This is what happens when politicians allocate your precious resources instead of letting the market decide where capital should be invested. This article from the Wall Street Journal discusses the failure of the government’s investment into batteries for electric vehicles. The outcome was inevitable. As you can read below, when faced with failure, bureaucrats then talk about “the long term.” Didn’t the patron saint of wasteful fiscal stimulus, John Maynard Keynes, say that in the long run we’re all dead?
Let’s see, solar cells (Solyndra) and now batteries. I can guarantee that more is coming.
You will enjoy, in a perverse way (it’s our money they are destroying), the entire article, but here are the highlights:
Since 2009, the Obama administration has awarded more than $1 billion to American companies to make advanced batteries for electric vehicles. Halfway to a six-year goal of producing one million electric and plug-in hybrid vehicles, auto makers are barely at 50,000 cars.
The money funded nine battery plants—scattered across the U.S. from Michigan to Pennsylvania and Florida—that have few customers, operate well below capacity and, so far, have created less than a third of the jobs promised by 2015. Customers including start-up Fisker Automotive Inc. and auto makers like General Motors Co. GM -2.10% that urged the funding have struggled to produce and sell battery-powered cars, though they insist a market is coming.
President Obama heralded the “birth of an entire new industry” during the ceremonial opening of A123 Systems Inc.’s AONE -5.00% production plant in 2010. The president’s 2013 budget proposal asks for an increase in tax credits to car buyers to amp sales. …
The Department of Energy, which oversees the administration’s advanced battery grants, says it is too early to judge the effort, and believes it will bear fruit when electric cars become a regular sight on American highways.
“We are trying to build the infrastructure for the American battery industry,” said David Sandalow, the acting undersecretary of energy, in an interview. “Short-term trends can be important, but let’s keep our eye on the medium and long term.” The White House deferred comments to the DOE.
Mr. Sandalow said that one or more bankruptcies among companies developing a new technology isn’t uncommon or indicative that there isn’t promise.
Mr Sandalow’s last sentence, isn’t that the mark of the free enterprise system? I haven’t heard nor read anyone decry the continual war[s] that have taken place so far this century, at least from the individual[s] who own stock in the in the war machine. What of the cost?
according to Wikipedia War is an organized, armed, and often a prolonged conflict that is carried on between states, nations, or other parties[1][2] typified by extreme aggression, social disruption, and usually high mortality. War should be understood as an actual, intentional and widespread armed conflict between political communities, and therefore is defined as a form of political violence.[1][3] The set of techniques used by a group to carry out war is known as warfare. An absence of war (and other violence) is usually called peace.
Therefore by definition we have not been at war since Vietnam. I was there (four year in the army) and we were losing over 500 KIA per week verses today over the 10 years maybe 8 per week for the period. This is not meant to take away for those in combat for at the personal level whether you are in a WW II or Vietnam battle or on patrol in the Afghanistan mountains there is no deference. And in fact many today have now served in combat longer then the WW II guys. The difference is as the definition implies the “scale” and today the scale is not that of war but of directed limited force for limited objectives.
It would have been nice if 9/11 didn’t happen but that act could not go unpunished and the $1 trillion price tag was not too high a price to pay. Given the actual cost of the 2009 stimulus that was actually over $1 trillion I say we got more bang for the buck for the former then the later
“according to Wikipedia War is an organized, armed, and often a prolonged conflict that is carried on between states, nations, or other parties”
um, David, can you actually read what you just wrote?
Yes I can apparently you can’t continue reading … typified by extreme aggression, social disruption, and usually high mortality. War should be understood as an actual, intentional and widespread armed conflict between political communities, and therefore is defined as a form of political violence.
Electric cars are a “W..” dream. I have studied this subject for a long time and there is no way to make affordable electric cars. And for the record I have several patents in this subject and I was a part of the GE development team for the Delta (a 36 VDC battery powered commuter car) in the late 60′s. That prototype got about 40 miles on a charge which is not much different then the current Chevy volt.
However even if a battery could be build with the equivalent energy density as a 10/12 gal tank of gas (which it can’t be) where is the electricity going to come from? There are well over 200 million car in this country and even if a small number of electric cars were produced say like 10% or 20,000,000 the electric power to charge them would collapse the US power grid; especially with the EPA closing down the “coal fired base power plants.
If electric cars are the future the first thing that would have to happen is that electricity prices would need to be driven down. And keep in mind that a good portion for the price of gasoline are state and federal taxes. If we switched to electricity a mileage tax would need to be added to electric vehicle to compensate.
However, since the policy of the government is to drive up the price of electricity to cover the higher cost of solar and wind they are at odds with themselves on policy.
There is no way to make this work from a technical point of view.
The solution to the electricity problem is nuclear energy, of course. But you’re right about the battery technology.
I have hopes for fission using Hydrogen-3 (tritium) instead of Hydrogen-2 (deuterium). There is speculation that H-3 could be found on the moon in quantities to make it possible to mine. The lower fusion temperature of H-3 verse H-2 makes the current fusion reactors very close if not over the temperature required fro commercial power. H-3 has a short half life and is not found on earth in any meaningful quantities.
David P, your point about the dramatic increase in demand for electricity these new vehicles would create is a very good one and clearly it’s something the current administration did not think about when they allocated tax payer dollars for this vanity project. Remember, they are to be judged by their thoughts, not the practical cost to apply them. Since you seem to know a lot about batteries I was hoping you could answer a question. Let’s say you pulled into a charging station with your electric chevy Volt, how long would it take to put a full charge into it so you can be on your way?
There are a lot of variables here and I have not seem any specifications on the charging stations but batteries can’t be charged to quickly. A quick partial change might be possible but a full charge is going to take hours.
Almost exactly 100 years ago when electrics and gas cars were in competition the only system that worked was in I think Massachusetts where one of the utilities developed a quick batter change system that worked. I have a 36 VDC electric 20 hp garden tractor that I built and it takes 6/8 hours for a full charge.
What killed the electric was the power distribution system as the country was not yet electrified. There was already a distribution system for kerosene in place where you bought a one gallon tin at any local store for lighting your kerosene lamp. It was very easy to convert the distribution system to gasoline and that killed the electric car.
Jeff: good article.
Jeff, you ask: Let’s say you pulled into a charging station with your electric chevy Volt, how long would it take to put a full charge into it so you can be on your way?
As much as I am for solar and electric cars I know David is right. But Jeff you used the wrong car for your question. The volt, as I understand it, will run on it’s small gas engine to generate the power it needs for the electrics. A better choice would have been the Leaf, a electric only car. And David, I too served in VietNam…to glorify that debacle or any of the other so called wars is a joke. We will pay for them dearly as the cost has fially caught up to us.
No one put glory on anything — personal combat is hell (I spend 6 months in the hospital getting put back together). Vietnam was a huge mistake manly because Johnson faked the Gulf a Tonkin (sp?) incident. Read the book “the best and the brightest” about how the idiots in DC got us into that conflit. My point in what I wrote is not the justification for the conflict but the scale of the conflict. There is no comparison for the current actions to the scale seen in WW II Korea or Vietnam.
You are correct about the volt I stand corrected on that one.
As to solar PV the only way that will ever work on a terawatt hours scale in from PV satellites where the sun shines 24/7 Wind has to many issues to be much then a bit player the problems with both are similar and no knowledgeable engineer would ever commit to more the 15% of power from these sources. Annd even that is very iffy because that are unreliable i.e clouds and day night for PV and too low or too high winds for wind turbines. If you can get 30% up time you are really doing good. This is an area where I have run the power and cost numbers and they just don’t work — sorry guys.
No, we won’t be dead when this pays off….. because it’s NEVER going to “pay off”! If it was, private enterprise would be doing it, period! It’s just more socialist reward your friends and bury your enemies socialist BS! It’s right out of Ann Rand: “Government “help” to business is just as disastrous as government persecution… the only way a government can be of service to national prosperity is by keeping its hands off.” Ann Rand
Read more at http://www.brainyquote.com/quotes/authors/a/ayn_rand.html#jYyilrxwJIQ5uihG.99
David P.,
My Gas Passer buddy had an GM EV-1. He drove it to and from the Hospital during the lease. It got about 100-130 miles to the charge. Fast off the line. He had a charge unit in his garage and a Princess parking spot at the Hospital, mandated charging station when the Hospital remodeled, so he got a free charge during the day and a preferential parking spot next to the Dr’s entrance.
I assume the EV-1 would not have passed crash testing and had no storage but it seemed to be superior to what they are marketing now.
Any comments on the EV-1.
It was an engineering test car and for test or concept cars where cost in not the issue you can do all kinds of things that you can’t do in production. Before I retired I designed and build automation for the auto industry. After 2008 I was out of work … so I’m back tinkering with other forms of powering cars.
Well, Mr. Sandalow; it was the taxpayers who lost their shirts and how many of these failed enterprises were fronts for owners who were campaign contributors? Solandra a great example did Congress ever find out what happened to $1.6million or was it billion? Just wondering; lots of attention is given to green energy. We already know biofuels from corn are as harmful as fossil fuels to the environment. So now it’s wind and solar we’re financing.
How many cars, trucks, trains and airplance use these fuels?? Oh well what do I know?
I agree with inner trader. This battery debacle is a part of the governments green initiative which is nothing more than a vehicle to transfer money from taxpayers to favored political cronies. As Mr. Pristash stated, if a better battery were to be invented, it would have been done by NASA or the military contractors. Natural gas holds more promise but even that may not be viable considering the increased usage if autos begin using it in large quantities.
By the way, I’m enjoying the drop in oil prices of late. It’s still painful to fill up, but $3.33/gal is a sight better than $3.79.
Actually compressed natural gas (CNG) is a good substitute for gasoline and its an easy conversion to make a bi fuel vehicle. You can do it on your own if your mechanically handy for under $2,500 and you have a source of natural gas. Kits for propane are also available. The problem with all the alternatives is “distribution” the old chicken or the egg quandary.
Bio-fuels are net energy users (it takes more to make them then you get out of them) and they serve no legitimate purpose at any level (environmental or for energy) other then give-a-ways to the farm vote. This was one of the worst ideas ever.