Battery Line Up: The first equipment arrives for a manufacturing line at a new Johnson Controls automotive battery factory in Holland, MI.
Johnson Controls
If federally funded factories don't get enough demand, even more government spending could result.
Last year's stimulus package committed the government to spending billions for factories designed to produce advanced batteries for electric cars. One goal is to rejuvenate cities in Michigan that have been devastated by the collapse of the auto industry. Unfortunately, it's not yet clear if electric cars will sell fast enough to justify all this battery production. Generating the demand for these vehicles could be a long-term project-which could mean even more government investment over the next few years.
Construction began last week on the last of nine battery factories supported by grants under the Recovery Act, which was part of the stimulus package. The factories are part of a $2.4 billion program to help fund 30 factories for electric vehicles and their components in the United States. (The manufacturers must match these federal funds with other money, such as state incentives and private investment.) The U.S. Department of Energy released an analysis this week that claims this program, and others in the Recovery Act that support electric vehicles, will lower the cost of batteries by 70 percent, support the production of 500,000 electric vehicles a year, and create tens of thousands of jobs.
But some experts, including people at companies supported by the grants, worry that the new manufacturing capacity will exceed the demand for electric vehicles and plug-in hybrids, which have larger batteries than conventional hybrids and can be recharged by plugging them in. Later this year, Chevrolet will start selling its plug-in hybrid, the Volt, and Nissan will offer the electric Leaf, to be followed by other automakers in the next two years.
How many people will buy these cars? Menahem Anderman, founder of Total Battery Consulting, which analyzes the market, expects low demand for the vehicles--fewer than 100,000 per year in the U.S. by the time the new factories are all in full swing by 2014. That's far less than the DOE figure of 500,000. He cites several factors for his low prediction, including the limited range of the Leaf, which Nissan says will be able to go 100 miles between recharging. Also, electric cars and plug-in hybrids are expected to cost $10,000 to $20,000 more than a comparably sized conventional hybrid such as the Prius.
If demand is low, many of these new factories may need to shut down--or rely on the government to keep running. The federal government has already approved tax credits of $7,500 to encourage consumers to buy the vehicles. The government will likely go a step further and expand the market directly by buying large numbers of electric cars for its own use.
The electric propulsion system for GM's new plug-in hybrid gives a silent yet powerful ride.
A new lithium-ion battery from A123 Systems could help electric cars and hybrids come to dominate the roads.
Stimulating (and not subsidizing)
Well, I think what is insane, would be, to do nothing and leave it to the market to decide.
Before making predictions which ends badly, first we have to focus on the engine itself (and the technology).
TR is making a good job on that. I expect clearer statements; so that nobody can argue any more of the superiority of Electric motors compared to ICE. Should have been done decades ago!
Gulf makes me two times sick thinking that even there are no risks, no accidents, no pollution, only fraction of that oil would turn the wheels of a gas guzzler whereas an electric motor converts 90% of it.
So we are already too late into it, let's not make it worse announcing devastations and things like that before even starting.
I say it will be huge, it will be viral or it will not happen (they -BP, petro$s and all- will not let it happen) and we strive to death.
Oh, wait.. I forgot Chinese and Indians, yeah, we can always buy from them:)
Electric cars have been around since the mid-nineteenth century and they continue to be unable to occupy more than a tiny niche. In order to make any significant reduction in petroleum consumption in the transportation sector, we would need to replace every combustion engine car in our nation with all-electric ones. After 160 years of intensive electric car research and development, the Tesla Roadster is the only highway-capable all-electric car currently in production. It has half the driving range and passenger capacity of the typical American car, costs more than $100,000.00 even with taxpayer subsidies and requires several hours to recharge/refuel. Replacement batteries for that car, which begin losing capacity after five years, cost $36,000.
As an electrical engineer, who has no love for the noise, vibration and pollution of internal combustion engines, I have closely followed electric car development for the past 50+ years. Breakthroughs have been "just around the corner" for the past half-century. Unfortunately, the same technical challenges that prevented electric cars from becoming a mainstream source of highway transportation 160 years ago, remain today: limited range, high cost and long refueling/recharging times.
If you took a road trip with the most advanced and only highway-capable, all-electric car currently in production, you would spend about as much time recharging its batteries as you would spend driving it...and that's assuming that you could find the non-existent, high-current 240-volt charging stations along the way. If not, then it would take you more than twelve hours of recharging time from an ordinary electric outlet for each 200 miles that you could drive.
For the foreseeable future, no matter how much we may wish or dream otherwise, limitations of existing and developing technologies will prevent all-electric cars from becoming anything more than a tiny niche in our transportation system. The one exception would be this: If all electric cars could have the same standardized and easily exchanged batteries which would be available at special "refueling" stations. Motorists could quickly exchange their discharged batteries for fully-charged ones and continue on their way. Whether such a scheme would ever be practical remains to be seen.
Well said. The Volt will have a range of 40 miles and cost $40,000. It will take all night to charge unless you spend the money to get a high voltage outlet into your garage. Most people will not be able to charge it at their destination. If you are stranded due to loss of charge, you can't get out of your car with your battery can in your hand and walk/hitch to the nearest batteries plus store for a few amps. Best of luck to the manufacturers and the dreamers.
Of course, the Volt will have a on-board gas powered generator to extend the range--and you can refill the gas tank for that if you're stranded.
Guest (DennisB)
You are a bit misinformed.
The Volt has a range extending engine that will keep the batteries at a 30% charge on long trips. So for commuting you may be gas free. To visit the in-laws for the weekend you will burn some gas. The Volt has a couple hundred mile range, just like a gas car.
As for the federal subsidies, I do not have a problem with it. We all have to remember that the first computer processors were contracted by the military, at a set price, to stimulate the computer industry. Then there is the internet, also built originally by the government.
Some times it take a governmental boost to get an industry going.
Just look at China with its 10% growth. Most of it is due to government loans and grants to industry.....
Guest (don.hutchinson)
I agree that we need a thorough review of our industrial policy. For years we have turned a blind eye to subsidies and tax holidays granted by other countries. Even worse when these countries insist on access to US technology as the price for "opening their markets"
The result too often is to foster competition against US manufacturers back here in the US.
Maybe we need the heresy of imposing import duties on Chinese solar and Japanese batteries (to match their subsidies and constraints),instead of forcing our entrepreneurs to produce overseas.
" these countries insist on access to US technology as the price for "opening their markets"
Even with this open technology transfer, these countries continue to steal stuff. Case in point (until proven innocent I presume) - two Chinese Researchers were caught acquiring key technical data from GM for the Chery Car Company (China).
Chinese loans and grants to industry?
I think not.
The industries that the Chinese govt owns, which are a much larger portion of the economy than in the west, are LOSING money.
It is only the companies working to make a profit for themselves that have the incentive to actually turn a profit.
Volt hasn't been driven beyond battery range on the ICE/generator by other than GM engineers. Release date is Oct 2010 and sale date Dec. There is a major battery risk in that battery range may be significantly less than stated. Consumers will be cautious even with the tax incentive. Leaf makes more sense as a commuter given battery range and reliability. The market for electric cars isn't there to use the tax dollars being poured into battery plants. A fiasco in the making. Anyone recall the Freedom car? Better path is Prius/Honda parallel and evolution based on consumer acceptance.
At least the Volt will have a small gasoline generator on board to allow it to operate, in a hindered manner, when the batteries alone would not and charging or charging time unavailable or inadequate.
That is the only thing (other than the huge subsidies that you and I will give buyers) that makes it even half-way palatable as a purchase. Last I heard is that a replacement battery pack which you will need at some point after the 8 year GM guarantee runs out will cost ~$10,000. This will very seriously impact resale value of the thing once it has a few years on it.
Face it, if we were all driving cars withe the best battery technology avaialable now and someone invented the modern internal combustion engine, it would be viewed as wildly superior technology. You can "recharge" the thing fully in 3 minutes? You have a range of 600 miles? You don't have to spend thousands of dollars to replace a battery pack after you've had it a few years (used car buyers)? It doesn't self-discharge when you let it sit for a few weeks at the airport? Wow! Sign me up.
Hybrids are the way to go. Best of both worlds.
What's that? It's loud and spews small amounts of poison wherever it goes and runs on expensive, smelly, and highly explosive fuel produced primarily by our enemies? Hmmm. Sounds like a niche market item for sports car enthusiasts. What? It only makes good torque at high revs? And that's the best they can do after working on it for 150 years? That's just stupid. No one would buy that except long-distance truckers.
Lewisedge seems not to have followed the elecric car story all that closely. No mention of the EV-1, that excellent car of the early 90's whose users LOVED it. All electric, 120 mile range, quiet, fast, and virtually maintenance-free. See the excellent documentary "Who Killed the Electric Car" for details of GM's nasty tricks and lies: they refused to sell them, only lease, and when they saw that they could be a real threat to their other business, they recalled them and destroyed them! There were many factors in that: one big one was surely the concerns of the aftermarket servicers: unlike the ICE, the electric needs practically no servicing or repairs. One serviceman said "We rotate the tires, top up the washer fluid, and send it out again!" NO IC engine, no transmission, no exhaust system, no cat converter, no cooling system...where would the servicers make money? And all the parts factories? But now times may change...GM does not rule the marketplace.
"...limitations of existing and developing technologies will prevent all-electric cars from becoming anything more than a tiny niche in our transportation system. The one exception would be this: If all electric cars could have the same standardized and easily exchanged batteries which would be available at special "refueling" stations."
First, battery exchange is a reality. A company called Better Place already has this system at the working stage. They offer <5 minute battery swaps and are stating $0.02 (IIRC) per mile costs for using their charged batteries.
Their system is being installed in Israel and Denmark. Renault/Nissan is building the cars.
That said, we might not want/need swappable batteries. The upcoming Tesla Model S will have a 300 mile range. And recharging technology is capable of a 80% recharge in 30 minutes. A 540 mile driving day with only a lunch stop.
Few of us drive 300 miles per day very often. We average 32 miles per day. I doubt many people would be cramped by an EV with a 100 mile range once rapid charge stations are available. Just rent a car or take public transport for the rare >200 mile trips.
Electric Vehicles are neither practical nor affordable for most people and only a fringe will buy them. A longer term plan is needed for the introduction to allow time for more technological development -and then subsidies will not be needed. However building large plants without import tariffs for foreign goods is just plain stupid. We should build them here in the quantities we need but we must impose import tariffs so they will not require continuing government subsidy.
Sorry, we cannot withdraw from the global economy.
We can't raise trade barriers to keep out foreign goods without having our industries crushed by retaliatory barriers erected against our goods.
We have to fight for a share of the global market. And spending some tax dollars to grab a piece of the pie makes sense to me.
We can't compete in industries which use large amounts of unskilled labor, but we can compete in industries which are more technology-driven.
I have been following this issue of foreign competion for years. Lets talk about whom is doing whom. I've watched CEOs not make investments that could wipe out competition because of the 3 year payback, they were only concerned about themselves and their short term perspective. I heard them say we should hold our ideas close to our vest, and then watch them turn around and sell the ideas to foreign competitors. I've watched Our government tax inventories to death,[Textiles, Electronics, Steel Industry, Auto Industry, Machine Tool Industry, and now High Tech] and chineese, korean, etc...eat us alive with their unfair treatment of humans, while substidizing there industries at our workers expense. And our congress winked at them, while padding their pockets in many ways...telling our people we have to compete,. . . that is really unfair... Ha Ha ... Now what I think! OUR AMERICAN WORKERS BOTH UNION AND NON_UNION, WHITE AND BLUE COLLAR ARE THE BEST IN THE WORLD .... THEY ARE JUST BEING TAKEN ADVANTAGE BY THE WEALTHY AND POWERFUL... END OF STORY! Greed, Sad but true! Reality!
How nieve and trusting the American people have been. How can China Smelt Aluminum Products for less than we can mine the ore for...I know but you don't want to hear the answer...nor do you want your children subject to the conditions necessary to compete. But your congress person will indirectly tell you it's our lazy workers!
On the positive side. . . Technology can help us. . . but those whom have expoited us . . Now need to subsidize us . . . Will They ... It's all about Money and Power! This is a very emotional issue, isn't it?
The focus should have been on funding research to develop vehicles that are competitive in all respects with fossil fuel powered vehicles, and the research grants should have progress requirements or no more funding. When central planning is used and tries to force the market the result is that the market will next be forced to buy only electric vehicles. The economic effects are far more likely to be devastating than beneficial. Do a search for why EV-1 failed and you will see that it was more than just GM killing it. Either build a non-fossil fuel car that can compete in all respects with the gasoline fueled vehicles or keep researching until we can, rather than trying to force the economically ridiculous.
You are right.
Battery cars are a good niche market.
the limited power storage (1/70th that of chemical fuel per recent TR article) and loss of charge when stored, along with long charging times are just ridiculous. Imagine trying to do something other than take yourself a short distance to work or shopping. Ok, those are a good percent of people's driving habits but longer trips and hauling anything over a few pounds in these baby carriages are not practical.
That said, there are places where electric cars are most of the cars in use. One place is Avalon island off california. you need a permit to drive to the other end of the island so mostly people use electric golf carts around town.
The govt is backing a loser, trying to ram it down our throats at taxpayer's expense.
If we had spent this much money on fuel cells instead we would have a winner.
They have all the advantages of battery powered cars' electric drive efficiency (twice that of ICE WITHOUT wimpy puny cars you can barely fit stuff you need to live into. This is because they basically ARE electric cars. The fuel cell can be plugged in place of the battery as they both produce electricity. The fuel cell would weigh less tho and pump out alot more power.
AND they have all the advantages of chemical fueled cars BECAUSE THEY USE chemical fuel. Either hydrogen, which will have to be produced from non-carbon sources (renewable or nuclear) to reduce CO2. And they can run on methanol like top fuel dragsters do.
They are not some mysterious not-in-use technology. They were flying in the Apollo spacecraft in the 1960's, 40 years ago. Bloom now is selling a stationary fuel cell that runs on nat-gas for backup and primary power for industrial plants and large stores (wal-mart has bought some).
The hydrogen gusher is all around. Water and aluminum or magnesium can be reacted to produce the metal oxide plus hydrogen to burn in the fuel cell so you would simply pull up to a station, drop in a few gallons of filtered water and add a few pounds of aluminum or magnesium pellets.
the fueling station would suck out the slurry of oxide to recycle into new metal pellets with the addition of electricity from sunlight or other sources.
for those doubters, the process of aluminum metal reacting with water occurs at room temp if you add a bit of a chemical that keeps the oxide from forming on the aluminum to create a protective skin.
Aluminum powder is used as part of rocket fuel where it burns readily and provides great thrust and is one of the most abundant elements in the earth's crust.
http://www.fuelcellsworks.com/Supppage7355.html
http://www.techbriefs.com/component/content/article/3498
http://www.physorg.com/news98556080.html
Re: Central Planning and sewage treatment are wrong
I feel the same way about toilets. Why should the government employ central planning to determine where my poop should go? Just so they can say our drinking water is free of human waste? Pffft. Until they produce a flush toilet/sewage line/waste treatment plant system that can compete in all respects with my outhouse—especially cost—they should just keep researching.
The cost of driving charged...
Current EVs cost "$10,000 to $20,000 more than a comparably sized conventional hybrid such as the Prius".
Nissan Leaf The Nissan Leaf price has been set at $32,780. The Toyota Prius is priced at $21,000 to $32,500 (fully loaded).
OK, that's right. But let's dig deeper, shall we?
The article is about federal assistance to help battery plants get up and running. And, according to the article, once adequate manufacturing volume is reached battery prices should be ~30% of what they now are.
Obviously what drives the price of EVs high is the cost of batteries. No one would suggest that it's cheaper to build an internal combustion engine with hundreds of parts than to build an electric motor.
Bring down the price of the batteries and then down comes the price of EVs. Likely below the price of ICE vehicles.
Then, let's dig even deeper.
The Prius gets 46MPG. Burning $3/gallon gas, fuel will cost $0.065 per mile. When gas rises to $6/gallon it will cost $0.13 per mile.
An EV uses about 0.3kWh/mile. Based on average US electricity prices of $0.105/kWh that makes fuel cost $0.03 per mile. And that will most certainly go down with time of use metering and off peak charging.
Driving the "US average" 12,000 miles per year the Leaf will cost $420 less per year to fuel. And that's at average electricity prices and $3/gallon gas. Look for that savings to increase.
Now add in the cost of 2-4 oil changes per 12k miles. $100 - $200 more? And add in more frequent repairs, especially brakes. The Leaf owner is going to save as much as $1,000 per year over the owner of a Prius. (People who drive more than 12k per year will save even more.)
Battery prices come down. People do the fuel/maintenance/repairs math. EVs will have a distinct price advantage.
Re: The cost of driving charged...
Good post thanks!
The other things a lot of people seem to miss are the effects that pollution, either in the form of exhaust or leaking fluids has on the health of people and the planet. I am personally willing to pay quite a bit more and bypass the LED TV or central air conditioning to do something that will reduce these risks.
http://www.themedguru.com/20100629/newsfeature/health-dangers-associated-living-near-roads-86136681.html
I am also aware that electricity generates pollution, but the big difference is that it is controllable at the source. There is also the option in some areas to purchase electricity from a renewable source.
Another great concept that can help with the renewable energy storage shortfall is vehicle-to-grid technology (V2G). V2G describes a system in which plug-in electric vehicles, such as electric cars (BEVs) and plug-in hybrids (PHEVs), communicate with the power grid to sell demand response services by either delivering electricity into the grid or by throttling their charging rate.
Source: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vehicle-to-grid
If we made all our electricity with coal and then used that electricity to power our cars we would still pump less CO2 into the atmosphere than we do using oil. We would be able to control emissions much better with a few large coal burners than with millions of poorly monitored cars. And we could move the produced pollution away from densely populated areas where the health impact would be less.
But we don't have to make the 100% argument.
We produce less than half our electricity with coal, currently down to about 44%. We're replacing coal with less problematic sources of electricity and will continue to do so at ever accelerating rates.
EVs will simply get 'cleaner and cleaner' over time. They will reduce our spending on health problems. They will help save us from extreme climate change.
And they will reduce the number of boatloads of money we ship off every year to oil companies and wars in oil-producing countries.
Re: Electricity and pollution...
I'm not so sure we are replacing coal. The only realistic way to replace coal is with nuclear, but if we do that then there will be less jobs since the coal industry, end-to-end, employs so many people. I doubt there will ever be enough political will to do that. New nuclear would require far less mining labor, fuel transport labor (railroads) and fewer people to run the plants. Ready to fight that battle?
Nuclear makes no sense. It's more expensive, takes longer to install, and brings issues of safety and dangerous waste with it.
We can totally replace coal with renewable energy plus storage and create a lot of good in-country jobs in the process.
Nuclear makes no sense. It's more expensive, takes longer to install, and brings issues of safety and dangerous waste with it.
Nuclear now does make sense and isn't as expensive as it once was, I would suggest reading up on smaller nuclear reactors, http://www.world-nuclear.org/info/inf33.html.
And they are much safer than larger one's.
We can totally replace coal with renewable energy plus storage and create a lot of good in-country jobs in the process.
No we can't, renewables are not there yet, if we tried today to go to renewable energy we would be committing economic suicide. The technology just isn't there right now, and yes I do research in the energy industry. I find it difficult to believe that so many people truly don't understand the technology.
g-
You're wrong on multiple points.
Nuclear is a very expensive way to generate electricity, if we're talking about building new facilities. We cannot use the price of generation from old, paid off plants to project future prices.
Small reactors might be cheaper. And they might not. There are those in the industry that say that smaller will not at all be cheaper per kWh, but more expensive. Furthermore, it's all speculation at this point.
Then, renewables are totally capable of powering our grid right now. We can capture power from the wind for very low prices. We can store that power using CAES, pump-up hydro and batteries for the times when the wind isn't blowing (hard enough). That technology exists, it currently attached to the grid.
(Of course we won't use wind and storage only. Just negating your mistaken statement.)
No I know I'm not, you say I'm wrong yet you site no evidence as to why. Well here's my evidence,
For utilities, a small reactor has several advantages, starting with cost. Small reactors are expected to cost about $5,000 per kilowatt of capacity, or $750 million or so for one of Babcock & Wilcox's units. Large reactors cost $5 billion to $10 billion for reactors that would range from 1,100 to 1,700 megawatts of generating capacity. as seen here, http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748703444804575071402124482176.html.
Now here's a planned 1,000 GW Wind far for California costing estimated $5.5 Billion, see here,
http://www.powergenworldwide.com/index/display/articledisplay/4409164744/articles/powergenworldwide/renewables/wind/2010/05/Baja-wind-farm.html . This proposes a thousand wind turbines! That would be a huge land/ocean area.
Then look at the Maine wind farm project and what some claim about it,
Ocean Energy figures capital costs for the project could go as high as $4.5 billion a megawatt, a lot more than Mr. Pickens projects for his massive Texas wind farm. All in, the costs for the Maine project could come to $25 billion, or $5 billion a megawatt, the Ocean Energy folks told Earth2Tech. That compares to upfront costs of about $600 million per megawatt for old-fashioned coal-fired plants. as seen here,
http://blogs.wsj.com/environmentalcapital/2008/12/01/a-shore-thing-why-offshore-wind-power-will-likely-struggle/
Really renewables are just not there yet, yes we should diversify our energy production even more, it will take years, more like decades, true, but as we continue research and bring down costs, renewables will eventually will be able to replace coal and oil.
1) You are making your nuclear claims on an idea that has yet to prove itself in the real world. An idea that has yet to be tested. Remember what a great idea the pebble bed reactor was and how it failed?
2) You cherry pick your wind price data. Those are not industry averages, but "worst case" examples.
Bob,
This anti-nuke propaganda is really tiresome. It's a big lie and that lie is born out by the success of nuclear power in France. Go read about it.
Thousands of people die in oil and coal mining accidents every year. The only serious nuclear power accident that has ever occurred was the result of outrageous recklessness. Hell, no containment building? Get off the anti-nuke soapbox. It is our only hope for savalation. I'd be happy to debate you point by point.
Nuclear plus electric vehicles is the only thing that will save our way of life.
Re: The cost of driving charged...
I don't see anywhere about how people on average drive at 65-70 MPH, ICE efficiencies, even those in hybrids, go down. All MPG is based on 55 MPH speeds, 5% decline in efficiency per 5 miles over 55MPH. I have personally seen people driving 80 MPH in a prius, not realizing they have no reason to even own one driving at that speed. So no, add in that ~55% of electricity is produced by coal in the US. The benefits aren't that great going to an Hybrid, sure if you want to make yourself feel better, pat yourself on the back when you buy a Hybrid if that helps, but right now the industry isn't there and won't be for a good 20 years. I think so many people see the "possible" and mistake it for the "reality" and the right now the reality is electric /hybrids are not there yet as an industry. Does this mean research shouldn't go on? No of course not, let's just not get ahead of ourselves before we're ready, that would do more harm to an industry than good.
Re: The cost of driving charged...
Here in Cal I'm paying $.18 to $.32 per kWh after including delivery and taxes. So if I used an electric car that cost the same to buy I'd be losing money in cost per mile according to your calculations.
It appears that electricity cost is the only benefit cost-wise of electric cars if the cost of the vehicle was the same (and ok, they are quiet). They cost WAY MORE to buy tho. And they have so many drawbacks - limited life, need to add an ICE charger due to vast time spent charging and limited range without a motor running to charge it. They lose the charge when stored. Gasoline takes months to degrade chemically and won't evaporate if the tank is sealed. Diesel can be stored for years without additives. Emergency generators do this now.
Selling electricity back to the utilities from a charged electric car would be a joke due to conversion losses. You might as well just throw money at the utilities.
A fuel-cell and battery electric hybrid tho would make sense. You could sell electricity back to the grid or power your remote home / cabin silently simply by carrying around water and a metal to reduce it with (aluminum or magnesium most likely). You wouldn't have the conversion loss or load the grid to charge the vehicle, the fuel cell would power the vehicle and recharge the battery for times you wanted to operate in an enclosed space or city center without giving off water. (or water plus CO2 for fuel cells that used methanol as a fuel)
When battery prices do come down, great. That will help prevent them being MORE expensive than a regular car to purchase before price per mile is factored in.
But they are STilL BATTERIES with the limited energy density - estimates are 1/70th to 1/35th that of chemical energy in storage capacity, the reason large vehicles carrying heavy loads don't use batteries. Drawbacks are so many I'd better list them so we don't forget. Maybe this will inspire future car designers instead of just ooh-aahing at minor increases in battery performance.
1) puny energy density compared to chemical fuels limits range
1.5) puny energy density means only tiny vehicles are likely to be 'electric only', the golf-cart effect. Don't talk Prius, it has a good-ole internal combustion engine to make up for this.
2) take long time to recharge. on a long trip you'd have to spend as much time recharging as driving. Good luck escaping Houston's approaching hurricane last year.
3) can't find places to recharge (opps, long trip is out for this reason, see #2)
4) limited lifetime: I know this first hand as I use ton's of Lithium-Ion high capacity in my photography. Even the 'good brands' wear out early. Try fast-charging them and they wear out even faster, dying way before their supposed 'hundreds of recharges'. They get mysterious condition where a few of them say 'full charge' then in use suddenly drop to zero after a few minutes heavy use. I dropped one a couple feet. Out-of-commission.
Maybe new manufacturing process and technologies will solve these problems, maybe they won't. Don't count your chickens before they hatch. In the software industry, the term is 'vaporware' for stuff that is announced before it reaches production, and is often delayed or never makes it to production.
It appears faith in future technology is approaching religious stature with people claiming that 'this will be great' for product proposed but not existing yet or 'I think hospitals should pre-order [not-in-production yet product]'
It's great to innovate. Technology can do great things but throw in a dose of realism people.
The California residential average price for electricity is $0.145/kWh as of April 2010.
I have no idea why you are paying so much for your power. Sounds like you're getting screwed.
As the majority of comments indicate central planning can not be predictive enough to win. Extrapolate to healthcare, economy stimulating, and cap and trade energy use coersion, and see that big government is essentially wrong. More socialized government and centrally planned wealth redistribution is thus even more wrong.
Switch to Repubs or Tea Party, as I have. Never mind that in general they are less smart. Be intellectually secure with yourself and don't let that deter you from joining with what you know is the right direction for our country.
CentralPlanning Not Always Wrong
China is kicking our butt.
The USSR, Cuba, North Korea and Myanmar have been failures.
Central planning can work or fail based on the ability of the people doing the planning. The problem is not central planning as much as it is the inability to change the planners when they are failing.
Luckily for us we were able to toss the Republicans out of office before they totally destroyed America. Hopefully we will be smart enough to not let them back in the drivers seat for a long, long time.
Re: CentralPlanning Not Always Wrong
You're right about it being all about the individual people in power. I think an excellent case can be made that now it's the spend-crazy Democrats who must be tossed out before they totally wreck the economy and every industry. Even if you can make the argument that 2.5 years of unemployment is warranted, at least agree to pay for it out of the $400B unspent stimulus that all agree hasn't produced anything. But it's the Democrats who now are forcing us to spend it, not pay for it, and keep the non-existent remaining $400B untouched, even though that must be borrowed too!
Sure, it is necessary to spend our way out of the financial disaster that the Republicans caused. You have any idea what the Great Depression was like? You think it a good idea to follow the Republican path again?
You want to cut spending and plunge us back into recession? Do you know your economic history and how we double dipped during the Great Depression because conservatives decided that we shouldn't feed the economy? We're now creating jobs after yaers of Bush loosing them. You really want to start putting Americans out of work again?
Have you taken an objective look at what is being done right now with legislation? A health care bill that saves the country money over 'business as usual'. A proposed energy bill that saves the country money and creates American jobs.
Please, step away from Fox. Look for some objective analysis of what is happening.
I hope you realize that the Great Depression wouldn't be so great if Progressives did not try and "spend there way out" in fact two other almost-depressions that I'm sure your not aware of, 1920-21 and 1946 were circumvented by cutting taxes to extreme low's and cutting government spending. The one lead to what is known as the roaring 20's and the other led to the economic boom after world war II.
Also, your right I'm not a big fan of any news agency, none are objective including FOX, but at least they, FOX, will look at both sides and not hide just how bad our Government is running this country.
Have you taken an objective look at what is being done right now with legislation? A health care bill that saves the country money over 'business as usual'. A proposed energy bill that saves the country money and creates American jobs.
Are you serious? you haven't done any homework obviously. The health-care bill will not save money, at all, it's already costing an extra $150 billion and it hasn't come into play as yet. It will keep going up as most of these "plans" do. Coming from a socialist country myself, taxes from Health-care are approximately half of a persons income, sure it didn't start that way.
And the energy bill won't create job's but sure will send energy price's sky rocketing, and yes I know because in the country I came from, gas lowest price was $2.00 a liter, 4 liter's make up a gallon, so you figure it out.
No, if anything it's you who isn't being objective.
Please don't post false history...
"I hope you realize that the Great Depression wouldn't be so great if Progressives did not try and "spend there way out" in fact two other almost-depressions that I'm sure your not aware of, 1920-21 and 1946 were circumvented by cutting taxes to extreme low's and cutting government spending. The one lead to what is known as the roaring 20's and the other led to the economic boom after world war II."
We were spending our way out of the Great Depression when conservatives pressured the federal government to cut back on stimulus spending. That caused a further period of economic downturn which was only reversed by the spending during WWII.
You're right that if the downturn is not too great a tax cut could furnish the spending stimulus to restart the economy. (But pardon me if I don't trust your telling of the tale after that previous whopper.)
The problem with trying to tax cut our way out of bad downturns such as the Great Depression and the Bush Recession is that there just isn't enough tax revenue to cut. Especially if we've already made massive tax cuts to help the wealthy.
Couldn't agree with you more on this subject Bob.
You cannot pull youself out of a depression by belt tightening. I live in So Cal and an interesting thing I've notice is that the wealthy class appears almost entirely unscathed by the this slump. How can that be? Tax the heck out of them and spend it like crazy.
Re: CentralPlanning Not Always Wrong
And yet now we have progressives that really are destroying the US. The spending has to stop before we are over as a country. I believe they, progressives, will be out a lot quicker and longer than the Republicans!
It is precisely the parts of china that are NOT central planned that are growing the economy. They are supporting a great many state owned industries that lose money, and are like a lead anchor to payoff the party bosses who have jobs at these industries. Their economy would be in better shape if they were sold off.
Your ideology get in the way of the truth. This are no obsolutes when it comes to human behavior. Let's say we had no "central management" of anything. How would that work out? Reality is not black and white. Yes there is central management in China and yes it is loose.
Re: CentralPlanning Always Wrong
That's why I never drive on the National Highway System. Damned central planning. Never give in!
Also, the National Weather Bureau and the Federal Postal System. Who are they to tell me if severe weather is coming my way or to deliver my mail?! That should only be done by highly profitable corporations! And don't get me started about the fire department.... Never called 'em. Never will!!
A concern mentioned in this article is cost of Domestic production. It needs to be said, America's tax code is one of several reasons it is often cheaper to import products such as batteries.
Most countries that export to America, have border adjusted taxes that lower the cost of their exports (by the amount of embedded cost of tax removed), when not sold inside their borders. Those same countries will also tax imports into their countries.
On the other hand, U.S. producers struggle to compete (in domestic and international markets) with foreign products virtually unburdened with embedded of taxes. America's income tax has made free trade policies unfair to its domestic producers.
If America manufacturing is to survive with out corporate welfare (i.e. government subsidizing industries), the U.S. will have to adopt the FairTax.
The FairTax progressively taxes only America's domestic consumption above a families poverty level spending. By taxing consumption of domestic and imported products the same, American manufactures can finally compete fairly in both domestic and international markets.
There may be some minor component that is attributible to taxes, but the real difference is labor costs. I'm a computer program for nearly 40 years. I and all the rest of the programmers in the U.S. are systematically being replaced by people (e.g. in Vietnam) who work for about 1/6th of what we need here to support our life style.
Your industry (software) suffers like you said from low cost of wages and how cheap it is to export their service, but it also suffers from huge tax burdens that foreign corporations don't have to pay. On the other hand many physical products that are imported into the United States have the additional cost of shipping, but on average they enjoy 17.5% competitive cost advantage due in large part to border adjusted taxes.
What do you think will happen With respect to American companies and American Jobs they provide, if we removed from the cost on American products;
35% corporate income tax,
7.5% employer portion of payroll taxes,
15% capital gains tax,
15% self employment tax, and
reduced the cost Americans companies spend preparing taxes by over $300 billion.
Switching to the fairtax will put American companies on the same tax footing as imports restoring fairness as it relates to taxes, and their-by improves the competitiveness of American Companies in both domestic and international markets, and nullifies many of the arguments for subsidizing American industries.
But it is an uphill battle dealing with many politicians that would rather enjoy the power derived from selling tax favors in order to fund their reelection campaigns. Those tax favors by the way further complicates an already overly complex tax code costing us $350 to $400 billion (in other words 13% of what we send to the IRS, that is in addition to what we send the IRS).
Stop punishing (taxing) American productivity and creativity.
If the government is susidizing electric car activity, that means Civil Engineers made the choice. They know nothing about technolgy or marketability. But they make such choices for job security. That is how they approach all tasks.
They're manufacturing the WRONG type of batteries
I find it really distressing that no mention was made of the government using new technologies to manufacture batteries from nanotechnology or other advanced battery technologies that will allow batteries to go for hundreds of miles. What they're doing is spending taxpayer money on already obsolete battery technology that keeps a car on the road for 100 miles per charge, with a relatively short lifespan that will prove horrifyingly wasteful and destructive to the environment.
The result is that it's six to one, half a dozen to the other on the environmental benefits of electric vehicles vs. 20th century gas powered horseless carriages. I was looking forward to the government actually funding improvements in battery technologies (such as batteries that last for hundreds of miles and require replacement once every 10 years or more). Looks like that is not in the cards for the near term!
100 mile range doesn't matter to the somewhere near 80% of all drivers who only travel about 35-37 miles/day. That's why GM chose a 40 mile range for Volt and its coming siblings - it was enough and allowed for a cheaper battery. Then there is the range extender that gives another 300+ miles of range.
As for battery cost: the cost of LiION's for cars is dropping precipitously. When GM started Volt it was ~ $1,000/kwh. By production it'll be less than half that and by the Volt II in 2012 it'll drop again; some estimates in the industry put it at ~< $150/kwh by 2014-2015 - in line with the cost of a modern IC based drive line.
BTW: the Volt battery warranty was announced this week: 8 years/100,000 miles.
If the Volt looks decent, I may buy one. But, my commute is 7 miles round trip (yes, I used to bike, but got scared of the occasional near-misses I had with rouge SUVs). So, mostly I won't ever use gas and that means a tank of gas that never gets used. Won't that degrade over time/turn slowly into a sludge?
I believe the Volt has a built-in system that "exercises" the gas engine from time to time if it's not being called on to power the car.
I look forward to the day when batteries are good enough to compete on their own. If the government wants to play a greater role, I'd rather it funded R&D than helping people buy products that can't compete on their own. If a company had a really good battery product, VCs would be tripping over themselves to invest in the idea. It would be unstoppable.
Somewhere between 2015 and 2020, based on DOE projections.
Should see a 70% price drop in the next few years with further drops to follow and prices to reach 'cheap' by 2030.
http://www.whitehouse.gov/files/documents/Battery-and-Electric-Vehicle-Report-FINAL.pdf
I love hearing about complaints that these are subsidies. While I'm no big fan, the competing product/companies - big oil, are the most subsidized product/industry in America. Amongst production tax breaks, not paying U.S. taxes by setting up subsidiaries in Bermuda (Exxon paid $0 in U.S. Corporate Taxes in 2009) and the costs of the pollution, carcinogens, etc. the true cost of gasoline is way beyond the price we pay at the pump. A recent study found that the true costs of a gallon of gas after adding how much we spend on subsidies to big oil, tax breaks, national security (i.e. Wars), etc. would be $15.00 per gallon. Who pays for this? Individuals with our taxes and China with our deficits. The truth is, alternatives like batteries and other alternatives are already economically viable if you just account for the true costs of a gallon of gas. If you're going to call these subsidies for alternative technology, please be mindful of all the subsidies in oil and gas.
Given the well known need for power storage due to increasing renewable penetration, could an eventual overcapacity in vehicle batteries be diverted to applications in power regulation or even arbitrage?
Yes… There are a lot of people working on a concept called Vehicle-to-grid (V2G). Vehicle-to-grid (V2G) describes a system in which plug-in electric vehicles, such as electric cars (BEVs) and plug-in hybrids (PHEVs), communicate with the power grid to sell demand response services by either delivering electricity into the grid or by throttling their charging rate.
Source
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vehicle-to-grid
Other applications than old technologies.
If I had asked the authority to release funds
to me to generate concrete models that serve
to revolutionize, not just car battery industry,
but the entire auto-transportation industry,the
gentlemen in power will laugh out and cry
out, bureaucracy,or capitalism.
As good as electric cars may emerge
to be a reality, the over 50 years of
existence of current auto-design falls
behind the fast pace of changing technology
for next generation society.
It is mind pondering why the same
authority backing electric-car batteries
today, does not extend quest for new
auto design that compart with
sophisticated changing society.
For instance, GSP,so good a human
serving modern multipurpose device,
could have application extended
extensively in auto-industry
with the introduction of
revolutionizing control
panel to replace existing
manually controlling
steering wheels.
This is what we mean by
transformation.And unless,
the auto industry began looking
at changes in the wider context,
other sectors of societal economy,
will undoubtedly, gain unparalleled
edge in human modern age.
Martin Atayo
Washington,DC 20013
subsidizing batteries via gov.
I will not pay 40,000 dollars for an electric. I can't afford it, probably most other consumers. and the sells will collapse with the sure failure and bad press.
I am reminded of the Japanese supporting the analog high definiton in the early 80's, when it was obvious to everybody that digital was the future.
What about the ethanol mandate, that's a joke too.
The nattering nabobs of negativism are in full force today are they not? Where do they all come from?
about electric cars comes from...
realism - the battery car emperor has no clothes
things like:
shoveling taxpayer dollars into the wrong technology (battery cars)
the cr*ppy 'features' of battery powered cars
lack of range of battery only cars
lack of carrying capacity of battery powered cars
lack of deep discharge capability of battery packs - the reason why they are oversized to prevent premature degradation in some models. in the other models I guess they'll wear out early.
safety - emergency personnel won't use 'jaws of life' to cut you out of a battery powered car due to risk to themselves spewing sulfuric acid in lead-acid batteries or explosive or hazardous high voltage electrical discharge in others.
expense - as mentioned above, battery powered cars are way more expensive
an electrical drive train is 2x more efficient than mechanical. so all these problems are on top of the advantage granted to electrical drive vehicles to begin with.
in fact the only advantage many proponents are pointing to is the 'cheaper fuel' and another poster points out equivalent costs at $.10 cents a kWh are half that of gasoline. I'm paying $.18 to $.32 for my electricity so I'd actually be paying MORE per mile in an electric vehicle according to his analysis
This is either stupidity of govt agency granting the funds, or a built in 'need to look like they are doing something' about the problems we face energy wise by same agency, i.e. populist application to granting funds, the very reason that govt handouts fail to back the right technology that will eventually replace internal combustion engines.
Plus given the likelyhood that ICE engines will become 30% more efficient starting in a couple years, as advanced injection technology takes hold (see article on this in TR a few months ago) battery powered cars will look even more like wimpy losers.
http://www.technologyreview.com/energy/25453/
http://www.technologyreview.com/energy/24701/
Will a 30% increase in ICE efficiency make up for a 100% increase in the price of gas?
Current cost per mile
EV =~ $0.035
50MPG Prius burning $3 gas =~ $0.060
---
Looking forward cost per mile
EV (night time charging prices expected to drop) <= $0.035
65MPG 'improved' Prius burning $3/gallon gas =~ $0.046
65 MPG 'improved' Prius burning $6/gallon gas =~ $0.092
It didn't take long to find one did it?
erbium, I think you are much more in touch with ideology than reality.
Drivers will follow because the government will make them follow. Then we will shrug and say, "who is John Galt?"
No even when Atlas Shrug's we will never forget who John Galt is! Socialism is the death of all, Capitalism is where life thrives!
Ann Rand wrote fiction.
Gaut exists only in your mind, just like other people think faeries dance in moonlit glades...
Governments first and primary responsibility is to protect its people from force, fraud, and coercion.
On a fundamental level consider what a government becomes when it coerces its people into doing / buying things they would not otherwise.
A government truly become tyrannical when it become the instrument of force, fraud or coercion.
That plan is not good, in the market consumers are always look and consider first directly with the cost of vehicle. You can't dictate consumer to buy electric vehicle (EV) of more than $10,000 higher than conventional type. Tax credits is only realize by the consumer in every end of the year or 1st quarter but unit cost of EV have direct present impact to your pocket or savings during buying.
To make EV more attractive government should subsidized the cost difference of EV against with the conventional not by tax credits.
Batteries are key to electric cars. Practical hydrogen fueling is very far off.
So we will develop battery design with government funding and 5 years later the whole thing will be shipped to China so that the parent company can make a larger profit. It's all about corporate profit. Never mind the closing up shop and the loss of jobs.
You were going pretty good there...
for a while.
And then you sidetracked with all that China stuff.
Batteries will have not a lot of cheap labor input. (And China's labor rates are already rising. The days of really cheap labor are past.)
Batteries are big and heavy. Fuel prices are going up which will increase the cost of shipping batteries over the ocean.
This means that we've got an opportunity to start some jobs inside the country that have a good chance of staying inside the country.
Carbon tax is a simpler solution
Subsidizing the electric car industry is one possible solution to start the process to get the country rid of oil. However, like the bill design to increase production of ethanol, it may not work, or it may create other problems as a result. For example, 5 years from now the government may find that there is a better technology and they were spending the money on the wrong thing, a little like what has already happened to the hydrogen car.
A much more practical solution is to pass energy legislation putting a tax on carbon, this would encourage every body to move off oil, and the best technology would rise (from the private sector) to solve the problem.
However, the carbon tax is a political bomb, so the government is doing whatever is practical in view of the political climate.
The subsidies are intended to accelerate adoption. Some people may be against it because it open the door to corruption, but well-managed subsidies do work in the long run. As mentioned in previous comments, the Internet, the satellite industry, in Interstate system, are all good examples of subsidies that payed out multiple time over in economic growth.
Re: Carbon tax is a simpler solution
Ethanol is nothing but a agribusiness boondoggle. It makes less than zero sense. People are still debating whether there is any net gain at all. Turning human food into SUV food? Any idea how much hungrier an SUV is than a human.
Manufacturing in the United States is in trouble. That's bad news not just for the country's economy but for the future of innovation.
Our list of the 50 most innovative companies, including the following:
On Twitter
Become a Fan on Facebook
Subscribe to the Feed
devassocx
110 Comments
subsidizing battery companies
I sure hope that we make sure to give enough of our tax $ to subsidize those foreign companies like LG Electronics.
To think that any subsidy should be required is
just another form of insanity...subsidies say that
the item of interest can not make it on its own in the market place...in my world that means it shouldn't exist.
All of this is very misguided and destined to end badly.
Reply
jjs
78 Comments
Re: subsidizing battery companies
Right, unlike the railroads, car industry, airline industry, airplane industry, internet (to name a few that we have subsidized at startup due to the decision they were critical).
Industry, especially today, looks at a quarterly feedback - so something that may be profitable in 5 years won't get funded - only that that will pay back this quarter. Welcome to the 21st century and the rule of the MBA/Finance person (as opposed to the early 20th century, when companies were run by engineers or others from the line, who actually cared about the product).
Reply
pmclachlan
5 Comments
Re: subsidizing battery companies
Times are very different to when Henry Ford started to manufacture cars. Short term planning rules and without engineers leading industry investment follows the latest fad. Electric cars will have their place and like other new technology options they will be dependent on government grants and subsidies to reach a commercial phase. The problem is that politics and sound vision do not necessarily come together so subsidies sometimes follow fashion as opposed to sound commercial demand.
www.pivotalengine.com
Reply
Bob Wallace
71 Comments
Very high entry hurdles...
Some industries need to get fairly large before they can produce their product at an acceptable price. EV batteries fall into that category.
Car manufacturers are ready to build EVs. Pretty much all have announced their EV version which should come to market in the next three or less years with the first arriving in a few months.
But batteries are way too expensive to create a vigorous market. Until the market is adequately large, the cost of batteries will stay high.
We've got to get off oil. We have to quit oil for environmental, security, and economic reasons.
Hydrogen, biofuels, and flywheels have been researched as ways to power our future cars and have come up short.
It is in our best interest to spend some of our tax dollars to get battery production volume up to the point where it can self-sustain. This is an investment in our future.
To not make it would doom us to a personal transportation future too expensive to afford. We would have to continue to send our armies into battle to "protect our sources". We will doom those generations which follow us to a miserable world which will eventually become uninhabitable for humans.
--
Notice how solar has now dropped below $1 a watt to produce? Think it would ever had gotten so cheap without a lot of government assistance over a long time?
We invested that money. Now we get to enjoy the fruits of our investment.
Reply
GaryB
119 Comments
Re: subsidizing battery companies
Yes yes. We should immediately rescind the government designed, created and funded internet!! It has no place in a free economy and would never exist in such an economy because it would sink any private party who was foolish enough to try to create it. For that reason, no true libertarian would ever use the internet for any reason.
In reality, most of the modern world simply would not come into being without a government subsidy. It works, it's essential, get over it. Private markets have local minimum that local actors just cannot get over. The question is, subsidize what and when to stop the subsidy. These are hard policy decisions which need smart policy makers and many many decisions will be wrong (see "when to stop") ... but the few that are right: Computer chips and the internet come to mind, soon "private space industry" are soooo right that they justify the process.
Reply
gblaze44
96 Comments
Re: subsidizing battery companies
Yes yes. We should immediately rescind the government designed, created and funded internet!! It has no place in a free economy and would never exist in such an economy because it would sink any private party who was foolish enough to try to create it. For that reason, no true libertarian would ever use the internet for any reason.
Your not serious are you? Yes ARPA-net was created by Government, but it didn't subsidize any of it, it was tool for their use and when it was turned over to to private industry decades later it was never subsidized, in fact the Internet shows exactly what free enterprise can do with a technology. I can safely say we would not have the internet that we have today if it wasn't for free enterprise. Your getting your history mixed up. The truth is no subsidy has ever worked. Subsidies most often prevent competition, and prevents profit making so a company can survive.
Reply
jjs
78 Comments
Re: subsidizing battery companies
> Yes ARPA-net was created by Government, but it didn't subsidize any of it, it was tool for their use and when it was turned over to to private industry decades later it was never subsidized
Interesting - their paying for it was not "subsidizing" - I guess all those companies donated the APRANET to the government.
Reality: ARPA and DoD paid big money to develop a system that helped them. It turned out to be useful for others, and as it grew it eventually was able to support itself. But at the outset there was one entity paying the bills - the US Government.
Reply
gblaze44
96 Comments
Re: subsidizing battery companies
Reality: ARPA and DoD paid big money to develop a system that helped them. It turned out to be useful for others, and as it grew it eventually was able to support itself. But at the outset there was one entity paying the bills - the US Government.
Yes, your right, but ARPA-NET was not designed or made for the private sector, only after decades did the private sector, ie. free enterprise, find out that they could use this new technology to actually form a new industry around.
Reply
MorinMoss
1 Comment
Re: subsidizing battery companies
ARPAnet led to NSFnet, which went through several iterations, from 56k leased lines to a 45 Mbps backbone in 1991.
In '88, the NSFnet began to open up to commercial entities - previously it was accessed only by the Gov't and universities.
But the key decisions, some which affect us to this day, such as the use of TCP/IP were made before it became the Internet we know and (mostly) love today.
All thanks to the evil Government
Reply