Clearly in a sign of times to come, big oil company ExxonMobil has announced it is developing a new technology to be used in lithium-ion battery cells. The energy company’s chemicals division in partnership with its Japanese affiliate Tonen Chemical have apparently been developing a new separator film.
Separators are sometimes necessary in certain lithium-ion cells to prevent short circuits from propagating so far as to cause the battery to go into thermal runaway (i.e. explode)
The new film separator technology will allow for larger and therefore more energy and power capable cells to be made without the risk of overheating. These cells would theoretically be optimal for automotive use.
More details on the cells will be revealed at the upcoming 23rd Electric Vehicle Symposium and Exposition (EVS-23) in Anaheim, Calif. on December 2-5, 2007.
Well I guess if you can’t beat em’, join em’.
Source (Guardian)
This entry was posted on Thursday, November 29th, 2007 at 11:06 am and is filed under Battery, General. You can follow any responses to this entry through the RSS 2.0 feed. Both comments and pings are currently closed.
Nov 29th, 2007 (11:23 am)The more the merrier.
Night before last I allowed myself to get sucked into a sort of push poll telephone survey on behalf of Edison International. They had a series of questions to be answered “Strongly agree”, “Somewhat agree”, “Somewhat disagree”, “Strongly disagree”, or “No opinion”.
There were a number of questions about alternative energy and fuel sources, including “clean coal”, which I found to be somewhat loaded and self-serving but, just as I was about to hang up, out popped:
“Large numbers of plug-in hybrid cars could act like a giant battery, allowing energy to be generated off peak, and used at peak times to increase the efficiency of the grid”, or words very much to that effect.
I found it fascinating, and somewhat encouraging, that Edison International is serious enough about this concept to ask its customers for an opinion and/or to try to generate polling numbers to support it.
Nov 29th, 2007 (11:28 am)There are 3 possible scenarios here:
1) Peak oil is coming sooner than we have been lead to believe and Big Oil is getting ready for it.
2) Big Oil has seen the writing on the wall that Congress will divert tax funds from oil and into renewable energy and they are working to capture some of this taxpayer money.
3) Technology capture & sequestration to kill competition.
Of course, 2 & 3 work nicely together, then they can release captured technologies piece by piece in order to maximize profits as oil’s decreasing availability increases oil prices thus lowering demand.
This strategy will allow Big Oil to control the energy (not just oil) market both supply (prices) and demand (availability) into the foreseeable future.
Nov 29th, 2007 (11:50 am)Tim, #2:
Right. Actually,1,2 and 3 all work together quite nicely.
Nov 29th, 2007 (12:15 pm)Speaking of new technology, this device may work well to capture the kinetic energy in the Volt’s shocks to help charge the battery and help extend the range.
Harnessing Kinetic Energy
A microgenerator could power portable devices for troops.
http://www.technologyreview.com/Energy/19777/?nlid=695&a=f
Nov 29th, 2007 (12:19 pm)Big Oil has seen the writing on the wall for a long time. Other than Exxon, they have been long investing in alternative energy sources. Whatever the pie is going to be they want a piece of it. Look into BP’s alternative division for example: http://www.bp.com/modularhome.do?categoryId=7010
Exxon is the last to the party and has been long criticized by its shareholders for that position, not for noble purposes, but because diversification into alternatives is considered good sense from a business POV. In piece very sympathetic to Exxon’s position – http://money.cnn.com/magazines/fortune/fortune_archive/2007/04/30/8405398/index.htm is this perspective:
At least one group of investors thinks Tillerson is missing the bigger picture. By not investing in new energy technologies, Exxon “lags far behind its competitors in developing a strategy to plan for and manage” the potential impact of climate change, argued a group of pension fund chiefs in a letter to the board. If governments around the world begin to bear down on Exxon’s oil-based business – through heavier regulation or taxation – then the company’s return-on-investment calculations get turned upside down. Its whole future would be in jeopardy.
That even Exxon is beginning to see the need to place a play into non-oil energy revenue streams is telling of how convincing the business plan need has become.
Nov 29th, 2007 (3:21 pm)There are 2 possibilities:
1) Big oil has realized that the days of high oil profits are numbered, and want to diversify into EV technology.
2) Big oil sees EVs as a threat to high oil profits, and they are buying up intellectual property for Li/Ion battery technology in order to prevent EVs from going mainstream.
Forgive my pessimism, but the #2 scenario above is exactly how Chevron originally killed the electric car. They bought all the patents for NiMH batteries. As I understand it, Chevron currently won’t allow NiMH batteries to be used in any car that doesn’t use gasoline as the primary source of fuel.
I know a lot of things have changed in the last 5-10 years, so I really hope it’s #1 above. But with record oil profits being announced every quarter, I have to wonder…
Nov 29th, 2007 (3:48 pm)I want to add to Dave G, #6.
I find this to be despicable. When I say “death to oil”, I include the oil companies.
Especially Exxon. They are the scum of the Earth. I haven’t knowingly purchased fuel from them since the Valdez incident. I don’t care if they spent billions up there. It was still inadequate. I don’t buy from Mobile because it is owned by Exxon.
My concern is the same as Dave G in #6. I don’t believe that Exxon is doing this for the greater good. I think they are going to follow in Chevron’s tracks.
I will NEVER knowingly purchase any product from ExxonMobile.
Death to oil and death to the oil companies.
Nov 29th, 2007 (4:01 pm)Dave G, #6:
Well, I think that you are right on both counts.
First they implement #2, to maximize oil profits as long as possible. Them, when they judge that the optimum point is reached, they swith to their backup of #1.
Obviously, these are huge, well funded, corporations. They are most certainly doing constant long range strategic planning. they no doubt have platoons of MBAs doing simulations of the best pricing strategies.
None of it bodes well for the likes of us, but they are there to make money – it’s what they do.
They just have to be careful that they don’t kill the golden goose by tipping the US/world economy into some disastrous economic event which will damage even them.
Meanwhile, we as individuals had better figure out how to minimize our oil useage.
Where’s my Volt?
Nov 29th, 2007 (4:10 pm)“Separators are sometimes necessary in certain lithium-ion… ”
All Li-ion cells (excepts Li polymer) need a separator to prevent short circuits between the electrodes. It is one of the key elements for high power applications too.
Nov 29th, 2007 (4:14 pm)I can only hope that ExxonMobile is doing this for noble reasons. In this day and age, however, I don’t see how they could not.
There is already a wide-spread public backlash against oil companies because of high oil prices and the truly epic profits they are making. Could they really afford to take their negative PR one further step down by patenting new battery tech and then sitting on it? I don’t think so.
Look at some of the current presidential candidates in the U.S. Many of them are running on a platform of withdrawing the billions of dollars of subsidies that are handed to the oil companies each year. Would the oil companies really want to risk losing all of this free money? Further, they could help to secure this free money by patenting technologies that will also help them to _make_ money also. It would be a win-win situation for the oil companies if they are only smart enough to reach out and grab it.
The oil companies are at a crossroads today. They can remain dinosaurs and slowly dwindle off into nothing or they can take the billions of dollars of profit they are making each quarter and invest it into new energy technologies, effectively changing the DNA of their companies from oil companies into _energy_ companies.
BP is already doing this, to some extent. Hopefully this news from ExxonMobile indicates that they are too. Time will only tell.
Nov 29th, 2007 (5:11 pm)Rashiid and James:
By no means does “death to oil” belong to me. Feel free to use it as your signature. Maybe congress will eventually take notice. I’d love nothing more than my contribution to this world to be for fellow like minded people to chant death to oil. If I was running for president, it would be a campaign slogan.
To everybody else:
In business school a case is taught about the railroad companies. They thought they were in the railroad business. Wrong. They are in the transportation business.
When jet aircraft were created, there was NO reason why the rich railroads should not of bought some, and started FedEx. There is no reason why they should not of built large ocean ships. There is no reason why they should not of made a whole lot more money and achieved such a wonderful status to be worthy of being broken up by the government.
Instead, they were fat cats who were too busy playing golf, and not recognizing the changing nature of their business. Bottom line: they missed out on historic opportunities by having their heads up their as*ess.
Exxon is the most profitable company in the world. To believe for a second that they don’t recognize they’re in the energy business, NOT oil business, is pure ignorance. Or, Exxon is just lucky. But I doubt it’s luck.
This is not to say they won’t act like bastards if it’s what’s most profitable, but if the situation dictates that alternative energy is the best business decision, they’ll do it. Count on it.
Our duty is to make sure the situation dictates it by demanding things from our government. Perhaps an end to oil subsidies, IF it’s in the best interest of our country. Also a minimum gas and diesel price, which of course exxon would probably hate. The government should threaten the oil companies with opening Alaska’s oil fields. More supply = lower price.
The government has far more power over the oil companies than oil companies over the government. The premise of the movie Syriana is a joke.
Nov 29th, 2007 (5:12 pm)Ooops… forgot to add:
death to oil!
Nov 29th, 2007 (6:13 pm)Anti-Oil Jihadi, I have always used your “death to oil” with you in mind. I agree with your stance and your website. Thank you for not being offended when I use it.
As for the “To everybody else:” section,
you said it way better than I could ever say it. I agree wholeheartedly. ExxonMobile does needs to do it for their own survival. But it doesn’t mean I have to like it.
Death to oil and death to oil companies.
Nov 29th, 2007 (6:44 pm)anit oil, jihadi, always enjoy your posts whether i agree with everything in them or not (and generally i do agree, lol).
exxon and lithium batteries? my first thought was, hmmmm, this might help.
then i woke up and realized these mf’s aren’t trying to help electric cars, they are trying to corner the market, or as much of it as they can.
i hope that gm is not going to do business with these as*holes (exxon), if they do, they will look almost as bad as when they crushed the ev-1.
but i will say this, there is way too much new tech stuff coming out in batteries and energy capicitors for exxon or anyone else to stop. one of the universities, like mit, rit, or whatever has some kinda potent batteries using algae.
like the new soundbite anti oil jihadi;
death to oil and oil companies, god bless the e-rev electric chevy volt, god bless nano solar and God Bless America!
Nov 29th, 2007 (7:10 pm)This is another reason I’m glad that GM has at least considered owning it’s own battery technology. We know that’s not possible for the Volt, this will have to be 3rd party, but maybe it’s got them thinking.
Nov 29th, 2007 (7:35 pm)grizzly, welcome back where you been guy?
Nov 29th, 2007 (7:41 pm)Working…or I guess you could say, iggying the entire site for a few days
.
Nov 29th, 2007 (8:30 pm)I do believe at some point companies take on more than they can chew. Yes, Exxon is an energy company, but they aren’t known for batteries. I hope they get burned by the likes of Enerdel, A123, and the like…before the latter get bought out by the former. Exxon may be hedging their bets, but I’d like to see them go down with OPEC.
Nov 29th, 2007 (8:36 pm)grizz man 17, iggying? i thought that word was band from the site…u got me rotf lmao grizz, lol…always enjoy it when your on.
dave b 18 i’m with you.
Nov 29th, 2007 (8:44 pm)I’d like to see them go down with OPEC too. But hopefully after Americans have sold their Exxon stock and invested it in GM, or A123systems when/if they go public. Fat chance of any of those things happening though.
death to oil (and thus opec and terrorism)
Nov 29th, 2007 (8:55 pm)banned, lol…even spell checker won’t help me there…
anti-oil jihadi 20, you see that saudi’s opened the pipes a little (and oil fell to 90 bucks), and opec is supposed to do the same next week?
Nov 29th, 2007 (10:46 pm)am I the only one who thinks that Exxon will “Help” to make the Lithium-Ion batteries, only to purchase the rights to them when they are ready, so that we will never get the Volt/other EV cars, the way we want..NO GAS ??
Nov 29th, 2007 (10:51 pm)I actually live in Anaheim, so if anyone has any specific questions for ExxonMobil, let me know and I’ll try to ask them at the EVS event where they’ll be presenting.
Nov 29th, 2007 (11:27 pm)Mark #22, I think they’re a little late in the game for the Volt. However, I’m not sure what their future motives are.
Surely, they don’t think that selling EV batts. will slowly replace everyday liquid fuel sales, as a revenue substitute over time. No chance. That would be the kind of thing they’d be eyeballing Hydrogen for.
Nov 29th, 2007 (11:29 pm)In this case I do not think that Exxon is trying to buy and bury technology. Not that they wouldn’t if they could, but they can’t. It is unlikely that this little battery play of theirs will amount to much and there are too many leads out there from too many directions. No, this is merely the realization that at least some of the market is going to go in an EV direction, that an investment there is fairly likely to have good return on investment, and that such an investment may be needed to use as a credit source in any cap and trade scheme that is coming down the pike. Their lack of preparation for such an eventuality has been a huge risk exposure for their stockholders and this little foray into battery technology is too little too late to significantly help them.
Nov 30th, 2007 (6:41 am)[quote comment="17044"]Big Oil has seen the writing on the wall for a long time. Other than Exxon, they have been long investing in alternative energy sources. Whatever the pie is going to be they want a piece of it. Look into BP’s alternative division for example: http://www.bp.com/modularhome.do?categoryId=7010
Exxon is the last to the party and has been long criticized by its shareholders for that position, not for noble purposes, but because diversification into alternatives is considered good sense from a business POV. In piece very sympathetic to Exxon’s position – http://money.cnn.com/magazines/fortune/fortune_archive/2007/04/30/8405398/index.htm is this perspective:
At least one group of investors thinks Tillerson is missing the bigger picture. By not investing in new energy technologies, Exxon “lags far behind its competitors in developing a strategy to plan for and manage” the potential impact of climate change, argued a group of pension fund chiefs in a letter to the board. If governments around the world begin to bear down on Exxon’s oil-based business – through heavier regulation or taxation – then the company’s return-on-investment calculations get turned upside down. Its whole future would be in jeopardy.
That even Exxon is beginning to see the need to place a play into non-oil energy revenue streams is telling of how convincing the business plan need has become.[/quote]
But if this is government-driven, then it is about as market-oriented as a Soviet Five Year Plan.
Nov 30th, 2007 (7:18 am)[quote comment="17060"]I want to add to Dave G, #6.
I find this to be despicable. When I say “death to oil”, I include the oil companies.
Especially Exxon. They are the scum of the Earth. I haven’t knowingly purchased fuel from them since the Valdez incident. I don’t care if they spent billions up there. It was still inadequate. I don’t buy from Mobile because it is owned by Exxon.
My concern is the same as Dave G in #6. I don’t believe that Exxon is doing this for the greater good. I think they are going to follow in Chevron’s tracks.
I will NEVER knowingly purchase any product from ExxonMobile.
Death to oil and death to the oil companies.[/quote]
You can’t even spell “Exxon Mobil” properly yet you presume to have knowledge about them?
What makes them “the scum of the earth”?
The fact that they sat in their boardroom and planned (in detail) to ram one of their tankers into the ground just to kill a few animals for fun (no doubt!)?
They must have had a good laugh that day as baby seals died.
Get your head out of those UFO books (and the ones about the Illuminati, Freemasons, Bilderbergers, Elders of Zion, Rothschilds, Council on Foreign Relations, The Trilateral Commission and Skull and Bones) and go actually pick up an economics book and learn something (preferably one by Milton Friedman or any other monetarist).
I hope that the Volt (unlike the Prius) does NOT become a cult car for all the pagan, vegan, hemp-wearing nutbergers out there. I want it to be a mainstream car for mainstream Americans.
Nov 30th, 2007 (7:22 am)[quote comment="17065"]I can only hope that ExxonMobile is doing this for noble reasons. In this day and age, however, I don’t see how they could not.
There is already a wide-spread public backlash against oil companies because of high oil prices and the truly epic profits they are making. Could they really afford to take their negative PR one further step down by patenting new battery tech and then sitting on it? I don’t think so.
Look at some of the current presidential candidates in the U.S. Many of them are running on a platform of withdrawing the billions of dollars of subsidies that are handed to the oil companies each year. Would the oil companies really want to risk losing all of this free money? Further, they could help to secure this free money by patenting technologies that will also help them to _make_ money also. It would be a win-win situation for the oil companies if they are only smart enough to reach out and grab it.
The oil companies are at a crossroads today. They can remain dinosaurs and slowly dwindle off into nothing or they can take the billions of dollars of profit they are making each quarter and invest it into new energy technologies, effectively changing the DNA of their companies from oil companies into _energy_ companies.
BP is already doing this, to some extent. Hopefully this news from ExxonMobile indicates that they are too. Time will only tell.[/quote]
Did you read the article that guy posted?
Oil is not going anywhere for the forseeable next two CENTURIES according to official sources.
Please get your head out of the sand.
Where’s MY Volt.
Nov 30th, 2007 (7:30 am)[quote comment="17080"]anit oil, jihadi, always enjoy your posts whether i agree with everything in them or not (and generally i do agree, lol).
exxon and lithium batteries? my first thought was, hmmmm, this might help.
then i woke up and realized these mf’s aren’t trying to help electric cars, they are trying to corner the market, or as much of it as they can.
i hope that gm is not going to do business with these as*holes (exxon), if they do, they will look almost as bad as when they crushed the ev-1.
but i will say this, there is way too much new tech stuff coming out in batteries and energy capicitors for exxon or anyone else to stop. one of the universities, like mit, rit, or whatever has some kinda potent batteries using algae.
like the new soundbite anti oil jihadi;
death to oil and oil companies, god bless the e-rev electric chevy volt, god bless nano solar and God Bless America![/quote]
So what?
Since when is profit and capitalism bad?
If Google didn’t try to “corner the market” on search, where would we be today?
If IBM didn’t try to “corner the market” on PCs, where would we be today?
Apple?
Intel?
AMD?
Where would we be today?
I guess I should expect more anti-capitalism (and misunderstanding of economics) than I am used to on a “green” blog such as this, but sometimes it is overbearing.
These cars will come in their own time, and will be helped along if government relegates itself to a supporting and funding role.
Get behind technology–not in front of it.
Now is a good time for a non-regulatory push. This will NOT “kill oil” or other such nonsense (by a long shot) but it might make us energy independent (a more serious and sensible goal).
Nov 30th, 2007 (7:38 am)[quote comment="17091"]I do believe at some point companies take on more than they can chew. Yes, Exxon is an energy company, but they aren’t known for batteries. I hope they get burned by the likes of Enerdel, A123, and the like…before the latter get bought out by the former. Exxon may be hedging their bets, but I’d like to see them go down with OPEC.[/quote]Oh dear….
Exxon will not be “burned” by anyone. It is easily the world’s most profitable company.
Are you serious in any way at all?
Do you know how many times the size of A123 (and how much older and more experienced) Exxon Mobil is?
Good grief!
First, read the article the guy posted above:
http://money.cnn.com/magazines/fortune/fortune_archive/2007/04/30/8405398/index.htm
Then head on over to Amazon (or the library) and buy/borrow this:
http://www.amazon.com/Economics-Dummies-Sean-Masaki-Flynn/dp/0764557262
Take your time and read it.
It is how the world really works (and not just how someone “feels” it should).
And I really mean this post. It’s very important.
(If I were king, I would actually not let anyone vote unless they could pass an Economics 101 course. Serious!)
Nov 30th, 2007 (7:41 am)[quote comment="17104"]am I the only one who thinks that Exxon will “Help” to make the Lithium-Ion batteries, only to purchase the rights to them when they are ready, so that we will never get the Volt/other EV cars, the way we want..NO GAS ??[/quote]Nope.
A lot of people also believe that 911 was an “inside job”, and that an undersea atomic bomb test caused the Pacific tsunami a few years back.
Nov 30th, 2007 (7:45 am)[quote comment="17108"]In this case I do not think that Exxon is trying to buy and bury technology. Not that they wouldn’t if they could, but they can’t. It is unlikely that this little battery play of theirs will amount to much and there are too many leads out there from too many directions. No, this is merely the realization that at least some of the market is going to go in an EV direction, that an investment there is fairly likely to have good return on investment, and that such an investment may be needed to use as a credit source in any cap and trade scheme that is coming down the pike. Their lack of preparation for such an eventuality has been a huge risk exposure for their stockholders and this little foray into battery technology is too little too late to significantly help them.[/quote]Again, have you seen their profit statement as compared to loud-and-green Shell or BP?
What on earth are you on about?
It is not based in any fact whatsoever.
Exxon is not “going down” anywhere.
And for those of you who think you can just “stick it” to business, get a load (an INFORMED load) of Halliburton and Accenture. Capital goes where it’s wanted. So you keep treating business bad and see how fast it moves offshore (and leaves you working at McDonalds).
Nov 30th, 2007 (8:08 am)John
I don’t think this is a “green” blog. I think there is a wide range of people who post here; most of us just want the Volt. I count myself as one of the serious and sensible. I am only mildly concerned about climate change and much more concerned about energy security. I agree that oil is not going anywhere for a long time, but I want to greatly reduce our dependence on it. If oil jihadi can can convince a few paople to support the Volt with his message, then I’m all for it.
I see you are responding to james though, good luck with that.
Nov 30th, 2007 (8:41 am)I’m all for the Volt, but PLEASE, I do not want any of this conspiracy and ignorance.
I want the VOLT!
Nov 30th, 2007 (8:47 am)[quote comment="17155"]John
I don’t think this is a “green” blog. I think there is a wide range of people who post here; most of us just want the Volt. I count myself as one of the serious and sensible. I am only mildly concerned about climate change and much more concerned about energy security. I agree that oil is not going anywhere for a long time, but I want to greatly reduce our dependence on it. If oil jihadi can can convince a few paople to support the Volt with his message, then I’m all for it.
I see you are responding to james though, good luck with that.[/quote]
I am all with you. Maybe I should be more tolerant, but sometimes it’s just too much, you know?
Arghhh!!!
Nov 30th, 2007 (9:02 am)“ExxonMobil Helping to Make Lithium-ion Batteries”
The title of this blog still makes me want to laugh, and then cry. The oil companies still have a huge investment in oil and will want to milk us for all the profits they can get. It would be a big mistake to trust an oil company to advance technology and make it affordable to the masses until they have a corner on the battery market as well.
Call me paranoid but this is how I feel. I do not trust big-oil and it will take a lot to get me to change my opinion.
Nov 30th, 2007 (9:05 am)John #27. Unlike you, I will be polite in my response.
“Get your head out of those UFO books (and the ones about the Illuminati, Freemasons, Bilderbergers, Elders of Zion, Rothschilds, Council on Foreign Relations, The Trilateral Commission and Skull and Bones)”
I have no idea who or what those are above. I also have no idea what UFOs have to do with getting the Volt out. But, if they can help, I will take it.
I am not a conspiracy theorist. I do not think Exxon rammed one of their tankers into the ground on purpose. I never said that. My gripe is what they did or didn’t do after the crash. To this day, people there are still suffering from the affects.
Lastly, I choose where to spend my money.
I choose not to spend it at ExxonMobil (spelled correctly).
Sorry if that offends you.
Death to oil and death to oil companies (especially ExxonMobile)
Nov 30th, 2007 (9:37 am)John,
Ever since Alexander Hamilton in Revolutionary times the American free market system has been about yoking market interests to good policy goals. No one except the anarchists and the pure libertarians argue that there is no role for federal regulations and incentives; the discussions are about what constitute the RIGHT incentives and regulations. Only anarchists and pure libertarians argue otherwise.
One mistake would be to dictate the solutions – as the current administration has tried to do with its heavy subsidy/mandate approach for ethanol use/production, and as California does with its CARB-ZEV mandates. Another would be to say that there is no problem or to say that the government has no role in incentivizing the market to provide solutions.
The article I linked to is indeed sympathetic to Tillerson’s position which essentially is that Exxon is rolling in the dough and has no need to change what works. And certainly many corporate heads have done well for themselves maximizing in short-term profits and short-shrifting the investments needed to provide for the company’s long-term health. Its the big investors in the company who care about the longterm prospects and who are upset over that approach, over his keeping Exxon as the one oil company still ignoring the need to diversify in alternative energy sources to minimize future risks.
One can have reasoned debates about when peak oil will hit, and various experts have weighted in on various predictions. This much is without debate however: oil will cost more and more to get out; it will be more difficult for supply to keep up with increasing demand; dependency on foreign oil costs us more than just dollars; and both international and domestic regulations will continue to evolve that make carbon emissions more expensive while making energy that emits less net carbon potentially more profitable.
Tillerson has tried to play grasshopper to BP’s ant. Time will tell which approach is wiser.
Meanwhile the fact that Exxon, EXXON!, is making a play into batteries is proof of the easy money that this technology promises in a short-term. Exxon under Tillerson doesn’t look farther than short-term bottom lines.
Nov 30th, 2007 (10:44 am)I have to say that a lot of this really makes me laugh. I was going to stay out of this one, but I just had to comment.
Having owned my own business for 28 years, I can really say that I believe in the theories of Milton Friedman and his free market, low governmental interference concepts.
Low cost oil helped to build not only this country, but the entire world. However, now those same free market policies are making oil more expensive than we care to pay. Plus the people that own those oil supplies do not agree with our government and religous freedoms. Finally the continued use of burning oil based products to provide transportation does appear to have consequences for the long term survivability of our plant. So now it is time to find another source of energy for our needs. It is pretty simple thinking, really. And because of the economics of higher priced oil, this is now feasable.
And for the “death to oil” people, how many of you would be able to be spread your opinions if you did not have the plastic used in your computers, and all the oil based products used to create the circuit boards and components?
Oil companies are huge and have share holders that expect profits on their stock ownership. Now if they see that the transportation sector may start to move from their current product offering to something new, why wouldn’t they buy into it? There is real profit potential there.
As far as Chevron and the licensing of the battery technology they purchased, why does everyone think that is so wrong? If you had the money to buy that technology, and all of the rights to it, you would have done the same thing. Why do you think they should have just released it as a gesture of good will, when companies like Toyota would have just taken it and made money from it for themselves. Here is another example from a different industry. Do you see Bill Gates releasing his operating system to the world for free? No, and why should he? If you do not like his products and policies, either use something else, or go invent something better.
That is why I want a Volt. They are making something better than what is currently available. And assuming it meets the specs and my personal desires, I will show that I approve by buying it!
Like I said, it is a pretty simple concept.
Nov 30th, 2007 (11:44 am)And one more thing … just checked up on profit statements while checking on my stock portfolio.
BP’s doing just fine. Oh yes, Exxon is bigger, but they are in the same ball park for most stats. Both are currently profitable, both have PEs around 12 and net profit margins of about 10%. So, “what are you going on about?”
The difference is that BP has a whole portfolio of investments that hedge against the possibility (yes, some of us think probability) of increasing international and domestic regulations that are designed to address global warming and regulations in various markets to decrease dependency on oil by fostering domestic energy sources other than oil (including “alternatives”). Exxon is ignoring that potentiality (other than this one battery play). That’s why large stakeholders in Exxon, like pension fund managers, are upset with Tillerson.
Besides those regulations, EVs like the Volt (and others) may make oil largely IRRELEVANT long before any peak occurs.
Nov 30th, 2007 (11:44 am)John, #26 & #27:
6:41 AM? As my dad used to say, you’ve got to get up early in the morning to get ahead of you guys. What time zone are you in anyway?
“pagan, vegan, hemp-wearing nutbergers”? Watch it now, you’re talking about my people! Or, as Jerry Quigley says, “My people, my people, my people.”
I hate to ruin anyone’s fantasies about the Prius, but by far the preponderance of Prius drivers in my neighborhood are upper middle class, Nordstrom wearing, golf and tennis playing, professionals who could be just as well driving Cadillacs or Mercedes.
Granted that a lot of them were smart enough to buy them early enough to take advantage of the California drive by yourself in the carpool lane program, but a lot more of them are trying to make a statement about oil independence. Kind of like our own personal Jihadi and Rashiid, only with a slightly more subdued level of rhetoric.
Nov 30th, 2007 (1:47 pm)It’s nice to see some people who understand capitalism and economics. We will never accomplish our goals via any other method.
Death to oil (for transportation use)!
Nov 30th, 2007 (4:01 pm)Jim I, #39: Thank you for your kind words.
Congrats on owning your own business for 28 years. Was it in “oil” by any chance?
For the record, when I say “Death to oil and death to oil companies”, I mean just that.
I would like to see a future without oil or oil based products. I would like to see the Middle East go back to the way it was before oil was discovered. I would really like to see the end of terrorism. I do believe that oil and oil based products will disappear, but way off in the distant future. Certainly not in my lifetime. So while oil is still here, I will have little choice but to continue to use oil based products. Yes, I am typing on one right now.
You say, “Low cost oil helped to build not only this country, but the entire world.”
True, and oil has helped us destroy the environment. Global warming and oil spills to name two.
Whether or not I agree with them, I appreciate your opinion and
everyone else’s opinion here. I learn a lot from you guys.
Sometimes I learn about myself. Stuff I would rather not know, like the
full extent of my ignorance. Good thing for me, I have you to point that out.
Nov 30th, 2007 (6:11 pm)Rashiid Amul #43:
My business has nothing to do with oil. It started as a company to provide complete computer systems (hardware, in-house developed software, installation, training, and support) for private practice physicians. When the market changed, We had to change as well, and we have become an off-site medical billing service in the Eastern Ohio / Western Pennsylvania / West Virginia areas. That is why I usually make a computer related analogy on many points. You go back to what you know! But enough about me…
I understand your feelings about a return to a time before the discovery of oil in certain parts of the world, and I do not really disagree with that position. It is just that there are so many industries that are dependent upon oil, such as plastics, textiles, medicines, LP Gas, lubricants, and fertilizers, just to name a few. Because of fuel pricing and enviornmental concerns, the Volt is going to appear, which will reduce our reliance on that oil for transportation. When the pricing of oil makes the other industries too expensive to maintain, then hopefully inventive genius will kick in, and we will find other ways to produce those same or even better products.
Three sentences below the one you quoted, I agreed with your enviornmental statement completely, except that I meant to type “planet”, not “plant”.
I also learn a lot from these forums, especially when the discussion stays civil. There are many positions presented that I really disagree with, but I will defend to the death your right to have that opinion. And that is why I believe we can solve just about any problem!
Nov 30th, 2007 (6:12 pm)# John Says:
I will NEVER knowingly purchase any product from ExxonMobile.
Death to oil and death to the oil companies.
You can’t even spell “Exxon Mobil” properly yet you presume to have knowledge about them?
Get your head out of those UFO books (and the ones about the Illuminati, Freemasons, Bilderbergers, Elders of Zion, Rothschilds, Council on Foreign Relations, The Trilateral Commission and Skull and Bones) and go actually pick up an economics book and learn something (preferably one by Milton Friedman or any other monetarist).
I hope that the Volt (unlike the Prius) does NOT become a cult car for all the pagan, vegan, hemp-wearing nutbergers …..
***** ****
Hey John,
I just noticed something you might be interested in. If you go to the main page and take a look at the little Exxonmobil battery w/ the red writing and take a deep breath, squint your eyes until you loose a little focus, relax and concentrate, it actually looks a bit like a tiny little Baby Ruth bar. Aint’ that sumpin’?
Nov 30th, 2007 (6:36 pm)Grizzly, based upon the vast majority of posters on this site it won’t be a cult car for the pagan, vegan, hemp-wearing nuts. From what I’ve seen the people here are engineers and people who do believe in the power of the market. There is a small lunatic fringe, but it is dwarved by the logical who like this car primarily for the massive step forward it provides in efficiency, without a tradeoff in convenience.
Nov 30th, 2007 (7:43 pm)Exxon isn’t the only one working one large format lithium ion batteries.
Valence is already there.
http://ir.valence.com/releasedetail.cfm?ReleaseID=279255
Nov 30th, 2007 (7:46 pm)Dan,
Most of that post (above the asterisks)was a quote from John.
Nov 30th, 2007 (8:47 pm)Jim I #44m I’m glad that we can agree on something. This site is wonderful and we both learn from it. BTW, I too am in IT. A programmer and project leader. Network support, etc. That is what I know. Without this knowledge, I would be a vegetable. Some might say I already am.
I strongly believe in the Volt and its technology. I see a time when all vehicles are like it and get to a point when battery and solar technology are perfected so we don’t need the range extender.
My “lunatic” side is this: I really hate the expense of gasoline now. I hate the cost of heating oil for the house. I resent the amount of money companies like ExxonMobile (spelled correctly) make at the expense of the rest of us. I strongly despise terrorism. When I b*tch about stuff, it is about these things.
I really really want the Volt technology to succeed. It is so important to all of us as a people and as a society.
No offense was intended by any of my comments.
Nov 30th, 2007 (10:47 pm)Now I see why the Volt wont be ready for 3 more years.
GM is’nt waiting for Li-Ion battery tech to improve-
GM is waiting for Exxon-Mobil to get control over Li-Ion battery technology altogether.
Buy ‘em out boys, maintain the status quo
DON’T LOSE CONTROL.
Nov 30th, 2007 (11:35 pm)At the moment, it looks more like E-M is working to make the technology “better” rather than to make the technology. However, that could change.
Dec 1st, 2007 (1:58 am)I still think allowing Exxon to ‘help’ with battery development is a bad idea. They won’t help develop, they’ll try to stall the progress to soak up as much money as they can from us, or to push the batteries to have lower range then what we want.
This is doing the same thing as allowing the RIAA and MPAA control of consumer electronics development…which would not be good for the customer.
Dec 1st, 2007 (3:12 am)don, you’re one funny dickhead, lol…and as for your quote of “if i were king”, thank god you are not, lmao @ that one, lol.
and if you were king, then there would be no need for economics 101 (sh*t give me a break, i can’t help it, rotf lmao @ don).
sorry don, but the “world” does not run according to eco 101. i’m u.s., i’m capitalist, i trade futures, have my own businesses. however, the economics of the u.s. are not the econmics of the “world”.
you may want to do some studying up on that, lol…sh*t can’t help it rotf laughing @ don’s unusual stupidity for today, lol.
let me see, in china, they have dictators, they call themselves communists, but they are really dictators. and while they are using some capitalist idea, they are not capitalist.
so, let’s see, i don’t have time to list all nations of the world, but how about if you, look it up don?!? there are kings, queens, dictators, presidents who are actually dictators, socialists, communists, tribal leaders, whatever, you get the idea, many of whom are not capitalists, lol.
i know what you’re saying don, i thought james iggied me long ago…true, however you took up sooooo much space here with your blowhard, dipsh*t oppinions, that i couldn’t ignore it, lol…
ah, and one more thing (and there will probably actually be many more of these), perhaps you should go back and check on your spelling, before you critisize others for misspelling exunmobal…god, you are such a facist phukking idiot.
and my apologies to every one else, in the future i will do my best to ignore and by pass donny boy’s insanity, but, when he takes up the whole board, well…
rotf and lmao @ the supposed superior intellect of don!
hey grizz, i forgot to mention, good posts.
death to oil and oil companies (through green tech and electric cars), god bless the e-rev electric chevy volt (and others like it), god bless nano solar (and others like them), and God Bless the USA!
Dec 1st, 2007 (9:21 pm)[quote comment="17266"]Now I see why the Volt wont be ready for 3 more years.
GM is’nt waiting for Li-Ion battery tech to improve-
GM is waiting for Exxon-Mobil to get control over Li-Ion battery technology altogether.
Buy ‘em out boys, maintain the status quo
DON’T LOSE CONTROL.[/quote]
What?
Oh dear….
Oh boy….
What I will say is that the more you read about things outside your comfort zone, the more you will learn.
The Volt will not be ready for another 3 years, because by and large, that is how long it takes to make a car from scratch.
It takes anywhere from 3 to 5 years–or more.
As a matter of fact, the lower number is for new models of cars already in production. Most new, new cars take a while–several years.
Dec 2nd, 2007 (12:26 am)Guy, to pile-on with John, and just how do you think Exxon would buy up all the battery companies and their patents across the world, and how does their trying to develop their own battery with its own allegedly improved separator help them do that?
Hey, james. You funny! Seriously, I haven’t been called a “dickhead” in over 35 years! It makes me kinda nostalgic for the days of schoolyard scraps.
Please keep ‘em coming! I’ll keep reading your posts. Sometimes just for the giggles. But I’ll respond to anything on subject of any substance.
Yup. Done here.
(Called names by both james and Doug Korthof in the same day! I must be doing something right!)
Dec 2nd, 2007 (1:29 am)don, i have no idea why doug k. called you a name(s), as i bypassed most of his stuff.
and i generally bypass most of yours, but when you take up most of the board with your idiocy, well…
anyway, the reason for my name calling, is your constant condescending attitude to most who post here.
i just read some stuff by you a couple of days ahead, and you kept your foot off of the insult pedal. try doing that more in the future.
Dec 2nd, 2007 (4:54 pm)[quote comment="17415"]Guy, to pile-on with John, and just how do you think Exxon would buy up all the battery companies and their patents across the world, and how does their trying to develop their own battery with its own allegedly improved separator help them do that?[/quote]
GM will only install (purchase) the Exxon-Mobil batteries for the Volt, making it very difficult for the competition in the Li-ion battery market.
Dec 2nd, 2007 (5:24 pm)Guy,
E-M has no available batteries and hasn’t stated anything other than developing Li-on technology, not batts per se. They don’t even have a product. How on earth are batteries that aren’t even planned, let alone manufactured, going to go into the Volt?
Dec 2nd, 2007 (6:37 pm)The seperator film that E-M is developing will be patented.
GM will only install (purchse) those batteries that utilize this seperator film, regardless of who the manufacturer of the battery is; it will be stipulated.
When the Li-ion batteries become available, they will probably incorporate numerous other E-M patented components.
We have Chevron-Texaco in effective control of nickle metal hydride batteries.
Now its Exxon-Mobils turn to capture technology.
Dec 3rd, 2007 (4:04 am)[quote comment="17483"][quote comment="17415"]Guy, to pile-on with John, and just how do you think Exxon would buy up all the battery companies and their patents across the world, and how does their trying to develop their own battery with its own allegedly improved separator help them do that?[/quote]
GM will only install (purchase) the Exxon-Mobil batteries for the Volt, making it very difficult for the competition in the Li-ion battery market.[/quote]
You have to now exactly nothing about the Volt to make a statement lie this. It’s really embarrassing.
The Volt already has TWO different suppliers of batteries–none of which is Exxon Mobil.
Dec 5th, 2007 (12:40 am)E-M doesn’t have a product, WON’T have a product for years to come, if ever.
Of course, GM, rather than developing their own tech will want to “hand off” to E-M….an OIL company to control their future, and watch Toyota and others develop their own cars,with their own batt. tech and proliferate the market.
Of course! Guy is a “genius” and as far ahead of “his” time as Korthof. The only difference is that the “former” steps into the time machine probably w/o the bull-horn
.
Jan 30th, 2008 (7:10 pm)jan30,2008
its coming — finally the’re listening
check these web sites,
http://globalsys.topcities.com/electriCar.html
http://trillions.topcities.com/dualmodemaglev.html
http://globalsys.topcities.com/00glblslrnrgsys.html
Jack Marchand —Dual mode maglev Inventor
Feb 4th, 2008 (3:41 am)We badly need to NOT let Exxon-Mobil, GM or any other large institution control our choices of energy or vehicles.
EV’s can be built by any machine shop hacker.
Electricity, solar, wind, even hydrogen can be produced by the consumer at the time and place of consumption for a fraction of the cost of institutional distributed energy.
Fewer wars for oil, for instance, would be nice.
Check out our blog:
http://www.hydrogen411.us
Feb 4th, 2008 (4:45 pm)Adult sex swing positions
Feb 5th, 2008 (6:51 pm)Feb.5th,2008
Gentlemen
We need not worry about anyone trying to control the battery swap stations, something I can design (see my web sites below) if need be.
Not only lithium-ion batteries could be used inthese stations but any type see this web site of the EPA.
http://epa.gov/otaq/consumer/fuels/altfuels/420f00034.htm
It states “The following types of batteries have the potential to power electric vehicles:
• Lead-Acid— Provides a low-cost, low-range (less than 100 miles) option wi
th a 3-year life cycle.
• Nickel-Metal Hydride — Offers a greater driving range and life cycle, but is cur
rently more expensive than lead-acid batteries.
• Nickel-Cadmium — Offers a range of 100 miles, a long life, and faster rechar
ges than lead-acid batteries, but is more expensive and has lower peak pow
er and recharging efficiency.
• Lithium-Ion — Offers the potential for a long driving range and life cy
cle, but is currently very costly.
•Zinc-Air — Currently under development. Provides superior performance compa
red to current battery technology.
• Flywheels — Currently under development. Could be capable of storing a larger amount of energy in smaller, lighter weight systems than chemical batteries.”
SO PUSH COMES TO SHOVE ANY CHOICE WILL WORK
No need waiting the choices may limit our distances between swaps but not for long a temporary more frequent stops but only for a minute. Since a global standard size and voltage will be agreed upon
forcing the auto manufacturers to comply to a quick swap interfacing at all stations all new entrepreneurs will want to participate thus forcing competition like never before. I.E. “No more monopolies in refueling any and all vehicles including trucks and buses.
Visit my web sites for a new beginning——-check this
http://globalsys.topcities.com/electriCar.html
http://globalsys.topcities.com/dualmodemaglev.html
http://globalsys.topcities.com/00glblslrnrgsys.html
http://globalsys.topcities.com
For more data on other items go down towards the bottom of the last
web site above and click on to the various indexes.
I hope you enjoy it. A new attitude is coming for a better and happier world
Sicerely Jack Marchand
Apr 11th, 2008 (7:28 pm)Feb.5th,2008
Gentlemen
We need not worry about anyone trying to control the battery swap stations, something I can design (see my web sites below) if need be.
Not only lithium-ion batteries could be used inthese stations but any type see this web site of the EPA.
http://epa.gov/otaq/consumer/fuels/altfuels/420f00034.htm
It states “The following types of batteries have the potential to power electric vehicles:
• Lead-Acid— Provides a low-cost, low-range (less than 100 miles) option wi
th a 3-year life cycle.
• Nickel-Metal Hydride — Offers a greater driving range and life cycle, but is cur
rently more expensive than lead-acid batteries.
• Nickel-Cadmium — Offers a range of 100 miles, a long life, and faster rechar
ges than lead-acid batteries, but is more expensive and has lower peak pow
er and recharging efficiency.
• Lithium-Ion — Offers the potential for a long driving range and life cy
cle, but is currently very costly.
•Zinc-Air — Currently under development. Provides superior performance compa
red to current battery technology.
• Flywheels — Currently under development. Could be capable of storing a larger amount of energy in smaller, lighter weight systems than chemical batteries.”
SO PUSH COMES TO SHOVE ANY CHOICE WILL WORK
No need waiting the choices may limit our distances between swaps but not for long a temporary more frequent stops but only for a minute. Since a global standard size and voltage will be agreed upon
forcing the auto manufacturers to comply to a quick swap interfacing at all stations all new entrepreneurs will want to participate thus forcing competition like never before. I.E. “No more monopolies in refueling any and all vehicles including trucks and buses.
Visit my web sites for a new beginning——-check this
http://trillions.topcities.com/electriCar.html
http://trillions.topcities.com/dualmodemaglev.html
http://trillions.topcities.com/00glblslrnrgsys.html
http://trillions.topcities.com
For more data on other items go down towards the bottom of the last
web site above and click on to the various indexes.
I hope you enjoy it. A new attitude is coming for a better and happier world
Sicerely Jack Marchand
Apr 11th, 2008 (7:36 pm)April 11th, 2008
Gentlemen (web site change)
We need not worry about anyone trying to control the battery swap stations, something I can design (see my web sites below) if need be.
Not only lithium-ion batteries could be used inthese stations but any type see this web site of the EPA.
http://epa.gov/otaq/consumer/fuels/altfuels/420f00034.htm
It states “The following types of batteries have the potential to power electric vehicles:
• Lead-Acid— Provides a low-cost, low-range (less than 100 miles) option wi
th a 3-year life cycle.
• Nickel-Metal Hydride — Offers a greater driving range and life cycle, but is cur
rently more expensive than lead-acid batteries.
• Nickel-Cadmium — Offers a range of 100 miles, a long life, and faster rechar
ges than lead-acid batteries, but is more expensive and has lower peak pow
er and recharging efficiency.
• Lithium-Ion — Offers the potential for a long driving range and life cy
cle, but is currently very costly.
•Zinc-Air — Currently under development. Provides superior performance compa
red to current battery technology.
• Flywheels — Currently under development. Could be capable of storing a larger amount of energy in smaller, lighter weight systems than chemical batteries.”
SO PUSH COMES TO SHOVE ANY CHOICE WILL WORK
No need waiting the choices may limit our distances between swaps but not for long a temporary more frequent stops but only for a minute. Since a global standard size and voltage will be agreed upon
forcing the auto manufacturers to comply to a quick swap interfacing at all stations all new entrepreneurs will want to participate thus forcing competition like never before. I.E. “No more monopolies in refueling any and all vehicles including trucks and buses.
Visit my web sites for a new beginning——-check this
http://trillions.topcities.com/electriCar.html
http://trillions.topcities.com/dualmodemaglev.html
http://trillions.topcities.com/00glblslrnrgsys.html
http://trillions.topcities.com
For more data on other items go down towards the bottom of the last
web site above and click on to the various indexes.
I hope you enjoy it. A new attitude is coming for a better and happier world
Sicerely Jack Marchand
Aug 31st, 2008 (10:43 pm)Hello!,