GM is attempting to trademark the term “Range Anxiety”. There has been much speculation that GM intends to use the term as a marketing weapon against the Nissan Leaf (a full battery electric vehicle with a range of about 100 miles) in marketing for the Chevrolet Volt (a plug-in hybrid that recharges the batteries from an internal combustion engine for about 300 miles of range). While this seems like a plausible reason for wanting the trademark, I have to wonder what this means in terms of GM’s wider strategic planning.

GM’s current product plan does not include any battery electric vehicles (BEV) for the U.S. market (that they’re talking about, anyway). Nissan, Toyota, Ford, and Fiat/Chrysler all have BEVs planned for the U.S. market within the next two years. GM is competing with their Volt during those two years and in theory will be hammering home the range anxiety drivers will feel in competitors’ vehicles. If GM has their way and successfully sways consumer opinion with negative “Range Anxiety” marketing regarding BEVs, are we to assume that GM has therefore abandoned the BEV marketplace to competitors?

Well, that may be reading too much into it, but let’s assume for the moment that I’m not. Abandoning the BEV market in the U.S. may not be as perilous as it sounds. Pike Research is expecting that in the U.S. the EV market will be about 40% of the size of the PHEV market in total by 2015 or a little over 80,000 vehicles. That’s not a lot of volume; by comparison, GM sold 131,952 vehicles in August alone. My guess is GM expects technology will change the game by mid-decade.

By 2015, the current lithium ion battery technology will be into a new generation of R&D (perhaps we’ll start to see the much touted lithium air batteries?). Also, GM is betting heavily on fuel cell vehicles (FCV). While it is still early to be talking about a FCV market, I expect that GM will play a big role in that market when those vehicles do hit. In the past year, the BEVs that GM has shown are pod-like, two wheeled, “urban mobility vehicles” designed only for city driving. Whatever the case for future technology, it appears GM that is all but declaring that their automobiles will have about 300 miles of range in the U.S. no matter what propulsion technology they use (assuming that pod-like, two-wheeled vehicles are not an “automobile”).

Range anxiety is not a unique-to-the-U.S. concept, but does seem to be bigger issue in North America than some other markets. As such, GM is not likely to pursue the same BEV strategy (or lack thereof) in other markets. They are developing a BEV for the Indian market, and it seems likely they would pursue a more aggressive strategy for China whose BEV market is expected to more than three times that of the U.S.

There are a number of companies both entering and converging into the energy management space. Historically, Building Management Systems (BMS) players such as Honeywell, Johnson Controls and Siemens have dominated the energy management market for commercial buildings. However, newer, more nimble players, like EnerNOC (convergence) and BuildingIQ (new entrant), are beginning to increase market share and help define a new market.

A building energy management system (BEMS) is similar to a BMS, yet initially focused specifically on energy. While a BMS does have energy management aspects to it, it also includes the monitoring of fire systems and security systems – among other building and mechanical controls. BEMS are brought to market by vendors who solely focus on energy management as their means to penetrate customer channels. Notable are firms like Verisae who will, after providing energy management, focus existing customer channels to provide their asset or carbon management applications.

A BEMS is based on IT hardware and software, and when broken down the three components of a BEMS are:

• Building Automation and Control

• Energy Efficiency Technologies And Systems

• Demand Response Systems

For a small business in a small commercial facility of less than 10,000 square feet, this may be as simple as a programmable thermostat controlling the HVAC system. For very large commercial and institutional campuses, this may include thousands of controls, multiple networks, multiple applications, and internal and external support services. There are many drivers for implementing a BEMS in commercial buildings with an existing BMS, too.

Additional applications of a BEMS are:

• Analyze weather data

• Analyze energy usage

• Enter in energy demand and cost curves

• Pull BMS data

• Pull data from meters

There are two types of BEMS in the market today: passive and active. Passive BEMS will read both weather and meter information, and then report past energy usage. These systems are great for smaller buildings and can be employed in buildings without a BMS fast and cheap. Less sophisticated end-users can look to vendors like Mach Energy who specifically serve office buildings and focus on consolidating and organizing data on the flow of electricity into office buildings. The vendor in this case is not trying to interface with every sensor in the building for several reasons, none more important than striving to keep costs down and not producing the complex algorithms to increase predictability. The passivity of these BEMS is exemplified by the daily reporting and minimal inputs/outputs.

Active BEMS operate at level of higher intelligence and automation. Beyond accomplishing all of the inputs and outputs of the passive BEMS, active BEMS will interface with a commercial building’s BMS sensors, meters and sub-meters. The BEMS will actively read BMS sensors and subsequently control real-time data. Additionally the BEMS will enter in a growing list of inputs such as building characteristics (location in terms of geographic and position), demand response signals, utility incentives, determined inhabitant comfort levels and more. The resulting outputs provide real-time energy analytics across a potentially global portfolio of buildings. An upcoming Pike Research report on BEMS will expand on these ideas.

When it comes to promoting electric vehicles as the future of transportation, the federal government has put its money where its mouth is. From bailouts of GM and Chrysler to $2.4 billion in money for EVs and batteries, the Department of Energy (DOE) is betting big that domestically manufactured EVs and batteries will greatly enhance Detroit’s chances at being globally viable.

There have been questions if offering a few thousand people discounted EVs and free charging equipment is a fair use of taxpayer money. This legitimate concern is answered that the automakers, Department of Energy, and city planners need data on driving habits from the early adopters to know how the vehicles are being driven, and in return for the discounted driving, participants agree to have data collected.

However, if establishing a commercial market for plug-in vehicles and all-electric vehicles is the end game, shouldn’t the DOE maximize the visibility of EVs by making them available to the largest possible audience through car-share, car rental, and taxi fleets? Potential EV owners can kick the tires by renting a car for a few hours or a day, and since the cars are always returned to the same spot, charging should be relatively simple.

While rental car companies such as Enterprise, are buying 500 Nissan Leafs, and will charge a hefty premium for the EVs, customers won’t have the hassle or expense of filling up the cars. Some community car share programs such as CuseCar.org in New York are receiving a small portion of the DOE’s investment. Japan is testing electric taxis, but the federal EV programs have missed an opportunity by not sponsoring a similar program in the U.S. imagine how many people could get a feel for the Volt or Leaf if they were used as cabs in New York or L.A.

Despite some issues about renting EVs, going forward the DOE would maximize public money by making multi-driver programs a strategic part of their EV rollout program. This would include providing subsidized chargers to community car share programs and even to hotels, which could enable tourists to charge rental EVs overnight.

What’s not helping is GM’s disparaging of EVs and the overblown notion of “range anxiety.” The company has done a 180 in the past two years on describing the EV as an electric car. Back then they tried hard to make us believe that despite the gas tank, it was an electric car because the generator only provided power to charge the batteries the drove the vehicle. It seems that GM has changed its propulsion strategy and is now promoting the Volt as a “real car, not an electric car.” This is not the way to grow an industry, and expect significant backlash from the EV community to ensue.

With all the talk about lithium ion batteries, and the unprecedented investment occurring in this area, it is easy to forget the most prevalent utility-scale energy storage technology, pumped hydro. Pumped hydro is the most mature and largest storage technology available. Worldwide, there are over 150 pumped hydro facilities with a total capacity of over 100 GW. In the United States, there are 38 pumped hydro facilities and a total capacity of approximately 19 GW. Battery deployments are just beginning and are typically measured in tens of megawatts rather than hundreds.

Pumped hydro is based on conventional hydroelectric technology. Facilities pump water from one reservoir into another at a higher elevation, typically using lower-priced off-peak electricity. When energy is required, the water in the higher elevation reservoir is released and runs through hydraulic turbines that generate electricity. One key advantage of this system is that the gravitational energy stored in the upper reservoir can be stored for long periods of time with virtually no energy loss. For pumped hydro to make economic sense, it must be constructed on a large scale, which involves a high initial facility construction cost and be able to leverage favorable geographic assets.

In 1985, a 2,100 MW pumped hydro facility in the United States cost $1.7 billion, or approximately $800 per kW. Today, a new pumped hydro facility costs approximately $1,500 per kW, give or take. Once built, the cost per kWh of storage is relatively economical, approximately $125 per kWh. While there are a myriad of citing and permitting issues, there are 40 pumped hydro facilities, totaling approximately 31 GW, planned in the United States alone. The question is: how much more growth will we see of this technology? Pike Research believes it could reach upwards of 4.5 gigawatts per year, once the reality of large-scale renewables integration starts to happen in 2015 and beyond. This forecast may seem lofty, but really it comes down to building 20 – 40 facilities worldwide that average between 500 megawatts and 1 gigawatt. Is the forecast aggressive? Arguably yes. Is it feasible? Yes. Most close to the energy storage market acknowledge that a range of technologies are part of the solution. Only time will tell how much of the mix is comprised of pumped hydro, and perhaps more importantly when.

I tend to approach vendor claims of “comprehensive solutions” or “extensible platforms” like I do old Barry Manilow songs –“oh no, not again.”  Too often, I read paragraphs of product description and still not know whether it is hardware, software, a service, or none of the above. The big “platform” announcement last week by Cisco and Itron hit a few of these nerves until relevant details were implied by Cisco’s Arch Rock acquisition announcement a day later.

This week, the smart grid “platform party” comes courtesy of Echelon, and it looks like quite the party.

Echelon launched the Echelon Control System (ECoS) and Echelon Edge Control Node, a software “platform” and associated hardware meant to reside at the edge of the smart grid (i.e. at the distribution transformer level). Echelon likens ECoS and the Control Node to “Android and Droid for the Smart Grid”, which succinctly captures both their definition of “platform” and the boldness of their ambition. By providing an open hardware and software platform that myriad third party developers can leverage, Echelon hopes to enable a robust set of distributed smart grid applications across the distribution automation and AMI portion of the grid.

An impressive list of has partners joined them for the party, including Accenture, Badger, Capgemini, Convergys, Coulomb, eMeter, iControl, KEMA, Kinects, Oracle, Plug Smart, S&C Electric, SEAS-NVE, Streetlight.Vision, Telvent, Tollgrade, Vattenfall, and Verizon.

In our recently published Smart Grid Networking and Communications report, we at Pike Research identified the product category chaos at the smart grid edge, with product nouns including End Points, Collectors, Concentrators, Relays, Gateways, Converters, Bridges, and Controllers. These provide application-specific functions for AMI backhaul, distribution automation connectivity, and substation SCADA links.

We forecasted the emergence of a new product category we called the “generalized grid router”, initially pioneered by the likes of Ambient Corporation and SmartSynch, that could potentially unify these applications onto a common a platform (*gasp!*). The Echelon offerings fit neatly into this category and, we believe, if done correctly, could indeed enable the necessary distributed intelligence for a robust smart grid at the local level, where PEVs and distributed generation resources must be managed and integrated.

At the moment, the Echelon platform appears complementary to the Cisco/Itron ‘platform’, though one might have expected the ECoS concept (which is pretty obvious, if difficult) to have emerged from Cisco rather than Echelon. Interestingly, the Echelon announcement includes a significant customer commitment from Duke ($14.5 million worth), who has been getting smart grid architecture advice from Cisco. Duke must really like the “generalized grid router” concept, as they are the lead customer for Ambient and SmartSynch as well, making one wonder if they have too many dance partners at the party.

As the smart phone platform wars have proven, the key to success is how many third party developers embrace the platform, and whether those applications are really useful. Echelon’s ECoS is off to a strong start, though time will ultimately differentiate between good marketing vs. good platform instantiation. Some of the listed partners already make products that go by one of the nouns listed above, and are unlikely to abandon them unless ECoS has demonstrable market traction. Technically, a key test will be how the smart gird security community parses this platform, as they scrape themselves off the ceiling from the shock of the Stuxnet worm. Undoubtedly, all smart grid platforms will evolve as a result.

So far, Echelon appears to have introduced a platform concept worthy of the name. Now if I can just get that Barry Manilow tune out of my head.

Results reported in Yingli’s latest reports demonstrate that they have unobtrusively but steadily gained market share based on outstanding performance in a number of key parameters. Yingli, we believe, will achieve revenue growth from $1095 million in 2008 to just over $2000 million in 2012 (a CAGR approaching 23%) as shown in the chart below.

Yingli initiated internal supply of much its polysilicon requirements when it kicked off 3000 MT facility in its Fine Silicon division, and it has reduced silicon usage to an industry-leading 5.82 g/W. Yingli also now has achieved over 19% cell efficiency on its PANDA lines from which are set to manufacture 300 MW of mono-C modules and 100 MW of multi-C modules by the end of 2011. In fact, Yingli indicated expectations of shipping 60 MW of PANDA products by the end of this year. Another primary indicator of excellent performance is processing cost, and, as shown in the chart below, Yingli will likely, in our estimation, average $0.74/W in 2010 and $0.68/W in 2011. These estimations are 5-10% lower than cost/W of other competitive low-cost, Chinese module manufacturers.

As a result of this combination of low cost/W and increased sales of high-efficiency PANDA product along with other competitive advances mentioned above, we forecast that Yingli will gain market share as shown below. Starting with a modest market share of only 4.9% in 2008, we expect Yingli to earn 11.2% market share in 2011 as a result of its precedent-setting accomplishments.

The news that the world’s largest tidal turbine – 1 MW in size – will be installed off the coast of Scotland near Orkney should come as no surprise.

Primitive tidal mills operated in the England date back to the 11th century. During the 18th century, several tidal mills popped up in Western Europe. The first modern tidal plants borrowed from conventional hydropower concepts by relying upon dams or barrages. La Rance, France still boasts the largest such system in the world, supplying 240 MW of capacity since 1966.

Scotland is the hot spot for tidal power in all of northern Europe, with the Pentland Firth often described as the “Saudi Arabia of tidal power.” The U.K. and Ireland also feature among the best tidal sites in the world, because they are relatively close to people. Some from these islands near the European coast may argue with this assessment, but when compared to the U.S. — where 95% of the nation’s tidal resources rise and fall off the coast of remote Alaska — it becomes clear it is all a matter of perspective.

Tidal stream turbines often look suspiciously like wind turbines placed underwater. Tidal projects comprise over 90 percent of today’s marine kinetic capacity totals, but the vast majority of this installed capacity relies upon first generation “barrage” systems still relying upon storage dams (see forecast below.)

Pike Research will be issuing a revised forecast of ocean energy technologies next year, with lower capacity totals given the lack of progress on carbon regulations and the lingering recession, but this 2009 forecast shows how tidal systems dominate the near-term market for ocean energy technologies.

What is the scientific basis of tides?

Tides result from the gravitational forces of the moon and sun interacting with oceans. (Because of its proximity to the earth, the moon actually exerts about twice as much influence on tidal patterns as the sun.) The ever-changing relationship between the moon, sun, and earth causes the ocean to rise and fall at regular intervals. These bulges are frequently referred to as “semi-diurnal” tides.

These tidal streams become concentrated pools of kinetic energy ideal for power generation, when passing through narrow channels, an inlet into a bay or other passages between two land masses. While the tidal resource is much less abundant than wave energy resources, its power density is greater. Most waves move at the pace of approximately one meter per second; tides typically move at least twice that speed at two meters per second. A doubling of the speed of tidal streams will result in eight times the amount of potential energy since power density is determined by the cube of water speed.

The Electric Power Research Institute has projected that a 100 MW tidal stream turbine project could generate power at a cost of 6 to 9 cents per kilowatt hour, which is competitive with wind, geothermal and other mainstream renewable technologies.

The basic selling points for tidal as follows:

•Tidal resources have the highest power density of any of the marine renewable technologies, hence the lowest cost estimates.

•Unlike many renewable resources including solar and wind power, tidal resources can be accurately predicted literally years in advance.

•Tidal devices are typically sited below the ocean surface: they can’t be seen; can’t be heard; and, in most instances, would not interfere with shipping or other maritime uses.

While physics is on the side of tidal streams if compared to wave energy resources, the size of the resource is much smaller. Most experts estimate the wave resource to be two to three times the size of the world’s tidal stream resource.

I recently had an interesting conversation with Andy Balding, Director of Powertrain Engineering for Lotus Engineering regarding the generator internal combustion engines (ICEs) used in plug-in hybrids.  There were a couple a of points that he made during the conversation that I felt were interesting and deserved some further consideration.

Regarding the engines themselves, Balding points out that the engines do not have to be the high-tech ICEs often used in traditional vehicles.  In order to achieve the maximum balance of acceleration, low emissions, and fuel efficiency in a traditional vehicle, ICEs need to be able to run at high RPM and incorporate complicated variable valve timing and injection systems.  These systems improve the efficiency of the burn of fuel in the cylinder.  However, as automakers look at building serial plug-in hybrids (vehicles with no mechanical connection between the ICE and the wheels), a lot of this technology is likely unnecessary. 

I think this is a very intriguing concept.  By reducing the complexity the ICE, automakers can lower the cost and potentially, the weight.  The engine, for the most part, will only run at one speed.  The engine can be optimized for that one speed and remove technology that is not necessary. 

In a recent video of the Chevy Volt running with the generator ICE running, it showed a sub-30 mpg fuel average while the engine ran in charge sustaining mode.  While GM denies this is true, I would not be surprised if during the charge sustaining mode, the engine is getting lower gas mileage than an ICE powered-car in some situations.  The key being, of course, that the ICE generator would not run as long and it would run at a constant speed.

The other interesting point that Balding made is that consumers will have a bit of an adjustment to the way serial plug-in hybrids sound.  He mentioned that consumers will likely not be accustomed to the disconnect between the ICE noise and their foot action.  Balding made the comparison to the air conditioning in a home.  Once turned on, the air conditioning comes on and off without the homeowner purposely starting or stopping it. 

As the driver presses on the accelerator pedal in a plug-in hybrid, the ICE may not make a sound (as the electric motor runs off of battery power).  However, after reaching cruising speed for a while the ICE may start for a period of time, then shut off and restart again (depending on the battery state of charge).  Noises from the ICE starting and stopping may have little correlation with the specific actions of the driver, unlike in a traditional vehicle where stomping on the accelerator results in a growl from the ICE.

I agree that this cycling of the ICE on a plug-in hybrid will likely take some adjustment for consumers.  Though, I suspect the challenge lies with manufacturers to help consumers understand the normal cycle of the ICE in a variety of conditions.  Without this education, dealers may find themselves inundated with concerned owners.

In recent analysis of vehicle sales by segment, the differences between traditional internal combustion engine (ICE) vehicle sales and hybrid (HEV) sales show that hybrids are not competitive in several key segments within the U.S. The small car segment accounts for 20% of U.S. sales, but only accounts for 12% of HEV sales (with only 2 models available). While the midsize car segment with the popular Toyota Prius accounts for 68% of HEV sales (a total of 11 models available) compared to 31% for the segment among ICE vehicles. An indication that both manufacturer and consumer acceptance in this segment is strong.

There are several reasons that HEVs may not be capturing the same level of small car market share as the ICE small cars, though price and value are certainly one of the key issues. In this segment, many consumers are inclined to go for solutions that don’t break the bank, such as flex-fuel vehicles or high-efficiency or turbo ICEs. If product plans are representative of an automaker’s opinion, there appears to be some agreement with this strategy as high-efficiency ICEs with improved fuel economy with minimal cost increase seem to be the direction many are headed with new products (for example, the Chevy Cruze and Ford Fiesta). This leads one to expect that the growth of plug-in vehicles in this segment will likely be niche vehicles, similar to how small luxury cars are niche vehicles within the small car segment.

Beyond cars, consumer demand continues to push the development of trucks, whether that’s crossover SUVs or full-size pickup trucks. Midsize/large SUVs and pick-up trucks combined account for about 27% of the U.S. new vehicle market, while sales of hybrids in these segments combine for about 3% (a total of 4 models, all GM). This mismatch between share of ICEs and HEVs is the result of several factors, cost of the vehicles, fuel economy gains that require many years of use to see payback, and lack of availability.

The prevailing assumption is that most consumers won’t pay for small improvements from HEVs in fuel economy in big truck segments, and that assumption is likely correct. The cost recovery for a $4,000 to $8,000 premium for the HEV version likely takes many years to pay back with fuel economy gains that net savings of $300 to $500/year (based on a 12K miles per year driving cycle and $3/gallon gas price). Even at double the gas price, paybacks on expensive HEVs system are at least 5 years or longer. Additionally, let’s not forget that truck buyers in the bigger vehicle segments are often looking for specific towing or cargo capabilities that HEVs have to live up to, which in some cases may drive the cost of the HEV even higher. The differences between HEV and ICE segment market share point to an opportunity within these segments for other less-costly technologies such as high-efficiency ICEs, start-stop hybrids or turbo-diesel engines.

I just finished writing how it will take time before we see any specifics on the vague “platform” announced by Cisco and Itron. I guess time is up. Cisco announced the intention to acquire Arch Rock Corporation, the long time IP-based wireless sensor network technology company. So much for needing patience….

I should have seen it coming. We sat down with Arch Rock back in May, where they previewed an impressive, very well thought out, end-to-end, IP-based AMI software platform, formally announced in June. This leverages all the important existing and emerging standards. And with Arch Rock folks active in most of the relevant committees, their pre-standard implementations should be well informed.

The big problem I saw in the Arch Rock effort was a business issue: they aimed to license the platform to existing smart grid vendors, most of which already had products in the market and aggressive IP-based R&D underway. I thought it highly unlikely Arch Rock could get major players to dump their own efforts and outsource this key architectural component, and thereby spur the market for a generic IP-based ecosystem for sub-1 GHz wireless communications. I still think I was right – Arch Rock couldn’t – but Cisco can, as evidenced by the big Cisco/Itron strategic alliance.

The Arch Rock platform will undoubtedly undergo some evolution in the collaboration with Itron, leveraging Itron’s experience in successfully deploying large-scale AMI mesh networks. The value of this experience should not be underestimated. In a similar arena, some in the IP community mocked the ZigBee wireless mesh networking stack as a bloated mess, until these once warring groups started collaborating (thank you, NIST!). The word on the street is they’re struggling to keep the new IP-based ZigBee stack within the same code footprint and functional capabilities as the existing ZigBee PRO stack, but the ultimate collaboration should result in a stronger standard and products. 

So the path forward on the Cisco/Itron platform appears significantly clearer. Starting with Arch Rock’s technology, Cisco adds their special sauce, and Itron integrates it all into the OpenWay platform, refining it along the way. None of this is a slam dunk, as Itron only knows too well and Cisco/Arch Rock may need to learn.  What will happen to Arch Rock’s hardware products is unclear, but I would expect them to fade away. The competitive threats to other AMI vendors such as Silver Spring Networks and Trilliant are now clearer (and stronger), though they at least now have a reasonably detailed product spec to push against instead of a vague platform ghost.

All in all, if a standard AMI communications platform is the goal, then I cannot imagine a better combination than Cisco’s architectural breadth, Itron’s experience (and savvy), and Arch Rock’s technology. I may not be ready to cry “bingo” yet, but I think we at least have “b-i-n” in place. Now let’s see where the “g-o” will come from….