Loading ...
Sorry, an error occurred while loading the content.
 

ENER annual report

Expand Messages
  • murdoch_1998
    Am trying to make heads or tails of this, but anyway, here it is. Some discussion to be sorted out of how their business is doing in solar PV, NiMH, H2.
    Message 1 of 5 , Sep 13, 2004
      Am trying to make heads or tails of this, but anyway, here it is.
      Some discussion to be sorted out of how their business is doing in
      solar PV, NiMH, H2.

      http://biz.yahoo.com/e/040913/ener10-k.html
    • Dave Goldstein
      On Tue, 14 Sep 2004 03:54:19 -0000 murdoch_1998 ... FWIW, here is my read: Overall, it appears that ECD s annual revenues from all of its different units
      Message 2 of 5 , Sep 14, 2004
        On Tue, 14 Sep 2004 03:54:19 -0000 "murdoch_1998"
        <murdoch@...> writes:
        > Am trying to make heads or tails of this, but anyway, here it is.
        > Some discussion to be sorted out of how their business is doing in
        > solar PV, NiMH, H2.
        >
        > http://biz.yahoo.com/e/040913/ener10-k.html
        >

        FWIW, here is my read:

        Overall, it appears that ECD's annual revenues from all of its
        different
        units combined, were flat, whereas development and legal expenses rose
        significantly, resulting in a net loss of $51 million in FY'04 vs. a
        loss of
        $36 million in FY'03. This is not atypical for a materials-based
        technology
        development company like Energy Conversion Devices, which operates
        on a multi year development time scale, and which depends heavily upon
        royalties, machinery sales, government and military contracts, as well as

        product sales.

        There appear to be sizable losses associated with Hydrogen
        technologies
        (down $2M in revenues from the previous year) and there were significant
        losses associated with Rare Earth Ovonic, which I believe is a Chinese
        battery manufacturing venture that also provides access to rare earth
        minerals needed for the metal hydride matrix used in NiMH batteries, H2
        hydride storage tanks and other core technologies that ECD has developed.

        Legal costs for patent litigation to protect ECD's and Ovonic's 300+
        NiMH patents (now settled) also eroded earnings, but revenues from the
        settlement cannot be booked until FY'05. NiMH product development
        costs also rose significantly, possibly due to the new Springboro, OH
        battery manufacturing plant. And product development agreements (i.e., -
        government and industry contracts) were way down (-7.5M). IMO, this
        is directly related to the auto industry's general reluctance to embrace
        hybrid technology, and continuing delays in upgrading conventional ICE
        vehicles to the long-awaited 36-42 volt standard (as opposed to today's
        outmoded and overworked 12 volt automotive systems.)

        Solar revenues showed a strong upward trend, with PV sales up 44%
        to third-party buyers (+ 8M,) and a healthy $7M increase in product
        development agreements, paced by an Air Force Contract to develop
        new solar technology to be used in space and airship vehicles, but were
        offset by the full impact of having acquired 100% of United Solar Ovonic
        and other startup costs, resulting in a net loss of $13M for the solar
        segment
        of the company.

        According to Chairman and CEO, Robert C. Stempel:

        "Our goal is to move the Company into sustained profitability by
        July 2006. This will be accomplished by transitioning from a highly
        successful R&D Company to accelerating the commercialization
        of the products and technologies we have developed in the fields of
        energy and information."

        "The plan is to grow the solar, battery and OUM businesses;
        move our hydrogen and other technologies into the commercial
        stage; achieve cost reductions across the enterprise; and capitalize
        the business for the transition. At the same time, we will continue
        our valuable materials research and technology development to
        enhance our product portfolio in future years."

        For those who want to learn more:

        ECD will hold a conference call on Tuesday, September 14, 2004
        at 1:00 p.m. (Eastern Time) to discuss its fiscal year 2004 results.
        Individuals wishing to participate in the conference should call
        (877) 858-2512 or (706) 634-1291. A live webcast of the conference
        call will be available online at http://www.ovonic.com/investor or
        through the Company’s web site at www.ovonic.com. A replay of
        the call will be available through Thursday, September 16, 2004,
        at (800) 642-1687 or (706) 645-9291. Callers should use reservation
        number 9791881 to access the conference call and the replay.

        -------------------------------------------------------------------------
        ------------------

        **Disclosure: I have no business relationships with ECD or any
        of its business segments, but I do own a small portion of ECD stock
        in a retirement account, and have for many years.

        Regards,

        Dave Goldstein
        President, EVA/DC and
        Program Development Associates
        Gaithersburg, MD

        --

        [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
      • murdoch_1998
        Thanks for your knowledgeable analysis. I find myself trying to find a toe-hold for conversation about NiMH, in both private and public emails. Essentially,
        Message 3 of 5 , Sep 14, 2004
          Thanks for your knowledgeable analysis.

          I find myself trying to find a toe-hold for conversation about NiMH,
          in both private and public emails. Essentially, my question
          is "what the heck is going on with NiMH and Li- batteries, and why
          aren't we talking about it more, in light of the fact that we seem
          willing to talk about H2?" An example of what gives me this
          consternation would be that we have politicians who normally do not
          care enough about energy policy to even mention or debate critical
          areas of renewable energy, but who have gone out of their way to
          state that they have decided that H2 is the future and that's it,
          and we should joint them and so forth.

          I am all for debating the many many many pros and cons of H2 and any
          other alt fuel that folks can think of, but in the meantime, how
          many others here and elsewhere can see that NiMH is a proven piece,
          already fitted into the puzzle, already helping people recycle,
          already proven as a BEV battery worth considering, etc.?

          There are probably a lot of people reading this who never had a
          chance to drive an honest-to-goodness BEV powered by Ovonic or
          Matsushita or someone else's NiMH. Let me tell you, it was, in many
          ways, much better than they were letting on. I try to employ
          understatement, generally, but I do want to say that in some ways it
          really was fantastic! And yes, there were drawbacks that also
          needed getting a handle-on.... some difficult to get at, such as the
          time I talked to a RAV4 EV dealer who mentioned to me that some EV1
          leasors were experiencing extreme degradation (I don't know if it
          was lead-acid or NiMH) of range, and were motivated to look into
          RAV4 EVs.

          I never had a chance to drive a BEV, advanced Lead-Acid or NiMH more
          than once in awhile, such as when a friend would let me try one or
          when I would rent one at Budget at LAX, but wow!

          For example, how just genuinely relaxing to sit at a stoplight in a
          RAV4 EV, in relative piece and quiet, no idling of any engine to be
          wasting energy, and then just power away and keep up with traffic.
          I don't think this relaxing nature of the drive should be under-
          stated.

          Or to be able to step into the gas with an EV1 and calmly go past
          laggards in traffic, choosing whether or not to rub it in that this
          is one of those EVs that "nobody wants".

          To be sure, some of those EV1s were lead-acid powered (Panasonic had
          the good batteries, though the early ones were Delcos), but in any
          event, I think we need to explore and get a handle on why NiMH isn't
          being seen as and discussed as the important piece of the puzzle
          that it inevitably is, whether this is desired by some in the Energy
          Business or not. Already it is the important battery in all
          existing hybrids for sale to the public, that I'm aware of.

          ENER stock: readers should be made aware that they've been in
          business for more than 30 years, and for many of those years, they
          have a long history of their ship always being just about ready to
          come in. Often, financially, that ship has not come in. Overall, I
          think that lifelong buy-and-hold shareholders in ENER have not
          benefited greatly, but have suffered opportunities cost. Exceptions
          might be folks who timed the stock and only bought it at low points.

          So, while I am personally somewhat optimistic about some of their
          prospects, it is only fair that everyone should be aware: when they
          talk about expecting this or that project to come to fruition, then
          may well, but not always on time, and not always to enormous profit,
          historically.

          Disclaimer: I do not own any, but am a contributor to researching a
          stock index which does include them.



          --- In evworld@yahoogroups.com, Dave Goldstein <goldie.ev1@j...>
          wrote:
          > On Tue, 14 Sep 2004 03:54:19 -0000 "murdoch_1998"
          > <murdoch@h...> writes:
          > > Am trying to make heads or tails of this, but anyway, here it
          is.
          > > Some discussion to be sorted out of how their business is doing
          in
          > > solar PV, NiMH, H2.
          > >
          > > http://biz.yahoo.com/e/040913/ener10-k.html
          > >
          >
          > FWIW, here is my read:
          >
          > Overall, it appears that ECD's annual revenues from all of its
          > different
          > units combined, were flat, whereas development and legal expenses
          rose
          > significantly, resulting in a net loss of $51 million in FY'04
          vs. a
          > loss of
          > $36 million in FY'03. This is not atypical for a materials-based
          > technology
          > development company like Energy Conversion Devices, which operates
          > on a multi year development time scale, and which depends heavily
          upon
          > royalties, machinery sales, government and military contracts, as
          well as
          >
          > product sales.
          >
          > There appear to be sizable losses associated with Hydrogen
          > technologies
          > (down $2M in revenues from the previous year) and there were
          significant
          > losses associated with Rare Earth Ovonic, which I believe is a
          Chinese
          > battery manufacturing venture that also provides access to rare
          earth
          > minerals needed for the metal hydride matrix used in NiMH
          batteries, H2
          > hydride storage tanks and other core technologies that ECD has
          developed.
          >
          > Legal costs for patent litigation to protect ECD's and
          Ovonic's 300+
          > NiMH patents (now settled) also eroded earnings, but revenues from
          the
          > settlement cannot be booked until FY'05. NiMH product development
          > costs also rose significantly, possibly due to the new Springboro,
          OH
          > battery manufacturing plant. And product development agreements
          (i.e., -
          > government and industry contracts) were way down (-7.5M). IMO,
          this
          > is directly related to the auto industry's general reluctance to
          embrace
          > hybrid technology, and continuing delays in upgrading conventional
          ICE
          > vehicles to the long-awaited 36-42 volt standard (as opposed to
          today's
          > outmoded and overworked 12 volt automotive systems.)
          >
          > Solar revenues showed a strong upward trend, with PV sales up
          44%
          > to third-party buyers (+ 8M,) and a healthy $7M increase in
          product
          > development agreements, paced by an Air Force Contract to develop
          > new solar technology to be used in space and airship vehicles, but
          were
          > offset by the full impact of having acquired 100% of United Solar
          Ovonic
          > and other startup costs, resulting in a net loss of $13M for the
          solar
          > segment
          > of the company.
          >
          > According to Chairman and CEO, Robert C. Stempel:
          >
          > "Our goal is to move the Company into sustained profitability
          by
          > July 2006. This will be accomplished by transitioning from a
          highly
          > successful R&D Company to accelerating the commercialization
          > of the products and technologies we have developed in the fields
          of
          > energy and information."
          >
          > "The plan is to grow the solar, battery and OUM businesses;
          > move our hydrogen and other technologies into the commercial
          > stage; achieve cost reductions across the enterprise; and
          capitalize
          > the business for the transition. At the same time, we will
          continue
          > our valuable materials research and technology development to
          > enhance our product portfolio in future years."
          >
          > For those who want to learn more:
          >
          > ECD will hold a conference call on Tuesday, September 14, 2004
          > at 1:00 p.m. (Eastern Time) to discuss its fiscal year 2004
          results.
          > Individuals wishing to participate in the conference should call
          > (877) 858-2512 or (706) 634-1291. A live webcast of the
          conference
          > call will be available online at http://www.ovonic.com/investor or
          > through the Company's web site at www.ovonic.com. A replay of
          > the call will be available through Thursday, September 16, 2004,
          > at (800) 642-1687 or (706) 645-9291. Callers should use
          reservation
          > number 9791881 to access the conference call and the replay.
          >
          > -------------------------------------------------------------------
          ------
          > ------------------
          >
          > **Disclosure: I have no business relationships with ECD or any
          > of its business segments, but I do own a small portion of ECD
          stock
          > in a retirement account, and have for many years.
          >
          > Regards,
          >
          > Dave Goldstein
          > President, EVA/DC and
          > Program Development Associates
          > Gaithersburg, MD
          >
          > --
          >
          > [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
        • Lee Dekker
          Don’t think you will hear much about any kind of battery in any kind of EV because “the EV is dead”. Not only is the EV dead but there is no point in
          Message 4 of 5 , Sep 14, 2004
            Don�t think you will hear much about any kind of battery in any kind of EV because �the
            EV is dead�. Not only is the EV dead but there is no point in considering improvements in
            components because the car buying public simply does not want EVs. Bolstering this view
            is the universal �never plug it in� slogan of all hybrid makers.
            But the rechargeable battery is making it into main stream in the form of AAs. And the
            power needs of portable electronic devices are increasing.
            With all this battery improvement going on in the small device world, the EV may yet be
            able to stick its head up with without instant decapitation. At some point there may be
            so many companies competing in the field and making money that the technology will be
            uncontainable. Chaos to the rescue.

            --- murdoch_1998 <murdoch@...> wrote:

            > Thanks for your knowledgeable analysis.
            >
            > I find myself trying to find a toe-hold for conversation about NiMH,
            > in both private and public emails. Essentially, my question
            > is "what the heck is going on with NiMH and Li- batteries, and why
            > aren't we talking about it more, in light of the fact that we seem
            > willing to talk about H2?" An example of what gives me this
            > consternation would be that we have politicians who normally do not
            > care enough about energy policy to even mention or debate critical
            > areas of renewable energy, but who have gone out of their way to
            > state that they have decided that H2 is the future and that's it,
            > and we should joint them and so forth.
            >
            > I am all for debating the many many many pros and cons of H2 and any
            > other alt fuel that folks can think of, but in the meantime, how
            > many others here and elsewhere can see that NiMH is a proven piece,
            > already fitted into the puzzle, already helping people recycle,
            > already proven as a BEV battery worth considering, etc.?
            >
            > There are probably a lot of people reading this who never had a
            > chance to drive an honest-to-goodness BEV powered by Ovonic or
            > Matsushita or someone else's NiMH. Let me tell you, it was, in many
            > ways, much better than they were letting on. I try to employ
            > understatement, generally, but I do want to say that in some ways it
            > really was fantastic! And yes, there were drawbacks that also
            > needed getting a handle-on.... some difficult to get at, such as the
            > time I talked to a RAV4 EV dealer who mentioned to me that some EV1
            > leasors were experiencing extreme degradation (I don't know if it
            > was lead-acid or NiMH) of range, and were motivated to look into
            > RAV4 EVs.
            >
            > I never had a chance to drive a BEV, advanced Lead-Acid or NiMH more
            > than once in awhile, such as when a friend would let me try one or
            > when I would rent one at Budget at LAX, but wow!
            >
            > For example, how just genuinely relaxing to sit at a stoplight in a
            > RAV4 EV, in relative piece and quiet, no idling of any engine to be
            > wasting energy, and then just power away and keep up with traffic.
            > I don't think this relaxing nature of the drive should be under-
            > stated.
            >
            > Or to be able to step into the gas with an EV1 and calmly go past
            > laggards in traffic, choosing whether or not to rub it in that this
            > is one of those EVs that "nobody wants".
            >
            > To be sure, some of those EV1s were lead-acid powered (Panasonic had
            > the good batteries, though the early ones were Delcos), but in any
            > event, I think we need to explore and get a handle on why NiMH isn't
            > being seen as and discussed as the important piece of the puzzle
            > that it inevitably is, whether this is desired by some in the Energy
            > Business or not. Already it is the important battery in all
            > existing hybrids for sale to the public, that I'm aware of.
            >
            > ENER stock: readers should be made aware that they've been in
            > business for more than 30 years, and for many of those years, they
            > have a long history of their ship always being just about ready to
            > come in. Often, financially, that ship has not come in. Overall, I
            > think that lifelong buy-and-hold shareholders in ENER have not
            > benefited greatly, but have suffered opportunities cost. Exceptions
            > might be folks who timed the stock and only bought it at low points.
            >
            > So, while I am personally somewhat optimistic about some of their
            > prospects, it is only fair that everyone should be aware: when they
            > talk about expecting this or that project to come to fruition, then
            > may well, but not always on time, and not always to enormous profit,
            > historically.
            >
            > Disclaimer: I do not own any, but am a contributor to researching a
            > stock index which does include them.
            >
            >
            >
            > --- In evworld@yahoogroups.com, Dave Goldstein <goldie.ev1@j...>
            > wrote:
            > > On Tue, 14 Sep 2004 03:54:19 -0000 "murdoch_1998"
            > > <murdoch@h...> writes:
            > > > Am trying to make heads or tails of this, but anyway, here it
            > is.
            > > > Some discussion to be sorted out of how their business is doing
            > in
            > > > solar PV, NiMH, H2.
            > > >
            > > > http://biz.yahoo.com/e/040913/ener10-k.html
            > > >
            > >
            > > FWIW, here is my read:
            > >
            > > Overall, it appears that ECD's annual revenues from all of its
            > > different
            > > units combined, were flat, whereas development and legal expenses
            > rose
            > > significantly, resulting in a net loss of $51 million in FY'04
            > vs. a
            > > loss of
            > > $36 million in FY'03. This is not atypical for a materials-based
            > > technology
            > > development company like Energy Conversion Devices, which operates
            > > on a multi year development time scale, and which depends heavily
            > upon
            > > royalties, machinery sales, government and military contracts, as
            > well as
            > >
            > > product sales.
            > >
            > > There appear to be sizable losses associated with Hydrogen
            > > technologies
            > > (down $2M in revenues from the previous year) and there were
            > significant
            > > losses associated with Rare Earth Ovonic, which I believe is a
            > Chinese
            > > battery manufacturing venture that also provides access to rare
            > earth
            > > minerals needed for the metal hydride matrix used in NiMH
            > batteries, H2
            > > hydride storage tanks and other core technologies that ECD has
            > developed.
            > >
            > > Legal costs for patent litigation to protect ECD's and
            > Ovonic's 300+
            > > NiMH patents (now settled) also eroded earnings, but revenues from
            > the
            > > settlement cannot be booked until FY'05. NiMH product development
            > > costs also rose significantly, possibly due to the new Springboro,
            > OH
            > > battery manufacturing plant. And product development agreements
            > (i.e., -
            > > government and industry contracts) were way down (-7.5M). IMO,
            > this
            > > is directly related to the auto industry's general reluctance to
            > embrace
            > > hybrid technology, and continuing delays in upgrading conventional
            > ICE
            > > vehicles to the long-awaited 36-42 volt standard (as opposed to
            > today's
            > > outmoded and overworked 12 volt automotive systems.)
            > >
            > > Solar revenues showed a strong upward trend, with PV sales up
            > 44%
            > > to third-party buyers (+ 8M,) and a healthy $7M increase in
            > product
            > > development agreements, paced by an Air Force Contract to develop
            > > new solar technology to be used in space and airship vehicles, but
            > were
            > > offset by the full impact of having acquired 100% of United Solar
            > Ovonic
            > > and other startup costs, resulting in a net loss of $13M for the
            > solar
            > > segment
            > > of the company.
            > >
            > > According to Chairman and CEO, Robert C. Stempel:
            > >
            > > "Our goal is to move the Company into sustained profitability
            > by
            > > July 2006. This will be accomplished by transitioning from a
            > highly
            > > successful R&D Company to accelerating the commercialization
            > > of the products and technologies we have developed in the fields
            > of
            > > energy and information."
            > >
            > > "The plan is to grow the solar, battery and OUM businesses;
            > > move our hydrogen and other technologies into the commercial
            > > stage; achieve cost reductions across the enterprise; and
            > capitalize
            > > the business for the transition. At the same time, we will
            > continue
            > > our valuable materials research and technology development to
            > > enhance our product portfolio in future years."
            > >
            > > For those who want to learn more:
            > >
            > > ECD will hold a conference call on Tuesday, September 14, 2004
            > > at 1:00 p.m. (Eastern Time) to discuss its fiscal year 2004
            > results.
            > > Individuals wishing to participate in the conference should call
            > > (877) 858-2512 or (706) 634-1291. A live webcast of the
            > conference
            > > call will be available online at http://www.ovonic.com/investor or
            > > through the Company's web site at www.ovonic.com. A replay of
            > > the call will be available through Thursday, September 16, 2004,
            > > at (800) 642-1687 or (706) 645-9291. Callers should use
            > reservation
            > > number 9791881 to access the conference call and the replay.
            > >
            > > -------------------------------------------------------------------
            > ------
            > > ------------------
            > >
            > > **Disclosure: I have no business relationships with ECD or any
            > > of its business segments, but I do own a small portion of ECD
            > stock
            > > in a retirement account, and have for many years.
            > >
            > > Regards,
            > >
            > > Dave Goldstein
            > > President, EVA/DC and
            > > Program Development Associates
            > > Gaithersburg, MD
            > >
            >
            === message truncated ===


            __________________________________________________
            Do You Yahoo!?
            Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around
            http://mail.yahoo.com
          • murdoch_1998
            Chaos to the rescue . I like it. While the BEV was killed and is being killed again any time it tries to come up, I think another way it is going to
            Message 5 of 5 , Sep 14, 2004
              "Chaos to the rescue". I like it.

              While the BEV was killed and is being killed again any time it tries
              to come up, I think another way it is going to re-insinuate itself
              is in the form of Hybrids which are not being successfully stopped.
              I'm pretty unhappy with Toyota for their wrong-minded behaviour with
              the RAV4 EV, but I sure do like their commitment to hybrids. Any
              and every time they put a hybrid into the hands of a new customer,
              it is rechargeable NiMH Matsushita battery power that they are
              allowing that customer to use for a small portion of their daily
              driving.

              I think Dave mentioned in the Prius+ discussion that there is a
              rumor that Ovonics has some Ovonic-NiMH powered Priuses. I don't
              know if this means just the existing Matsushita battery was swapped
              out for an Ovonic battery, or part or all of the gasoline power was
              replaced by Ovonic NiMH power. In any event, one way or another, we
              will demonstrate that consumers could and will benefit from having
              access to more NiMH power in their hybrids and eventually they'll
              ask where they can get a pure-BEV. By including an electric-only
              mode in a PHEV, we can give consumers a taste. By continuing to
              improve NEVs and golf-carts and EV bikes, we can continue to give
              consumers a taste, even if it is a tragic insult compared to what
              was already accomplished in the EV1 and the RAV4 EV.

              I wonder what progress is being made in NiMH pricing, per kWh, for
              BEVs.



              --- In evworld@yahoogroups.com, Lee Dekker <heprv@y...> wrote:
              > Don't think you will hear much about any kind of battery in any
              kind of EV because "the
              > EV is dead". Not only is the EV dead but there is no point in
              considering improvements in
              > components because the car buying public simply does not want EVs.
              Bolstering this view
              > is the universal "never plug it in" slogan of all hybrid makers.
              > But the rechargeable battery is making it into main stream in the
              form of AAs. And the
              > power needs of portable electronic devices are increasing.
              > With all this battery improvement going on in the small device
              world, the EV may yet be
              > able to stick its head up with without instant decapitation. At
              some point there may be
              > so many companies competing in the field and making money that the
              technology will be
              > uncontainable. Chaos to the rescue.
              >
              > --- murdoch_1998 <murdoch@h...> wrote:
              >
              > > Thanks for your knowledgeable analysis.
              > >
              > > I find myself trying to find a toe-hold for conversation about
              NiMH,
              > > in both private and public emails. Essentially, my question
              > > is "what the heck is going on with NiMH and Li- batteries, and
              why
              > > aren't we talking about it more, in light of the fact that we
              seem
              > > willing to talk about H2?" An example of what gives me this
              > > consternation would be that we have politicians who normally do
              not
              > > care enough about energy policy to even mention or debate
              critical
              > > areas of renewable energy, but who have gone out of their way to
              > > state that they have decided that H2 is the future and that's
              it,
              > > and we should joint them and so forth.
              > >
              > > I am all for debating the many many many pros and cons of H2 and
              any
              > > other alt fuel that folks can think of, but in the meantime, how
              > > many others here and elsewhere can see that NiMH is a proven
              piece,
              > > already fitted into the puzzle, already helping people recycle,
              > > already proven as a BEV battery worth considering, etc.?
              > >
              > > There are probably a lot of people reading this who never had a
              > > chance to drive an honest-to-goodness BEV powered by Ovonic or
              > > Matsushita or someone else's NiMH. Let me tell you, it was, in
              many
              > > ways, much better than they were letting on. I try to employ
              > > understatement, generally, but I do want to say that in some
              ways it
              > > really was fantastic! And yes, there were drawbacks that also
              > > needed getting a handle-on.... some difficult to get at, such as
              the
              > > time I talked to a RAV4 EV dealer who mentioned to me that some
              EV1
              > > leasors were experiencing extreme degradation (I don't know if
              it
              > > was lead-acid or NiMH) of range, and were motivated to look into
              > > RAV4 EVs.
              > >
              > > I never had a chance to drive a BEV, advanced Lead-Acid or NiMH
              more
              > > than once in awhile, such as when a friend would let me try one
              or
              > > when I would rent one at Budget at LAX, but wow!
              > >
              > > For example, how just genuinely relaxing to sit at a stoplight
              in a
              > > RAV4 EV, in relative piece and quiet, no idling of any engine to
              be
              > > wasting energy, and then just power away and keep up with
              traffic.
              > > I don't think this relaxing nature of the drive should be under-
              > > stated.
              > >
              > > Or to be able to step into the gas with an EV1 and calmly go
              past
              > > laggards in traffic, choosing whether or not to rub it in that
              this
              > > is one of those EVs that "nobody wants".
              > >
              > > To be sure, some of those EV1s were lead-acid powered (Panasonic
              had
              > > the good batteries, though the early ones were Delcos), but in
              any
              > > event, I think we need to explore and get a handle on why NiMH
              isn't
              > > being seen as and discussed as the important piece of the puzzle
              > > that it inevitably is, whether this is desired by some in the
              Energy
              > > Business or not. Already it is the important battery in all
              > > existing hybrids for sale to the public, that I'm aware of.
              > >
              > > ENER stock: readers should be made aware that they've been in
              > > business for more than 30 years, and for many of those years,
              they
              > > have a long history of their ship always being just about ready
              to
              > > come in. Often, financially, that ship has not come in.
              Overall, I
              > > think that lifelong buy-and-hold shareholders in ENER have not
              > > benefited greatly, but have suffered opportunities cost.
              Exceptions
              > > might be folks who timed the stock and only bought it at low
              points.
              > >
              > > So, while I am personally somewhat optimistic about some of
              their
              > > prospects, it is only fair that everyone should be aware: when
              they
              > > talk about expecting this or that project to come to fruition,
              then
              > > may well, but not always on time, and not always to enormous
              profit,
              > > historically.
              > >
              > > Disclaimer: I do not own any, but am a contributor to
              researching a
              > > stock index which does include them.
              > >
              > >
              > >
              > > --- In evworld@yahoogroups.com, Dave Goldstein <goldie.ev1@j...>
              > > wrote:
              > > > On Tue, 14 Sep 2004 03:54:19 -0000 "murdoch_1998"
              > > > <murdoch@h...> writes:
              > > > > Am trying to make heads or tails of this, but anyway, here
              it
              > > is.
              > > > > Some discussion to be sorted out of how their business is
              doing
              > > in
              > > > > solar PV, NiMH, H2.
              > > > >
              > > > > http://biz.yahoo.com/e/040913/ener10-k.html
              > > > >
              > > >
              > > > FWIW, here is my read:
              > > >
              > > > Overall, it appears that ECD's annual revenues from all of
              its
              > > > different
              > > > units combined, were flat, whereas development and legal
              expenses
              > > rose
              > > > significantly, resulting in a net loss of $51 million in
              FY'04
              > > vs. a
              > > > loss of
              > > > $36 million in FY'03. This is not atypical for a materials-
              based
              > > > technology
              > > > development company like Energy Conversion Devices, which
              operates
              > > > on a multi year development time scale, and which depends
              heavily
              > > upon
              > > > royalties, machinery sales, government and military contracts,
              as
              > > well as
              > > >
              > > > product sales.
              > > >
              > > > There appear to be sizable losses associated with Hydrogen
              > > > technologies
              > > > (down $2M in revenues from the previous year) and there were
              > > significant
              > > > losses associated with Rare Earth Ovonic, which I believe is a
              > > Chinese
              > > > battery manufacturing venture that also provides access to
              rare
              > > earth
              > > > minerals needed for the metal hydride matrix used in NiMH
              > > batteries, H2
              > > > hydride storage tanks and other core technologies that ECD has
              > > developed.
              > > >
              > > > Legal costs for patent litigation to protect ECD's and
              > > Ovonic's 300+
              > > > NiMH patents (now settled) also eroded earnings, but revenues
              from
              > > the
              > > > settlement cannot be booked until FY'05. NiMH product
              development
              > > > costs also rose significantly, possibly due to the new
              Springboro,
              > > OH
              > > > battery manufacturing plant. And product development
              agreements
              > > (i.e., -
              > > > government and industry contracts) were way down (-7.5M).
              IMO,
              > > this
              > > > is directly related to the auto industry's general reluctance
              to
              > > embrace
              > > > hybrid technology, and continuing delays in upgrading
              conventional
              > > ICE
              > > > vehicles to the long-awaited 36-42 volt standard (as opposed
              to
              > > today's
              > > > outmoded and overworked 12 volt automotive systems.)
              > > >
              > > > Solar revenues showed a strong upward trend, with PV sales
              up
              > > 44%
              > > > to third-party buyers (+ 8M,) and a healthy $7M increase in
              > > product
              > > > development agreements, paced by an Air Force Contract to
              develop
              > > > new solar technology to be used in space and airship vehicles,
              but
              > > were
              > > > offset by the full impact of having acquired 100% of United
              Solar
              > > Ovonic
              > > > and other startup costs, resulting in a net loss of $13M for
              the
              > > solar
              > > > segment
              > > > of the company.
              > > >
              > > > According to Chairman and CEO, Robert C. Stempel:
              > > >
              > > > "Our goal is to move the Company into sustained
              profitability
              > > by
              > > > July 2006. This will be accomplished by transitioning from a
              > > highly
              > > > successful R&D Company to accelerating the commercialization
              > > > of the products and technologies we have developed in the
              fields
              > > of
              > > > energy and information."
              > > >
              > > > "The plan is to grow the solar, battery and OUM businesses;
              > > > move our hydrogen and other technologies into the commercial
              > > > stage; achieve cost reductions across the enterprise; and
              > > capitalize
              > > > the business for the transition. At the same time, we will
              > > continue
              > > > our valuable materials research and technology development to
              > > > enhance our product portfolio in future years."
              > > >
              > > > For those who want to learn more:
              > > >
              > > > ECD will hold a conference call on Tuesday, September 14,
              2004
              > > > at 1:00 p.m. (Eastern Time) to discuss its fiscal year 2004
              > > results.
              > > > Individuals wishing to participate in the conference should
              call
              > > > (877) 858-2512 or (706) 634-1291. A live webcast of the
              > > conference
              > > > call will be available online at
              http://www.ovonic.com/investor or
              > > > through the Company's web site at www.ovonic.com. A replay
              of
              > > > the call will be available through Thursday, September 16,
              2004,
              > > > at (800) 642-1687 or (706) 645-9291. Callers should use
              > > reservation
              > > > number 9791881 to access the conference call and the replay.
              > > >
              > > > ---------------------------------------------------------------
              ----
              > > ------
              > > > ------------------
              > > >
              > > > **Disclosure: I have no business relationships with ECD or
              any
              > > > of its business segments, but I do own a small portion of ECD
              > > stock
              > > > in a retirement account, and have for many years.
              > > >
              > > > Regards,
              > > >
              > > > Dave Goldstein
              > > > President, EVA/DC and
              > > > Program Development Associates
              > > > Gaithersburg, MD
              > > >
              > >
              > === message truncated ===
              >
              >
              > __________________________________________________
              > Do You Yahoo!?
              > Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around
              > http://mail.yahoo.com
            Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.