The only one marketed AWE system for off-grid electricity is KiweeOne.
I didn’t write that.
Do you mean that is the only product now for sale? The others are still doing R&D. Let’s change “market” to “potential market”.
1 Like
True, I am sorry.
Is it so difficult to understand what is a market?
As I understand it, and I think I understand it, it is all the potential customers for a service or product. In this case electricity, or off-grid electricity.
The market would be those entities buying or wishing to buy electricity, and the competitors would be the current and potential methods of providing energy, like solar, wind, and so on.
Your market analysis would show you, perhaps, the current LCOE of your most direct competitor is x. You can then decide if you can compete with that, or can compete in some other way.
Current methods are marketed.
Potential methods are in R&D.
“marketed” is not the same as “market”.
Saying a product is “marketed” is kind of like saying the product is being sold. A “market” is all possible customers for a product or service, (off-grid) electricity in this case.
I included the bolded part because your competitor analysis should also look at those, even if they are not now competing in the market.
A marketed product or method implies the existence of a market for that product or method.
Current and potential products or methods cannot be in the same basket.
I would say a market is suppliers and customers exchanging products/money.
Even so I think its reasonable to day there is a market if there are most likely customers if a product would be sold at the correct price. Eg the market for Tesla Model 3 exists even though none have been sold yet. Tesla is just still unable to ship. There are people on waiting list, so the market must/will come to existence.
I think for AWE, there is a proven market for electric power production at many scales. If you made a rig with the right price and otherwise no «showstoppers», AWE will sell. I would think saying that there is no market for AWE would be just quarreling for fun.
2 Likes
Oh, right. I was talking about “demand” or “market demand” then.
But that’s really too broad a thing to give rise to useful discussion. I think we want to get a deeper understanding of the issues, for that you just have to focus on one little thing after the other I think, so that hopefully in the end you have a better understanding of the whole thing.
The market demand for electricity is already there. Are you saying that the market demand for electricity from an AWES is different from the market demand for electricity from a wind turbine?
Maybe it is time to judge if an AWE is able to compete? I don’t know how good our analysis would be though, being outsiders to the companies.
1 Like
Good new.
With electricity?
I agree.
I presume “our analysis” is yours.
It looks to me you have stopped discussing in “good faith,” unfortunately. I’ll assume that is because of a misunderstanding. This will be my last post in this thread.
1 Like
Dr. Harrop declines peer review of his AWE reports, which have gross factual errors even in summary. No qualified aerospace engineer endorses these over-priced under-informed reports. Pierre was writing in “good faith”, and is right about the odd Indian mirror promotions of Harrop’s tropes. What is particularly worrisome is several years of this circle pushing crude report spam at AWE search alerts. IDTechEx itself is a very marginal tech conference brand. The Old Forum has long covered the details of this story.
1 Like
It looks to me you have even not began discussing in “good faith”, at least from the post where I proved with sustained elements that all reports were Harrop’s reports, contrary to your authority assertions.
You should assume your misunderstanding.
You should have stopped posting long before on this thread.
Fine… I’ll continue…
I’ll assume your misunderstanding is here. And I’ll assume that you think I made an appeal to authority argument that the report was probably good because Harrop wrote it.
I didn’t reply to this:
Because I didn’t understand what you were trying to say. I still don’t.
I didn’t make an appeal to authority argument. I wrote:
I made the part bold that you, I assume, missed. Doug was saying they, as bystanders, wouldn’t be able to do a good analysis (I think), I was saying they potentially could. You’d need to know who was doing the analysis, then you could judge if they could potentially do a good analysis, based on their experience and previous work.
This part:
Is too vague. I meant, for an entity going through the trouble of establishing itself and writing reports, I would first make the charitable assumption that they would try to write good reports and that they themselves believe they are able to write good reports. Or at least have something useful to add. That charitable assumption makes you willing to give them some of your time by reading the report, even though they are “bystanders.” If the writer asks more of you (money, say), I would try to verify that charitable assumption.
You are more knowledgeable on this report than I (it’s too early for me to worry too much about competitor analyses) and you demonstrated that in that post. So I wrote “good rebuttal.”
I put the quotation marks around “good faith” to try to indicate that it is an actual term: Wikipedia:Assume good faith - Wikipedia
I continued writing in here because you continued to say there was no market (demand) for electricity (from AWES). That’s just silly. If you mean only the kiwee is being sold today, say that. If you mean something else, say that, clearly.
Apparently no.
Maybe yes.
I never say it.
Feel free to write in French if in the future you want to talk to me.
C’était votre dernier message sur ce topic?
I gave up on that idea. Let’s see what happens.