticism and you now accept that the 1-LTL technologies as credible.

On Apr 01 06:18 PM aquaculture wrote:

> Ok Dave fair enough. I read you're aware of dielectric saturation
> in the case of Eestor.
> I just wasted some 10 minutes looking at your renewed site.
> To me meaningfull scientific statements -claims that you make- are
> a method of verification. Since no such method is in the air, your
> entire content (the rest) is meaningless to me.
>
> That said, you claim 300J/cc. with ceramic/polymer material, about
> 10 x better than commercial and cheap ultra-cap in marketplace today.
>
> This high energy density is possible -only in theory!- capped at
> about 400 J/cc as upper limit, in three phase composite with some
> nano scale fraction packed.
> But achieving high breakdown strength is extremely difficult. For
> this you have to create a packing at nanoscale without defects, with
> some high order-a very difficult problem on which many labs are working
> today. And fusing doesnt help. In fact of the billion you manufacture
> one might come out right.
> But if you have solved one of the toughest problems in nano kudos
> to you...
>
> Good luck.
> aqua

Cleantech, Optimism Squared and the Battery Industry

Wed, 01 Apr 2009 15:11:26 -0400

Sorry we don't use BaTiO3. Yes a unique ultra-capacitor technology. We have provided samples to a major German company. Not vapor ware either and our technology is not the same as EESTOR, though we know why theirs won't work. Maybe better to check the website before commenting as we are not in hiding.

On Apr 01 02:36 PM aquaculture wrote:

> Oh no, here is an another one of those BaTio3 capacitor nuts.
Done
> any permittivity testing yet? I looked into patent. Fused but same
> problem as EEstor: high voltage, low energy density. Very low....

Cleantech, Optimism Squared and the Battery Industry

Wed, 01 Apr 2009 14:22:04 -0400

John,
Good article but I wish to add to it from a company’s perspective, the criteria that were used in developing our competing product, yet to go into production. The list was used to determine the long term winning storage technology to become involved with
1. Lowest cost per kilo-watt-hour or competitive price target $150/kilo-watt-hour
2. Self-healing i.e. no thermal events possible (fire)
3. Long life >1000 charge/discharge cycles
4. Does no contain toxic chemicals (no toxic spill to clean up after a car accident)
5. Fast recharge <5 minutes
6. Able to tolerate wide temperatures and mechanical shock.
7. High specific power

Lead Acid battery technology or Nickel Metal Hydride were the technologies that we targeted as the ones to beat. The reasons were as follows, electric vehicles use regenerative braking (recover energy) so 200 or 500 lbs of extra battery weight doesn’t make the vehicle less efficient in stop and go traffic but it improves the ride. The cost savings of less expensive batteries more than compensate for the $500 to $ 700 it would cost to design the car to carry the extra weight. Electric cars with a range of 100 miles and speed of 90 to 100 mph would meet the main market requirements. Fast recharge batteries could be made in any chemistry, including lead acid, though with additional cost.
Most homes have more than one car so a market would exist for electric cars with added motor for extended range operation such as BD Auto or alternately these cars would use a fast recharge battery technology. It is confusing to me why Lithium-ion is even being considered for use in electric cars, especially because of its cost. For a sports car it is understandable to want low weight but for the main market it is more utility and cost of production. The Car companies got lost in bigger and more power is better, practical low cost commuting cars are still forgotten. The consumer won’t care about what type of batteries they have in their car, but they do consider the cost when they purchase.
I would be cautious about investing too heavily for long term in a car company making electric cars with Lithium-ion, unless they are sports cars or high end or investing long term in Lithium-ion battery companies. Short term with the attitude they are speculative investments not long-term keepers. Their price is being driven by industry hype rather than core fundamental or market economics. There is a number (> 4) game changing technologies any of which could materialize and obsolete batteries in the next 3 years.
Of course John you already know the company I work for could be one, if we make it into production, though ours is an ultra-capacitor technology. There was a comment about small mom and pup companies not having great technologies. The following companies were mom and pup at their start up stage, Microsoft, Apple, Google, Goodyear and Polaroid etc. Technology you can do in the kitchen is more likely to work and get acceptance. Startups that are overly secret or generate a lot of hype and miss production milestones by years well of course just pump and dump opportunities. Dave Kelly CTO of 1st Lighten The Load Inc. 1-LTL.com

Battery Wars

Wed, 11 Mar 2009 17:20:19 -0400

Actually there is a second dark horse on the horizon and a competitor to EESTOR. The company is called 1st Lighten the Load Inc. and is raising a small amount of capital to build the first manufacturing machine to build bulk samples for end users for Electric Grid Storage, Industrial and Automotive. After funding is secured it expects to have bulk samples to prospective customers in 6 to 24 months. The main advantage of their technology over batteries is it does not contain any materials that are rare or expensive, are nontoxic as we are polymer (plastic) based. They have so far decided to take the approach of not exclusively licensing its technology. They have IP and trade secrets protecting the whole package of power converters, manufacturing and the product construction.

EEStor Advanced Capacitor Best Use in A Hybrid Car

Wed, 11 Mar 2009 16:55:28 -0400

The company I work for has a competing technology to that of EESTOR which is felt is based on more sound engineering practices and our website is 1-LTL.com Our technology is a form of ultra-capacitor but with what is felt superior performance capability to their ceramic based storage technology. Currently we are raising a small amount of capital to build the first manufacturing machine to build bulk samples for end users for Electric Grid Storage, Industrial and Automotive. We have IP and trade secrets protecting the whole package of power converters, manufacturing and the product construction.