Axion Power Concentrator 101: May 16, 2012: Axion Power Reports First Quarter Results For 2012 [View instapost]
Jakurtz, DRich, those both seem like real possibilities to me, thanks. I'm still partial to the idea that the determining factor was Axion declining the ALABC LC Super Hybrid project. The testing reported here was funded in part by the ALABC, so once Axion declined on their main project, it makes sense that they wanted to gather more data on the Exide battery that they were going to have to use. As for why Axion declined the LC Super Hybrid project, well, if I understood JP correctly, it was because their hands were already full with projects they saw as more promising. I took that as bullish.
Axion Power Concentrator 101: May 16, 2012: Axion Power Reports First Quarter Results For 2012 [View instapost]
A new document (April 2012) out with a lot of vehicle and laboratory testing data on both the UltraBattery and Exide's carbon-additive orbital battery used in the ALABC project:
A lot of important data there, with a helpful summary at the start, pp. ii-iv. It's worth reading the whole document, but as a quick take-away:
1. "In summary, the results to date suggest that both the ALABC high-carbon North Star Battery Co. and Exide technologies require further development before they are ready for use in HEVs. However, inconsistencies in cell manufacture may have contributed toward the reliability issues encountered in this study" (p. 39 [51]).
So, we really don't need to worry about the carbon-additive batteries, at least not for heavy hybridization, at least not for now. Not up to snuff. Note that this has to be a public embarrassment for Exide, and if their in-house product is not good enough, they would seem to have no choice but to turn to Axion. Otherwise, they cede the field to East Penn. This is potentially huge for Axion.
2. "the life-cycle data under simulated HEV conditions suggest that the East Penn UltraBattery packs are capable of lasting the design life of modern HEVs. However, the fuel consumption of an UltraBattery-powered HEV may be higher than an equivalent NiMH vehicle at low temperatures and toward the end of vehicle life as a result of a reduction in charge acceptance of the UltraBattery. (Note that at present the extent of any increase in fuel consumption is not known.)" (p. 40 [52]).
They seem to think that UltraBattery generally did well in the testing, but the temperature problem may really be an issue. It is discussed further in pp. 19-22 [31-34], where the authors note that significant reduction in charge acceptance begins already at 10 degrees C or 50 degrees F (!). "In summary, decreasing the battery operating temperature drops both available power and charge acceptance. While the former is not expected to have a large effect on vehicle performance, the latter, with its associated increase in engine-run time, could increase fuel usage significantly" (p. 20 [32]).
Compare this, of course, with Axion's data on the PbC's excellent performance at -10 degrees C in their Investor Presentation, p. 20. http://bit.ly/Hfv7fu
3. "It also was planned to evaluate a battery pack from Axion Power (with a proprietary negative plate) under SHCHEVP. Unfortunately, production of this battery was cancelled and a carbon lead-acid technology from Exide was tested in its place" (p. 35 [47]).
I remember JP saying that the ALABC wished to use the PbC for their recent LC Super Hybrid project, but Axion declined, and so the ALABC went with Exide. Obviously, something similar happened with this project as well, perhaps simply as a consequence of Axion not being involved in the LC Super Hybrid project (the testing here involved the ALABC). I have to say that I am disappointed that the PbC did not go through this testing, which would have allowed for a direct, head-to-head testing against the UltraBattery in a very public arena. I trust management, and I believe they had good reasons. But I still wish this testing could have happened: the UltraBattery is getting a *lot* of publicity and high-profile testing/demonstrations, the PbC, not as much. (Still, there was an indirect benefit from not participating: it meant that Exide's carbon-additive was tested and was publicly shown to be inadequate.)
Axion Power Concentrator 100: May 15, 2012: Axion Power Reports First Quarter Results For 2012 [View instapost]
I know of two and only two recent references by Axion to the kind of testing being done by BMW:
1. Nov. 2011 CC: "[BMW is] doing testing of our product to confirm the things that we have found here and that testing has proceeded beyond bench testing. I can’t really get into a whole lot more detail about that"
2. Axion Investor Presentation: "OEM vehicle testing of PbC® battery with optimized hybrid vehicle system architecture began in 2011" (p. 21/28) http://bit.ly/Hfv7fu
Axion Power Concentrator 100: May 15, 2012: Axion Power Reports First Quarter Results For 2012 [View instapost]
LT, I'll be sad to see you go if you do stop posting here.
Constructive critique, asking hard questions, etc., with regard to *any* company is absolutely essential, and I would not be at all comfortable participating in the APC or, frankly, holding AXPW, if the blog neglected to include this.
Axion Power Concentrator 100: May 15, 2012: Axion Power Reports First Quarter Results For 2012 [View instapost]
Yes, I think the Nov. CC was the source of our last update on the *kind* of testing being done by BMW: "We have regularly scheduled calls with them [BMW] a few times a month every month to report progress. They’re doing testing of our product to confirm the things that we have found here and that testing has proceeded beyond bench testing. I can’t really get into a whole lot more detail about that, but we certainly are testing with them and with other automotive OEMs." So we knew it was beyond bench, but we tended not to precisely distinguish between test vehicles and fleet testing, and so some were hoping for the latter.
Axion Power Concentrator 100: May 15, 2012: Axion Power Reports First Quarter Results For 2012 [View instapost]
Metro: my understanding: we need to distinguish using the PbC in test vehicles, which is being done, from employing the PbC in fleet testing. The latter is larger-scale than what's being done. Test vehicles is all we ever knew of, although I don't think we were precisely distinguishing these before.
Axion Power Concentrator 99: May 13, 2012: Axion Power Receives Initial Norfolk Southern Order For PbC® Batteries [View instapost]
Mr. Investor: re. "The OEM’s are not the only ones..." Don't they just mean that the folks at the ELBC are also recognizing this by devoting a session to it?
Axion Power Concentrator 98: May 10, 2012: Axion Power Receives Initial Norfolk Southern Order For PbC® Batteries [View instapost]
Another shift regarding revenue growth:
Transcript: "Well, we’ve been going—we don’t have any reason not to believe that we’ll continue to increase revenues dramatically. We’ve done it in the past. We certainly plan on continuing down that road. They might not be 400%. They might not be 300%, but they will be significant. We anticipate that there will be a significant revenue increase in 2012."
The call itself: "Well, we’ve been going, uh—we don’t have any reason not to believe that we’ll continue to increase, uh, revenues dramatically. We’ve done it in the past. We certainly plan on continuing down that road. They might not be 400%. They might not be, uh, 350%, but they will be significant -- we *anticipate* that there will be significant revenue increases in 2012." (46 minute mark)
The key difference is the shift in the figure "they might not be 350%" to "they might not be 300%." (I also want to note that TG put stress on the word 'anticipate.')
Axion Power Concentrator 98: May 10, 2012: Axion Power Receives Initial Norfolk Southern Order For PbC® Batteries [View instapost]
I'm re-listening to the CC, and I noted an interesting shift between the call itself and the transcript (note that I can't bring up the transcript myself, so I'm relying on Bang's quote from it):
Bang's quote from the transcript: "Okay. Our current projected break-even is in the fourth quarter of 2013, on an EBITDA basis. We have several fields that we are operating in and providing product for."
From the call itself: (26-27 minute mark) "Okay, our breakeven we've projected is in 2013, break-even on a cash-flow basis. We have several fields that we are operating in and providing product for."
So the transcript adds the qualifier of fourth-quarter and changes 'cash-flow basis' to EBITDA. I knew I didn't remember that 'fourth-quarter' qualifier. More cautious on both counts.
Axion Power Concentrator 97: May 8, 2012: Axion Power Receives Initial Norfolk Southern Order For PbC® Batteries [View instapost]
It's hardly technical or precise, but Ecoult claims as one of the 'key benefits' of the UltraBattery that it has "excellent string behavior." http://bit.ly/LrZKle I haven't yet seen any fuller discussions of this.
Axion Power Concentrator 97: May 8, 2012: Axion Power Receives Initial Norfolk Southern Order For PbC® Batteries [View instapost]
Not yet escaping technical terminology, and I hope others weigh in, but note this quote from the report talking about the effect of this characteristic: "As the Ultrabattery approached end of testing, Figure 10 shows how the end of charge voltage increased during HRPSoC cycling. This effect reduced the power capability of the battery and could shortened the cycling interval" (p. 11). The phenomenon is discussed at more length from pp. 10-13.
But do note that this HRPSoC (high rate partial state of charge) test routine is different from the one BMW employed in testing auto SS performance. They did this because they wanted a grid/wind specific test. The different test routine can lead to differences of cycle life in and of itself. The routine is explained on pp. 4-5.
Axion Power Concentrator 97: May 8, 2012: Axion Power Receives Initial Norfolk Southern Order For PbC® Batteries [View instapost]
I've been working through some UltraBattery reports lately to try to compare the PbC and UB. For now, I just wanted to note the conclusion to a Sandia National Labs report testing the UB for grid and renewables apps:
"The HRPSoC cycling also identified an aging effect and an accelerated end of charge voltage rise. The aging effect was seen as the increase and change in shape of the end of charge voltage between the initial and final cycles. Because the shape of the voltage rise curve changed, it is unlikely that this effect was just the result of lower capacity as the testing proceeded. The accelerated end of charge voltage increase occurred after the first cycle sequence. Into the second cycle sequence the end of charge voltage would quickly rise to the limit voltage (2C1 and 4C1) and trigger a capacity measurement. If after the first cycle sequence, the battery was allowed to rest for an extended period of time, then the end of charge voltage would be in line with the first cycle sequence and the battery could cycle for a full 1,000 HRPSoC cycles. Both of these effects could require modifications or limits to the use of the Ultrabattery in utility regulation service or wind farm energy smoothing applications. "
http://bit.ly/LrZLFG (p. 13/13) Note that although this document is dated to 2008, East Penn (in the form of Ecoult) offers it as one of their main available reports on http://bit.ly/LrZKle (displayed when you click to 'read more')
Axion Power Concentrator 101: May 16, 2012: Axion Power Reports First Quarter Results For 2012 [View instapost]
Axion Power Concentrator 101: May 16, 2012: Axion Power Reports First Quarter Results For 2012 [View instapost]
http://1.usa.gov/JL1N4a
A lot of important data there, with a helpful summary at the start, pp. ii-iv. It's worth reading the whole document, but as a quick take-away:
1. "In summary, the results to date suggest that both the ALABC high-carbon North Star Battery Co. and Exide technologies require further development before they are ready for use in HEVs. However, inconsistencies in cell manufacture may have contributed toward the reliability issues encountered in this study" (p. 39 [51]).
So, we really don't need to worry about the carbon-additive batteries, at least not for heavy hybridization, at least not for now. Not up to snuff.
Note that this has to be a public embarrassment for Exide, and if their in-house product is not good enough, they would seem to have no choice but to turn to Axion. Otherwise, they cede the field to East Penn. This is potentially huge for Axion.
2. "the life-cycle data under simulated HEV conditions suggest that the East Penn UltraBattery packs are capable of lasting the design life of modern HEVs. However, the fuel consumption of an UltraBattery-powered HEV may be higher than an equivalent NiMH vehicle at low temperatures and toward the end of vehicle life as a result of a reduction in charge acceptance of the UltraBattery. (Note that at present the extent of any increase in fuel consumption is not known.)" (p. 40 [52]).
They seem to think that UltraBattery generally did well in the testing, but the temperature problem may really be an issue. It is discussed further in pp. 19-22 [31-34], where the authors note that significant reduction in charge acceptance begins already at 10 degrees C or 50 degrees F (!).
"In summary, decreasing the battery operating temperature drops both available power and charge acceptance. While the former is not expected to have a large effect on vehicle performance, the latter, with its associated increase in engine-run time, could increase fuel usage significantly" (p. 20 [32]).
Compare this, of course, with Axion's data on the PbC's excellent performance at -10 degrees C in their Investor Presentation, p. 20.
http://bit.ly/Hfv7fu
3. "It also was planned to evaluate a battery pack from Axion Power (with a proprietary negative plate) under SHCHEVP. Unfortunately, production of this battery was cancelled and a carbon lead-acid technology from Exide was tested in its place" (p. 35 [47]).
I remember JP saying that the ALABC wished to use the PbC for their recent LC Super Hybrid project, but Axion declined, and so the ALABC went with Exide. Obviously, something similar happened with this project as well, perhaps simply as a consequence of Axion not being involved in the LC Super Hybrid project (the testing here involved the ALABC). I have to say that I am disappointed that the PbC did not go through this testing, which would have allowed for a direct, head-to-head testing against the UltraBattery in a very public arena. I trust management, and I believe they had good reasons. But I still wish this testing could have happened: the UltraBattery is getting a *lot* of publicity and high-profile testing/demonstrations, the PbC, not as much. (Still, there was an indirect benefit from not participating: it meant that Exide's carbon-additive was tested and was publicly shown to be inadequate.)
Axion Power Concentrator 100: May 15, 2012: Axion Power Reports First Quarter Results For 2012 [View instapost]
Axion Power Concentrator 100: May 15, 2012: Axion Power Reports First Quarter Results For 2012 [View instapost]
1. Nov. 2011 CC:
"[BMW is] doing testing of our product to confirm the things that we have found here and that testing has proceeded beyond bench testing. I can’t really get into a whole lot more detail about that"
2. Axion Investor Presentation:
"OEM vehicle testing of PbC® battery with optimized hybrid vehicle system architecture began in 2011" (p. 21/28)
http://bit.ly/Hfv7fu
Axion Power Concentrator 100: May 15, 2012: Axion Power Reports First Quarter Results For 2012 [View instapost]
Constructive critique, asking hard questions, etc., with regard to *any* company is absolutely essential, and I would not be at all comfortable participating in the APC or, frankly, holding AXPW, if the blog neglected to include this.
Axion Power Concentrator 100: May 15, 2012: Axion Power Reports First Quarter Results For 2012 [View instapost]
"We have regularly scheduled calls with them [BMW] a few times a month every month to report progress. They’re doing testing of our product to confirm the things that we have found here and that testing has proceeded beyond bench testing. I can’t really get into a whole lot more detail about that, but we certainly are testing with them and with other automotive OEMs."
So we knew it was beyond bench, but we tended not to precisely distinguish between test vehicles and fleet testing, and so some were hoping for the latter.
Axion Power Concentrator 100: May 15, 2012: Axion Power Reports First Quarter Results For 2012 [View instapost]
Axion Power Concentrator 99: May 13, 2012: Axion Power Receives Initial Norfolk Southern Order For PbC® Batteries [View instapost]
Don't they just mean that the folks at the ELBC are also recognizing this by devoting a session to it?
Axion Power Concentrator 98: May 10, 2012: Axion Power Receives Initial Norfolk Southern Order For PbC® Batteries [View instapost]
Transcript: "Well, we’ve been going—we don’t have any reason not to believe that we’ll continue to increase revenues dramatically. We’ve done it in the past. We certainly plan on continuing down that road. They might not be 400%. They might not be 300%, but they will be significant. We anticipate that there will be a significant revenue increase in 2012."
The call itself: "Well, we’ve been going, uh—we don’t have any reason not to believe that we’ll continue to increase, uh, revenues dramatically. We’ve done it in the past. We certainly plan on continuing down that road. They might not be 400%. They might not be, uh, 350%, but they will be significant -- we *anticipate* that there will be significant revenue increases in 2012." (46 minute mark)
The key difference is the shift in the figure "they might not be 350%" to "they might not be 300%." (I also want to note that TG put stress on the word 'anticipate.')
Axion Power Concentrator 98: May 10, 2012: Axion Power Receives Initial Norfolk Southern Order For PbC® Batteries [View instapost]
Bang's quote from the transcript:
"Okay. Our current projected break-even is in the fourth quarter of 2013, on an EBITDA basis. We have several fields that we are operating in and providing product for."
From the call itself: (26-27 minute mark)
"Okay, our breakeven we've projected is in 2013, break-even on a cash-flow basis. We have several fields that we are operating in and providing product for."
So the transcript adds the qualifier of fourth-quarter and changes 'cash-flow basis' to EBITDA. I knew I didn't remember that 'fourth-quarter' qualifier. More cautious on both counts.
Axion Power Concentrator 97: May 8, 2012: Axion Power Receives Initial Norfolk Southern Order For PbC® Batteries [View instapost]
http://bit.ly/LrZKle
I haven't yet seen any fuller discussions of this.
Axion Power Concentrator 97: May 8, 2012: Axion Power Receives Initial Norfolk Southern Order For PbC® Batteries [View instapost]
http://bit.ly/IWGvSv
Axion Power Concentrator 97: May 8, 2012: Axion Power Receives Initial Norfolk Southern Order For PbC® Batteries [View instapost]
The phenomenon is discussed at more length from pp. 10-13.
But do note that this HRPSoC (high rate partial state of charge) test routine is different from the one BMW employed in testing auto SS performance. They did this because they wanted a grid/wind specific test. The different test routine can lead to differences of cycle life in and of itself. The routine is explained on pp. 4-5.
Axion Power Concentrator 97: May 8, 2012: Axion Power Receives Initial Norfolk Southern Order For PbC® Batteries [View instapost]
For now, I just wanted to note the conclusion to a Sandia National Labs report testing the UB for grid and renewables apps:
"The HRPSoC cycling also identified an aging effect and an accelerated end of charge voltage rise. The aging effect was seen as the increase and change in shape of the end of charge voltage between the initial and final cycles. Because the shape of the voltage rise curve changed, it is unlikely that this effect was just the result of lower capacity as the testing proceeded. The accelerated end of charge voltage increase occurred after the first cycle sequence. Into the second cycle sequence the end of charge voltage would quickly rise to the limit voltage (2C1 and 4C1) and trigger a capacity measurement. If after the first cycle sequence, the battery was allowed to rest for an extended period of time, then the end of charge voltage would be in line with the first cycle sequence and the battery could cycle for a full 1,000 HRPSoC cycles. Both of these effects could require modifications or limits to the use of the Ultrabattery in utility regulation service or wind farm energy smoothing applications. "
http://bit.ly/LrZLFG
(p. 13/13)
Note that although this document is dated to 2008, East Penn (in the form of Ecoult) offers it as one of their main available reports on http://bit.ly/LrZKle
(displayed when you click to 'read more')
Axion Power Concentrator 97: May 8, 2012: Axion Power Receives Initial Norfolk Southern Order For PbC® Batteries [View instapost]