Investing as a way of life based on common sense. "There is magic, but you have to be the magician. You have to make the magic happen." SIDNEY SHELDON Dear readers, please, Do Not Try at Home to blast rocks, construct mines, melt Gold or Silver, dismantle Electric Cars and buy or sell any shares based on information from our posts on this blog. This is an Open Book project. We are students of life and markets as part of it. "Most people think for themselves instead of simply absorbing the prevailing opinions less than 1% of the time." Harry D. Schultz. This blog is a diary of our journey between booms and busts and you are welcome to join us to read our notes. These notes are only for Education Purposes. Our views of things sometimes are very radical; never try it at home and keep your seatbelts fasten at all time of the journey with us. Nothing posted on this blog should be considered as an investment advice and a solicitation to Buy or Sell any particular stock. Authors can hold, sell and buy any discussed stock at their full discretion. Always seek advice from CFA. Sorry for the English: we think in a different way and the translation is not always smooth, so we will leave it to you to read between the lines. Please visit our blog for full legal disclaimer.
Posts tagged: Green
Lomiko Signs a Transformational Graphite Deal with Graphene Labs LMR.v
We have another article on Graphite, Graphene and Lomiko Metals to share today. We are pleased to find that our own conclusions are supported by the industry experts’ observations.
Lomiko Metals - New Graphene Play LMR.v
“Lomiko has gained some very important industry media traction with its latest move securing the strategic alliance with Graphene Laboratories. Market has responded to the deal very positively and has sold off lately in line with all junior miners Capitulation stage, as we believe it here. Company now is very well positioned to explore the vertical integration of its Graphite project into the very promising Entry into the Graphene market potentially. The only thing missing is the strong Chinese or Japanese company as a strategic partner for Lomiko Metals with the deep pockets to develop the Quatre Milles and now Lomiko Metals has a very interesting proposition for such potential strategic partner.”
ResourceWire.com:
RISK VERSUS REWARDLOMIKO SIGNS A TRANSFORMATIONAL GRAPHITE DEAL WITH GRAPHENE LABS
Kevin Michael GraceFebruary 28, 2013
Graphene: A wonder material that shouldn’t exist.
Just one year ago, graphite was the new black gold. The market couldn’t get enough of it, and hardly a week went by without the announcement of a new graphite company or an old company repurposed to meet what was going to be a critical shortage of supply. Investors bought on the rumour, and one year later, they’ve sold on the news. Paul Gill, President/CEO of Lomiko Metals Inc T.LMR, puts it bluntly, “So many of the small graphite companies are walking dead because there is never going to be a customer for them.”
He explains, “You have Syrah Resources in Australia, which has just put out a huge graphite resource. You have Energizer T.EGZ in Madagascar and Timcal operating in Quebec and Northern GraphiteV.NGC in Ontario. Demand is rising organically at 20% annually, but the amount of supply in the pipeline has blossomed incredibly.”
click for full size
Lomiko got into the graphite game last year. It bought the Quatre Milles Project, 3,780 hectares located 175 kilometres northwest of Montreal. Drilling there hassuggested a potential graphite deposit of 50 million to 100 million tonnes. Gill could have stood in line for project funding with all the other graphite contenders, but it wasn’t an appealing prospect.
And so Lomiko has decided to change its game. Its future will be based not on the provision of raw materials per se but rather on the creation of enduser products, specifically graphene, a carbon allotrope of—all hyperbole aside—almost unlimited potential. To that end, it announced February 12 an agreement with Graphene Laboratories Inc of New York.
Lomiko will provide natural high-quality flake graphite from Quatre Milles to Graphene, which will attempt to develop the means to convert it to graphene at a much lower cost, which would enable widespread commercial usage. The agreement states that Lomiko may provide equity financings exclusively to Graphene for two years, if it meets the criteria of at least US$500,000 within eight months, US$1 million within 12 months and US$2 million within 18 months. Should Lomiko not meet these conditions, it will lose exclusivity but retain the right to provide equity on a non-exclusive basis.
In other words, Lomiko has hitched its wagon to Graphene Lab’s star. They have the expertise, Gill says, but they need “to capitalize and grow their business. They haven’t released revenue numbers because they’re a private company, but they do have revenue and many customers.”
Gill doesn’t deny that Lomiko, a company with only $150,000 in cash, faces a daunting challenge: a $4-million challenge, in fact. “We estimate a $2-million pricetag to take Quatre Milles to resource estimate, PEA and completion of metallurgy,” he reports. “The $2-million commitment to Graphene Labs is in addition to that.”
How does Lomiko intend to raise the money? Gill replies, “We’ve already been talking to institutions and investment bankers. We have 3,000 shareholders, but what we don’t have is a group that will take it right to the institutions and bring in the $5-million to $10-million financings we’ll need in the future.”
The challenge is great, but the potential rewards are greater still. For as the Daily Mail reported 18 months ago, “Some researchers claim [graphene is] the most important substance to be created since the first synthetic plastic more than 100 years ago…. It is tougher than diamond but stretches like rubber. It is virtually invisible, conducts electricity and heat better than any copper wire and weighs next to nothing.” Graphene has been touted as a superefficient replacement for silicon in integrated circuits and as the catalyst for the creation of computer screens that can be rolled up like paper.
So what is graphene, exactly? Andre Geim and Konstantin Novoselov, who won the 2010 Nobel Prize for their work on it, describe graphene as a “material that should not exist,” a “monolayer of carbon atoms tightly packed into a two-dimensional honeycomb lattice and…a basic building block for graphitic materials of all other dimensionalities.”
Some researchers claim [graphene is] the most important substance to be created since the first synthetic plastic more than 100 years ago. It is tougher than diamond but stretches like rubber. It is virtually invisible, conducts electricity and heat better than any copper wire and weighs next to nothing—Daily Mail
Graphene’s atomic simplicity gives it its strength and makes it the most multipurpose material yet discovered. Geim and Novoselov (both knighted last year) first created graphene in 2004. By the end of 2012, CambridgeIP reported 7,351 graphene patents and patent applications worldwide. The top 10 patent holders include IBM, Samsung, SanDisk and Xerox. Last month, the European Commission, which calls graphene “the wonder material of the 21st century,” announced a grant of one billion Euros to the “Graphene Initiative.”
Elena Polyakova, founder and President/CEO of Graphene Labs, has a doctorate in physical chemistry from the University of Southern California and first started working with graphene in 2005. “It is actually not one thing,” she says. “Let’s call it an umbrella term.” She explains that there are currently two ways to produce it from graphite: “One route is using chemical separation, and in this case we’ve adapted material called graphene oxide, which is good for some applications. Another route is just to split graphite into so-called graphite nanoplatelets. This material is literally graphite but split into very thin sheets.”
She stresses that, in contrast to competitors, Graphene “is an active company. We have laboratory space and employees and are already producing graphene for sale. Our main customers are in the research and development space.”
Polyakova believes that graphene’s first common commercial use with be in composite materials: “Most likely polymers mixed with graphene where graphene is acting as a filler enhancing the polymer’s properties.” (Such as this announcement from Australia of a compound more bulletproof than Kevlar.)
Why did Graphene decide to ally with Lomiko? Polyakova replies, “When we produce graphene materials, the quality of our samples strongly depends on the quality of the graphite, and so we will incorporate high-quality graphite from Lomiko into our current production.” This, she says, is Graphene’s “short-term plan.” Its “long-term plan” is to “drive down the costs of production.” For example, “Right now, the cost of graphene oxide is about $170 per gram, and for commercial applications, we have to drop it by a factor of 10. I think it’s easily doable, as soon as we scale up production.”
New York-based research analyst Chris Berry agrees that price is crucial. “Most of the graphene that’s actually produced today is made from synthetic graphite, and that’s part of the reason why it’s so expensive,” he says. “The question is how do you scale up graphene production to the point where it’s a commercially viable enterprise where you can invest and make money doing it.”
Berry argues that a good analogy would be with the lithium-ion battery. “The electric-vehicle revolution hasn’t taken hold because the cars are just too expensive. They are too expensive because the battery is so expensive. If there is a breakthrough in battery chemistry which lowers the cost, then all of a sudden the electric car becomes affordable to an entire demographic that has been priced out of the market. My opinion is that graphene is in a similar situation now.”
Berry also agrees with Gill’s description of graphite juniors being “dead men walking.” He reports, “Just a little over a year ago I was actively monitoring about six publicly traded graphite exploration companies. By December 2012, I was tracking about 80. That doesn’t include some of the private companies, of which there are about 10. I see the number of graphite exploration players heading down closer to six in the coming months, and that’s because the market doesn’t need 80. It might need a couple outside China in the next few years. The frontrunner, if you will, is Northern Graphite V.NGC(and, full disclosure, we own shares in the company). Their CAPEX is going to be only about $110 million to $120 million.”
He concludes, “A strategic relationship, alliance or offtake is a must-have in graphite. Whether or not you do it with an automaker or Graphene Labs, it doesn’t really matter. Once you have it, that’s a huge plus.”
Stephen Riddle, CEO of Asbury Carbons, a commercial graphite producer for 119 years, characterizes the graphite boom as old wine in new bottles. “We experienced the same thing in the 1980s,” he says. “Back then it was due to the refractory industry starting to consume flake graphite. Many of the graphite deposits in Canada have been around for longer than I’ve been alive, and they’ve been through three or four different names. Take this deposit now called Northern Graphite V.NGC. Five years ago, its Bissett Creek Deposit was called Industrial Minerals; 25 years ago, it was called Princeton Resources; and 40 years ago, it was called something else.”
The deal with Graphene Labs sets us apart from our competitors because there is an enduser involved. We’re going to have a customer for the next two years, and we’re going to be able to participate financially in the upside of graphene. And we’re no longer competing with industrial graphite plays. We saw the facts of graphite supply and demand, and they told us we had to change—Paul Gill
Riddle, who has been something of a mentor to Gill, argues that the explosive growth in graphite companies was based on fundamental misconceptions about graphite itself. “The total graphite industry worldwide is about $13 billion to $13.5 billion, but about a billion of this has nothing to do with graphite powder or granular materials. Even though it is graphite, it’s not graphite related to what Lomiko or any of these mining companies are involved in, which is natural flake. Somebody writes an article, and says, look at the new Boeing jet, it has 80% graphite carbon fibres in it. But there is no natural-flake graphite used in making carbon fibres.”
Riddle has a much higher opinion of the viability of a company like Zenyatta Ventures Ltd V.ZEN, which is engaged in purifying natural graphite to a grade that could replace synthetic graphite. Even there, however, there will be hurdles. He asks, “When will the battery companies be ready to make the switch? Why do they prefer to use synthetic graphite at a higher cost? Is it because they trust the controls of the synthetic graphite? Is it because right now the anode part of the battery isn’t their major cost area?”
Investment analyst John Kaiser is as skeptical as Riddle with regard to the growth prospects for natural-flake graphite juniors. As for graphene and vertical integration, “Graphene is a potential future use for graphite, but it’s a bit of a stretch to link graphene innovation to some graphite deposit somewhere in North America or elsewhere in the world. Graphene is a big company space with very intensive R&D required. What are the juniors going to contribute to that equation?”
This is not a question Gill has pondered lightly. “We have to raise money,” he declares. “If we don’t capitalize Lomiko and Graphene Labs, we’re not going to go anywhere.” To Gill, it all comes down to a simple matter of risk versus reward. “We want to be at the high end of this space. That’s where the highest margin is. The deal with Graphene Labs sets us apart from our competitors because there is an enduser. We’re going to have a customer for the next two years, and we’re going to be able to participate financially in the upside of graphene. And we’re no longer competing with industrial graphite plays. We saw the facts of graphite supply and demand, and they told us we had to change.”
At press time, Lomiko had 66.9 million shares trading at $0.055 for a market cap of $3.7 million.”
Please, do not forget, that we own stocks we are writing about and have position in these companies. We are not providing any investment advice on this blog and there is no solicitation to buy or sell any particular company.
Powered by LIthium: CNN - Test drive: DC to Boston in a Tesla Model S - Lies Are Not Included
Well done Elon! And fast reaction from CNN to get the spotlight. Tesla gets a Storm of great publicity, you can not just Lie in this day and age with Data logging your every step. If you are still surprised what is going on - welcome to Energy Transition of the 21st century.
Why Mitt Romney, Big Oil, and the Koch Brothers Do Not Like Electric Cars Made In USA?
We are out of politics, we just Do Not Like Lies in all forms. We are running Rock Against BS here - our small contribution to the humanity. We have our Heroes and you know them as well:
Search for the truth is the noblest occupation of man; its publication is a duty.
We think that, actually, it is the best AD campaign for the Electric Cars so far in the Mass Media. For the first time a lot of people will realise that there is an Alternative to the Oil Needle, and this Threat is so strong now that very big resources are dedicated to kill this Energy Transition Technology Made In USA and throw the country back into the Oil Swamp.
We all will be driving Electric Cars in the end - question is now not even when, but whether They Will All be built in China and Only Sold back to us here.
The Price of Oil: Exxon Hates Your Children. Satire with a serious message.
“EXXON HATES YOUR CHILDREN. IT’S A SERIOUS ACCUSATION. AND IT DESERVES A SERIOUS EXPLANATION.”
CNNMoney:
Test drive: DC to Boston in a Tesla Model S
CNNMoney’s Peter Valdes-Dapena is driving a Tesla Model S from Washington to Boston.
BOSTON (CNNMoney)
CAN A TESLA MODEL S MAKE IT FROM WASHINGTON D.C. TO NEW ENGLAND WITHOUT RIDING ON A FLATBED TRUCK?
The electric luxury car recently had some trouble making the long-haul trip up the Eastern Seaboard, running out of juice during a test drive conducted by the New York Times.
The subsequent review — which affected Tesla’s share price — set off a war of words between the paper andTesla CEO Elon Musk.
What’s being called into question isn’t the car, but Tesla’s network of fast-charging Supercharger stations. They’re supposed to make long trips like this possible in a battery-powered car. Or, at least, in a Model S.
I asked Tesla (TSLA) if I could try their Northeast charger network myself on a trip from D.C. to Boston, and they agreed.
As you can tell from the dateline, I made it to Boston. The final stretch, about 150 miles from Tesla’s Milford, Conn. Supercharger station on Interstate 95, was a piece of cake.
The most taxing part of the trip: Before reaching Milford, my last chance to fill the Tesla’s roughly 270-mile battery pack had been in Newark, Del., about 200 miles back.
That mere 70 miles of buffer made me a little nervous, especially after I missed an exit and added a few miles to the trip. I followed Tesla’s recommendations and kept the cruise control pegged to between 60 and 65 much of the way and kept the climate control at 72 degrees. And I minimized stops.
I had expected this leg of the trip to feel ridiculous. I had expected that, all the way from Newark to Milford, I’d have one eye on the rearview mirror watching fast-approaching cars threatening to rear-end me. But I didn’t.
Instead, I found myself maneuvering around slower cars. Now, I normally spend most of my time on the New Jersey Turnpike out in the left lane going at least 10 or 15 miles an hour faster than I was in the Model S. But sitting in the middle lane, I was keeping up with traffic. I certainly didn’t feel out of place — except for the fact that I wasn’t burning any gasoline.
When we got to Northern New Jersey, we had a choice to make. We could take the shorter route to Milford — over the George Washington Bridge and through the Bronx — or a route 30 miles longer that avoided New York City, and its battery draining traffic congestion altogether.
I discussed it with the people at Tesla, as well as the video cameraman and producer accompanying me. We opted for the longer route. That seemed smart, until we hit traffic. While it wasn’t as bad as the epic parking lot that is the Cross Bronx Expressway, I had gone 30 miles out of our way to avoid traffic and I got it anyway. This did not seem like the road to success.
But as I drove into Connecticut, I realized something amazing. Not only did I have enough battery range left, I had plenty. I had at least 40 miles — more than an entire Chevy Volt’s worth of electricity — left to play with. I sped up, cruising over 70, riding in the left lane, mashing the gas pedal just to feel how fast the car could shoot from 65 to 80. I was practically giddy.
In the end, I made it — and it wasn’t that hard.
Looking back on the trip, it would be even easier if Tesla would install one of their fast-charging Superchargers along the New Jersey Turnpike. (These charging stations can fill up a nearly dead battery in Tesla’s longest-range cars in about an hour, which is enough time to stop for a meal.)
Tesla’s working on that, spokeswoman Shanna Hendricks said. But the first priority was to install enough to make this trip, even if you had to take it easy most of the way.
But I didn’t have to take it that easy, which is good because the Model S provides a pretty amazing mix of smooth and silent performance along with brain-squishing acceleration. So even if you’re not driving from Washington to Boston, it’s an impressive car, all on its own.
As for the Supercharger network? Turns out that works, too. 
February 13, 2013
You may have heard recently about an article written by John Broder from The New York Times that makes numerous claims about the performance of the Model S. We are upset by this article because it does not factually represent Tesla technology, which is designed and tested to operate well in both hot and cold climates. Indeed, our highest per capita sales are in Norway, where customers drive our cars during Arctic winters in permanent midnight, and in Switzerland, high among the snowy Alps. About half of all Tesla Roadster and Model S customers drive in temperatures well below freezing in winter. While no car is perfect, after extremely thorough testing, the Model S was declared to be the best new car in the world by the most discerning authorities in the automotive industry.
To date, hundreds of journalists have test driven the Model S in every scenario you can imagine. The car has been driven through Death Valley (the hottest place on Earth) in the middle of summer and on a track of pure ice in a Minnesota winter. It has traveled over 600 miles in a day from the snowcapped peaks of Tahoe to Los Angeles, which made the very first use of the Supercharger network, and moreover by no lesser person than another reporter from The New York Times. Yet, somehow John Broder “discovered” a problem and was unavoidably left stranded on the road. Or was he?
After a negative experience several years ago with Top Gear, a popular automotive show, where they pretended that our car ran out of energy and had to be pushed back to the garage, we always carefully data log media drives. While the vast majority of journalists are honest, some believe the facts shouldn’t get in the way of a salacious story. In the case ofTop Gear, they had literally written the script before they even received the car (we happened to find a copy of the script on a table while the car was being “tested”). Our car never even had a chance.
The logs show again that our Model S never had a chance with John Broder. In the case with Top Gear, their legal defense was that they never actually said it broke down, they just implied that it could and then filmed themselves pushing what viewers did not realize was a perfectly functional car. In Mr. Broder’s case, he simply did not accurately capture what happened and worked very hard to force our car to stop running.
Here is a summary of the key facts:
- As the State of Charge log shows, the Model S battery never ran out of energy at any time, including when Broder called the flatbed truck.
- The final leg of his trip was 61 miles and yet he disconnected the charge cable when the range display stated 32 miles. He did so expressly against the advice of Tesla personnel and in obvious violation of common sense.
- In his article, Broder claims that “the car fell short of its projected range on the final leg.” Then he bizarrely states that the screen showed “Est. remaining range: 32 miles” and the car traveled “51 miles,” contradicting his own statement (see images below). The car actually did an admirable job exceeding its projected range. Had he not insisted on doing a nonstop 61-mile trip while staring at a screen that estimated half that range, all would have been well. He constructed a no-win scenario for any vehicle, electric or gasoline.
- On that leg, he drove right past a public charge station while the car repeatedly warned him that it was very low on range.
- Cruise control was never set to 54 mph as claimed in the article, nor did he limp along at 45 mph. Broder in fact drove at speeds from 65 mph to 81 mph for a majority of the trip and at an average cabin temperature setting of 72 F.
- At the point in time that he claims to have turned the temperature down, he in fact turned the temperature up to 74 F.
- The charge time on his second stop was 47 mins, going from -5 miles (reserve power) to 209 miles of Ideal or 185 miles of EPA Rated Range, not 58 mins as stated in the graphic attached to his article. Had Broder not deliberately turned off the Supercharger at 47 mins and actually spent 58 mins Supercharging, it would have been virtually impossible to run out of energy for the remainder of his stated journey.
- For his first recharge, he charged the car to 90%. During the second Supercharge, despite almost running out of energy on the prior leg, he deliberately stopped charging at 72%. On the third leg, where he claimed the car ran out of energy, he stopped charging at 28%. Despite narrowly making each leg, he charged less and less each time. Why would anyone do that?
- The above helps explain a unique peculiarity at the end of the second leg of Broder’s trip. When he first reached our Milford, Connecticut Supercharger, having driven the car hard and after taking an unplanned detour through downtown Manhattan to give his brother a ride, the display said “0 miles remaining.” Instead of plugging in the car, he drove in circles for over half a mile in a tiny, 100-space parking lot. When the Model S valiantly refused to die, he eventually plugged it in. On the later legs, it is clear Broder was determined not to be foiled again.
When Tesla first approached The New York Times about doing this story, it was supposed to be focused on future advancements in our Supercharger technology. There was no need to write a story about existing Superchargers on the East Coast, as that had already been done by Consumer Reports with no problems! We assumed that the reporter would be fair and impartial, as has been our experience with The New York Times, an organization that prides itself on journalistic integrity. As a result, we did not think to read his past articles and were unaware of his outright disdain for electric cars. We were played for a fool and as a result, let down the cause of electric vehicles. For that, I am deeply sorry.
When I first heard about what could at best be described as irregularities in Broder’s behavior during the test drive, I called to apologize for any inconvenience that he may have suffered and sought to put my concerns to rest, hoping that he had simply made honest mistakes. That was not the case.
In his own words in an article published last year, this is how Broder felt about electric cars before even seeing the Model S:
“Yet the state of the electric car is dismal, the victim of hyped expectations, technological flops, high costs and a hostile political climate.”
When the facts didn’t suit his opinion, he simply changed the facts. Our request of The New York Times is simple and fair: please investigate this article and determine the truth. You are a news organization where that principle is of paramount importance and what is at stake for sustainable transport is simply too important to the world to ignore.
Vehicle Logs for Media Drive by John Broder on January 23 and 24
Detail showing car driving around in circles in front of the Milford Supercharger trying to get Model S to stop with zero range indicated:
Two inaccuracies in the graphic attached to Broder’s article:
Google Map with Tesla comments showing actual performance of Model S and Broder’s intentions:
Map provided by PlugShare of charging stations along Broder’s entire route:
Lomiko Signs Strategic Alliance Agreement With Wold-Renowed Graphene Laboratories Inc. To Build Vertically Integrated Graphene Business Opportunities LMR.v
Interesting…now the Mr Market reaction will be next… And it was very impressive: Lomiko Metals was up 45.5% on the very respectable volume of 2.7 million shares. Now the follow through on this Volume Buy signal will be very important.
Lomiko is cutting to the chase and moving forward with REE and other special markets approach - you can build this business only if you are integrated into the Demand side of it.
Lomiko’s 11 High Grade, Near Surface Flake Graphite Drill Hole Results Indicate Open Pit Mining Potential at Quatre Milles LMR.v
“We like small companies in the Big Trends. It is the very risky proposition, but potential reward can justify it. We have our Big Trend - Energy Transition and Strategic Commodities to make it happen: Lithium and Graphite. We are investing here in the companies who can make it happen.”
Lomiko Metals Inc. : LOMIKO SIGNS STRATEGIC ALLIANCE AGREEMENT WITH WORLD-RENOWNED GRAPHENE LABORATORIES INC. TO BUILD VERTICALLY INTERGRATED GRAPHENE BUSINESS OPPORTUNITIES
February 12, 2013 TSX-V: LMR LOMIKO SIGNS STRATEGIC ALLIANCE AGREEMENT WITH WORLD-RENOWNED GRAPHENE LABORATORIES INC. TO BUILD VERTICALLY INTERGRATED GRAPHENE BUSINESS OPPORTUNITIES
Vancouver, BC and New York, NY - LOMIKO METALS INC. (TSX-V:LMR, OTC: LMRMF, Europe: ISIN: CA54163Q1028, WKN: A0Q9W7,) (the “Company”) announces a Strategic Alliance Agreement with Graphene Laboratories Inc. (“Graphene Labs”), a privately held New York company currently providing graphene to thousands of scientists at leading institutions around the globe; this includes academic universities, National Laboratories in many countries, and a broad spectrum of industrial entities. Industrial clients include Fortune 500 companies involved in researching graphene and the development of graphene-related products.
A.Paul Gill, CEO and Director of Lomiko states: “With over 7000 graphene patents filed world- wide and billions of dollars spent on research by governments and private investors, graphene is well positioned to reshape many multibillion-dollar industries. Our alliance opens a door for investors in North America who are looking to take part in the Graphene Revolution which will create incredible wealth for some and devastate companies and industries slow to innovate.”
Dr. Elena Polyakova, CEO/President of Graphene Labs, states: “As of today, Graphene Laboratories is a world leading manufacturer and supplier of graphene products to R&D markets. Our company has state-of-the-art equipment as well as an internationally recognized team of graphene experts. We have been experiencing an ever-increasing demand for large volumes of high quality graphene materials within the last year, and expect this trend to continue. In partnership with Lomiko, we will be well-positioned to address this challenge in timely manner and to achieve a significant market share in graphene production.”
Scope of the Strategic Alliance
Lomiko and Graphene Labs agree to co-develop a vertically integrated supply chain that includes a secure supply of high-quality graphite, cost-effective and scalable processing, tight quality control and integration of graphene-based products in end-user products. The parties will capitalize on the secure supply of high quality graphite, provided by Lomiko, and the extensive customer database and expertise in graphene materials brought by Graphene Labs.
Lomiko will provide mineral samples from the Quatre Milles Project required for testing natural high quality flake graphite for graphene conversion over the two year Agreement.Graphene Labs will develop a feasible procedure for the purification of flake graphite for use in graphene production, and will provide guidance on technologies tailored to the production of graphene and graphene-related materials.
The Agreement also calls for joint Research and Development, Public Relations efforts, and business and marketing strategy for end uses of the graphite and graphene products. Lomiko will also have the option to provide equity financing(s) to Graphene Labs on an exclusive basis for two years providing that it meets Graphene Labs funding criteria of raising at least $ 500,000 US Dollars within eight months of the agreement,1,000,000 US Dollars within twelve (12) months and 2,000,000 US Dollars within eighteen (18) months. If the conditions are not met, Lomiko loses the exclusivity but keeps the right to participate in financings on a non-exclusive basis.
The Agreement is subject to approval by the TSX.
Graphene Laboratories Inc. Background
Graphene Laboratories, Inc., located in Calverton, NY, specializes in the manufacture and sale of research materials to R&D markets, with the world’s largest selection of advanced and 2D materials. Having been first in the market to introduce graphene materials for research use, the company is working towards industrial-scale production of graphene and graphene-like materials, currently with pilot-scale production capabilities. The team at Graphene Laboratories are recognized experts in graphene materials, with staff regularly presenting at international conferences and exhibitions. Researchers at Graphene Labs also specialize in custom projects and R&D.
Graphene Laboratories Inc. operates both the Graphene Supermarket® (www.graphene-supermarket.com) and Maximum Materials™ (www.maximum-materials.com), and is a leading supplier of advanced 2D materials to thousands of customers around the globe. The company offers a wide variety of graphene materials, as well as other advanced 2D nanomaterials such as molybdenum disulfide, tungsten disulfide, and boron nitride products.
For more information on Graphene Laboratories, Inc, visit www.graphenelabs.com or contact them at (516)-382-8649 or via email at info@graphenelabs.com
Lomiko Metals Inc Background
Lomiko Metals Inc. is a Canada-based, exploration-stage company. The Company is engaged in the acquisition, exploration and development of resource properties that contain minerals for the new green economy. Its mineral properties include the Quatre Milles Graphite Property and the Vines Lake property which both have had recent major discoveries. In April, 2012, a 122 Ha zinc anomaly in soils was found on the Company’s 100% owned Vines Lake property. The Vines Lake property is located in the south western corner of the Cassiar Gold District. The Vines Lake property consists of fifteen claims comprising 5,290 hectares. In October and November, 2012, Lomiko Metals Inc. announced 11 drill holes had intercepted several high grade intercepts of 9.81%, 10.11% and 10.80% over 3 to 5 metres in length 4.77 metres or less from the surface at the 3,780 Ha Quatre Milles Property indicating open pit potential. The project is located 175 km north of the Port of Montreal and 26 km from a major highway on a well-maintained gravel road.
For more information on Lomiko Metals Inc., review the website at www.lomiko.com or contact A. Paul Gill at 604-729-5312 or email: info@lomiko.com
On Behalf of the Board“A. Paul Gill”Chief Executive Officer”
Please, do not forget, that we own stocks we are writing about and have position in these companies. We are not providing any investment advice on this blog and there is no solicitation to buy or sell any particular company
Bob Lutz: Disappointed With Electric Cars, Automakers Are Making Bad Bet On Fuel Cells
Bob Lutz knows what he is talking about. He is credited for launching and saving GM Volt during the financial crisis, now GM Volt is the most sold Plug-In Hybrid in the U.S.
We have wrote about Hydrogen dead end before and it is the right time to revisit this issue again. Guess who is going to produce and sell Hydrogen to us Again? All the same faces - Big Oil. That is why this idea “Never Dies” and come back in circles again. The most viable economical way of Hydrogen production is from natural gas and here we will be deciding whether to Eat or Drive like with bio-diesel. Natural Gas is the basic commodity for fertiliser production as well.
Intelligent Electrification by Bob Lutz - VIA Motors - Powered by Lithium
Powered by LIthium: Automotive leaders on new Cadillac ELR
“Bob Lutz has become the real troubadour for Electric Cars and it is rightly so. Only thanks to him personally GM was convinced to move into GM Volt at that time.”
“There are still a lot of questions about the future of transportation: whether it will be Electric Cars based on Energy storage solution - Batteries or Hydrogen can power the fuel cell and it will be the most efficient way of transportation in post carbon society. Better Place has its own answers for us today.
Plug-in battery electric vehicles are far more energy efficient than either hydrogen fuel-cell or hydrogen internal combustion engine vehicles.”
Hydrogen is often touted as “the next big thing” in transportation fuels, used either in a fuel-cell-powered electric car, or as fuel for vehicles with an internal combustion engine (“ICE vehicle”). This technical note examines the relative merits of using hydrogen to power our cars in either of these ways, compared with using electricity in battery electric vehicles, looking at the entire supply chain (“well-to-wheel”) for both energy sources. Whilst there can be no doubt that hydrogen cars themselves are clean – their direct emissions are mostly water vapour – it is critical for any comparison to examine the entire energy life cycle. This raises the question: are hydrogen cars the best way to use our limited energy resources and how do they compare with electric cars?
HYDROGEN PRODUCTION
Hydrogen gas does not occur naturally on earth. To use hydrogen as a fuel, it first needs to be separated from other atoms with which it is bound up, and isolated it in its elemental form: H2 (hydrogen gas). There are two main ways to make hydrogen gas: from a fossil fuel, or from water by using electricity. Both methods involve a large inherent efficiency loss.
From fossil fuel: Hydrogen gas can be extracted from natural gas (methane) by mixing it with steam under very high temperature and pressure, leading to the production of H2 and carbon dioxide (CO2). Further processing separates the H2 for storage and distribution. Whilst natural gas is both plentiful and cheap, this method of hydrogen production produces vast amounts of CO2, both as a byproduct from the process itself, and also from the production of the electricity and heat required to drive it. As a result, a hydrogen-based transportation system delivers few environmental benefits if the H2 is formed in this way, and it will not be considered further here. It would make much more sense to put the methane directly into the car rather than turning it into H2 first, but even this is far less efficient than using the gas to produce electricity for a pure electric car.1
From water: Electrolysis – where an electric current is passed through water to produce H2 and O2 – is a more environmentally friendly method of hydrogen production. However, since this is the reverse of the combustion reaction, it uses a significant amount of energy to drive the process. The efficiency claims for hydrogen produced in this way are in the range of 50-80%,2 so a massive amount of energy is lost in order to produce the hydrogen from electricity.
HYDROGEN DISTRIBUTION, STORAGE AND SAFETY
Hydrogen is a dangerous and difficult substance to handle, and therefore costly to safely store and distribute. In principle it would be possible to produce hydrogen gas locally, at filling stations or even at homes, in the latter case even perhaps using solar power. However, the cost and safety considerations would be considerable, and so for the purpose of this document we will presume that the hydrogen is produced at central facilities optimised for economical operation and safety.
Distribution: Building a network of underground pipelines for distribution of hydrogen to service stations would be extremely expensive, and would likely also pose a grave and unacceptable safety risk given the explosive nature of the gas, and its tendency to leak through many materials. The only alternative to pipelines would be to distribute the fuel by truck, but because of the low volumetric energy density of compressed H2 and the heavy weight of the steel pressure tanks, it would take more than 20 tanker trucks to distribute the same amount of energy that can be distributed by a single petrol tanker. Hydrogen is easier to transport in large quantities if it’s liquefied, but this requires further large amounts of energy to cool it below -250°C under pressure.
Storage: Wherever it is produced, hydrogen gas must be compressed and liquefied for storage in a vehicle’s specially designed high-strength fuel tank. Once there, it must be used quite quickly, as it otherwise boils off over time.
Safety: There are many issues surrounding the storage and transport of hydrogen in a vehicle. With a gravimetric density 14 times lower than air, H2 has to be compressed to extremes to provide a driver with reasonable range. There is only one hydrogen-fuelled car that has made it past the concept stage: Honda’s FCX Clarity. The pressure inside its tank when fully fuelled is 5000 psi,3 which is 350 times atmospheric pressure. This pressure requires a tank with very thick walls to contain it, which in turn adds considerable weight and bulk to the vehicle (and further reduces its efficiency). The Clarity needs a 173 litre tank (compared to 50 litres in a similarly-sized ICE vehicle) to contain 4.1 kg of H2 that delivers a range of 300 km.
VEHICLE EFFICIENCY
Considering all the inefficiencies of generating, transporting and distributing hydrogen, and comparing them with generating and distributing electricity, how do the “well-to-wheel” efficiencies compare? Ulf Bossel, director of the European Fuel Cell Forum, has published just such a comparison.4 He found that “the power-plant-to-wheel efficiency of a fuel cell vehicle operated on compressed gaseous hydrogen [produced by electrolysis] will be in the vicinity of 22%”, and that “using liquefied hydrogen does not improve the situation… the power-plant-to wheel efficiency of a fuel cell vehicle operated on liquid hydrogen will be in the vicinity of 17%”. In comparison, he finds that electric cars are a much more attractive proposition: “with these numbers, the power-plant-to-wheel efficiency of an electric car with regenerative braking becomes 66%”. This means that a driver could travel three times as far in an electric car as they could in a hydrogen-powered car using the same amount of electricity. Hydrogen-fuelled ICE vehicles are even less efficient than hydrogen fuel cell vehicles,5 and thus provide even poorer overall efficiency again: around 14% and 11% for compressed and liquefied hydrogen respectively.
The distance driven by a vehicle is proportional to the mechanical energy available. Even for the most favourable comparison, being against a hydrogen fuel-cell car, the electric vehicle can drive three times further per kWh of electricity consumed. Compared with a H2-fuelled internal combustion vehicle, the electric car can drive around five times further (see graph below). The fundamental problem of using hydrogen as fuel is that the process uses electricity to produce H2, then more energy to compress and transport it, and more energy again to convert the H2 back into electricity that is finally used to drive the same electric motor that is found in a battery-powered electric car. That is in part why, when concluding his paper to the IEEE entitled “Does a hydrogen economy make sense?”, Bossel answered with one word: “Never.”6
Forbes:
Bob Lutz.
Disappointed With Electric Cars, Automakers Are Making Bad Bet On Fuel Cells
Well, we’re hearing it again: the hydrogen fuel cell represents the future of automotive transportation. Japanese and German automakers have formed new alliances to develop fuel cell technology, and the father of the Prius, Toyota’s Takeshi Uchiyamada, is saying that it holds more promise than battery electric vehicles, which he says haven’t worked out to be “a viable replacement” for gas-powered cars. Clean, silent, (well, OK, a high-pitched whistling sound), uses no fuel whatsoever, except hydrogen, the most plentiful element on the planet, and emits only water vapor. The range is way more than that of almost all electric vehicles!
It’s the hydrogen future! Who wouldn’t want all that?
John Gartner
Bob LutzTrouble, as always, is that there are some major speed-bumps on the way to fuel-free utopia.
First of all, there’s the gas. Hydrogen is plentiful, but it’s never found in a “free” state. It’s always part of a compound, as in H2O. Separating it from its partner requires energy, usually electricity.
Then, it has to be stored, and, because it’s lighter than air, it needs to be compressed or cryogenically tanked, again under massive pressure. All that compression to 10,000lbs/inch and freezing once again requires? … Anyone? You got it! ENERGY, again mostly electrical, and in fairly massive quantities. Thus, the hydrogen fuel cell, by the time the “fuel-free” vehicle hits the road with its massive wound carbon-fiber tanks, has already amassed a considerable carbon foot-print.
If the EPA uses the same calculation for fuel cells as for battery vehicles, whereby the energy used to charge the battery is counted and deducted from the mileage label, fuel cell vehicles would be rated at about 80 mpg. Not bad, but far less than a Chevrolet Volt, and at a much higher cost.
A fuel cell is conceptually not unlike a lead-acid car battery in reverse. Put your car battery on a charger and electricity goes in, and hydrogen escapes. (This is why you don’t smoke cigars around a car battery that’s being charged. Ask me how I know!)
In the fuel-cell stack, hydrogen goes in and electricity comes out, which then powers the car. So, a fuel-cell vehicle is really just another electric vehicle that produces its own electricity from all that compressed hydrogen it’s schlepping around.
But, that’s the good news! Now let’s ask the big question “Where do I fill it up?”
High-pressure hydrogen fueling stations are thin on the ground, despite the former California “Governator’s” initiative of creating a “hydrogen highway,” linking the Golden State, north to south, with all those future fuel cell vehicles silently hissing their way from pump to pump.
But even if more stations are built: How does the hydrogen get to those fueling points? Why, by cryogenically cooled tanker trucks, of course, which use … energy, mostly in the form of diesel or liquid natural gas, both “evil,” planet-melting fossil fuels. Not exactly the convenience of fully-electric or extended-range electric cars, which find outlets a-plenty in every home and garage.
The fuel-cell stack itself is an expensive proposition, being coated inside with rare metals like rhodium and platinum for the necessary electro-chemical reaction to take place. When GM built a fleet of 100 fuel-cell Chevrolet “Equinoxes” a few years ago, each one cost over $1 million. Assuming that success in cost reduction and new materials will eliminate 90% of the million, the manufacturer is still left with a $100,000 vehicle … a problem!
A vehicle which emits nothing but “clean, pure water vapor,” known, by the way, to be the planet’s No. 1 green-house gas.
My prediction: unless something close to magic happens in Japan or elsewhere, the fuel-cell vehicle will forever be a wall flower at a party dominated by fast, fun, powerful conventional cars and clean, high-range, rapidly-rechargeable battery vehicles.
I could be wrong. But I don’t think so.”
Powered by LIthium: Tesla Model S: “Gallons of Light” Commercial
Many people have already realised that Tesla Model S has defined the bifurcation point: We Do Not Need To Sacrifice Anything Any More to drive us into the future post carbon world. Tesla Model S has Performance, Style and Utility matching any ICE car in its price category. Tesla Model X will bring the Electric SUV in numbers on the road. Next Generation will make it a mass market.
But the real turning point is happening now with this video. When people are talking about your product you can be sure that it is in the market, but when they are making Commercials - you know you did something Really Special. Elon Musk would like to Occupy Mars - we wish him to Occupy Our Roads first with Electric Cars for the sake of all of us.
“We like small companies in the Big Trends. It is the very risky proposition, but potential reward can justify it. We have our Big Trend - Energy Transition and Strategic Commodities to make it happen: Lithium and Graphite. We are investing here in the companies who can make it happen.
These companies are breaking the status quo and established markets. A lot of things can go wrong, even if the quality of the assets is outstanding.”
Next Step is Tesla Generation III: Bringing EVs to the Mass Market.
Powered by LIthium: Tesla Model S Performance vs Dodge Viper SRT10 Drag Racing 1/4 Mile
“The Future is here. Electric Cars are not toys any more. Tesla Model S clearly demonstrates what can be achieved with the new groundbreaking developments in Lithium Batteries and Electric Power-trains. You can slip into the post carbon world without any compromise in style or performance now.”
Lithium Charge: The new Tesla Model S is a torque beast: Tesla Model S vs BMW M5
There is no place for the Internal Combustion Engine in this one for sure. 19th century technology based on controlled explosions of the Dinosaurs Poop under your boot is living the last days…
Powered by LIthium: Tesla Motors - Why Is It So Hard? Because “It Is Impossible.”
“It is not the newest Video from Tesla, but it is the one with one of the best Energies we have seen so far - This is The Future and it is already here.”
Powered by LIthium: Tesla Model S review | Engadget
Tesla’s Musk calls Boeing 787 Dreamliner Lithium Batteries ‘fundamentally unsafe’
“There will be the period of trials and errors with every new technology, but Boeing case is the most extreme. Please note that according to the company reports: Tesla Motors uses Panasonic’s “next-generation battery cell based on this nickel chemistry and optimized specifically for electric vehicle quality and life.”
“Security in any airplane is the paramount concern - we are very surprised to read John’s findings. LCO batteries with LiCoO2 chemistry are the most aggressive choice for the battery, when Cobalt has the risk of being easily oxidised with the huge amount of energy released. We will be very surprised if it is the case with Boeing 787 Dreamliner - automakers started to move away from this chemistry long time ago.”
Powered by LIthium: Tesla Model S Performance vs Dodge Viper SRT10 Drag Racing 1/4 Mile
The Future is here. Electric Cars are not toys any more. Tesla Model S clearly demonstrates what can be achieved with the new groundbreaking developments in Lithium Batteries and Electric Power-trains. You can slip into the post carbon world without any compromise in style or performance now.
Lithium Charge: The new Tesla Model S is a torque beast: Tesla Model S vs BMW M5
There is no place for the Internal Combustion Engine in this one for sure. 19th century technology based on controlled explosions of the Dinosaurs Poop under your boot is living the last days…
Powered by LIthium: Tesla Motors - Why Is It So Hard? Because “It Is Impossible.”
“It is not the newest Video from Tesla, but it is the one with one of the best Energies we have seen so far - This is The Future and it is already here.”
Chris Martenson: Peak Oil - The Really, Really Big Picture
2012: The Year Climate Change Got Real
GreenCarReports:
Tesla Model S Performance: Fastest Electric Car
“The Tesla Model S Performance looks great on paper.
Not only does the 85 kWh Model S have an impressive 265-mile EPA-rated range, but it’ll do the benchmark 0-60 mph sprint in only 4.4 seconds.
That means the all-electric luxury sport sedan from Tesla Motors [NSDQ:TSLA] is at least as fast as V-8 German super sedans like the BMW M5.
But how do you quantify that sort of speed in the real world? If you’re Drag Times, you put it on the strip, preferably head to head against an American legend like the Dodge Viper SRT10. And then you beat it.
Yup, the near-silent Tesla made a mockery of the shiny red sports car—posting a quarter-mile time of little over 12 seconds in the process.
A second video shows the Tesla’s fastest pass, at 12.371 seconds and 110.84 mph. There aren’t a great many production cars which would do better—mostly vehicles well into the “supercar” or “hypercar” brackets, and at even higher cost than the Model S.
Some of the other statistics are outstanding too.
Drag Times recorded a 3.9-second 0-60 mph time on their VBOX timing gear. Given the Tesla’s hefty weight at the curb of 4,690 lbs, it’s even more impressive—weight is typically the enemy of speed.
Huge low-down torque helps, of course—the 416-hp Model S Performance develops 443 lbs-ft from zero to 5,100rpm, and power delivery is much smoother too.
While that driver in the Viper had to manage wheelspin and shift gears, the Tesla driver just has to sink the right pedal and keep it on the floor until he passes the 1/4-mile mark.
We’d love to see what other car giants the Model S is capable of killing.
With zero emissions and supercar-slaying acceleration, it seems you can really have your cake and eat it too.”
Powered by LIthium: Is 2013 the Year of the Electric Car?
Gallup makes a very good overview of the Plug-In Hybrids and pure Electric Cars available in 2013. And if we are talking about Electric Cars and have a picture of Slash in the video - his Anastasia will be The Good Energy here.
LIthium Game On. Obama Throws Down the Challenge on Climate Change
Powered by LIthium: Tesla Motors - Why Is It So Hard? Because “It Is Impossible.”
Lithium M&A “Art of War”: Talison Lithium backs $848,000,000 Chinese Takeover Bid TLH.to, ILC.v, LMR.v, RM.v
“If you have the Feeling that your children are losing something - you could be right this time. The last opportunity to Escape the Civil War, which will follow The Break Down of the Social fabric in the Western Society is fading by the hours now, not even years. “
Powered by LIthium: Cadillac Delivering Dramatic Design for ELR
Electric Cars are not toys any more, Chevy Volt is the best selling Plug In hybrid in the US - ELR will drive its crowd now.
Powered by LIthium: 2014 Cadillac ELR Electric Car Plug-In Hybrid Global Auto News
LIthium Game On. Obama Throws Down the Challenge on Climate Change
2012: The Year Climate Change Got Real
We have the technology - Electric Cars are already here.
“The 2014 Cadillac ELR plug-in hybrid got a lot of buzz at the Detroit Auto Show, and was awarded the Eyes on Design honor as Best Production Vehicle. It’s taken four years for the original concept car – the 2009 Converj based on the Chevrolet Volt powertrain – to make the next step forward.
Tim Kozub, Cadillac exterior design manager, said the design team used the Converj as a sketch to create the ELR. He thinks that proportion was everything in the design – the car is low and wide, and has 20-inch wheels which are pushed to the corners. “It just plants itself so beautifully,” he says in a new GM design video, which you can watch below.
Performance is amped up in the ELR because it’s a Cadillac, he said. It has the looks of a hot, exotic sports car with great attention to detail. That includes headlights made with crystal cubes surrounded by chrome, all LED and very high tech. “Everybody wants this hot car, this hot image coupe, to sit in their driveway, to step out of it at a restaurant,” he says in the video.
We’ve got more of GM’s marketing videos for the ELR, emphasizing a few themes, like animated phasing between sleek Cadillac body style and an inner skeletal frame showing off the technology. Check them out below.”
Tesla’s Musk calls Boeing 787 Dreamliner Lithium Batteries ‘fundamentally unsafe’
There will be the period of trials and errors with every new technology, but Boeing case is the most extreme. Please note that according to the company reports: Tesla Motors uses Panasonic’s “next-generation battery cell based on this nickel chemistry and optimized specifically for electric vehicle quality and life.”
“Security in any airplane is the paramount concern - we are very surprised to read John’s findings. LCO batteries with LiCoO2 chemistry are the most aggressive choice for the battery, when Cobalt has the risk of being easily oxidised with the huge amount of energy released. We will be very surprised if it is the case with Boeing 787 Dreamliner - automakers started to move away from this chemistry long time ago.”
Tesla Motors:
PANASONIC ENTERS INTO SUPPLY AGREEMENT WITH TESLA MOTORS TO SUPPLY AUTOMOTIVE-GRADE BATTERY CELLS
TUESDAY, OCTOBER 11, 2011
Palo Alto, Calif. – Panasonic corporation and Tesla Motors finalized a supply agreement for automotive-grade lithium-ion battery cells. Panasonic is the world’s leading battery cell manufacturer and a diverse supplier to the global automotive industry. Panasonic’s automotive grade lithium-ion battery cells will be used in Tesla’s premium electric sedan, Model S.
The agreement supplies Tesla with Panasonic’s lithium-ion battery cells to build more than 80,000 vehicles over the next four years. It guarantees the availability of enough cells in 2012 to meet Tesla’s aggressive production ramp-up and fulfillment of more than 6,000 existing Model S reservations. This supply agreement helps ensure Tesla will meet its cost and margin targets for Model S.
This agreement builds upon a multi-year collaboration between Panasonic and Tesla to develop next-generation automotive-grade battery cells and accelerate the market expansion of electric vehicles. In 2009, Panasonic and Tesla initially entered into a supply agreement. In 2010, Panasonic invested $30 million in Tesla to deepen the partnership and foster the growth of the electric vehicle industry.
Panasonic supplies cells with the highest energy density and industry-leading performance using its nickel-type cathode technology. Panasonic and Tesla together have developed a next-generation battery cell based on this nickel chemistry and optimized specifically for electric vehicle quality and life. These new cells will combine with Tesla’s proven EV battery expertise gained from more than 15 million customer miles driven in Tesla Roadsters and thousands of hours of cell and battery testing to create the most capable electric vehicle ever produced, Model S.
“It is a powerful endorsement of our technology that Panasonic, the world’s leading battery cell manufacturer, has chosen to partner with Tesla to advance electric vehicle performance and value,” said Tesla Co-Founder and CEO Elon Musk. “Incorporating Panasonic’s next-generation cells into Model S batteries will ensure unrivaled range and performance. We are very grateful for our great partnership with Panasonic.”
“Panasonic will supply lithium ion cells for EVs that can achieve longer range with large energy density. It is our pleasure to start supplying the cells for Tesla’s Model S and promote sustainable mobility,” said Masato Ito, President, Energy Company of Panasonic Corporation.
Tesla is a supplier of batteries and powertrains to Toyota and Daimler. Tesla is a comprehensive electric vehicle powertrain component supplier to the electric vehicle industry.”
Tesla Model S Electric Car Uses Panasonic Lithium Ion Batteries
“Batteries are provided by Panasonic. The two companies have developed a next-generation battery cell based on this nickel chemistry and optimized specifically for electric vehicle quality and life. These new cells will combine with Tesla’s proven EV battery expertise gained from more than 15 million customer miles driven in Tesla Roadsters and thousands of hours of cell and battery testing to create the most capable electric vehicle ever produced, the Tesla Model S.”
John Voelcker: Boeing 787 Batteries Same As Those In Electric Cars? Umm, NO
Powered by LIthium: Tesla Motors - Why Is It So Hard? Because “It Is Impossible.”
Why Elon Musk Wants To Help Boeing Fix The Dreamliner
AutoBlogGreen:
Tesla’s Musk calls Boeing 787 Dreamliner Batteries ‘fundamentally unsafe’
“After offering to help Boeing with its lithium-ion battery problems, Elon Musk is somewhat raising the stakes. Musk, who heads both Tesla Motors and space exploration company SpaceX, has now called the batteries in the Boeing 787 “inherently unsafe” in an e-mail to trade publication Flightglobal.
There’s a fair amount of science involved, but for simpletons like this reporter, Musk basically says the lithium cobalt oxide cells used in the 787 Dreamliner are packed too close together, so that if one cell catches fire, the entire battery pack may ignite in a chain-reaction type situation, which is never good at 30,000 feet. Musk goes on to point out that the cells used in both Tesla vehicles and SpaceX’s space-launch rocket are smaller and separated from one another, so that any potential ignition is contained. Musk says offer to help but has so far been rebuffed.
About 50 Dreamliners were recently grounded because of two incidents, one a fire, involving the battery system. The US Transportation Safety Board and the Federal Aviation Administration are currently looking into the cause of the 787 problems.”
