Follow us on...
Follow us on Twitter Follow us on Facebook Watch us on YouTube
Register
Results 1 to 8 of 8
  1. #1
    Atomic Punk
    Join Date
    01.29.02
    Age
    49
    Location
    somewhere over the rainbow
    Posts
    22,946
    Last Online

    12.11.17 @ 04:37 PM
    Likes
    842
    Liked 1,229 Times in 448 Posts

    Default Taxpayers footing the bill for next generation of electric car batteries

    Whether you like it or not, you are an investor in the electric vehicle (EV) battery of tomorrow.

    Late last week, the Department of Energy announced plans to spend $120 million to establish a major battery research center at the Argonne National Lab outside of Chicago. The stated goal: to create a new “Manhattan Project” that will develop an EV battery in the next five years that lasts five times as long and costs one-fifth as much as current EV batteries.

    And they say it’s all in the interest of national security.

    The Joint Center for Energy Storage Research (JCESR) will become a think tank for multiple government entities like the Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory in California, and the Pacific Northwest National Laboratory in Washington, in addition to private companies like Dow Chemical and Johnson Controls. Even General Motors is an affiliate – and likely future licensee of the technology.

    “The taxpayer is an investor, so what can we do that pays the investor back? The answer is security – to do our best to use energy inside the boundaries on our soil,” says Jeff Chamberlain, the deputy for development and demonstration at JCESR. Chamberlain says the U.S. imports a billion gallons of oil per day. But if even 5 percent of drivers switched to EVs, that could mean $100 billion in battery purchases that would be powered largely by domestically produced energy.

    “The Chevy Volt sticker price is $40,000. If we can have a battery with five times as much energy [as the one in the Volt] at even a third of the cost, then those vehicles become cost competitive with gas vehicles. If they are competitive on the lot, and they can save on costs to drive, people will buy them,” says Chamberlain.

    The plug-in hybrid Volt has a battery-powered range of 38 miles, while most of the all-electric cars on sale today can go less than 100 miles per charge. Only the Tesla Model S can come close to the range of liquid fueled cars, travelling up to 265 miles between charges, but at a cost of $77,400, which is more than twice the average price of a new car today.

    “Batteries have made their way into every form of our life,” adds Amy Francetic, an executive director of the Clean Energy Trust based in Chicago, a business accelerator that helps transfer government research to industry. “Any time [something] is critical to our way of life, or an advancement of industry, it should be the role of the US government. It is hard to make those advancements without the US government."

    Still, experts in the automotive industry and materials science research are wondering why the US government is sponsoring such a massive research effort.

    “This is the definition of a money hole,” says Rob Enderle, an analyst who has studied battery innovations. “They aren't going to the Moon, they are just making something that exists better and setting goals that can't be achieved in a reasonable time.”

    Enderle says a better plan would be to focus on a specific goal, such as figuring out how to improve the energy grid for charging a growing number of EVs, or to invent a new wireless charging technology so the electric cars of the future don’t have to literally plug-in.

    Ozzie Zehner, a visiting scholar at UC Berkeley STSC and the author of "Green Illusions," says the main problem with funding government labs for electric car research is that the U.S. should look for entirely different green initiatives to fund, and to stay out of the EV market.

    “Both the National Academies and, more recently, the Congressional Budget Office, have found no benefit to the environment from subsidizing electric cars,” Zehner says, arguing that taxpayer money could be wasted.

    Chamberlain counters the argument about misplaced funds by pointing out that even the largest U.S. companies do not have massive supercomputers, linear accelerator labs (like the one in Stanford), or a staff of what will eventually become about 120 researchers at JCESR.

    The only other non-government entity to have that many materials science researchers? The Toyota Motor Company, which likely has a staff of about 100 researchers in Japan developing new battery technologies for imports, says Chamberlain. The company’s Prius hybrid is the best-selling electrified car of all time.

    Francetic says that the automakers do have research teams dedicated to developing new battery technologies for EVs, but not at the level of basic physics – which requires a team of materials science experts and cooperation between government labs and private industry. “Physicists are behind inventing battery science, manufacturers are behind manufacturing,” she says.

    Toyota, Ford and GM declined to comment on the new research center. “We're not in a position to comment about this yet,” says Alan Hall, a spokesperson for Ford.
    "Watch what people are cynical about, and one can often discover what they lack.” -- Gen. George S. Patton

  2. #2
    Baluchitherium Scott's Avatar
    Join Date
    10.01.99
    Age
    47
    Location
    Canada
    Posts
    4,241
    Favorite VH Song

    Humans Being
    Last Online

    12.16.17 @ 03:54 AM
    Likes
    471
    Liked 742 Times in 409 Posts


    Premium Member

    Default

    Consumers / tax payers pay for EVERYTHING. That's how the system works.

    Roads? Taxes. iPhone? Rate plans. Cheap food? corn subsidies. Wars? Taxes. Consumers foot the bill for all things that are used / consumed. There is no free ride. If a consumer makes a $4M donation to a charity - then that consumer paid for that (ie, Mitt Romney was very generous w/ his donations).

    I actually think the idea of electric cars are good. And I agree w/ the notion that if they were priced equal to or better then ICE vehicles - they'll sell.

    Here is my personal example...I've recently purchase a 2012 Kia Optima Hybriday Premium model. It was on clearance as we're almost in 2013 - with massive discounts. The car has every option available - and cost about $500 more then the equal optioned Kia Optima ICE / non-hybrid version. Looks are the same, handling is the same, performance is pretty close - and MORE then I'll use in an emergency. So -why would I choose a car that gets 600km's to 65 liters of fuel over a car that gets 1,100km's for 65 liters of fuel (1,100 is about average - 1,200 is a person best and 950 is a personal worst). THere is zero rationale reason why I or anyone would do that, unless then wanted a zero to 60 time that was about 1 second faster.
    Winners come and go; legends are forever.

  3. #3
    Atomic Punk bsbll4's Avatar
    Join Date
    02.18.03
    Age
    34
    Location
    St. Louis, MO
    Posts
    8,660
    Favorite VH Album

    Van Halen/ADKOT
    Favorite VH Song

    Hot For Teacher
    Last Online

    12.15.17 @ 12:23 PM
    Likes
    575
    Liked 2,238 Times in 1,130 Posts


    Premium Member

    Default

    There's a difference between consumers and taxpayers, though. Consumers willingly pay for products, taxpayers are sending their money to politicians and charging them to put it to the best use for everyone. The question that is raised here is: "Is this a good investment for the taxpayer?"

    The first thing we have to ask is WHY are we pushing for electric vehicles? Is it because of carbon emissions? Is it because of energy independence? Is it a combination of both? Let's take carbon emissions: Over the life of the vehicle, current electric cars produce more carbon emissions than gas vehicles. Well...that seems weird, right? Well, when you consider that the materials in the batteries are rare earth minerals, that means the emissions put out to mine them is more than typical fossil fuels (plus, since China has the world by the balls currently with REMs, they can pollute all they want in the process). Also, the disposal of the batteries factors into the same equation. Then, you examine how the electricity is generated (coal, natural gas, other fossil fuels), and you have tipped the scales over the life of the vehicle.

    What about energy independence? Well, by many estimates we will be "North American energy independent" in 15 years anyway. So unless they plan on starting up a bunch of nuclear plants, "renewables" can't supply enough of the energy difference to make this worthwhile, which means they will just have to burn more fossil fuels to produce the electricity to fuel the "green" cars.

    The second thing you have to examine is: Is this the best use of taxpayer money? I think the evidence from the first point would constitute a resounding no, but let's take it a bit further. Electric vehicles aren't selling even with the tax credits. The solution? Let's invest more money!! But why should the federal government be in the business of selecting what product lines are successful?

    The other issue is charging stations. Until they can come up with a way to charge the battery in 5-10 minutes (or less, since filling up a vehicle with gas takes about 3 minutes), there will still be barriers to entry. Right now it take 8 hours to fully recharge a battery. That will never fly for drivers who plan on driving outside their daily commutes to and from work (and hopefully it's a short trip, otherwise you're screwed...unless your office has a charging station as well, which is doubtful).

    http://dailycaller.com/2012/10/05/st...than-gas-cars/

    Conclusion? This is completely stupid.
    CNN may think my opinion matters, but you shouldn't.

  4. #4
    Baluchitherium Scott's Avatar
    Join Date
    10.01.99
    Age
    47
    Location
    Canada
    Posts
    4,241
    Favorite VH Song

    Humans Being
    Last Online

    12.16.17 @ 03:54 AM
    Likes
    471
    Liked 742 Times in 409 Posts


    Premium Member

    Default

    I disagree. I think if we (meaning North Americans) can innovate a product that delivers the same performance as gas, so similar ranges before empty, similar costs, similar 'fill times' - then that product could be sold worldwide. Ya, eventually it could be replicated and copied - just like what happened w/ cars by other countries - but I would like to be the patent holder for that and look at ROI's once licensed.

    Is the industry there yet? nope. However, in 1982, a Camaro came w/ a V8 that churned out 150 horsepower, hit zero-60 in 10 seconds and got (likely) 14-15 MPG. Today, you can buy a base model Camaro w/ a V6, that hits 60 in 6.5 seconds and gets 30 MPG.

    The purpose of the analogy? It takes time. However, the improvements will happen. What would have happened had GM stuck w/ the EV1 in 1990 - and actually SOLD them? Likely a 2013 Chevy Volt that could hit 400 miles on a charge, with a 15-20 minute charge time, at a similar cost to an ICE car. Speculative of course - however look at the camaro example and it's hard not to argue the logic.
    Winners come and go; legends are forever.

  5. #5
    Banned! phillybri76's Avatar
    Join Date
    02.07.12
    Age
    40
    Location
    Raleigh, NC
    Posts
    225
    Favorite VH Album

    Van Halen
    Favorite VH Song

    Hear About It Later
    Last Online

    11.25.15 @ 10:51 AM
    Likes
    0
    Liked 0 Times in 0 Posts

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Scott View Post
    Consumers / tax payers pay for EVERYTHING. That's how the system works.

    Roads? Taxes. iPhone? Rate plans. Cheap food? corn subsidies. Wars? Taxes. Consumers foot the bill for all things that are used / consumed. There is no free ride. If a consumer makes a $4M donation to a charity - then that consumer paid for that (ie, Mitt Romney was very generous w/ his donations).

    I actually think the idea of electric cars are good. And I agree w/ the notion that if they were priced equal to or better then ICE vehicles - they'll sell.

    Here is my personal example...I've recently purchase a 2012 Kia Optima Hybriday Premium model. It was on clearance as we're almost in 2013 - with massive discounts. The car has every option available - and cost about $500 more then the equal optioned Kia Optima ICE / non-hybrid version. Looks are the same, handling is the same, performance is pretty close - and MORE then I'll use in an emergency. So -why would I choose a car that gets 600km's to 65 liters of fuel over a car that gets 1,100km's for 65 liters of fuel (1,100 is about average - 1,200 is a person best and 950 is a personal worst). THere is zero rationale reason why I or anyone would do that, unless then wanted a zero to 60 time that was about 1 second faster.
    Stop making sense, Scott. Voivod's entire existence is predicated on shitting on anything that costs tax dollars and can be even remotely be attributed to Barack Obama. Facts and common sense be damned.

    That's why the Non-Music side of the VH Fans Meeting Place bears a striking resemblance to the Drudge Report...

  6. #6
    Atomic Punk bsbll4's Avatar
    Join Date
    02.18.03
    Age
    34
    Location
    St. Louis, MO
    Posts
    8,660
    Favorite VH Album

    Van Halen/ADKOT
    Favorite VH Song

    Hot For Teacher
    Last Online

    12.15.17 @ 12:23 PM
    Likes
    575
    Liked 2,238 Times in 1,130 Posts


    Premium Member

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Scott View Post
    I disagree. I think if we (meaning North Americans) can innovate a product that delivers the same performance as gas, so similar ranges before empty, similar costs, similar 'fill times' - then that product could be sold worldwide. Ya, eventually it could be replicated and copied - just like what happened w/ cars by other countries - but I would like to be the patent holder for that and look at ROI's once licensed.

    Is the industry there yet? nope. However, in 1982, a Camaro came w/ a V8 that churned out 150 horsepower, hit zero-60 in 10 seconds and got (likely) 14-15 MPG. Today, you can buy a base model Camaro w/ a V6, that hits 60 in 6.5 seconds and gets 30 MPG.

    The purpose of the analogy? It takes time. However, the improvements will happen. What would have happened had GM stuck w/ the EV1 in 1990 - and actually SOLD them? Likely a 2013 Chevy Volt that could hit 400 miles on a charge, with a 15-20 minute charge time, at a similar cost to an ICE car. Speculative of course - however look at the camaro example and it's hard not to argue the logic.
    There's an awful lot of speculation there. The reason they didn't sell the electric car is because it wasn't cost effective. Companies don't just run in the opposite direction when it comes to new ways to make money.

    Battery technology has been improving exponentially since then, but nowhere near where you suggest it could be. The thing that has driven the engine improvements is lighter materials (which gives greater gas mileage) and computer control. It's not like they re-invented the engine to be that efficient...it's everything around the engine that's getting so much better. It's comparing apples and oranges--those same technologies are used in new electric vehicles and it still isn't practicle for the average person.

    Look, $120 million is .008% of our annual federal budget deficit, so it's not like this is a true Manhattan Project that is eating up a huge chunk of the budget, but I'm not sure what the benefit is to an electric car anyway--as I pointed out in the first post, electric vehicles are worse for the environment, so why the heck are we investing money in this?
    CNN may think my opinion matters, but you shouldn't.

  7. #7
    Atomic Punk lovemachine97(Version 2)'s Avatar
    Join Date
    06.05.03
    Location
    Southern California
    Posts
    13,994
    Last Online

    12.17.17 @ 07:25 AM
    Likes
    817
    Liked 3,117 Times in 1,828 Posts


    Premium Member

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Scott View Post
    Consumers / tax payers pay for EVERYTHING. That's how the system works.

    Roads? Taxes. iPhone? Rate plans. Cheap food? corn subsidies. Wars? Taxes. Consumers foot the bill for all things that are used / consumed. There is no free ride. If a consumer makes a $4M donation to a charity - then that consumer paid for that (ie, Mitt Romney was very generous w/ his donations).

    I actually think the idea of electric cars are good. And I agree w/ the notion that if they were priced equal to or better then ICE vehicles - they'll sell.

    Here is my personal example...I've recently purchase a 2012 Kia Optima Hybriday Premium model. It was on clearance as we're almost in 2013 - with massive discounts. The car has every option available - and cost about $500 more then the equal optioned Kia Optima ICE / non-hybrid version. Looks are the same, handling is the same, performance is pretty close - and MORE then I'll use in an emergency. So -why would I choose a car that gets 600km's to 65 liters of fuel over a car that gets 1,100km's for 65 liters of fuel (1,100 is about average - 1,200 is a person best and 950 is a personal worst). THere is zero rationale reason why I or anyone would do that, unless then wanted a zero to 60 time that was about 1 second faster.
    This, to me, is all over the place. The way roads should work is that the taxes you pay to use them (ex: gasoline tax) pays for them (and it's not a foregone conclusion roads must be built by government only). I'm not even sure why iPhones are included here, but you aren't coerced by threat of force to buy one at a discount. You can buy one or not, or buy an unlocked one without a contract at full price. But what the government shouldn't be doing is subsidizing a purchase of a Samsung phone to make it artificially cheaper than an iPhone because the government thinks it's better.

    With corn subsidies, consumers don't have a choice. Tax money is used for that. Why is high-fructose corn syrup so popular? Because the government makes it cheaper to use than sugar with subsidies. How fair is that for sugar, whose businesses pays taxes that get used to subsidize their competitor (Sugar receives help to, so the whole thing is just dumb). In a market not fooled with by the government, corn/sugar would compete fairly. Sugar is much cheaper globally, so we'd probably have cheaper food that uses sugar, not corn syrup.

    Electric cars are a good idea, but who says it's the best idea? The electricity to recharge a battery must come from somewhere, and that's mostly coal, at least for now. What if someone comes up with a great idea that's even cleaner, but can't make it as affordable because the government heavily subsidizes electric cars? What if the one part of their newer, better technology is taxed heavily (to pay to subsidize electric batteries) so it's not only making the battery cheaper, but the newer product more expensive?

    These things distort the market. A market gives you the best product at the cheapest price. Once you start distorting it, you have issues.

    There's a story about the free market conservatives like to tell about the transition from whale oil to kerosene. They say, as whales became more scarce, the price went up. The market needed a replacement, and kerosene became the replacement--the market working. This is only partially the story. In reality, it's disputed how much whale oil was actually used, but no matter the reason, it was expensive by 1850 and several cheaper alternatives emerged, the cheapest being the alcohol-based camphene at 50 cents a gallon, and coal oil at 50 cents a gallon (but low quality). In the 1860s, kerosene was introduced at 60 cents a gallon. Camphene worked very well, it was cheap, it burned bright (for lights) and smelled good.

    In 1862, the government imposed a $2 per gallon tax on alcohol, making camphene the most expensive choice, and kerosene emerged as the choice, furthering our dependence on oil.

    Where would we be today if camphene had won? Would we have sustainable, cleaner energy based on that? Perhaps--we don't know. But what I DO know is that government interference made distorted the market and we continued down the road of oil-based energy. Maybe we would have developed cleaner energy 100 years ago...we'll never know.
    Last edited by lovemachine97(Version 2); 12.06.12 at 01:29 PM.

  8. #8
    Forum Frontman It's Mike's Avatar
    Join Date
    03.26.06
    Age
    43
    Location
    Vaughan, Ontario, Canada
    Posts
    34,158
    Favorite VH Album

    like them all, no favourite
    Last Online

    12.17.17 @ 08:00 AM
    Likes
    1,321
    Liked 6,709 Times in 3,728 Posts

    Default

    the govt needs to influence markets, they have no choice. Just merely a question of what level of influence.

 

 

Similar Threads

  1. Electric Cars - Fuel Cell vs. Batteries
    By snostorm in forum VH Fans Meeting Place (Non-Music)
    Replies: 2
    Last Post: 02.03.12, 11:22 AM
  2. Generation Zero
    By voivod in forum VH Fans Meeting Place (Non-Music)
    Replies: 5
    Last Post: 02.27.10, 10:53 AM
  3. Collins, The Next Generation
    By voivod in forum VH Fans Meeting Place (Music Only)
    Replies: 20
    Last Post: 11.17.08, 07:32 AM
  4. Who is the Van Halen of this generation?
    By jadlo in forum Main VH Discussion
    Replies: 38
    Last Post: 08.02.05, 11:03 AM
  5. Laptop batteries
    By billy007 in forum VH Fans Meeting Place (Non-Music)
    Replies: 2
    Last Post: 01.22.05, 11:05 AM

Tags for this Thread

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •