A123 Systems: 'No assurance' it can continue to operate

Tax money usually goes down the drain when it comes to business investment. Government makes sound political decisions ( seems like a good idea - or the right thing to do ethically ), but not sound business decisions ( do they really crunch the numbers to find out if anyone benefits in the long run? if the company would ever make a profit? ).

This is so typical because they do not bear the responsibility for their failures. A private investor would bear the responsibility, and so would either be kicking themselves over this, or just not investing in the company at all ( gee, this company wants to sit around and take my money for years and refuse to sell their product.. can't make a profit on it when they do.. no thanks, i'll pass )

Seems like there has been a 99% failure rate of all govt. sponsored enterprises. Tesla Motor Co. is the only example still standing, but even that is shaky.

China wins again. And honestly i don't think we could even have all this fancy electric stuff without our trade agreement with them. We'd still be running gas engines for another half century i bet.

countermeasure said:
That totally sucks.

My tax money going down the drain.

Upside is, the bankrupt A123 is being purchased by Johnson Controls. Johnson Controls makes Walmart lead acid batteries and Optima batteries. I think Johnson Controls is OK financially. Maybe we will see A123 NXT technology in another reincarnation.
 
Hey, A123 cells might be nice, but they are also big and heavy for their watt-hours. No wonder the majority of us tinkerers are running RC Lipo.. NMC will step up to the plate to fill the gap. The dow-kokam cells are excellent. Samsung has some decent cells ( which haven't trickled down to the hobbyist market yet - but they will eventually ).

You won't get a 4C charge rate, but you can pump out 5C-10C discharge with some of the better NMC formulations; which is good enough really - just load up with a little higher capacity.

rektide said:
Wow. I know I have no fallback for batteries.

Who else makes small cells that have big power density? Is there anything out there alike the 26650, small'ish, yet being able to pull 70a continuous, charge at 4C? There are batteries with better energy density now, but in terms of rugged reliable lithium-* batteries, it seems like A123's nanoscale has always been leaps and bounds better than what everyone else is doing.
 
neptronix said:
Hey, A123 cells might be nice, but they are also big and heavy for their watt-hours.
Maybe big and bulky but 2000k cycles vs 800 + safety i guess wins that fraction of the weight.
I bet someone washed a lot of money here and those cells will surface somewhere in China shortly and will be offered to public like us. Basically American folks paid out of their own money through taxes, somebody got a good cut and Chinese bought it for pennies and they will not waist the research and development on this design just to be done with.
 
Their 1 post for us.

http://endless-sphere.com/forums/viewtopic.php?f=31&t=41354&start=45#p635220

They never did much to help us out.

They made a 12v replacement pack with A123 cells for us. That's it ?

http://www.a123systems.com/products-systems-lead-acid.htm

And trying to tell us where to buy ? Yeah ! :(
 
We need cheaper and lighter batteries right now though. Some NMC can approach multi thousand cycle lifes, is lighter, and cheaper.

Ask GM why they didn't go with A123 batteries for their Volt, and chose LG NMC cells. They could tell you more precisely than i ;)

agniusm said:
neptronix said:
Hey, A123 cells might be nice, but they are also big and heavy for their watt-hours.
Maybe big and bulky but 2000k cycles vs 800 + safety i guess wins that fraction of the weight.
I bet someone washed a lot of money here and those cells will surface somewhere in China shortly and will be offered to public like us. Basically American folks paid out of their own money through taxes, somebody got a good cut and Chinese bought it for pennies and they will not waist the research and development on this design just to be done with.
 
From what it looks there is no way to make cheaper good cells??!! I was referring to Dow-kokam and A123 (not taking into account B grades). Kokam 25ah cells cost at around 100 per cell. A123 20ah pouch almost same at 90 per cell from mavizen, so i guess the technology for manufacturing these is still expensive??!!
Regarding NMC there should be a difference in car use vs bike use regarding discharge leave alone cycle life and those using 250W motors on their bikes. Closest what i know further heavier that A123 ir Lyiuan supercapacitors and i am talking about lifepo4 chemistry.
 
It appears that Johnson Controls is going to buy the automotive assets. I wonder if this might make A123 batteries more accessible now.
 
ohzee said:
6th.. man
Ja... add it to the pile.

http://endless-sphere.com/forums/viewtopic.php?f=15&t=40325&p=651128&#p651128
 
Well maybe not...

While the EV market may develop over the long term, Leiker said a lure to buy A123 is acquiring a lithium technology that Johnson Controls can use sooner - for the next generation of starter batteries or start-stop batteries.

"What I took away from it is this has as much, if not more, to do with the existing battery business, as opposed to making their EV business bigger," Leiker said.

http://www.jsonline.com/business/jo...terymaker-a123s-assets-mh78b15-174496191.html
 
neptronix said:
Seems like there has been a 99% failure rate of all govt. sponsored enterprises. Tesla Motor Co. is the only example still standing, but even that is shaky.

Are you saying that of the total number of projects funded by Pres. Obama's American Recovery and Reinvestment Tax Act , 45,172 in all, that 44,720 have failed? I doubt your numbers.

Me thinks you are painting with a rather cavalier and broad brush. :lol:

http://www.treasury.gov/initiatives/recovery/Documents/Status overview.pdf

Besides, the point of the American Recovery and Reinvestment Tax Act was really to pump money into the American job market, in renewable energy, when we were in a free-fall to a seriously deep depression. It worked for a while. Would have worked longer if more money was available for it. Would you have been using A123's or wanting A123's with out government grants? I doubt it. They probably would only exist in a collage laboratory somewhere. Besides the US government grants, private industry like Ford, GM and Chrysler granted them money as well.

I for one think that not enough money was pumped into companies like A123 or Solyndra to keep them floating past a weak economy and Chinese subsidies. As the economy slowly heals the money could be stopped, but not before strong roots for renewable were in place, not just seeded.

And lets not forget private sector business fails all the time. Remember Enron? Worldcom? CIT? Airlines that went bankrupt or out of business...Pan Am anyone? How about Detroit automakers that went into bankruptcy or just out of business. The list of American private sector failures is endless.
 
I probably am using a broad brush stroke :) I'm not seeing some kind of proof that their investments have been wise in that document you linked.

We've made a tiny return on the banks and the auto industry with TARP, but not much. The "green economy" has been a loser for a very, very long time.

I am not talking about Obama's programs, i'm talking about government's choices over the decades. It is not hard to find a lot of bad examples. It's not hard to find things on continual welfare that could never be a success on their own. This is a sad state of affairs when you consider the fact that our country was built on the free enterprise system and our government used to basically have a hands off policy when it came to business ( unless they were trying to bust up a monopoly - which even then, was not always necessary. )

The failure rate is going to be very high. Can you show me one example of a green company, other than say Tesla Motor Co, of a company that became successful later on due to govt. help?

The idea that the recovery and reinvestment act saved our economy from something worse is only a theory. We are 16 trillion dollars in debt now and those companies we saved with TARP are getting along, but have not recovered to their pre-recession level of business whatsoever.

stimulus-vs-unemployment-july-dots3.gif


I don't use A123's, i use RC Lipo. Good news! No money was forcibly taken to you and redistributed to me to help me buy my batteries ;)

How long do you think we would have needed to continue putting money into A123 or Solyndra? Decades? You know that A123 basically sucked rocks for a decade, right? You would be an awful investor! There is no sign that we will ever beat China in manufacturing in the future. We recently put a tax on imported solar panels to help our domestic industry out because we couldn't compete still. Would you bet on all these losing businesses? you'd lose your shirt. Does government taking money from you forcibly and using it to bet on losers change the picture?

You know, you are free to invest in A123 if you believe otherwise; their stock is at 6 cents right now. lol

Private sector businesses fail all the time - and they should fail if they do a bad job! If they do not produce a product that people will buy, then they should go under. And if they do a good job, they should become prosperous. That's exactly how the market should work.
 
neptronix said:
I am not talking about Obama's programs, i'm talking about government's choices over the decades. It is not hard to find a lot of bad examples. It's not hard to find things on continual welfare that could never be a success on their own. This is a sad state of affairs when you consider the fact that our country was built on the free enterprise system and our government used to basically have a hands off policy when it came to business.

How long do you think we would have needed to continue putting money into A123 or Solyndra? Decades? You know that A123 basically sucked rocks for a decade, right? You would be an awful investor! There is no sign that we will ever beat China in manufacturing in the future. We recently put a tax on imported solar panels to help our domestic industry out because we couldn't compete still. Would you bet on all these losing businesses? you'd lose your shirt. Does government taking money from you forcibly and using it to bet on losers change the picture?

Private sector businesses fail all the time - and they should fail if they do a bad job! If they do not produce a product that people will buy, then they should go under. And if they do a good job, they should become prosperous. That's exactly how the market should work.

I'm probably going to regret getting involved but ... a few observations:

- New tech often has long timelines and lots of early failures. Private enterprises being oriented to making money are often not able to justify the required investments in original R&D. The internet was a government funded project with a lot of the R&D done at universities, (eg Berkeley) and by companies (eg BBN) that largely depend on government funding. The development cycle was on the order of 20 years before it became visible to the general public. There were lots of things tried that did not work. No private company could afford or justify to the stockholders that level of continual failure and loss. I would argue that in the long run it has been worth it and I am happy and proud that my taxes helped create it.

- There were proprietary competitors to TCP/IP, eg DECNET, SNA. I used to work with DECNET at the time and it was a very good protocol. However it was proprietary, you could only use it or implement devices using it by licensing it from Digital. SNA was IBM's equivelent. The licensing requirement pretty much rules a protocol out as a general network protocol as networks become exponentially more useful as more things connect to them, but companies find it hard to explain " just giving it away" to the shareholders. Now Digital is gone, SNA is used only in very closed environments and TCP/IP runs the internet. This was a net win for everyone including private industry, but it is not something that private industry has much interest in doing for itself.

Finally, it is my impression that a great deal of China's industrial success has been accomplished because of the sort of industrial policy and government subsidy that is being criticized with respect to A123. Perhaps we should take the lesson as we need to do more of this rather than less, it seems to work for them.
 
Allright, you have a point when it comes to the internet, however - the increase in computing power is what really set off the internet that we see today. Also, govt sat on the idea of the internet for a very long time and just used it for military/university communications etc, so what we got initially was sorta the leftovers of what they worked on - it wasn't part of some grand master plan for economic rejuvenation. It's only when they allowed the public to use it, did the newly opened wide-open expanse of innovation turn it into what it is today. Early internet - from the mid 1990's to the mid 2000's is the best example of a free and mostly unregulated market. Think of how chaotic it was - a new company popping up every single day during the dotcom boom!

Government can do a good job laying down infrastructure and thinking on a global level. It is something that they can do better than business in our current system - because they are allowed to have a monopoly, and do not have to go through the same amount of legal gymnastics that private enterprise would need to go through.

How many internet companies have got bailed out though, or were subsidized by government funds? i bet you can't name a single one. Think of how things would play out if the federal government announced a bailout package for geocities, altavista, real player, netscape, etc? LOL

How many internet companies did the government produce or fund? can you think of one? Private investors and users seem to pick the winners and losers, and that's how it should be!

Who pays the price when a company like Solyndra does what they did? not government! you do - because they gambled with your money!

-dg said:
Finally, it is my impression that a great deal of China's industrial success has been accomplished because of the sort of industrial policy and government subsidy that is being criticized with respect to A123. Perhaps we should take the lesson as we need to do more of this rather than less, it seems to work for them.

Oh absolutely. They do not have anything like a free market. There is subsidy and government control of industry to the maximum. But it works for them, because they have low wages, low standard of living, and no obstruction. And it is their people's responsibility to hold their govt. accountable if they don't like it.

Let's not sink to their level - that's their condition - but that kind of fascist-communist method of managing the economy does not work here. And if we ever manage to figure out a way to do it, god help us, it won't be pretty ..
 
Hate to blow everones bubble but fiat money doesn't exist in the true sense, you have Nixon to thank for coming off the Gold standard and forcing the world onto a Fiat money system.

Want money, no problem we'll just print some more, whats that ....you need to fund a war....printy printy......what's that? The publics savings are worth less and now inflation is sky high....better borrow some real money of others and pay for it with printed free money...round and round it goes.
 
neptronix said:
Allright, you have a point when it comes to the internet, however - the increase in computing power is what really set off the internet that we see today. Also, govt sat on the idea of the internet for a very long time and just used it for military/university communications etc, so what we got initially was sorta the leftovers of what they worked on - it wasn't part of some grand master plan for economic rejuvenation. It's only when they allowed the public to use it, did the newly opened wide-open expanse of innovation turn it into what it is today. Early internet - from the mid 1990's to the mid 2000's is the best example of a free and mostly unregulated market. Think of how chaotic it was - a new company popping up every single day during the dotcom boom!

Government can do a good job laying down infrastructure and thinking on a global level. It is something that they can do better than business in our current system - because they are allowed to have a monopoly, and do not have to go through the same amount of legal gymnastics that private enterprise would need to go through.

How many internet companies have got bailed out though, or were subsidized by government funds? i bet you can't name a single one. Think of how things would play out if the federal government announced a bailout package for geocities, altavista, real player, netscape, etc? LOL

How many internet companies did the government produce or fund? can you think of one? Private investors and users seem to pick the winners and losers, and that's how it should be!

Who pays the price when a company like Solyndra does what they did? not government! you do - because they gambled with your money!

Without batting this back and forth much more, http://ntrg.cs.tcd.ie/undergrad/4ba2/ipng/gerd.ipv4.html (very brief history of the internet) seems to confirm my recollection that it was the mid-80s before stable implementations of the basic tcp/ip protocols were available. Before that it was all pretty much breadboard level prototypes, not really anything the public or even most companies could use. In any case,the public did not have computers much before then anyway. I had internet access in 88 but mainly it was useful for email and usenet (imagine a discussion forum specifically for name calling and stupid arguments (alt.flame), and imagine an internet small enough that you could read the whole of alt.flame daily!). I don't think it became really useful to the public before http (govt funded research again, just european) and the NCSA Mosaic browser. Mosiac was released in 1993. The development of the internet started about 1968 and it took until 1993 before anything that would be usable by the general public was created. I don't think it is accurate to say that the government withheld the internet from the public. Mosaic was released in about a year from when development started. Http itself was not standardized until a few years later. My point is that everything was released pretty much as soon as it was ready, if not slightly before.

The comparison to EVs and renewables is that we are in the early days, clearly some battery tech and some renewable tech will be dead ends. Some early successes will be long term failures. Some early failures will still create value to be realized later. The point at this stage of development is to keep going and keep trying things and this is often easier do publicly than privately. The alternative to subsidizing private enterprises like Solyndra and A123 and accepting that some will fail is to have the R&D all be done in house or by direct contractors, eg the NASA / DARPA approach. Is that more desireable?
 
Lots of rumination of the issue above - thanks for some of that - and no thanks for some of that too! :lol: I appreciate ARRA-E funds, the DOE and efforts on the part of many, both public & private sector, to get us moving on a different energy trajectory, what's called the "great transition." Ultimately, as pointed out with the Internet, there needs to be broad public acceptance before a technology becomes rooted in the economy. The failure of of A123 is NOT with the technology, the investors, the company, or the government support. The "too little" factor is that a factory was built to supply batteries to an electric vehicle marketplace that didn't materialize. We can do a retrospective on that, of why the demand was not forthcoming, but I blame the financial crisis more than anything else. In the face of the vanishing wealth, there was a retrenchment on every one's part. People were unwilling to invest in a new car, especially one that has a higher sticker price.

The good news is that the A123 factory is passing to Johnson Controls. So all that investment, all that potential for jobs, all that hope for a growing EV sector is still there! Ownership of those assets has passed to an older, larger, more well financed and capable company. A123 is passing into bankruptcy, but there's a legacy that will continue.

I expect A123 will pass through and emerge on the other side of bankruptcy. What they will retain in final analysis will probably be the grid-storage part. The automotive battery division, where most of capital intensive investment in recent history exists, has passed into the hands of Johnson Control. It all looks like a win-win-win result to me. Yea, some failure, but look how many times infants fall down in the process of learning to walk! Failure is to be expected with new tech - there's a lot of trial & error that has to happen. I for one am cheering the result. Passage of the assets to China based Wanxiang was NOT a good result.

Perhaps the full story will emerge of what happenned in the last several weeks. I expect that there was a lot of behind the scene brokering going on, a lot of resistance to the Wanxiang deal, a lot of looking around for alternatives, a list of potentials, perhaps some Congressional intervention or DOE or White House interverntion. The result, as of now is the break up of A123 into a couple of chunks, with the lion's share of hard assets going to Johnson Control. I expect there may be continued negotiation for the soft assets - the intellectual property that sits behind the nanophospate process. Perhaps its now more broadly shared, or maybe A123 & MIT have retained control. We'll see. :mrgreen:
 
http://www.businessweek.com/news/20...isks-as-battery-science-meets-government-cash
A123 said it will instead sell its automotive business assets to Johnson Controls, the world’s largest maker of car batteries... Despite A123’s recent quality issues, its lithium-ion phosphate chemistry continues to be viewed by the auto industry as one of the strongest around,” Rod Lache, a New York-based analyst at Deutsche Bank, wrote yesterday in a research note. Ownership by Johnson Controls “should likely allay customers’ concerns regarding capitalization and manufacturing quality.”
The more I read the story of A123, the better I feel about what's transpiring. What we have is the world's best battery tech team (A123) married to the world's most experienced battery manufacturer (Johnson Controls). Wow! :D
 
Update 2012/10/18 http://www.washingtonguardian.com/battery-makers-beltway-power-play

Even as advanced battery maker A123 Systems struggled for financial viability, it played the Washington insider game, where political money and access go hand in hand.

The Massachusetts firm dished out nearly $1 million to hire a powerhouse lobbying firm with close ties to President Barack Obama between 2007 and 2009, and two of its top executives made personal donations to several high-profile Democrats in Congress as it won federal funding for its efforts to build the next generation of lithium batteries for electric vehicles.

And its president and CEO, David Vieau, an early financial backer of President Barack Obama, scored five invitations to the White House in 2009 and 2010, including a meeting he attended with the president, White House logs show. And when the company opened a new Michigan plant, Obama made a high-profile call to congratulate.

The company offered a compelling storyline for an administration eager to create jobs and spur alternative energy: it would employ hundreds of new workers at two plants in the politically critical state of Michigan that was hoping to revive its lagging auto industry.

The efforts paid off.

The company managed to get several lawmakers in both parties to support its request for federal funding, securing almost $6 million during the end of the Bush administration and then a $250 million grant from the American Recovery and Reconstruction Act after Obama took office.

A123's stimulus grant accounted for 12.5 percent of the stimulus' $2 billion fund to support the manufacturing of advanced electrical vehicle components, making it one of the biggest beneficiaries among 29 companies that split the momney.

And the firm scored a spot on a 2011 Obama administration's trade mission to India, a country hungry for alternative energy technologies. The trip put A123 in elite company as just one of only about 300 American companies to get invited on a trade mission during Obama's first term in office.

The company drew praise from both sides of the aisle, including from Samuel Bodman, Bush's Energy secretary, and from Obama himself who called the firm's new Michigan plant when it opened Sept. 13, 2010 and even boasted how he had met with Vieau personally at the White House.

"You guys are making us proud," the president said. "The work you’re doing will help power the American economy for years to come."

But all the promise and political influence couldn't overcome the realities of a startup industry. And when electric vehicle sales lagged and the firm had to replace defective cells in a battery it made for a Fisker electric car, the company teetered toward collapse.

By the time it filed for bankruptcy Tuesday -- the fourth major clean energy company backed by the Obama administration to fail -- it had already collected more than half the taxpayer money it had won from the stimulus. And it reignited an election-year debate over the government's screening process for picking clean energy loan and grant recipients.

Republicans and Democrats immediately traded barbs from Michigan to Washington, a process certain to play out for several days as the merits of government support for the clean energy sector remains a hot topic of debate. The GOP jumped at the chance to portray the company as a failed pet project of the Obama administration, but as reported by the Washington Guardian, several Republican lawmakers have been advocates for cleaner car technology, including current Michigan Senate candidate Pete Hoekstra.

Whatever the arguments in the election, the company's efforts to win political influence are undisputed.

Senate lobbying records show A123 hired the powerhouse lobbying firm of Skadden Arps, paying it $380,000 in 2007, $480,000 in 2008 and $110,000 in 2009 to help it secure government backing. The firm has connections across the lobbying company, including four lawyers who served as fundraising bundlers for Obama's 2008 election. Lobbyist Leslie Goldman - the Energy Assistant Secretary for International Affairs under President Jimmy Carter - handled A123's lobbying, disclosure records show.

Among the company's early accomplishments was getting several members of Congress to support its case for federal funding.

Inside the White House, A123's Vieau won invitations to several events, including at least one meeting with President George W. Bush to show off the company's technology in 2007. More recently, the CEO was invited to at least five events or meetings in 2009 and 2010 at the Obama White House, attending at least three of them. One was a small meeting with just seven people and Obama on April 30, 2010, the White House visitor logs show.

Obama referenced the meeting when he called the company's new factory a few months later. "I met with David and some of the A123 team here at the White House back in April, and it’s incredibly exciting to see how far you guys have come since we announced these grants just over a year ago," the president said.

White House spokesman Eric Schultz did not return repeated calls and emails seeking comment Wednesday.

Vieau was an early supporter of Obama, donating $2,300 to the then-senator’s 2008 campaign. His generosity to Democrats continued. He donated a total of $5,000 to the Democratic Senatorial Campaign Committee between 2010 and 2011; $2,000 to Massachusetts Sen. John Kerry in 2010; and since 2009 almost $5,000 to Rep. Edward Markey, who represents Massachusetts’s 7th district near the company's headquarters, according to Federal Election Commission donation records.

One of the company’s vice presidents, Mujeeb Ijaz, also made some donations, chiefly $2,300 this year to Rep. Gary Peters, a Democrat in Michigan where the company has two plants,including one producing lithium batteries for cars. Peters was one of 17 Michigan members of Congress who wrote a letter to Energy Secretary Steven Chu in 2009, advocating that some Recovery Act money be given to A123 to support job growth in the state.

The company doesn't have its own political action committee and neither Vieau nor A123 officials returned phone calls seeking comment.
 
Ypedal said:
great for the auto industry, but terrible for us lowly ebike users... another decade of production line rejects and QC fail ebay purchases here we go.
That's yet to be determined, so I'll remain on the optimistic side. The byline is that Johnson Control is vying for the start/stop battery market, not pure EV. So the A123 EXT. If we can get domestic 12V nanophosphate li-ion batteries (made for autos), at lower costs than now, we'd be in good shape. I want to go down to my local auto store or Sears or wherever and get one of these off the shelf. :mrgreen:
 
arkmundi said:
The more I read the story of A123, the better I feel about what's transpiring. What we have is the world's best battery tech team (A123) married to the world's most experienced battery manufacturer (Johnson Controls). Wow! :D


If they are the worlds best battery tech team, why has the product development/improvement crawled at a snails pace until it's behind LG and NEC and EIG and Kokam etc? Why does it cost them over $1/Wh to make cells they then sell for half the costs of making them?
 
Back
Top