The World's #1 Renewable Energy Network for News & Information
Sign In or Register
Renewable Energy World Logo
Wednesday, May 22, 2013
  • Sections
    • Home
      • News
      • Opinion & Commentary
      • Featured Blogs
      • Research & Reports
      • Video
      • Press Releases
      • All Blogs
      • Events
      • Products
      • Finance
    • Solar
      • News
      • Opinion & Commentary
      • Featured Blogs
      • Research & Reports
      • Video
      • Press Releases
      • All Blogs
      • Events
      • Products
      • Finance
    • Wind
      • News
      • Opinion & Commentary
      • Featured Blogs
      • Research & Reports
      • Video
      • Press Releases
      • All Blogs
      • Events
      • Products
      • Finance
    • Geothermal
      • News
      • Opinion & Commentary
      • Featured Blogs
      • Research & Reports
      • Video
      • Press Releases
      • All Blogs
      • Events
      • Products
      • Finance
    • Bio
      • News
      • Opinion & Commentary
      • Featured Blogs
      • Research & Reports
      • Video
      • Press Releases
      • All Blogs
      • Events
      • Products
      • Finance
    • Hydro
      • News
      • Opinion & Commentary
      • Featured Blogs
      • Research & Reports
      • Video
      • Press Releases
      • All Blogs
      • Events
      • Products
      • Finance
    • Careers
    • Companies
      • Company Directory
      • Press Releases
      • Products
      • Events Calendar
      • White Papers
    • Webcasts
      • Upcoming Webcasts
      • Featured Webcasts
      • Archived Webcasts
      • Events Calendar
    • White Papers
    • Magazines
      • Renewable Energy World
      • Wind Technology
      • Large Scale Solar
      • Hydro Review
      • HRW - Hydro Review Worldwide
      • Renewable Energy World (North America Edition)
      • Photovoltaics World
    • Awards
  • Account
    • Sign In
    • Register
  • Search
Don't Miss The Great Solar Debate: Where Does the Global Solar Industry Stand? Click Here to Register! ×

Dilution for Dummies – Why A123 Systems is Undervalued

John Petersen, Contributor
May 02, 2011  |  30 Comments

Bartenders are smarter than most investors because they know what dilution is and they never get it wrong. Unfortunately, the markets have made such a bogeyman out of the word 'dilution' that public companies often suffer extreme backlash from financing transactions that should have existing stockholders on their feet and dancing in the aisles.

Today I'll try to clear up some of the profound confusion that runs rampant in the minds of retail investors.

Every bartender knows you can't dilute a beer by adding a shot of whiskey. The boilermaker is always stronger. The same is usually true when a public company sells new stock for cash. The company is stronger and better funded after the transaction than it was beforehand. Frequently, however, the existing stockholders recoil in terror from a vague threat of  dilution and bail out instead of celebrating. 

For astute investors, these are great buying opportunities.

Most readers know I'm rarely bullish about A123 Systems (AONE), or for that matter any pure-play lithium-ion battery developer. Since I believe that it's critically important for my readers to understand what dilution is, I've decided to break away from tradition, jump to A123's defense, and explain why A123 is a far better risk today than it's ever been.

Every IPO prospectus is filled with dire warnings of dilution because IPO investors always pay a price per share that's higher than the book value of the stock owned by the pre-IPO stockholders. In A123's IPO, its pre-offering book value was $2.34 per share, the IPO investors paid $13.50, and its post-IPO book value was $5.13 per share. Investors who bought stock in the IPO were the whiskey and they suffered dilution of $8.27 per share. The pre-offering stockholders, on the other hand, were the beer and the book value of their shares increased by $2.79 each through the magic of corporate finance.

During its first 15 months of operations A123 suffered a series of expected operating losses and by December 31, 2010, the summary year-end balance sheet in its Form 10-K looked like this:


(thousands)
Cash and equivalents
$ 216,841
Working capital
191,892
Total assets
576,158
Long-term debt
9,982
Capital lease obligations
20,226
Stockholders' equity
398,198


On March 28, 2011, after its stock closed at $7.82 for the day, A123 announced concurrent underwritten public offerings for $125 million in convertible debentures and 18 million shares of common stock. The stock price fell to $6.35 per share within three days because somebody somewhere whispered the word dilution and the stockholders went into a panic.

On the morning of April 1st, A123 announced that the stock offering would be priced at $6 per share and the debentures would be convertible at $7.20. Both offerings were well received and A123 ultimately sold 20,184,067 shares of common stock and $143.75 million in debentures. The net cash proceeds of the offerings were $253.9 million. After giving effect to the offering proceeds, a pro forma summary year-end balance sheet would have looked like this:


(thousands)
Cash and equivalents
$ 515,741
Working capital
445,792
Total assets
830,058
Long-term debt
9,982
Capital lease obligations
20,226
Convertible subordinated debentures
143,750
Stockholders' equity
508,348


At December 31, 2010, each of A123's common shares had a book value of $3.77. After giving pro forma effect to the offering each of A123's common shares had a book value of $4.04. Just like we saw in the IPO, the new investors were the whiskey and they suffered dilution of $1.96 per share while the pre-offering shareholders were the beer and the book value of their shares increased by $0.27 through the magic of corporate finance. If you take the analysis a step further and assume the debentures will ultimately be converted, the value accretion to the old shareholders will be closer to $0.70 per share. More importantly A123 is now in a position where it has plenty of cash to complete the build out of its facilities and pursue the development of its business. I thought it was a masterful piece of corporate finance work.

The stock market, however, interpreted the facts differently. As soon as retail investors began reacting to the dilution bogeyman the stock price tanked. Over the next two weeks the market price of A123's stock plunged to a post-offering low of $5.29. It finally broke back up through the $6 threshold on Tuesday.

The easiest way to prove the silliness of the over-reaction is to note that A123's market capitalization was $826.4 million at the close of business on March 28th. The offering added $253.9 million in cash and $110.2 million in stockholders' equity to its balance sheet. Because of the market's over-reaction, its current market capitalization is $766.5 million.

At the end of last year A123 had some serious financial weaknesses that jeopardized its ability to finance ongoing losses and continue its planned expansion. The offering obliterated those weaknesses and left A123 in a very strong position. If its stock was fairly priced prior to the offering, the post offering market capitalization should be at least $936.7 million ($826.4 million in pre-offering market capitalization plus $110.2 in additional stockholders equity), or $7.44 per share.

A123 has a first quarter conference call scheduled for May 9th and I won't be surprised if its revenues and earnings fall short of expectations, but if you liked A123 Systems at $7.82 you should love it in the $6.00 range. 

It's a far better investment today than it was a month ago.

Disclosure: None.

30 Comments

Register To Comment
Glenn Doty
Glenn Doty
May 17, 2011
Fireofenergy,

I had missed your last comment to me, which resulted in a long delay for my reply. Sorry about that.

As for your question, it will eventually be possible to extract the CO2 from the dilute atmosphere, but that will require far more energy than extracting it from a source emitter's smokestack. There should be plenty of CO2 for several decades, and we assume that membrane technology will continue to improve over that time - so by 2040 when the CO2 emissions decrease beyond the (then) large demand for CO2 from ever-scaling WindFuels plants... either they'll extract from the dilute atmosphere, or they'll have a reason to re-fire those ethanol refineries (a typical ethanol facility produces more than twice the mass of CO2 as it does fuel... Cellulosic ethanol produces more than 4 times as much CO2 as it does fuel, so a WindFuels plant would be able to produce several gallons of gasoline for every one gallon of biofuel ethanol).
Vanadium Site
Vanadium Site
May 17, 2011
I dont care what any one says the vanadium redox battery is the vest reason to invest in vanadium. Check out the article at

http://www.vanadiumsite.com/investing-in-vanadium

twitter.com/WideRangeMarket
P Kady
P Kady
May 17, 2011
Went to a lecture by Prof. Dan Sadoway for the local N. CA alumni, and I have to say that the liquid metal battery technology coming out of MIT looks pretty promising in terms of being cost competitive, though still quite a way from commercialization, let alone mass production. Initial target will be utility scale storage, but could also likely be scaled down for transportation purposes.
http://web.mit.edu/newsoffice/2009/liquid-battery.html
Glenn Doty
Glenn Doty
May 5, 2011
Fireofenergy,

I have never attempted to hide the fact that I am working on developing a new fuels synthesis process which will simultaneously produce negative-carbon fuels and stabilize the grid for more wind penetration.

I welcome any informed criticism of this process (please avoid hate filled screed such as that from the simpleton "anonymous" poster), as any legitimate criticism should and must be answered by any new technology.

I criticize EV's because of hard market realities, and they have failed to answer those criticisms. Instead, they developed, and are now failing in the market... so taxpayers are being exploited, and even with that extortion the deal is still sour enough that most investors are going to take a loss.

It was a bad idea, and you could tell it was a bad idea because they were never able to answer simple criticism such as that put forward by me.


So I welcome your questions, critiques, etc.. We feel we have the answer to the greatest challenge ever faced by society. That's not something that we're likely to be shy about.
:)


BTW, I never attacked nor even mentioned these "lifepo4" batteries. I do not know anything about them. This thread was concerning A123, which makes li-ion batteries. There's more than enough information out there to understand that this will never be cheap, and the cars which rely on them will never be honestly competitive.

As for the new wind energy that is coming online, with the exception of specific regions of the Midwest, that is 100% utilized, and would be utilized whether you plugged in your car or not... so you cannot claim that renewable energy for your car. Once again, when you add NEW demand to the grid, that demand will be satisfied by ramping up fossil power. That doesn't change if that same fossil power had recently been tamped or taken offline due to new wind farms. The only places where that is not true is in the Midwest, where very few will buy an EV.
Peter Lynch
Peter Lynch
May 5, 2011
John - there are two ways to analyze a stock

Fundamentals and technicals

This company really has no fundamentals - just some promise

Technically the stock is a wreak - I would not touch this stock until it shows at least a small sign of progress. It is in a huge downtrend and ALL indicators are negative.

Good luck
ANONYMOUS
May 5, 2011
Glen Dotty,
Always thinks his answers are the only way to think...pretty funny that he claims a plane will NEVER fly on battery power.
He makes idiot statements constantly and then reframes his statements as if that was what he "meant" to say.
This is what a BLOWHARD does.
Keep blowing Dotty! Your "genius" will be clear to all eventually!
Yes you will respond to this since you can't help yourself--your "response" will not be followed up by me. You aren't worth it.
Ralph Perez
Ralph Perez
May 5, 2011
Brammo electrics will be racing alongside conventional gas motorcycles this Friday in Las Vegas. Brammo has incorporated a swappable battery to greatly extend the range. A collapsible folding solar charging unit could also be used if needed. Interesting that a 'jump start' from the sun could help a stranded vehicle.

Brammo swappable battery packs

http://www.throttlehand.com/blog/?p=11390

Brammo has linked with a solar canopy installer for daily charging of the vehicle. If their idea catches on, there could be many swap points made available for the battery. Extending the range to infinity, using the energy from the sun.

Other electric bike manufacturers are taking a close look at these advancements. Competition should help bring the cost down.
Howard Johnson
Howard Johnson
May 4, 2011
Battery powered aircraft ? ? ?
Check it out:
http://www.solarimpulse.com/nightFlights/index.php
Marvin Hamon, P.E.
Marvin Hamon, P.E.
May 4, 2011
Here's a different concept, an on topic comment.

John, here is my take on dilution and why it is bad for investors. If a company has 10 shares of stock, and 10 people each buy 1 share then each person owns 10% of the company. If our company creates 10 more shares and sells them to 10 new people now each person owns 5% of the company. The old investors now own half as much of the company for the same amount as their original investment. So their share of any future increase in the company's value has, in theory, been cut in half and the return on their investment has been cut.

The bottom line is that when the stock is diluted the owners of the old stock now have less ownership in the company and since investor reward usually is in direct relation to percentage of ownership that is something they should rightfully be concerned about.

I know this is a rather simplistic way of explaining it but it cuts to the root of what makes investors likely to run when they hear the whisper of dilution.
Ravi Mikkelsen
Ravi Mikkelsen
May 4, 2011
@Glenn,

Sure, I'm getting a $7500 tax credit, but coal, oil, ICE car companies, have been getting more than that for the past 100 years and are still receiving them today so I don't think we can truly assess the economic viability without taking all of that into account. But then again, that's not the reason I wanted the car.

:)
Glenn Doty
Glenn Doty
May 4, 2011
Ravi, Anonymous,

The cost of the vehicle is the cost. The fact that some corrupt government official is forcing some of that cost to be paid by someone else doesn't change the economic viability of the product... but I will cede that it changes a person's individual economic assessment.

So can we then agree that the cars aren't remotely viable unless you make someone else pay a large part of the bill for you? ;)
Glenn Doty
Glenn Doty
May 4, 2011
Morton,

When I discuss market projections, I use my own. I have a track record that is far superior to the DOE or to Goldman Sachs... so I will sometimes reference their projections, but when it's just me online I use my own spreadsheets and make my own calls.

When I'm discussing WindFuels, the numbers that are used are the consensus of the team, and these numbers are often very much more conservative than my personal projections.

While I do have a vested interest in the idea that batteries won't become some magic panacea anytime soon... I was a hobbiest before that, and my passion has been energy and environmental responsibility since I was in high school (20 years ago). My father is a respected expert that has presented at UN conferences on climate change. We aren't trashing batteries because we want to make money, we started preliminary development of the WindFuels project because we thought batteries were trash.

As for the coal question, it isn't enough to look at what the current electricity consumption is. When you plug in a new device drawing new electricity, the power company isn't going to increase the amount of water in a river, or dial up the wind speed, or increase the amount of radiation coming from the sun. The low carbon options are fully utilized (with the exception of wind in the MidWest), which means if you plug in NEW demand that must be answered by increased fossil generation. That's the only spare capacity available. Furthermore, in most regions it's a lot cheaper to burn coal than to burn gas, so unless the demand shift is unpredictable in nature or occurring during peak demand periods (EV recharging is a nightly recurring 6-8 hour increase in demand, so this is pretty easy to predictably accomodate), the power companies would prefer to use the cheaper coal option rather than gas.

In short, almost all of the energy demand from EV's will be answered by an increase in coal-sourced generation.
ANONYMOUS
May 4, 2011
Ravi - In California is even better. Not only you get the $7.5K federal, but also $5K from the state. That puts the price in the low $20Ks. I understand that in the Bay area you get a special elect. rate at night, about 4.5c/kwh, making the 100mile fill-up about $1.20 or 300 miles for $3.60 (can't get a gallon of gas for that money).
Morton Bearman
Morton Bearman
May 4, 2011
@glenn,

just wondering, when you say "we do not agree" the price of the leaf will decrease, who is we? Just curious.

Also, on the CO2 emissions question, just remember that the mix of fuels on the grid varies from place to place, and there is no place in the US that I know of where coal accounts for more than 80% of the kWh generated. In CA, its more like 15% (all coal kwh being imported from the southwest, no coal is fired in CA physically). The rest of the fuels, nat gas, hydro, nuke, and renewables, are all much cleaner than coal. So while EVs are close to equal on emissions if the grid is 100% coal, they are much much cleaner whenever the grid mix is less than 80% coal, which is almost everywhere.

But in terms of EV adoption, that's not really the issue until CO2 emissions have a cost to consumer. I think you're right that EVs are not cost competitive right now in the US but I also think that just about everyone except those with a vested interest in Oil hope for and are working towards the economies of scale on batteries, EV infrastructure, and surrounding technologies that make EVs make economic sense. Speaking of NASA, no one thought a moon landing is possible in 1950 but we did it, just for the sake of science. The EV mission is about geopolitical and environmental imperatives. We have to make it happen and despite the general cynicism that is plaguing our country right now, I think we will make it happen.

Full disclosure - I work for Better Place. We are at the economic parity point in IL and DK. It's much harder in the US because of lower gas prices and higher driving distances (that require range extending infrastructure) but we're working hard to make it happen in the US too.
Ravi Mikkelsen
Ravi Mikkelsen
May 4, 2011
@Glenn,

The LEAF has 98 ft^3 of passenger space and 14.5 ft^3 of cargo space. The Versa has 94.7 ft^3 and 17.8 ft^3 respectively so they both total 112.5 of total interior volume.

I believe the better handling comes from no engine in the front bay and the battery packs in the floor chassis for a lower center of gravity. We'll see what the pudding is actually like when I start putting some real road miles on it. I do know one thing, my operational costs will be much lower. I live in the Bay Area and gas here is EXPENSIVE! we're talking $4.50 a gallon (but I've seen $4.15 at Costco)

I'll post again here later this month when I have some real consumption data.

@Anonymous - Since the price premium is only about $3,000 between a base Prius and LEAF (after tax credit) then yes, based on gas savings a lone (at least here in the Bay Area) it would make up that difference at about the 30k mile mark. Against the Versa though, it would take a lot longer since that base price is near $10k, but the fully tricked out model is $18k. Not sure what comes in the top model, maybe gold cup holders, but I think there is too much spread in the range of fuel prices (both elec and gasoline) as well as auto prices for us to clear up this debate with all of our generalities.

Either way, if any of you come to the Bay Area and want to go for a spin in the LEAF, feel free to contact me and we can meet up.
ANONYMOUS
May 4, 2011
Glenn - your comments (some incorrect, some uninformed) make it clear you have an issue with electric cars (have an interest in oil, or other technology). You keep on posting crap without support. Visit any site with the data. I am not sure where you get "triple current gas prices to break even" number from. Again, at $26K-$29K (after tax credit), the Leaf comes up even with the Versa in about 100K miles with gas at $3.50. And you get a Navigation System.

The Leaf headroom, shoulder room, and hip room are larger (1" or so) than the Versa. The Leaf is only 3 cubic inches smaller in cargo space.

Handling: After 35 years of driving I personally don't give a rat's ass about it. Handling looks good on commercials; but nobody can drive like that anyway. I test drove the Leaf, and did everything I wanted it to do. Acceleration was great (by now we all know about EVs torque). It was quiet and comfortable; two adults and a child were in the back seat. They both said they were very comfortable.

Ravi - compared to the prius, the Leaf will pay for itself in about 30K miles of driving.
Glenn Doty
Glenn Doty
May 4, 2011
Ravi,

As long as you understand that you're not getting your money back, then you are making an informed decision... and I have no problem with that. I certainly think its a smarter choice than the people buying BMWs or Hummers or other fad-based vehicles that cost a lot more than they should.

But while the Leaf uses a similar body to the Versa, the interior capacity is reduced by the space taken up by the battery. Even though the car lacks a transmission, and can therefore take up that space with batteries, the 20 cubic feet of battery pack should still intrude into the passenger and luggage space of the car.

I'm quite surprised by your impression of better handling, as the Leaf should weigh ~300 kg more than the Prius... but I'll defer, as I have no experience to offer.

We do not agree that the price will drop. The Prius had a price tag of $21,000 when it was first released. Now that price is $23,000. The price didn't drop. What made the Prius cost effective was a tripling of gas prices. The Leaf may become marginally competitive if gas prices double, and will certainly become competitive if gas prices triple... but I seriously doubt we'll see prices for the Leaf itself drop - ever.
Ravi Mikkelsen
Ravi Mikkelsen
May 4, 2011
@Glenn,
Actual sales were probably in the range you stated for the first few months, but that's because a sale is not recorded until the user takes possession of it. I have been waiting for mine for several months. The deliveries they made in Dec - Mar were for demonstration customers and a few fleets, not general public sales. These were supposed to begin in April of this year, but the Earthquakes and Tsunami set things back a bit.

My LEAF is supposed to arrive in the next couple of weeks and then another sale can be added to that list. For me personally, I don't believe I will get my money out of this vehicle, but where I will see the return is in the industry. Early-adopters always pay more for an item because they are the first to get it. Versions 2 and beyond should all be better performing, fewer calories, better tasting and cost less as well, but for now, I'll pay that premium because in 95% of my trips I don't need to go farther than the LEAFs battery packs will take me (120ish miles at 40 mph).

In my short test drives of the LEAF (2 minutes and 20 minutes) I thought that it had better acceleration and handling than the Prius and it's basically the Versa body so it should have the same interior capacity.
Glenn Doty
Glenn Doty
May 4, 2011
John,

The LENR "theory" has been tested and there has been no data confirming it. The tests all reveal data contrary to LENR theory - aside from a few core adherents who CLAIM to have seen radically different results. This means that it is a scam, no science. In order to be rooted in science, there must be absolute replicability with every repeated experiment, yet for the past 23 years, these cold-fusion people (con men) claim that they have achieved certain results that were not replicated when others of the scientific community attempted to repeat their tests.

It's bunk.


@ Anonymous,
The Leaf doesn't pay for itself after 100,000 miles. You are correct that with a Leaf you would see roughly $0.10/mile savings on fuel... But the initial $15,000 premium vs something like the Versa (more passenger room, more luggage room, no range restriction) would never actually be paid off. The reason is that you first have to apply an interest rate for the car purchase, then you have to apply a discount rate for the money used in the purchase. By spending the extra $15,000 for the car, that's $15,000 you couldn't use to pay down your credit cards or invest in a high-yield mutual fund or something. Then you get some money back per year, but that is a pittance compared to the initial outlay.
Then all it takes is one or two times when you have to rent a car just to travel outside of a 50-mile radius of your house... and you really start seeing costs escalate.

No, but even if you were correct, it still wouldn't work. You see, the average vehicle goes 12,000 - 15,000 miles/year, but that includes trips - vacations, trips to see the family, trips to the next city over for business... etc. You couldn't use the Leaf for any of those longer trips, which means your average would be closer to ~8000 miles/year. So even if you eliminated economic reality and assumed 150,000 miles to pay it back, that would take nearly 20 years.
ANONYMOUS
May 4, 2011
@Glenn Doty - "The first 4 months of electric car sales saw ~1700 units sold in America (Volt and Leaf combined) after 3 years of hype." GIVE ME A BREAK!!! They can't deliver them fast enough. Do you see them sitting at dealerships?? Please.

I recently spoke with a Nissan dealer here in FL. He said Nissan jumped the gun by introducing the Leaf before the TN plant was operating. The car sold out with gas at under $3/gallon.

By the way, the Leaf is price competitive today after 100k miles of driving compared with a similar size car. You'll spend some $10K worth of gas over the cost of electricity for the Leaf.
John Bronson
John Bronson
May 3, 2011
Glenn,

How about a 2 man plane that can fly for 3 hours?

http://yuneeccouk.site.securepod.com/Aircraft.html

And I can't seem to find any information that the Widom-Larsen theory has been disproved. I found an article that states NASA is still conducting LENR tests, and interestingly, with Nickel and Hydrogen! Do you happen to have a link to where the theory/postulate has been disproved?
Glenn Doty
Glenn Doty
May 3, 2011
John,

I guess I should have clarified concerning the plane... after all, remote control toys have used batteries for decades. But the link you provided was to a larger toy 1-man ultralight microplane that was capable of low speed flight for 30 minutes. That's not useful.

There will never be a military plane with ordinance or a commuter plane or an aircraft devoted to the transport of goods that is powered by batteries. But there will be some toys that stay aloft for a few minutes at a time. :)


As for the Widom-Larsen POSTULATE (this is not a theory because it has been tested and proven non-replicable, which means there's no science here)... I would categorically state that the involvement of NASA doesn't do anything whatsoever to give credence to a disproven idea. While I do respect many of the engineers and scientists at NASA as some of the best in the world, often their funding and their research is determined by congressional micromanagement and bureaucratic boobs. However, the political atmosphere within NASA requires that the scientists not openly trash the projects that they are (in some cases) forced to work on.

There was a period of over 10 years where NASA funded ANTI-GRAVITY. The idea (it wasn't a theory, there was no science behind it) was that if they spun a plate fast enough, then gravity would have less force directly over the center of the plate. So some project manager was forced to try to get a 5 meter ceramic disk to spin faster than 5 kHz (this was the magic spin rate at which gravity would lessen over the plate - according to the idea).

That's just one example, there are hundreds. NASA is often forced to work on complete junk just because some congressman's friend (or even kid) has a "theory" that is worth "researching".

I'm not criticizing everything from NASA, some of their work has been brilliant, but just because an idea is associated with them doesn't mean it has any merit.
John Bronson
John Bronson
May 3, 2011
Glenn,

I believe there are battery powered aircraft under development that have already flown:

http://green.autoblog.com/2011/03/25/pc-aero-elektra-one-completes-first-flights-w-video/

With regards to nuclear physics, perhaps the current understanding is incomplete. Have you heard of the Widom-Larsen theory?

http://www.i-sis.org.uk/Widom-Larsen.php

NASA's chief scientist mentions W-L theory in the context of LENR experiments here:

http://www.britannica.com/blogs/2010/07/dennis-bushnell-nasas-chief-scientist-on-conquering-climate-change/

If NASA is doing LENR experiments, doesn't that lend some credence to the field?
Ron Peterson
Ron Peterson
May 3, 2011
That's a good explanation how a growing company can finance itself.

A growing company may also have a lower book value because of accelerated depreciation, making those whiskey investors not so "stupid".

The future of battery manufacturers depends on getting the cost per kwh down so that plugging in the vehicle at night will save enough to pay for the batteries. A plug-hybrid would work best for me because my average daily driving is low and don't want to have a second vehicle for long trips.
Glenn Doty
Glenn Doty
May 3, 2011
John,

After looking at it briefly I can assure you that this is pure 100% scam. There was probably some conductive heating elements that put 15 kW of energy into the water while they simply had hydrogen and nickel in an abundant state. The simple fact that they claim 1 GJ was released with the nuclear fusion of hydrogen to copper shows that they are preying on people with a poor understanding of nuclear physics - such a fusion would, if it were to occur, release several TJ, much of which as gamma-ray radiation.

Vanadiumsite - I'm sorry that you've been terribly misinformed. No aircraft has ever nor will ever be kept aloft using stored energy in batteries. Vanadium flow batteries have an energy capacity of ~15-20 kWhs/t (metric ton). That's about half the energy density of the best grade lithium batteries out there. To put that into perspective, it would take ~2 tons of vanadium flow batteries to store as much energy as 1 gallon of jet fuel. No plane will ever use batteries of any type. That's never been proposed, and it will never be possible.

Fireofenergy - your statement could be true if you were comparing a Nissan Leaf to a Hummer II, but if you were to compare a Leaf to a Prius (Prius has more room, better handling, more luggage space, etc...), then you'd find that even if your fuel came from tar sands the Prius would emit ~280 g of CO2/mile, while the Nissan Leaf using coal-sourced electricity would emit ~300 g of CO2/mile once typical line losses and battery cycling losses were factored in.

I'll grant you that it's close, but one of these cars costs $10,000 less than the other, and has a lot more room for passengers and luggage. I just don't see why someone would want to pay more so that they can enjoy range anxiety in a cramped car while polluting more.
Vanadium Site
Vanadium Site
May 2, 2011
http://www.vanadiumsite.com

Im not sure if you guys know. But vanadium came out on wikileaks as the new fuel of the USAF and their new/old top secret spy plane. These vanadium filled power packs can keep a 12,000 lb aircraft in the stratosphere for over 12 hrs without being seen by radar, and the planes give off no heat signature with the use of these new vanadium redox fuel cells.

This technology is new to the average public, but have really been around for the past 8 years. The US Air Force has kept the development secret till now which tells me they have something better now. I wonder what that is?

Regardless, we have another lithium boom coming only with vanadium instead.
@WideRangeMarket
John Bronson
John Bronson
May 2, 2011
Glenn,

Our local Mitsubishi dealer claims pre-orders are brisk. Don't you trust car salesman???

Cold Fusion
Links to the current scam, or perhaps an interesting discovery:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Energy_Catalyzer

http://blog.newenergytimes.com/2011/01/15/rossi-discovery-what-to-say/

Rossi's own site
http://www.journal-of-nuclear-physics.com/
Glenn Doty
Glenn Doty
May 2, 2011
John,

The recent run-up in oil prices aren't nearly enough to make a plug-in car make economic sense. The Volt and Leaf carry a $15,000-$20,000 premium vs gasoline cars of similar capacity/acceleration/handling/etc..

So you've got a $15,000 premium that has to be recovered through driving. Once you price in additional interest, a discount rate for the money, the average cost of coal-sourced energy (electricity), typical driving patterns, and substitution (if you go on a long trip, you have to drive a different car, which means you burn much more gas for that trip than you would have burned had you bought a Prius rather than the Leaf... or you might have to rent a larger car if you try to go on a family vacation and you only have a Volt, etc...), then it would require a gasoline price of ~$8-$9/gallon to make the choice of a Leaf or Volt economically viable.

The fact that using coal-sourced energy will certainly result in higher emissions than using petroleum means there's no environmental argument for these stupid cars...

In short, these are turds, and they are failing in the general market - even with the absurd subsidies that they are being given without merit.


As for cold fusion, I have yet to see anything that suggests that cold fusion is or has ever been anything but a complete fraud. There's no science to back up the suggestion that cold fusion might ever be viable. If someone is claiming they can make energy from water - hand them your mug and ask them to heat your coffee for you.
:)
Until that happens (without the use of a microwave oven), then I'd advise you be VERY skeptical.

If you have a link to the current scam, I'd be interested in looking it over... but if they're claiming cold fusion then I'd check your wallet, you're probably amongst thieves.
John Bronson
John Bronson
May 2, 2011
@glenn-doty-175949

Given the recent runup in oil prices, I would think electric car sales should do well.

And BTW, what is your opinion of Rossi's cold fusion device?
Glenn Doty
Glenn Doty
May 2, 2011
Causality?

John, I recognize that you follow this more closely than I, and you have almost certainly correctly laid out the timeline... but what I don't understand is why you are certain that the only factor here is the effect of dilution in the minds of stockholders.

Electric cars at large are probably one of the smelliest turds that have ever been crapped out of the modern economic system, and A123 was promising roses. The first 4 months of electric car sales saw ~1700 units sold in America (Volt and Leaf combined) after 3 years of hype.

Isn't possible that many investors were disappointed with the electric car market at large, recognized A123 as a loser, and were simply waiting for the IPO to resolve before they bailed?

If a person liked A123 at $7.82 then they were foolish... but if they like it now at $6.00 they'll likely still lose money over the next year or two.

Add Your Comments

To add your comments you must sign-in or create a free account.

  • Create a Free Account!
  • Sign-In
John Petersen

John Petersen

John works as a partner in the firm of Fefer Petersen & Co (www.ipo-law.com) and represents North American, European and Asian clients, principally in the energy and alternative energy sectors. His international practice is limited to corporate...
  • About
  • Articles
  • Contact
  • FOLLOW
  • CONTACT
Stay Connected
         
To register for our free e-Newsletters, create your free account here:

Editors' Picks

  • America's Real Problem with Solar Energy
  • US, Australian Companies Taking Giant Steps for Global EGS Geothermal
  • EU Debate Over Climate Change Policy Could Dampen Renewable Energy Growth
  • Wind Power — Even without the Wind
  • Massachusetts Resets Its Solar Energy Bar, Four Years Early

Most Commented

  • 13
    Fracking and Solar: Friends, Foes or the Bridge to Clean Energy Adoption?
  • 12
    Breakdown: Penetration of Renewable Energy in Selected Markets
  • 7
    San Antonio Solar Fans Delay Introduction of SunCredit Program
  • 6
    Renewable Energy Research Initiative Launched in UK

Total Access Partners

Growing Your Business? Learn More about Total Access
  • RenewableEnergyWorld.com
  • Intersolar
  • CivicSolar
  • groSolar
  • Solar Electric Power Association
  • HelioSage
  • marcus evans
  • Renewable Energy World Asia
News
  • Renewable Energy
  • Solar Energy
  • Wind Energy
  • Bioenergy
  • Geothermal Energy
  • Hyrdo Power
  • Blogs
  • Video
  • Finance
Resources
  • Companies
  • Products
  • Careers
  • Events
  • Webcasts
  • White Papers
  • Magazines
  • Press Releases
  • e-Newsletters
Company
  • About Us
  • Our Team
  • Contact Us
  • Advertising & Services
  • Privacy Policy
  • Terms & Conditions
  • Site Map
Network Partners - Magazines
  • Hydro Review Magazine
  • Hydro Review Worldwide Magazine
  • Renewable Energy World Magazine
Network Partners - Events
  • Power-Gen International
  • Renewable Energy World Conference & Expo North America
  • Renewable Energy World Conference & Expo Europe
  • Renewable Energy World Conference & Expo Asia
  • Renewable Energy World Conference & Expo Africa
  • Renewable Energy World Conference & Expo India
  • HydroVision International
  • HydroVision Brazil
  • HydroVision India
  • HydroVision Russia
© Copyright 1999-2013 RenewableEnergyWorld.com - All rights reserved.
RenewableEnergyWorld.com - World's #1 Renewable Energy Network for news & Information