AND 
US Battery Companies Seek Government Funds to Establish US-Based Lithium-ion Production Capacity
An electric car future is inevitable. Instead of running on gasoline, of course, those cars will be powered by grid-charged lithium-ion batteries, as shall the Volt.
Currently, Asia is already far ahead of the US in lithium-ion battery production, and if that trend continues will assure future US dependence on Asia for batteries to run our cars.
A consortium of 14 US companies want to prevent that outcome and help jump start US lithium-ion battery production. They are called the “National Alliance for Advanced Transportation Battery Cell Manufacture.”
The founding companies include 3M, ActaCell, All Cell Technologies, Altair Nanotechnologies, Dontech Global, EaglePicher Corporation, EnerSys, Envia Systems, FMC, MicroSun Technologies, Mobius Power, SiLyte, Superior Graphite, and Townsend Advanced Energy.
The group is being advised by the Argonne National Lab and is led by a Chicago lawyer named James Greenberger. The group hopes to establish one or more advanced battery production and development centers in the US, with a price tag of $1 to $2 billion over the next 5 years. The group is requesting these funds should come from the US government.
Greenberger said “We think this is the most effective way that government can leverage public money to both establish lithium ion battery manufacture in the United States and revitalize the automotive industry in the long term.”
The group has already begun lobbying congress and working to inform the Obama administration.
“I don’t think it’s good enough that the American consumer is going to have a vehicle that’s electrified or have hybrid capabilities,” said Greenberger. “It doesn’t help us if we have no capability in the U.S.”
Indeed it is well known that Asian battery firms have long been highly subsidized by their respective governments to make them what they are today.
In fact both battery companies GM has worked with on the Volt project, Korea-based LG Chem and Massachusetts-based A123 build all of their cells in Asia.
Source (Wall Street Journal) and (New York Times)
81 Responses to “US Battery Companies Seek Government Funds to Establish US-Based Lithium-ion Production Capacity”
Leave a Reply
Recent Posts
- New York Times Report on the Chevy Volt Generator Mode Driving Experience
- CNBC Test Drive of the Chevy Volt in Charge Sustaining Mode
- Chevy Volt Will be Able to Hit 104 MPH
- Chevy Volt and Battery Program Update
- GM to Announce Initial Volt Markets at LA Auto Show
- Coalition of Industry Leaders Releases Roadmap to get 120 Million Electric Cars on US Roads by 2030
- Op-Ed: GM Reports a $1.2 Billion Loss, but Has the Cash To See Volt Well into Production and Beyond
- Three Chevy Volt Paint Color Finalists Announced
- What BMW Has Learned from the MINI E Program So Far: That They May Need to Build EREVs
- GM: EVs are Cool, but EREV’s are Really Cool
Recent GM-Volt Forum Posts
- Hacked e-mails reveal global-warming fraud? November 20, 2009This is how open minded liberals operate. "And, perhaps most reprehensibly," Delingpole writes, "a long series of communications discussing how best... […]BigCityCat
- Is the Volt Engine Direct Injected? November 20, 2009I recently read that the Cruze's engine will be DI. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chevy_Cruze#Chevrolet_Cruze Obviously the Cruze's engine will... […]omnimoeish
- First Reports of the Chevy Volt's Charge-Sustaining (Generator) Mode Operation November 20, 2009The first two journalists' reports of what it's like to drive the Chevy Volt while in generator mode operation have been published. 1) New York... […]admin
- Florida giving $5000 rebate to convert Prius to plug-in November 20, 2009- Probably Hymotion - $10,400 standard price - $5000 state rebate - $1000 additional federal incentives - $4,400 final cost. Hurry because their... […]Texas
- New York Times CSM story November 20, 2009Link to the New York Times story of November 19, 2009 about a test ride of the Volt in charge sustaining... […]srschrier
- New video: Volt drive in Detroit November 19, 2009November 19, 2009 Detroit Free Press story with video featuring a Volt drive with Andrew Farah in... […]srschrier
- New Video: Volt Corrosion Testing November 18, 2009From GM VoltAge, the Volt's corrosion... […]srschrier
GM-Volt.com is not affiliated with General Motors Company
All contents copyright 2007-2009 GM-Volt.com, LLC - All Rights Reserved
Home | Contact | Privacy Policy | About | Back to Top
December 28th, 2008 at 8:54 am
I don’t have a problem with the government placing a huge order for American battery powered electric cars and trucks.
With this said, all TARP funds should be withdrawn and revoked. If American’s won’t put their own money up on starting a business then us poor tax payers shouldn’t bank their gambling habit.
Save the dollar… no more TARP.
=D~
(Quote)
December 28th, 2008 at 9:10 am
I guess they figure if the taxpayers can pay for the Volt they can pay for the batteries.
(Quote)
December 28th, 2008 at 9:35 am
A123 is a US company, so why aren’t they in the consortium?
Even though GM doesn’t appear to be interested in building their own batteries, having one or more US auto manufacturers in the consortium would send a positive message.
(Quote)
December 28th, 2008 at 9:44 am
“An electric car future is inevitable. Instead of running on gasoline, of course, those cars will be powered by grid-charged lithium-ion batteries, as shall the Volt.
Currently, Asia is already far ahead of the US in lithium-ion battery production, and if that trend continues will assure future US dependence on Asia for batteries to run our cars.”
The group hopes to establish one or more advanced battery production and development centers in the US, with a price tag of $1 to $2 billion over the next 5 years. The group is requesting these funds should come from the US government.
=============================
PUH-SHAW! Lyle, your so silly. Asia is nothing. Those companys get nothing from the US gov’t for old technology.
One word: EESTOR
/clearly the future of the universe already lives in Cedar Park, Texas
http://www.treehugger.com/2008-01-11_114702-TreeHugger-mrfusion.jpg
(Quote)
December 28th, 2008 at 9:51 am
I’m all for government support. Lets get things moving on this moon shot.
One question. Does anyone remember a post about where in the world most of the lithium reserves are? I know there is alot in asia but what amounts do we have here in north america?
4. Statik
Great photo. can’t wait to run my car off a banana peel and a stale can of high life.
(Quote)
December 28th, 2008 at 9:53 am
To me it’s a no brainer, We should should look out for our future. If such an important industry needs government help to get started, by all means help them. It may cost the taxpayers money at the beginning, but the payoff will be huge later. Besides, we have to stop the trend in relying on foreign countries if we want to remain a leader in this world.
(Quote)
December 28th, 2008 at 9:58 am
I’m looking forward to hear what the new Energy Secretary has to say about all this.
(Quote)
December 28th, 2008 at 10:15 am
It’s a lot better use of R&D money than space exploration or greenwave tripe like ethanol and carbon dioxide sequestration.
3M is a great company; they can do research and get products on the market. FMC is a lithium miner among other things. I wonder how this group got together? Hope our country can get behind it with real money. Take it from foreign aid.
(Quote)
December 28th, 2008 at 10:20 am
Statik,
Too real to be funny!!!!! That’s MJ before he decided to kill babies to save himpreciousself from Parkinson’s.
(Quote)
December 28th, 2008 at 10:26 am
______________________________________________________
US Battery Companies Seek for American tax payers to pay for their US-Based Lithium-ion Production Capacity:
I’m a proponent for American companies that locally manufacture automotive battery power packs but those enterprises should be self funded.
Why can’t the Alliance for Advanced Transportation Battery Cell Manufacture (AATBCM) fund themselves through member dues rather than you and I (the taxpayers) fund their enterprise? Keep in mind that future battery technology innovation will NOT be originated from large committee research labs such as AATBCM. Innovation will continue to come from the multitude of home garages, technical colleges, and private corporate research labs. Institutions like the proposed AATBCM will end up being nothing but a lobbying arm to represent battery manufacturers. Should taxpayers be required to fund the lobbying arm of an industry?
As a taxpayer, I would support providing American companies that locally manufacture automotive battery power packs a ten year zero corporate tax rate (or some similar type of tax incentive).
* Electric Cars + Nuclear Power = American Energy Independence!
______________________________________________________
(Quote)
December 28th, 2008 at 10:38 am
We do not need the Government picking the next energy. Let the companies compete and see were it all goes. No gaurentee lithium-ion batteries are the best way to go but once the Government pickes it we are stuck with it.
Just like how the Government picked cars and trucks over trains by building the interstate. Auto companies did not have to build the expressways, but the railroads had to build and mantain their tracks.
We would not be as dependent on oil today if the government had not built the interstate, we would have many more and better faster trains.
(Quote)
December 28th, 2008 at 10:41 am
Ah, it’s great to see the powers start to get behind the electric car. Kind of like a while ago with the semiconductor industry. Things are really starting to roll (pun intended).
Soon we should see the solar consortiums being formed. Solar panels plus electric cars equals happiness.
(Quote)
December 28th, 2008 at 10:45 am
No one is more pro EV than me, but this is ridculous. I guess private industry completely died in 2008. I don’t recognize my country anymore.
(Quote)
December 28th, 2008 at 11:00 am
US businesses used to always have a leg up on other countries in terms of their ability to capture markets and technologies. Not anymore. Starting with the rebuilding of Japan after the second world war, the global economy has become bitterly fierce to compete in and governments can help.
If you want a sobering assessment of where this is all heading, take the crash course at http://www.chrismartenson.com
And good luck to us all.
(Quote)
December 28th, 2008 at 11:18 am
Oh good, they don’t want to invest their own money, but they are willing to invest the taxpayers.
A123 is a US company, I am sure that it would be cheaper to fund them to make high volume manufacturing plants in the US than to fund a bunch of wanna be companies to develop both the technology and the plants.
US engineering graduates are going to South America because they can’t find decent jobs here.
(Quote)
December 28th, 2008 at 11:19 am
The only reason the US automakers are not in the creation of Li-IOn manufacturing is that they are broke, ands trying to survive. The Japanese, Korean and Chinese automakers are all bringing Li-Ion manufacture in-house.
Virtually every automakers deems engine design and manufacture, a key technology that they must own, and so they design and develop their own engines.
They would like to do so for batteries, as well, but they don’t have the money, individually. As for consortia, that is the only way for them to co-operate without getting sued by the Oh so loving Democrat “anti-trust” shysters promoting”lack of competition”. And a rip-off payday for themselves, of course.
Prescription: have the taxpayers do it or… shoot 10,000 lawyers.
(Quote)
December 28th, 2008 at 11:28 am
I think there is a fundamental difference between our dependence on foreign oil and importing lithium batteries. In the oil case, we cannot meet our current demand through domestic sources of a resource. In the battery case, however, we can always build factories and make our own if the foreign sources become unavailable or too expensive.
Perhaps of more concern is the availability of lithium. According to Wikipedia, 50% of the world’s reserves are in Bolivia. There are other reserves in Argentina and Nevada which a large project under way in China. There are other concerns that the mining and processing of lithium is a very “dirty” process and that “green” batteries and lithium might be mutually exclusive. As usual, the the real world is a complicated place.
On the main topic, the United States has funded enormous amounts of R&D but much of that is hidden in military contracts. The WTO has ruled that the development costs that American aerospace companies receive in military contracts is great enough that Airbus should be allowed to get direct subsidies from the EU. Boeing, by the way, refutes this but that isn’t too surprising.
I’d rather have this kind of R&D support more above board so I’m inclined to support this consortium. There have been many other such projects in the past and the results have been pretty disappointing. Usually the member companies put a few researches on the project but don’t share their really good stuff with the other members and the whole thing breaks down after a few years.
(Quote)
December 28th, 2008 at 11:30 am
If I was A123 I don’t think I would appreciate the government funded competition.
If these companies are not innovative enough and don’t have faith in their ability to produce, I sure don’t want my money being taken from me to give it to them so they can attempt to develop the technology with no financial risk to them.
(Quote)
December 28th, 2008 at 11:35 am
#16 Stas Peterson
I think a better model for the car industry w.r.t ownership of battery manufacture is tires. None of the auto companies have ever had their own tire divisions. I think there are two reasons for this. One is that manufacturing tires is a completely different process than cars. They have different equipment and suppliers of raw materials. The other is that the item is deemed a consumable. The owner of the car is expected to replace them when they wear out. As much as we would like the batteries in our electric vehicles to last as long as the car, I think that we will have to accept the fact that owner will be replacing them at some point when the car get older. We don’t expect our die-hards to last 10 years or 100,000 miles. Why should the lithium/ion battery?
(Quote)
December 28th, 2008 at 11:45 am
What?
I guess ‘free enterprise’ is now viewed completely as a thing of the past.
I can see a role for government in setting standards, but now it seems that any large project is ‘expected’ to be government funded.
Likely required as part of the process of ‘networking’ the politically connections — for profit.
This use to be called CORRUPTION.
(Quote)
December 28th, 2008 at 11:52 am
#17 maharguitar said:
“I think there is a fundamental difference between our dependence on foreign oil and importing lithium batteries. In the oil case, we cannot meet our current demand through domestic sources of a resource. In the battery case, however, we can always build factories and make our own if the foreign sources become unavailable or too expensive.”
_____
It is true — We could build factories and make our own batteries. But, we would still be dependent upon foreign countries (i.e. Far East and South America) as the source of raw materials to build those batteries.
The Lithium-ion battery may be the only game in town for the moment, but it is still a temporary solution. As a country we would be better served to put money into more research than to fund the construction of battery factories that only provide a temporary solution to a long range problem.
(Quote)
December 28th, 2008 at 11:56 am
______________________________________________________
A Short History of American Government (taxpayer) effort to promote American Energy Independence:
The Uniuted States Department of Energy (DOE) was established in 1977 under the Carter Administration for the primary purpose of “Lessen our dependence on foreign Oil”. To date, 31 years later, the DOE has spend hundreds of billions of taxpayer dollars. The current budget for the DOE is $24B/year. The DOE has 16,000 federal employees and approximately 100,000 contract employees.
Question: What measurable ROI has the American Taxpayer received from funding the DOE in terms of the agencies primary mandate to “Lessen our dependence on foreign Oil”?
*Electric Cars + Nuclear Power = American Energy Independence!
______________________________________________________
(Quote)
December 28th, 2008 at 12:19 pm
Perhaps that history was a bit short.
Nixon set a goal of energy independence by 1980. The DOE is actually the old Atomic Energy Commision, and a couple of others that got folded into one so it is more than a little misleading to say that all that money is being spent trying to “lessen our dependence on foreign oil”. Probably more is spent on atomic weapons storage. For those interested there is a time line history there. Here is one section:
http://www.energy.gov/about/timeline1971-1980.htm
(Quote)
December 28th, 2008 at 12:26 pm
#22 CDAVIS
I agree with all you said. But, don’t we need to include trucks (i.e. diesels) in our equation to achieve American Energy Independence?
I read somewhere not long ago where <50% of the energy in a gallon of gasoline is converted into useful energy to turn the wheels in a car. I don’t know, but would suspect that the situation is even worse with diesel trucks.
It seems to me that we need to pay as much attention to the electrification of trucks as we do with cars. Perhaps others could weigh in on this, but can’t the Volt E-Rev technology be applied to diesel trucks; where the diesel engine becomes a generator to supply power to wheel motors? If that is possible, the reduction of diesel fuel consumption in this country and around the world could be dramatic.
(Quote)
December 28th, 2008 at 12:29 pm
The critical point here is that science has been so successful largely because it has firmly rejected free market principles. In a free market each scientist would work on their project and withhold their findings from others in order to benefit from it themselves. Rejecting that, science has flourished by having scientists publish their results in return for peer accolades.
If you doubt the advantage of this approach over a proprietary model just compare Wall Street with the scientific community. WS uses proprietary models. Science uses a public model. If you’ve looked at your investments lately you’ll see how well the private model competes.
The advantage of applying a public research model to manufacturing — allowing private companies the benefit of the knowledge in return for contributing their knowledge — is that the public model allows for a free flow of information and the development of far more efficient manufacturing techniques. While participating manufacturers will benefit so will taxpayers to the extent that taxpayers are consumers and/or workers, which, to put it mildly, is a good assumption.
Advocating for private alternatives like tax breaks, which by their nature are proprietary and must be allocated, is wholly misguided both because it misses the point that the main advantage will be in the collaboration between the companies and because it imposes huge costs by requiring co-ordination between companies which are to some large extent competitors.
(Quote)
December 28th, 2008 at 12:44 pm
#24 Estero says “Perhaps others could weigh in on this, but can’t the Volt E-Rev technology be applied to diesel trucks; where the diesel engine becomes a generator to supply power to wheel motors?”
Not at first blush. E-REVs work because something like 80% of all car trips are short, 40 miles or less. If the average car trip was 120 miles then you’d need a much larger battery pack which would be: (1) too expensive; (2) too heavy; (3) too large; and (4) take too long to charge (a typical line in your house typically would be 20 amps, so at 120v it would take over 13 hours to charge a 32 kWh battery pack under the best of circumstances).
So, while light trucks and vans used for local delivery could use some form of E-REV, and in fact Bright Automotive claims they have vehicles which can and Phoenix Motorcars is targeting this niche, long haul trucks simply can’t make effective use of battery technology. The distances are too long and the payloads too heavy. FWIW this is the segment that Pickens argues should be moved to natural gas.
(Quote)
December 28th, 2008 at 1:05 pm
I agree that these companies need to pool their resources in order to advance battery technology, and create domestic production. They should try to determine whether or not venture capital might be a good way to fund part or all of this battery production infrastructure. One always has to wonder about the viability of an endevour, when the government is the only source for funding.
(Quote)
December 28th, 2008 at 1:09 pm
While consortia has its place in the early start up of an industry and government funding of such is a reasonable taxpayer investment (i.e. we eventually save $700 billion annually in foreign oil) – allocating science to engender further innovation is the challenge.
Clearly there is a need for U.S. to manufacture its own batteries. As Stas points out it is (at least for now) no different than manufacturing a major engine component of an ICE. The question is once federal and private funding has built a manufacturing infrastructure – we should expect competitive innovation to motivate its evolution. The strength of a diverse manufacturing sector is in its ability to quickly develop and implement innovative ideas that cut costs and improve products. The most successful model for that is competition.
What is interesting is we openly embrace competition in worldwide arenas like sports – yet for some reason now want to shy away from it because of the proprietary implications. Suffice it to say that if all athletes shared the same physical, emotional and psychological capabilities – watching them compete would be dull as dishwater. Competition is endemic to the human species. We embrace those who work/play hard and achieve high goals.
The same principle should be applied to business – with restraint and oversight like we have in international sport. Using government funding to kick-start an energy storage manufacturing sector is good use of taxpayer money. Once established and underway – it should be allowed to compete domestically and globally. Without the proprietary element – it’s doubtful the business will survive international competition.
(Quote)
December 28th, 2008 at 1:25 pm
#24 Estero
“It seems to me that we need to pay as much attention to the electrification of trucks as we do with cars. Perhaps others could weigh in on this, but can’t the Volt E-Rev technology be applied to diesel trucks”
#26 DonC
“FWIW this is the segment that Pickens argues should be moved to natural gas.”
——————–
Yes, large trucks are the next frontier for energy savings, as well as air pollution leading to smog, lung cancer, birth defects, and a few others.
I kind of thought that T Bone’s plan, converting everything to natural gas, was too grand-dios, but I totally agree where Semi’s are concerned. And, establishing natural gas at truck stops would not be a tremendous infrastructure challenge.
The other, more immediate solution for long haul trucking of course is rail.
Happy holidays everyone.
=D~~~~
(Quote)
December 28th, 2008 at 2:14 pm
Socialism, Communism lets just let the government do it all. America the beautiful, America the greatest nation in the world, full of entrepreneurs and good ole American know how.
Just let the Government take over the banks, the investment companies, insurance companies, Auto makers, Pharmaceuticals and all the rest of the private industry and companies.
they already have the military, schools and the will of the people next banning of churches and burning books is all that’s left
where does an old Conservative go I guess the whole world changing
wont need a volt the government can just give us what they want us to drive
I guess this is doom and gloom, but its how I feel right now
(Quote)
December 28th, 2008 at 2:46 pm
Yeah, I’m uncomfortable with the government giving my tax money away without knowing what they will get in return. I know we do this now with certain research grants and DARPA projects, but those are different – the result is not a product meant to be sold on world markets. If I read this correctly, private firms want the government to give them money to set up manufacturing, without anything in return. That goes totally against free market capitalism that has make US companies so great in the past, and it simply will not work. The best government involvement is to order 200,000 or so EV cars for various beaurocrats at 100K each from American manufacturers. This would be the equivalent of the bailout/bridgeloan/whatever happened last week. They could even require the batteries be manufactured in the U.S. if that was viewed as being so vital to our future.
(Quote)
December 28th, 2008 at 2:58 pm
A123 currently has the best battery technology in the world. It has patents on that technology that was developed by scientists at MIT. It is a US company. Now we have a bunch of companies that wished they had the ability to invent a new battery, but rather than take the risk they want the taxpayers to take the risk for them. This is not free enterprise it is socialism. It will compete directly with a company that worked hard to develop their technology with their own money. What do you think the implications of this will be for the next company that is thinking of innovating in this country? Think they might think twice before investing their time and money just to have a bunch of companies too cheap to invest their own money talk the government into using the taxpayers money. This sounds like the last nail in free enterprises coffin.
(Quote)
December 28th, 2008 at 3:05 pm
It’s the perfect time to restore some of the U.S. manufacturing base from the poor and perverted decisions of outsourcing that has crippled our economic structure.
Transportation batteries and other storage devices belong here both in application concept and physical manufacturing.
The definition of U.S. capitalism in economics and fiscal policy needs rapid change from the misrepresentations fostered for decades via “free” market and “trickle-down” economic concepts and the crippling actual applications to us all.
(Quote)
December 28th, 2008 at 3:19 pm
Statik,
you’re a funny guy!
IF THIS CONSORTIUM WAS A THESPIAN IT WOULD SAY, “WHAT”S MY MOTIVATION?”.
If the consortium of US companies is convinced that they will make money, then wouldn’t there be a gold rush to lock up the opportunities and keep everyone else out. Why share your great opportunities with govt. agencies, govt funded university researchers and the like when you can control the industry and make gazillions through advanced knowledge, proprietary information and strategic patents. With 14 companies pledged and no one putting skin in the game you, have to wonder what will be their ultimate motivation to succeed with the taxpayers money. The US Govt. has already put billions into battery research and manufacturing substantially occurs overseas today. What assurances are there that this venture will end with a different result. Sounds like the 14 companies can take all of their development efforts off the books using taxpayer money and ultimately have their share prices raised because of the funds allocated with no harm no foul to them if taxpayer money is lost with nothing gained in the way of new US manufacturing. In fact this could even set back US battery efforts by causing companies like A132, that are committed to spending whatever is necessary to succeed, to cut back or even terminate their own research plans. Finally GM has said that they will have their Volt suppliers (whether US or foreign based) build batteries in the US and not ship large numbers from overseas.
(Quote)
December 28th, 2008 at 3:33 pm
I don’t see why so many are against it. Like the loan given to the domestic auto makers and considering what the outcome would have been if they didn’t, I don’t think it was a big deal. It’s a loan and if they don;’t perform well, then they will file chapter 7 and with the huge amount of property owned by them, the government will get it’s money back. When Chrysler got a loan 25 years ago, the American people didn’t think that was a big deal.The government is there to help the US stay healthy…. just like when a disaster hits part of our country. But, today it’s all about me. With that kind of thinking this country will collapse like the Roman Empire. Most are against this kind of help even though it’s temporary. Some will call it socialism because it’ll cost a little money out of their pockets. If the foreign countries can do it, why let them get the edge? Let’s wake up America!
(Quote)
December 28th, 2008 at 3:51 pm
It is a big deal. It would penalize the US battery companies that have brought product to market by funding (with tax payers money) competetion.
The next person with a good idea will say, “no point in developing this and bringing it to market, if it turns out good the government will fund my competetors.”
(Quote)
December 28th, 2008 at 4:07 pm
Any bet on battery technology is very iffy. The idea that one can merely get the Fed’s to build a big plant and, Voila!, there exists a viable US battery manufacturing capability, is pure bunk. And why the big deal about batteries? Tere are plenty of other things that aren’t built in this country that go into cars. And, finally, who says there will be any US automakers to buy these batteries 5 years from now?
(Quote)
December 28th, 2008 at 4:09 pm
To #30
That’s an understandable view. And I agree with some of it. The government bailing out the banks, that was ridiculous. The idea was largely from Bush and Paulson’s acid tripping and Bush’s hammering got it through congress combined with Wall Street investors selling all the stocks they had as punishment for the bill not passing the first time.
But the world is changing. I recommend reading “The Earth is Flat” by Thomas Friedman. The world we used to know was a matter of which Americans were on top of the global market (the answer was largely dictated by capitalism). Now the question is which country is on top of the market? In most cases (and less cases all the time) the answer is some Asian government subsidized Asian company that the American corporations with their 39.1% corporate tax rate are finding it difficult to compete with. Our government is squandering all that money on largely unfruitful military operations and now Obama wants to further deepen the gouging of America’s businesses. I personally feel like if the government must tax us, instead of bailing out paper pushers and underhanded wall street firms trying to make an easy buck, it might as well go to funding worthwhile ventures that will create jobs and lessen our dependence on foreign oil and foreign batteries and give our domestic auto makers a little bit of a life line. I’m sure that $2 billion will be returned to our country a hundred fold easily if the plans are made well enough.
(Quote)
December 28th, 2008 at 4:15 pm
Len, I guess you are not convinced. What you don’t understand is all competitors would share this technology. It would be a big consortium.
In years to come you’ll probably be the first one to asked. Where have all our jobs gone? I’m glad I was born in my era. I feel sorry for the younger generation. They have no clue.
(Quote)
December 28th, 2008 at 4:43 pm
There are a lot of strong opinions here today.
I think I will add mine.
The Government wastes so much money on stuff I don’t agree with.
For me, it is time they “waste” on stuff I do agree with. And this is getting off of oil. If the government gets involved with this consortium, I hope they turn it into a Manhattan project for battery technology, and leave the rest of the world in the dust.
The current putz in the white house is anti-science.
If I believe in anything, it is science. This country is filled with brilliant people. Let them do the work and make this country better.
I did not vote for Obama, but I am so thankful that Bush only has 23 days left to screw up this country more.
(Quote)
December 28th, 2008 at 4:55 pm
Where are all the great VC Capitalists? Where are are the smart guys from Sand Hill Road? Where are all the great Wall Street Capitalists? I guess they are too busy licking their wounds to get behind something really important for country. It’s too easy to move money back and forth and take an easy percentage.
(Quote)
December 28th, 2008 at 5:19 pm
#14 David Says: “If you want a sobering assessment of where this is all heading, take the crash course at http://www.chrismartenson.com
————————————————————————————–
I took the crash course. The fact that I was able to get through 3.5 hours of video without losing interest, I guess that means it’s a well produced powerful message.
There were many things I didn’t know, and this crash course spelled those issues out very clearly. But there are 2 things where I think the author missed the mark:
1) Ethanol
2) Population demographics
He only used corn ethanol in his examples. This really frustrates me. Yes, corn ethanol is bad, but that doesn’t mean all ethanol is bad. For example, coskata’s cellulosic ethanol gasification process has none of the issues that corn ethanol has, and they seem ready to go:
http://www.coskata.com
Note that GM is a major investor in this company.
As for the population demographics, his assertions are that
a) baby boomers will retire
b) there’s not enough workers younger than them to support them or the economy in general
c) and there’s nothing we can do about it
Only a) and b) are correct. One great thing about the U.S.A. is our ability to accept immigrants and truly assimilate them into our work force and culture. Other counteries have different population demographics, so you can always find immigrant workers.
By contrast, if you look at Japan for example, their population curve is even more extreme than ours, and they don’t accept immigrants into their culture, so over the next 10-30 years, Japan is going to have a very tough time with this, while the U.S.A. will do just fine.
(Quote)
December 28th, 2008 at 5:47 pm
Joe – Len, I guess you are not convinced. What you don’t understand is all competitors would share this technology. It would be a big consortium.
In years to come you’ll probably be the first one to asked. Where have all our jobs gone? I’m glad I was born in my era. I feel sorry for the younger generation. They have no clue.
——————–
Joe – I am old enough to retire, and I have watched the jobs exported from this country. This was done in the name of profits.
This consortium does not include the most sucessful US lithium-ion battery company. It is competetors who couldn’t succeed.
The governments job is to set the rules (laws, taxes, tarriffs), not compete with companies. If you want some jobs left here you might think about what kind of rules might motivate a company to manufacture here rather than somewhere else.
(Quote)
December 28th, 2008 at 6:09 pm
As I have also watched people brought in on H1B visas to take jobs from people here in the US, I should also add that we need some rules to motivate companies to not only manufacture here in the US, but also hire U.S. citizens to do the work. It is not the job of companies to look at what is best for the U.S. as a society, if the rules are properly set up it will happen as they pursue profits. The problem is the rules were not set up that way and we are seeing the results.
(Quote)
December 28th, 2008 at 6:10 pm
I can’t blame the battery manufacturers for asking for money. Everyone else is! I don’t see them getting much…maybe a few million for well-defined projects on a grant basis. We already have government-sponsored organizations (Argonne Labs) doing research on battery technology so I don’t really see a function for this group of companies. They already make batteries….they just need to make the ones we need. That’s thier problem to solve, not mine.
(Quote)
December 28th, 2008 at 6:34 pm
Interesting article on the VOLT in the January edition of CPU (Computer Power User) Magazine. FYI….
(Quote)
December 28th, 2008 at 7:03 pm
CorvetteGuy –
It was an interesting article, there was some information about the two 7″ touch screen displays that I don’t recall seeing here.
I was able to find it with Google and read it, but when I tried to paste the link and follow, it said I had to be a subscriber.
(Quote)
December 28th, 2008 at 7:11 pm
The h%ll with them; the battey companies will develope the industry, and then ship the work over seas to save a nickel.
(Quote)
December 28th, 2008 at 7:13 pm
This is the search that I used with Google to find and read the article in CPU:
Computer Power User Chevy Volt: Best Of Both Worlds?
(Quote)
December 28th, 2008 at 7:16 pm
Are we all uninformed?
The USCAR consortium has released funds, with the DOE, for battey development under the auspices of USABC – USABC is a consortium of the United States Council for Automotive Research LLC (USCAR). Enabled by a cooperative agreement with the DOE, USABC’s mission is to develop electrochemical energy storage technologies that support commercialization of fuel cell, hybrid and electric vehicles.
(Quote)
December 28th, 2008 at 7:52 pm
There’s absolutely no reason for private capital to finance electrochemical cell manufacturing capacity in the United States. That’s not how global financial markets have worked since the Reagan administration. These days, we finance production in China and consumption in America. Two nations, one economy: Chimerica.
You see, in its surpassing wisdom, the financial markets have decided that the law of comparative advantage implies that since the Chinese are good at working real hard in deplorable conditions for negligible wages and the Americans are good at consuming anything and everything they see on TV even if there’s no conceivable reason to do so, it logically follows that the greatest profit is to be had by encouraging each domestic economy to do what it does best and only what it does best.
We’re not good at doing stuff and making stuff. The market has spoken. We should just stick to consuming stuff — a select few of us should accumulate vast quantities of stuff and tell the rest of the world what to do about stuff. That’s what we’re good at.
And we’re betting that we’re so good at consuming whatever crap they make in China, that the Chinese will pay us to consume the fruits of the labor they’re so adept at undertaking instead of consuming it themselves. Why would anyone want their kids playing with injection-molded plastic coated in lead? That’s where we come in. If they can make it, we won’t be able to resist taking it to the checkout counter. Bring it on!
We’re no good at making cars. We’re in the business of buying cars. It’s a difficult job, but somebody’s gotta do it.
(Quote)
December 28th, 2008 at 8:00 pm
The Nikkei reports that Nissan Motor Co. and NEC Corp. will invest ¥100 billion (US$1.1 billion) or more in their joint venture Automotive Energy Supply Corp. (AESC, earlier post) to boost manufacturing capacity of lithium-ion batteries to supply a total of around 200,000 electric and hybrid vehicles per year by 2011 or later.
Initial annual battery output from the AESC plant in Kanagawa Prefecture is set to supply packs for approximately 13,000 vehicles.
The plant was to expand its output capacity to 65,000 vehicles by 2011, but the parents have decided to bring this forward to 2010. In addition, they now intend to build an additional factory in Japan in 2011 or later.
Furthermore, the two firms are considering setting up factories in the US and Europe to supply local automakers. These foreign factories may tap low-interest loans offered by their respective governments for the production of environmentally friendly vehicles
Source: “http://www.greencarcongress.com/2008/12/report-nissan-n.html#more” Delete quote marks.
(Quote)
December 28th, 2008 at 8:06 pm
Len #49 says,
This is the search that I used with Google to find and read the article in CPU:
Computer Power User Chevy Volt: Best Of Both Worlds?
———–
Thanks Len for showing how to find the article that corvetteguy was talking about. That was an interesting read.
(Quote)
December 28th, 2008 at 9:56 pm
There’s a lot of questions to be answered before the government should consider this venture.
Can they produce batteries that would compete with LG Chem? Would they put the necessary R&D into batteries to keep them cutting edge?
Can they produce the amounts needed to supply automakers? And where the h___ were they over the past few years when GM was looking for a competent battery maker?
Anyone can make these batteries given the time and money. But that shouldn’t be the criteria.
(Quote)
December 28th, 2008 at 10:34 pm
Where there is money, there are business men. Once they get it , the will say Outsourcing saves more money and the they give jobs to some other place and again more money from those place. One they run out of money, comes back and says we did mistake and again gets the money, cycle continues ..
Happens
(Quote)
December 28th, 2008 at 11:49 pm
Nothing wrong with government investing in the right industries. Study the fact that more “research and investment” dollars are for more oil, paid for by taxpayers, and investing in American-made, American established batteries for our future is a no brainer.
US Air Force, retired.
(Quote)
December 29th, 2008 at 12:09 am
What a crock! The US government and the big three have already shelled out millions on battery research and GM ends up with an Asian supplier! No US money! If these companies need money to start a factory go to Sand Hill Road!
Check out this rat hole of wasted money: http://www.uscar.org/
I’m sure the work they do is good but it hasn’t led to any product!
(Quote)
December 29th, 2008 at 12:33 am
______________________________________________________
#23 Len
US History Encyclopedia: Department of Energy / Creation of the DOE:
Source: http://www.answers.com/topic/department-of-energy
[President Jimmy Carter requested the creation of the DOE as his first attempt at reorganizing the Federal agencies. Congress created the new agency with one major change from Carter's request. Carter wanted the authority to set wholesale interstate electricity rates and crude oil prices to rest with the DOE secretary. Congress vested this authority in an independent Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC).
The enabling legislation reflected the energy and environmental concerns of the late 1970s. The DOE was to "promote maximum possible energy conservation measures" and to give the commercial use of solar, geothermal, recycling, and other renewable energy resources "the highest priority in the national energy program."
The Carter era. President Carter's National Energy Plan had two broad objectives: first, to reduce dependence on foreign oil; and, second, to develop renewable and inexhaustible sources of energy. The DOE proposed energy efficiency standards for new buildings, created the Solar Training Institute, and worked with General Motors to develop prototype electric cars and trucks.”]
______________________________________________________
(Quote)
December 29th, 2008 at 1:36 am
______________________________________________________
#22 Estro said:
“I agree with all you said. But, don’t we need to include trucks (i.e. diesels) in our equation to achieve American Energy Independence?”
—-
If we focus on the electrification of cars, the electrification of SUVS and trucks will naturally follow.
The technology outflow that will be derived through the electrification of consumer cars will spill over to the benefit of the further electrification of trucks including long-haul commercial trucks. I say “further electrification” because commercial trucks are already increasingly utilizing electric power in place of petrol. For example, commercial trucks are increasingly utilizing regenerative braking to improve mpg efficiency and also starting to utilize advanced batteries (i.e. http://www.fireflyenergy.com) for powering hotel loads.
* Electric Cars + Nuclear Power = American Energy Independence!
_____________________________________________________
(Quote)
December 29th, 2008 at 1:38 am
But what if zinc-air batteries are the next big thing? I guess we’ll need to throw a few billions dollars at that too just to be stay ahead of the Asians. Or maybe it’ll be EEStor, or the air car the French are subsidizing. So many things to subsidize, and not enough public money to do it. Decisions decisions.
I often wonder how the computer industry manages to thrive, rolling out new innovations at breakneck speeds. Or all the internet companies (most in the U.S.). How on earth do they innovate so quickly without subsidies? The nerve of those people. Innovating without congressional support.
(Quote)
December 29th, 2008 at 1:47 am
#25 DonC
The critical point here is that science has been so successful largely because it has firmly rejected free market principles. In a free market each scientist would work on their project and withhold their findings from others in order to benefit from it themselves. Rejecting that, science has flourished by having scientists publish their results in return for peer accolades.
______________________________________________________
I think you may be getting some concepts confused. Freemarket systems are where goods are traded, and the price is often publicly known, though not always. Anyone can participate or choose not to participate. Note the emphasis on FREEDOM here, that’s fundamental. Science operates on the same principle. You can contribute if you want to (or not), but if you do, the information must made public for peer review, or you can keep it proprietary but you won’t get the respect.….fairly similar to buying and selling a good in a market really. The information is usually publicly known and anyone can participate.
Another similarity. In a free market, successful firms thrive, bad ones die. In science, successful theories thrive, bad ones die…..they don’t’ hang around and soak up resources. Once they’re shown to be bad, science abandons them and moves on.
As you point out, the biggest difference between science and free markets, are the incentives. In free markets, profits are the primary motivator. In science, reputation is the primary motivator for the researcher, though for the company funding the research (most R&D is privately funded) the motivation is still profit.
Why do you have such an axe to grind with free markets? They deal you lemons or something?
(Quote)
December 29th, 2008 at 2:13 am
Do NOT spend US$ on lithium-ion manufacturing plants in the USA! It will only cost us consumers more money. We all know everything made in USA is much more expensive that what it’s priced for in china, mexico, or wherever else.
What if a new battery technology comes out in 5-10 years? will the “lithium-ion” plant be able to change production methods and such to support any new technology?
In the last couple years, I’ve been very disappointing in anything made in the USA… because it’s always over-priced and often doesn’t meet par on quality.
(Quote)
December 29th, 2008 at 2:24 am
Cautious Fan #60
Great analogy and shows my point, plus a lot of the other postings here exactly. Funny choice of examples though, because they are at their root great examples for the opposite conclusion, that at some point govt funding is very valuable as,the internet was created through funding by DARPA and the world-wide-web was created with funding by the European agency CERN.
It illustrates that basic funding, well below the level that marketplace winners and losers will be chosen, can be great for incipient innovations, but strategic research designed to result in profits, is best left to the companies that will reap those profits.
(Quote)
December 29th, 2008 at 3:11 am
What, EEstor is not part of the alliance?!?! oh wait, I forgot they don’t use Li-Ion, silly me. Then there is that whole thing about not having anything to show us yet….
(Quote)
December 29th, 2008 at 4:58 am
December 29th, 2008 at 6:13 am
CDAVIS #58
The Department of Energy has a history timeline that goes back to 1939. Just because the name changed a few times doesn’t mean that parts of it did not exist before. It came from the Atomic Energy Commission (read bombs) and the majority of the money it spends today is related to atomic energy.
http://www.energy.gov/about/timeline.htm
(Quote)
December 29th, 2008 at 7:30 am
If US companies can’t compete with lithiums, then build something better. I’m all for advancing technologies that will give us better electric or erev cars, but seriously, these companies aren’t going to work very hard if they’re getting easy to get government loans. And why should they, the politicians aren’t handing out their money, they are handing out your money – so how wisely do you think are going to invest it?
The country will never be able to spend itself to success, it will only spend itself into more debt that will cause more of the great recessions like the one we’re dealing with today.
(Quote)
December 29th, 2008 at 7:36 am
Lithium cells may not be the right technology to follow for electric and hybrid vehicles .
There is an American company that has developed a SAFER , CHEAPER , SMALLER , LIGHTER and MORE POWERFUL BATTERY that is made from Nickel and Zinc (both of which are found here in North America in abundance).
Below is a link to their site , take a look . This technology looks much more safer and promising.
http://powergenix.com/hev.php
ALSO SUPER CAPACITORS WILL PLAY A GREATER ROLE IN ELECTRIC VEHICLES once the engineers start to understand how to integrate them into the system more. When that happens smaller and fewer batteries will be required.
Below is a link to that information , it also is an American company manufacturing products in China.
http://www.maxwell.com/ultracapacitors/news-events/release.asp?PRID=247
Two of these and a small gen-set and you could power any sized car up to and including a Crown Victoria without any batteries. (see next link) About the size of three standard sized regular car batteries each.
http://www.maxwell.com/ultracapacitors/products/modules/bmod0094-75v.asp
The future looks very exciting as far as technology goes . The only thing that has to happen is that the right decisions have to be made.
(Quote)
December 29th, 2008 at 10:42 am
If we expect the government to invest in American businesses, we as consumers need to do a little investing ourselves at the local stores. We need to search out and purchase as much “Made In The USA” products as we can find. If the quality is not as good, swallow a little and buy it anyway. With income, most U.S. companies can increase quality control, without it they go broke. I believe you will find the U.S. made products are equal in quality, if more expensive. Let’s put American companies first for a change.
(Quote)
December 29th, 2008 at 11:02 am
My gut reaction is to tell them to go climb a rock–you want to get rich, risk your own money.
But there is a scenario where federal money does allow the most risky part of technological innovation- scale-up from pilot to production- to jump the hurdle.
And I agree that, as distasteful as it might be, a federally sponsored open-source model of developing production techniques to ensure that mass market E-REV becomes reality rather than a dream, could be enough to risk the taxpayer dollar.
The outcome is not going to be ambivalent. It will either be the biggest loss of taxpayer wealth ever in the history of the country, or the best strategic decision by a country in over a 100 years.
(Quote)
December 29th, 2008 at 12:08 pm
#70 Eco
We have been giving the oil companies and large farm co-operatives billions of dollars per year for decades. The farm lobby is as strong a lobbying force in D.C. as any you might find. We have been funding research at our universities and throughout “private” enterprises for decades also. So, I don’t see much difference in funding battery research as long as the resulting technology is kept here at home to produce jobs and products. We, the taxpayers, for many years have funded research only to see that research results used by foreign companies or by American companies with plants overseas. It is time to stop that kind of funding.
(Quote)
December 29th, 2008 at 12:40 pm
I am totally in favor of this.
(Quote)
December 29th, 2008 at 12:44 pm
I would like to see this type of high tech manufacturing return to the USA
(Quote)
December 29th, 2008 at 2:01 pm
11: “Just like how the Government picked cars and trucks over trains by building the interstate. Auto companies did not have to build the expressways, but the railroads had to build and mantain their tracks.
We would not be as dependent on oil today if the government had not built the interstate, we would have many more and better faster trains.”
13: “I guess private industry completely died in 2008. I don’t recognize my country anymore.”
Exactly, I need $2000 fund from our Government to R&D converting our family and pet’s waste into electricity in my backyard so I will be electricity indepemdent by 2012.
Give me a break! Sorry cannot help it.
(Quote)
December 29th, 2008 at 2:42 pm
Three to six days of the Iraq war.
(Quote)
December 29th, 2008 at 5:17 pm
_____________________________________________________
Len #66 says:
“The Department of Energy has a history timeline that goes back to 1939. Just because the name changed a few times doesn’t mean that parts of it did not exist before. It came from the Atomic Energy Commission (read bombs) and the majority of the money it spends today is related to atomic energy.”
————
Len,
It is true that governmental organizational elements of the DOE (mostly Nuclear Related) already existed and were in 1977 folded into the newly formed DOE. My point is that the initial primary mandate of the DOE as organized (vis-à-vis The Department of Energy Organization Act of 1977) and as funded by many billions of dollars was to reorganize the countries government energy related enterprises to seek a solution to the oil energy crisis America faced back in the 1970’s. The reason some previously nuclear related governmental agencies were rolled up into the DOE was because there was back then a strong belief that the nuclear technology developed by the US Government could be commercialized as a partial alternative to Oil. The idea of the DOE was to implement nuclear technology and other alternative energy sources to meet America’s energy needs. The DOE has since then been hijacked by the Oil Lobbyist and Environmentalist Lobbyist to the point where today the DOE’s original mandate has been lost in history. It is very worthwhile to get deep into the history of the DOE because that history provides a clear glimpse to the prospect of all these new proposed Federal programs taxpayers are looking to fund under the banner of Energy Independence. I want our government to get serious about Energy Independence but I don’t want that effort to wind up a footnote in history similar to the DOE effort.
Source: http://www.energy.gov/about/origins.htm :
[“…the extended energy crisis of the 1970's soon demonstrated the need for unified energy organization and planning. The Department of Energy Organization Act brought the federal government's agencies and programs into a single agency. The Department of Energy, activated on October 1, 1977, assumed the responsibilities of the Federal Energy Administration, the Energy Research and Development Administration, the Federal Power Commission, and parts and programs of several other agencies.]
_____________________________________________________
(Quote)
December 30th, 2008 at 1:18 am
The japanese are going to build a $1.1 billion battery factory, and it sounds like they might do it with private funding. The nerve of some people.
http://www.reghardware.co.uk/2008/12/29/japan_electric_car_battery_invest/
(Quote)
December 30th, 2008 at 1:28 am
#63 Jeffhre
You have some good examples of where gov’t sponsored research is necessary, specifically in areas of science with no practical value today like astronomy (we assume it’ll have future value), or in technologies that are too risky or expensive for smaller companies to do and so the risk must be spread out, sort of like insurance policies.
Note that Lithium-Ion tech is definitely not one of these. Private companies are racing do R&D already, and LION may soon be outdated by newer stuff.
(Quote)
December 30th, 2008 at 9:20 am
Yeah. Which is why Argonne should follow its mandate for basic research and NOT get involved in the politics of private enterprise. Where they get manipulated by the “LLC” game players.
(Quote)
December 31st, 2008 at 11:00 am
President Obama needs to lift corporate tax and maybe even throw out the income tax all together and go to the fair tax. That would not only stimulate the economy but make all products and goods much cheaper to make in the good old USA. And give all Americans a big boost with tax free income and investment returns. The bailouts and loans are exactly the opposite of what needs to be done! Reduce taxes and spending in the government!
(Quote)
January 9th, 2009 at 1:15 am
This is a scheme by lobbyists and law firms to siphon money from the DOE. Look at the players – Townsend Advanced Energy is the largest shareholder in Kokam – a Korean battery manufacturer. Dontech Global is a single guy, consultant Joe Doninger. Silyte – no web site. There are a few materials players that are interested in anything battery related as long as there is no skin in the game. Also a couple lead acid suppliers and pack guys. Altair Nano is on their last legs.
Bottom line is if you don’t have technology that warrants Venture Capital investment, let’s find some lawyers/lobbyists and swing for the fence.
(Quote)