TheEEStory.com

http://www.theeestory.com/files/12785380_Specif...
and pics:
http://www.theeestory.com/files/12785380_Drawin...

GaryB's find, not mine.

*** Moderator Posting Rules ***
Stay On Topic
Oakthicket, tec, & Y_Po banned from posting

Last edited Sun, 23 Jan 2011, 7:59am by Moderator

[0024]In an embodiment, an aspect of the EESU technology is the packaging of the components within a hermetically sealed metal box. If the point of use is located inland, then the metal may be Type 316 stainless steel to assist in reducing issues arising from exposure to the environment. If the point of use is located near or on salt water, then the metal may be titanium, which may reduce reaction to salt spray. Hermetic seals may assist with long-term life, >50 years, utilized by utility-grid companies.

Nice!!!

---

The specific energy from the original patent has changed.

patent number
patent application number
European pat num

7,033,406...............................April 25, 2006...............................342 Whr/kg

7,466,536...............................December 16, 2008........................400 Whr/kg

7,729,811...............................June 1, 2010..................................495 Whr/kg

20110013427..........................January 20, 2011............................>495 Whr/kg

08164098.9.............................15.08.2005....................................400 Whr/kg

thanks tv for pointing out the most important part - the > in front of the 495!

Last edited Fri, 21 Jan 2011, 4:16pm by belectric

---

Text and Drawings together:

http://www.theeestory.com/files/pat20110013427.pdf

---

Is this a new patent app? Can someone summarize what it is all about? I love you.

---

I see the publication date of today. Very interesting.

Charging EESU's in West Texas and transporting them via train. Hhhhhhmmmm.

Sounds a bit fantastic, no?

---

FFS!

Table II line 3. Why can't anyone (not even EEStor) get this right? At least they got it right on the note.

The cost differential for peak vs offpeak electricity pricing vanishes with the proliferation ofthese kinds of devices such that there will be a breakpoint where ROI stops before full implementation. After that, the impetus will have to be cost savings from the utilities due to elimination of peak generation capacity requirements. As it stands now, the pricing differential is not fully representative of the cost differential for electric generators with some of the peak power costs being paid for by baseload consumption. Until this changes to a full differential representation, the ROI for storage will only be provided up to a partial rollout. This is a case for early adopters getting the better deal, particularly if there are government subsidies involved.

---

The last paragraph of a green car congress article yesterday seem to fit in here

Electricity distributors should also increase low voltage energy storage investments to mitigate the volatile demand of EV charging and the intermittent supply of renewable energy. Proactive management on this level will further position utilities to capture market opportunities related to electrification of transport.

Full article http://www.greencarcongress.com/2011/01/accenet...

---

EEventually wrote:

FFS!

Table II line 3. Why can't anyone (not even EEStor) get this right? At least they got it right on the note.

The cost differential for peak vs offpeak electricity pricing vanishes with the proliferation ofthese kinds of devices such that there will be a breakpoint where ROI stops before full implementation. After that, the impetus will have to be cost savings from the utilities due to elimination of peak generation capacity requirements. As it stands now, the pricing differential is not fully representative of the cost differential for electric generators with some of the peak power costs being paid for by baseload consumption. Until this changes to a full differential representation, the ROI for storage will only be provided up to a partial rollout. This is a case for early adopters getting the better deal, particularly if there are government subsidies involved.

This patent application is almost identical US 7,729,811 B1 but if you look at the Table I from this older patent:

you'll see the only significant change is Dick upped the possible energy density and specific energy:

I'm not nearly as bent out of shape about the mislabeling of specific energy. He got the units right which is more important than the label.

Last edited Thu, 20 Jan 2011, 2:19pm by tvillars

---

The most expensive part of any photovoltaic or windmill attempt to get off the grid is the battery. If a home sized EESU is in the $4000-5000 range ( and lasts more than 50 years ), look for lots of people to do it. When the off peak rates disappear due to widespread grid levelling, going off-grid will be much more feasible and financially attractive.

---

so they changed the label from correct to incorrect... that stinks to high heaven. That's a big checkmark in the scam column unless I'm misunderstanding. In any case, the units provided (and the note below) are for specific power and the flip-flopping is something anyone at ARFL would laugh at. This is the most important metric for their application.

---

Did you ever look at the cost of distribution of electricity vs the cost of generation of the electricity?

There is a business opportunity when the EESU is cheap enough that a home goes off the grid. Home delivery of electricity via truck.

When will the cost of grid delivery exceed the cost of truck delivery?

---

PN, it has a lot to do with distance and weather. send a large enough amount of energy by rail over a long hot distance and that saving of 7% loss will catch up with the 50 year depreciation and real estate needs of traditional distribution.

Maybe Boone is waiting for EEStor too.

---

Eev, can you please expand on your labeling comment for those who are unaware of the issue?

The patents' cost estimate for a home sized EESU of $4000-$5000 says volumes. If this is a realistic number then the cost problem is not a problem. If DW knew they couldn't produce units at this price would it be illegal to say so in a patent?

---

sure, PM. Here's the raw deal. The recent publication shows a table in the description of the invention where "specific energy" is >10,000 Wh/kg. These units are for specific POWER which is a whole different property. According to the images TV posted, the PREVIOUS publication correctly describes it as "specific power." The note is consistent in stating that the power of the device is a function of a characteristic low internal DC resistance (which you guys are paying WAY too little attention to). My concern is exactly why would you redact that table to become obviously less accurate?

---

FFS?
The Table II line 3 error is listed as Specific Energy, as is line 2 above it, but should be termed Specific Power.

And, for line 4, IMHO, should read High Self Discharge Rate.

In addition, the 21.2 µΩ ESR (Equivalent Series Resistance) needs to be specific as to the particular EESU. That 21.2 number has been used for a 1x, 31,351 component, 52.22 kWh EESU, but it would be higher for higher ED (Energy Density), as there would be fewer "components" in parallel.

0.22% self-discharge, in a year
A re-iteration of the 0.02% per 30 days.

[0043] thru [0049] talk about first and second electrodes with a dielectric layer, third and fourth with a second dielectric layer, fifth and sixth with a third dielectric layer, seventh and eighth with a fourth dielectric layer.

Whaz' up, with that?
Patent language?

---

"Whaz' up, with that?"

I'm getting the feeling that nighttime might not be optimal for practicing technical authorship. I personally work better at 6AM-9AM after a small breakfast of coffee, ambition, and humility.

---

Dick invented a new word too, the word "tabel"

---

EEventually wrote:

FFS!


The cost differential for peak vs offpeak electricity pricing vanishes with the proliferation ofthese kinds of devices such that there will be a breakpoint where ROI stops before full implementation. After that, the impetus will have to be cost savings from the utilities due to elimination of peak generation capacity requirements. As it stands now, the pricing differential is not fully representative of the cost differential for electric generators with some of the peak power costs being paid for by baseload consumption. Until this changes to a full differential representation, the ROI for storage will only be provided up to a partial rollout. This is a case for early adopters getting the better deal, particularly if there are government subsidies involved.

By the time the cost differential of peak vs. off peak disappears, EEStor will have sold many millions of EESUs. At that point micro scale generation (wind, solar and things like Bloom boxes) will be in full production. These will provide consumers choices for how to get power for their homes at the lowest possible cost/reliability and whatever other factors the consumer feels are important (green energy enthusiasm, off grid rebels, entrepeneurs, etc.).

The monopolies will compete or die.

Imagine, solar and a Bloom box giving you all the electricity you need. Or picking up a charge at a station in your EV and bringing it home to your home based EESU that is a little light from crappy weather.

The current rate diffentials will start the EESU penetration, other factors will carry it onward once these disappear.

EESUs will be standard equipment for homes, small businesses, big industrial and commercial sites, substations, and power generators of all kinds.

Netscape moment...only bigger!

PNeilson 3 wrote:

Did you ever look at the cost of distribution of electricity vs the cost of generation of the electricity?

There is a business opportunity when the EESU is cheap enough that a home goes off the grid. Home delivery of electricity via truck.

When will the cost of grid delivery exceed the cost of truck delivery?

For delivery by surface transport, you'd have to have truly massive ED (50x? 1000x?). Enabling incredibly cheap EESUs ($2 / kWh? 10¢ / kWh?). But, if you could do that, you could have power generators at their source, say coal or biomass or hydro or ..., "densifying" that chemical or other energy source into EESUs of much much higher ED. Then, transport of EESUs could match or beat long distance transport of, say, coal to power plants, and then power via the distribution grid.

Sounds like sci-fi, to me.

Would you build a rail line from, say, the massive but remote Hydro Quebec James Bay dams to connect to existing rail service to deliver power to Ottawa, Montreal, Toronto, New York city, Boston, rather than incur the costs and losses of conventional transmission grid?

EESUs would have to be fantastically economical, per kWh.

And, Hydro Quebec's capacity, as an example, is 36.8 GigaWatts. Which makes for 883 GWh, per day. At 1x's ~500 Wh / kg, those gajillion EESUs would weigh 883,200 tons - transport ~1 million tons, per day? At 1000x, 1,000 tons per day would be pretty doable.

But none of it really matters, if the price is $100 / kWh (10¢ / Wh), 883 GWh worth of EESUs would cost $88.3 Billion.

Last edited Thu, 20 Jan 2011, 2:39pm by nekote

---

Actually, depending on the heritage of the name Weir, Dick may be slipping into ancestral Dutch, when tired. lol.

---

nekote wrote:

PNeilson 3 wrote:

Did you ever look at the cost of distribution of electricity vs the cost of generation of the electricity?

There is a business opportunity when the EESU is cheap enough that a home goes off the grid. Home delivery of electricity via truck.

When will the cost of grid delivery exceed the cost of truck delivery?

For delivery by surface transport, you'd have to have truly massive ED (50x? 1000x?). Enabling incredibly cheap EESUs ($2 / kWh? 10¢ / kWh?). But, if you could do that, you could have power generators at their source, say coal or biomass or hydro or ..., "densifying" that chemical or other energy source into EESUs of much much higher ED. Then, transport of EESUs could match or beat long distance transport of, say, coal to power plants, and then power via the distribution grid.

Sounds like sci-fi, to me.

Would you build a rail line from, say, the massive but remote Hydro Quebec James Bay dams to connect to existing rail service to deliver power to Ottawa, Montreal, Toronto, New York city, Boston, rather than incur the costs and losses of conventional transmission grid?

EESUs would have to be fantastically economical, per kWh.

And, Hydro Quebec's capacity, as an example, is 36.8 GigaWatts. Which makes for 883 GWh, per day. At 1x's ~500 Wh / kg, those gajillion EESUs would weigh 883,200 tons - transport ~1 million tons, per day? At 1000x, 1,000 tons per day would be pretty doable.

But none of it really matters, if the price is $100 / kWh (10¢ / Wh), 883 GWh worth of EESUs would cost $88.3 Billion.

The economics might be driven by the environment. What if there was an emergency need for one? Earthquake? Blackout due to aging infrastructure?

Tornado Alley and the Hurricane prone areas, as well as the Snowbelt, in the winter. Emergency electricity delivery would have saved me after Hurricane Charlie, a few years ago. 3 weeks without power. No fun. Had to come up north to visit family.(That didn't sound good, lol.)

---

It will not compete with existing powerlines. But if they are not in, and rail is there, it gets more interesting. Combine it with micropower generation, and use it to "top off". Weighing that against the cost of new substations and giant power towers, it gets interesting. Probably a no-brainer for vacation areas, camp sites, refugee/disaster relief camps, military camps, and anything non permanent. Could also be good for early adopters, until wires are economical, taking the guesswork out of some utility planning.

EEventually wrote:

so they changed the label from correct to incorrect... that stinks to high heaven. That's a big checkmark in the scam column unless I'm misunderstanding. In any case, the units provided (and the note below) are for specific power and the flip-flopping is something anyone at ARFL would laugh at. This is the most important metric for their application.

Ever looked at the cost differential between non-profit rural electric cooperatives versus for profit companies? It shows you just what a huge markup there is. Rural cooperatives, while not generating, are managing thousands of miles of distribution lines with residential rates about 1/2 the price I pay.

---

Regarding the errors in the patent application specifically on "TABEL II" The errors may be an indication the DW and or CN are getting terribly burnt out. They may be in need of outside help.

---

dfwrunner,

I'm confused. Are the quote and your text related to one another?

---

Regarding costs: 2/3 of my electric bill is paying for construction and maintenance of the power delivery grid. A typical bill is $60 per month. $20 for the electricity and $40 for all the expenses.

---

Nek 1,000x EESU's are coming. Where is the crossover from grid to self delivery via car?

If DW hits $100 per kW-hr at 1x. 10x is $10 per kW-hr. 100x is $1 per kW-hr. I won't go further. It is too crazy to contemplate.

---