TheEEStory.com

Geothermal power, if we could tap it anywhere, would at least in theory be far better than anything else we can currently even seriously consider. It's much more energy intensive than solar, and of course it's available day and night, year round, rain or shine.

The problems with geothermal power are:

(1) Currently we can't economically drill very deep into the earth's crust, so it's only practical where the crust is especially thin... such as where there are hot springs. (Yellowstone park would be an ideal place to generate geothermal power!)

(2) If direct geothermal power is tapped (i.e., steam or very hot water coming out from hot springs), the steam or water used in geothermal power is corrosive. This means there are high maintenance costs.

(3) If "hot rocks" technology is used, where water is pumped down into the ground to be heated and then flows back up, this cools the area which heats the water, so the system has a limited lifespan (10 years? 20?) before the "hot" rocks are too cool to efficiently provide energy. When that happens, we'd at least have to sink another (expensive) shaft deep in the earth, and perhaps we'd have to build a new power plant at a different site.

It seems to me that these problems should be eventually overcome. If we could develop the technology to drill *very* deep into the crust economically, deep enough to get close to molten magma, the hole would never cool off that much. And if we can develop corrosion-resistant alloys and equipment, then the maintenance cost should go down.

But that's a ways in the future. I hope to see the EESU® become a reality *this* year!

Lensman wrote:

Generic wrote:

I'd imagine running steady state would have some operational cost advantages (not that they'd want to pass it on to us).

There is quite a bit of advantage. The reason there's a lot of idle capacity at night is that it's more efficient to run the generators at a fixed speed 24/7 even when the demand drops. This is also why there are so many people confidently stating that we can charge a great number of EVs at night without having to build *any* more power plants.

Yes, that's the gist of my intuition. I suppose I really needn't comment from a rational point of view with all you techies around. =)

Preserving equity only makes sense if he is trying to maintain control of the company, 51%. But if that is the answer where did the rest of the equity go, Zenn only has a small interest and we don't even know if LM invested. KP?

Generic wrote:

I'd imagine running steady state would have some operational cost advantages (not that they'd want to pass it on to us).

There is quite a bit of advantage. The reason there's a lot of idle capacity at night is that it's more efficient to run the generators at a fixed speed 24/7 even when the demand drops. This is also why there are so many people confidently stating that we can charge a great number of EVs at night without having to build *any* more power plants.

pchamp I am currently invested in http://www.geodynamics.com.au/IRM/content/home.... they are leading the company in Australia for geothermal. Its at proof of concept stage (due to complete in 6 weeks!) at the moment and will take a while for it to scale up if all works as planned.

I disagree thought that a EESU will complement this as its main advantage over other "green" options at the moment is that it can product power on demand and can match the peak consumption periods. If the EESU works it will lower the cost of other options like solar or wind that cost more now because they cant storage the energy without adding costs.

The EESU will most likely make other options like http://www.nanosolar.com/ out perform geothermal

Doc geothermal wont create more heat that burning coal or nuclear power and will create zero CO2 and no nasty waste

My understanding was that DW was talking about full production and TW was talking about a production prototype.

The *real* question is, why did Tom Weir confirm end-of-year delivery to B after Richard Weir had already made that public statement?

I was wondering the same thing myself...curious since the headline of the B's blog posted on Halloween included "Trick or Treat". I guess we were tricked.

jimbobway wrote:

The rumor that EEStor was not going to have a production EESU for Zenn was leaked at the end of Oct 2008. Suppose that rumor was true.

It wasn't a "rumor" and it wasn't "leaked". It's what Richard Weir said himself in response to a query, posted at GM-Volt dot-com.

The *real* question is, why did Tom Weir confirm end-of-year delivery to B after Richard Weir had already made that public statement? I guess Tom didn't get the memo.

Last edited 2 hours ago by Lensman

I predict that you will never see the weir deliver an actual product, may it be a mouse trap or an eesu, never. And when I say never I mean never ever ever ever to the power of a google evers. There is a greater chance that my brain will catch on fire and be extinguished with tuna fishes caught fresh from the atlantic tossed opon my brow by a yellow rain suit clad old fisherman named Mr. Squiggles.

Generic wrote:

lol Bretspot!

Wow is that the prod-duc-tion liiiine?

The rumor that EEStor was not going to have a production EESU for Zenn was leaked at the end of Oct 2008. Suppose that rumor was true. That means Weir knew two months in advance that he was not going to have it ready by the end of the year.

I am a software engineer and I work with a small team of people. If I have been working on a project for two years and a company asked me if I was still on schedule in October, and I said, "No", that would mean I am off track by at least one month. I am assuming that when they asked me in September that I was still on track for the end of the year.

For a small team of people, knowing beforehand two months that you will not meet the deadline means a lot more work needs to be done that you can handle. From this info maybe one could derive that the production line is behind schedule...say...at least two months.

Maybe this analogy between software engineer and EESU building is a bit of a stretch. Just my two cents and my guesstimates.

Anyways, my prediction for the EESU production unit is March 2009.

Lensman wrote:

You mean, *other* than the fact Dick Weir said they needed the money to finish the production line?

Well, other than that, two reasons have been suggested which I find plausible:

(1) The EEStor® executives don't want to be major manufacturers, they just want to invent things and "save the environment".

(2) By merely licensing the technology to other companies, EEStor® protects itself from messy problems such as product liability suits.

There are other reasons as well. While we don't know just how much money LEVS gave Eestor, the quote, I think, was "it was considerable". Weir doesn't want to give away any more equity. He started with KP who presumably got equity. Next was Zenn who got equity with options for more. Weir, at some point, must have thought, "how do I get money without giving up any more equity?" That's when he realized he could sell licenses rather than equity. It's really a smart move when you consider the markets he has not sold licenses to like the power grid, portable electronics, in home backup and EVS recharger, recharging stations..... I wouldn't be surprised if he sells another license before he shows a product.

But, did he choose the licensees he did?

Zenn - This was early in the game and he was presumably (it turns out in reality) a long way from market. The world was different then and Zenn was trailblazing. Gas prices were reasonable. Electric cars were a big gamble. Giving up equity as well as a license were the only options he had.

LM - We have no evidence that any $ changed hands as zawy has pointed out. But, we do know/belive that Eestor needed money. (seems axiomatic) If no money was involved, then what was the benefit to Eestor? That this would create some legitimacy so that Eestor could attract some sucker to buy another license? Maybe LightEVS is the sucker. Could be, but I don't think so. There had to be some kind of agreement, else LM wouldn't have issued press releases and patent applications referencing Eestor. While it is possible that they didn't, LM must have done some due diligence, and must have at least gotten close enough to the "secrete sauce" to put their brand on it. LM could have agreed to provide development and engineering support as well as facilities rather than $ as NickSheeson has briliantly proposed/hypothoized.

LightEVS - I'm sure we can all agree that this could quite possibly be the most ill conceived web site ever. It is just down right pitiful. Maybe even worse but I can't come up with the words to describe how uniquely aweful it is. Talk about credibility distruction. It doesn't get any worse than that. Especially, after the Under construction site promised "incredible things to come" (I don't remember exactly). Wow, that was discourging. But, at the same time, scammers are smarter than geniuses. But, getting past that, why LightEVS? Easy money, with few strings and a hand shake type of deal with possible "substantial" cash. And, no lost equity. And, maybe Weir and Carl Watkins like each other and see eye to eye on things. (I'd like to know how they know each other)

The bottom line is that I think Weir is trying to preserve equity.

Early on I had a conversation with the Cedar Park/Austin Chamber of Commerce and they said they had sent a person out several times to have conversations and were met by guards. I suspect that if LM is involved the real production is not happening at the small industrial park of their address, but rather inside a skunk works bldg. I hope....otherwise it will be a huge disappointment if a scam. They really do need to deliver....it is past time.

Doc wrote:

I predict that $750B Government Give-away will have no effect on the economy other than to put us more in debt.

QFT.

Politician A:
"We're in dept up to our eyeballs, what do we do?"

Politician B:
"Hmm... Print more money!?"

Both:
"Genius"

lol Bretspot!