|
Wednesday, June 25, 2008 John McCain, Battery BoosterThe senator's proposed $300 million prize for an electric-car battery prompts excitement, skepticism. By Lauren Rugani
Earlier this week, Senator John McCain, the presumptive Republican presidential nominee, proposed a $300 million federally funded prize to spur the development of a vastly improved battery for electric cars and plug-in hybrids. While McCain offered few specifics, industry experts say that in targeting battery costs, he has identified a major obstacle to reducing fuel consumption in cars. "Current vehicle-battery developers all recognize that reducing battery cost is instrumental in the adoption of hybrid-electric and plug-in hybrid vehicles" that recharge from the power grid, says Yet-Ming Chiang, founder of A123 Systems, a Watertown, MA, company that develops advanced lithium-ion batteries and is working with several carmakers on plug-in hybrids. "Offering this prize is a great way to focus attention on the problem and get the dialogue going on how we will solve it. I would love to compete for this prize, and the wheels are turning in my mind." McCain said that new batteries should "leapfrog" the size, capacity, and power of commercially available models, and at 30 percent of current costs. But since plug-in hybrids are not on the market yet, there is no clear basis for estimating a cost savings. "It's hard to measure without a benchmark," says Gerbrand Ceder, a professor of materials science and engineering at MIT. Ceder calls the McCain statement a "political stunt" and says that the money would be better invested in R&D than in an after-the-fact prize. The McCain campaign did not return a phone call seeking more specifics. Ceder estimates that it will cost around $5,000 to manufacture a plug-in-hybrid battery that holds 10 kilowatt-hours of electricity. But 10 kilowatt-hours doesn't get you very far; the Volt, a plug-in hybrid being developed by Chevrolet, lists an electric-drive range of 40 miles on a battery that holds 16 kilowatt-hours of electricity. Cutting battery costs by 70 percent--while further boosting capacity and range in a battery of manageable size--"will require a serious amount of innovation, new materials, and new manufacturing procedures," Ceder says. The sum that McCain cited would, however, represent a substantial increase in federal investment in battery technology. In 2008, the U.S. Department of Energy (DOE) devoted nearly $50 million to research and development for vehicle-related energy storage. James Barnes, a program manager for the DOE, says that $300 million would fund ample battery R&D with enough left over to set up an actual manufacturing plant. |
 |
|
||
| |||
Audio »
Share »
Digg this
Add to del.icio.us
Add to Reddit
Add to Facebook
Slashdot It!
Stumble It!
Add to Newsvine
Add to Connotea
Add to CiteUlike
Add to Furl
Googlize this
Add to Rojo
Add to MyWeb
Favorite
Print
E-mail
Comments
TragicComic on 06/25/2008 at 5:21 PM
4
It's estimated that the $10 million Anasari Xprize for suborbital space flight generated $100 million in R&D efforts.
Could this prize generate $3 Billion in R&D efforts into what is arguably one of the most important foundational technologies for the advancement of other up and coming technologies?
Still, I'd rather see a $100 Billion dollar prize for cold/room temperature/solid state/whatever portable fusion.
mkogrady on 06/25/2008 at 7:26 PM
92
A) A Cool grid-tied battery system
B) A light rail system that runs off the grid-tied battery system
C) A battery system that stores vast amounts of cheap energy that can be created off peak load like night time, and then fed back into the power grid or used as a back-up system for our next great black out?
Mass transportation could be great for our economy by employing millions of Americans like the rail systems did in the early part of the century - till cars came along that is.
Smaller battery's can be used in single family commuting systems like the family sedan.
sengir_assassin on 07/18/2008 at 6:49 AM
4
justahick on 06/25/2008 at 9:24 PM
2
!zap!
Oh yeah, we tried that in the early part of the 20th century, and it flopped there, too.
Carry on!
hachi on 06/26/2008 at 5:44 AM
21
Well, at least in Wellington. They have a train and bus system with overhead electrical wires.
mkogrady on 06/26/2008 at 7:37 AM
92
I was thinking more along ther lines of having the rail units themselves contain the battery packs - just like the automakers are planning for cars.
Admittedly - overhead wires suck - like networks, wireless is better. By having the tow car (engine?) contain the battery packs, they can be pulled off line and charged at night and hooked up to passenger cars in the AM. If one poops out - pull back into the nearest station and hook up a fully charged one - then proceed along. When the batteries die completely, you pull them out of the engine car and replace them with new ones.
As for use - these mass transit units will offset the individual cars to some extent. All families need some degree of flexible transport - BUT DO WE NEED 4 in our driveways? Probably not if we had decent mass transportation available.
BTW - those displaced autoworkers (and soon to be auto engineers) can work on this type of program very easily. The Govenors of Michigan, Illinois, Wisconcin, Ohio, Indiana and Ontario Canada all need jobs. Replacing cars and concrete with engines and rails would be a huge economic engine.
SweetSweet on 06/26/2008 at 9:44 AM
1
mkogrady on 06/26/2008 at 12:53 PM
92
As for safety - Mythbusters did an episode where they wizzed on the rail, and Buster did not get zapped.
johnalphonse on 06/26/2008 at 10:58 AM
78
devassocx on 06/26/2008 at 2:21 AM
22
dumb as they come.
If someone develops such a battery they will become
about as rich as Bill Gates and will have no need
of 300 million dollars.
Never ask a politician to solve a societal problem.
Solar John on 06/26/2008 at 8:32 AM
12
camdaddy09 on 06/26/2008 at 1:31 PM
19
zerothworld on 06/26/2008 at 3:52 PM
1
That's not too bad. I was expecting it to be higher. So here's my suggestion. As we start seeing the pace of electric vehicle adoption pick up, we should have legislation mandating that, for every electrical vehicle sold, about $545 (let's say) be put into a sustainable energy fund that is explicitly earmarked for buildout of renewable energy capacity. Maybe the buyer of the electrical vehicle pays for it as a surcharge. Or maybe it comes from general tax revenues. But something like this explicit earmarking of money for each electric car sold needs to happen. Otherwise, we'll just have huge numbers of people feeling good about zero tailpipe emmissions, as meanwhile coal-fired plants are coming online to provide the extra capacity that they're consuming. (Actually, if the electric car buyer is required to pay the surcharge to ensure the sustainable capacity is there, then to be fair, they should become a shareholder. Maybe some sort of mutual fund system could be put into place so that the electric car buyers all become part owners of the renewable energy infrastructure.)
suprhm on 07/17/2008 at 4:48 PM
1
mkogrady on 07/18/2008 at 12:54 PM
92
Lets assume that 40% of all US workers can Telecommute 4 days per week, while the rest cannot. The plug in your numbers and see if the $545 per driver drops. I'm betting that if this happens, we can add 5Kva Solar PV systems to our roofs to power the grid. If you add batteries to store the excess, we have the swing and graveyard shifts covered too.
The most energy efficient plug in vehicle is a Laptop PC and high speed Internet Connection.
rr999999999 on 08/03/2008 at 2:05 PM
3
Size and weight is being reduce, but charge rate need to be reduce to match the same amount it takes to do a fill up. That is what the prize is for
buelts on 06/26/2008 at 9:42 AM
9
The funding for batteries(energy storage) should be in the billions and provided to do research and speed deployment. The free market is great at profit maximization for individual companies. Problems that effect the whole country like climate change need government incentives and regulation. The free market then provides a optimal solution within constraints that are of benefit for the whole country. The production of suvs is a classic failure of the a pure free market.(profitable for ford but for society) A 10 mile per gallon car produces 20000 lbs of CO2 per year while a 20 mile per gallon car produces only 10000. The technology is readily available to easily make 30 mpg cars. The economic cost of externalities like co2 need government intervention.
There seems to be a difference between using an x prize for things like getting video from the moon where there is no profitable market and something like a cheap battery where a huge market exists already. X-prizes enhance motivation where it doesn't exist already but don't provide up front capital for R&D and building new factories. Why reward after the problem has been solved? If it makes some since to have prizes like this it should only be a fraction of the effort.
Its a worth while read to go to both candidates web sites and do a line by line comparison of there energy policies. I wish they were published in the NY times or covered i n detail on TV rather than requiring individuals to seek them out.
The rest of my rant moves outside of the point of this article and to my opinions on funding energy research as opposed to measures that deal with the consequences. Spending money on energy research helps mitigate climate change and staves off a future resource conflict over fossil fuels. Both of which remove systemic causes for future conflicts. Funding wars, homeland security, and defence is like putting an ever more expensive band aid on a gangrenous wound. The fossil fuels limb needs to be lopped off. The new york times ran an article a few years back plotting defence spending, basic science spending, and energy spending over the last few decades. Defence spending experienced exponential growth while energy research and basic science were constant or experiencing slight decline. We seem to place more resources on things we are afraid of than what seems likely to return the most benefit from a rational perspective. 45,000 people die a year in auto accidents but only a few thousand tragic deaths caused by a fringe group gets a response that cost trillions and kills a hundred thousand. Coal mining kills more people than terrorism. The predictions for what global warming may do far exceed the suffering from past armed conflict and provides fuel for future conflicts. Why can't we put our resources to a use that is likely to return a higher standard of living and prevent future conflict. China alone is predicted to have as many automobiles on the roads as the us by 2025. Add in growth in India and it becomes apparent a new solution is needed.
Recently we have been knocking china for increased military spending even though its a fraction of our budget, might they be doing this in reaction to the country that spends more than all others combined on military.
To develop a diversified renewable energy supply quickly we need a huge government, consumer and business driven collaborative effort. At our current product of consumption and population we are losing species at a rate comparable to the dinosaur mass extinction and on a collision course for future resource conflict.
tpcawle on 06/26/2008 at 12:33 PM
2
camdaddy09 on 06/26/2008 at 1:39 PM
19
johnalphonse on 06/26/2008 at 12:43 PM
78
visualeyes108 on 06/26/2008 at 1:08 PM
1
jmccusker on 06/26/2008 at 2:01 PM
1
The folks over at Tesla should be asking McCain for some details so they can claim the prize! :-)
gabrielg01 on 06/26/2008 at 5:17 PM
294
Plus, they are mired in all kinds of lawsuits and legal troubles, so the company is stuck right now.
soarhead on 07/01/2008 at 12:51 PM
6
I have seen this car in action, and the most difficult thing to get over is how it can move so quickly without all of the noise of an internal combustion engine. Ths car blows the doors off of most any exotic that costs a quarter million or so! This quiet quickness is tough for some egocentric hot-rodders to handle!
Some Tesla owners are charging with their own solar system, and that gets them off the grid. As for legal matters, the Tesla Company has gone through some transition with leadership, but I think most of that will just end up making the mission of the company more easy to accomplish.
The Tesla folks are doing what GM would not do, and GM is paying the price today in jobs. Their 40 mile Volt is a joke since it also includes a block of metal that burns petrolium (internal combustion engine). Honda and Toyota are already launching hydrogen fuel cell cars fore sale!
wisetech on 07/12/2008 at 6:55 PM
2
Energy Crisis #2 on 06/27/2008 at 3:41 PM
1
Secondly, it is rare to find discussions of how/where the electricity will be generated in articles about batteries and electric vehicles. An increased demand for electricity will largely come, in the next couple of decades, from coal strip mining and generation, agravating emmisions and global warming. Where is the solution in that?
I would propose that we couple electric vehicles with PV or Wind generation systems. On a residential scale that might be an electric car plugged into a PV system on the roof. Both technologies are maturing and will be economical in the forseeable future.
MakeSense on 06/30/2008 at 9:36 AM
67
What we truly need imho is a concerted government effort to bring together the best ideas and to provide the funding to create an advanced battery. We've been doing it piecemeal, yet it is such an important goal that we need to set a goal of getting it done in five years.
DARPA has had great success with other technologies. A DARPA-like initiative should be implemented with full funding. There are enough ideas out there, but they need to come together.
retread on 07/02/2008 at 12:57 AM
1
When I hear bush throw billion-dollar figures around, like I do pennies for a soft drink, I can't help but feel the urge to shout, "Are you all blind?"
His system seems purely designed to funnel dollars into certain pockets, with a sociopathic bent that can leave any reasonable person cringing in fear of the eventual outcome.
What if just a few months of invasion-spending were put toward massive solar installations? Talk about an 'economic stimulus package' - Soaking up energy that is being delivered free of charge would provide massive job growth, massive cuts in exported oil dollars, and a huge dose of morale stemming from the new sense of independence we'd feel.
The battery problem has already been solved, in that we now have batteries that if engineered into a vehicle could provide an arbitrary range. The obstacle we face is not charge time, cycle life, or toxic waste, it is simply cost - and even that can be reigned in by using smaller packs and an efficient ICE (just in case) until the scales of manufacturing bring down the price of cells.
Big oil, in a time of record profits still receives multi-billion dollar government handouts. Surely it is time to say enough is enough! I'm confident that a few of we in the know will see through the veil of fear and actually do something. Times they are a changin'.
-retread, pluginhybrid(dot)net
garybirch on 07/02/2008 at 12:06 PM
1
I think there were several really good ideas surrounding tying renewable energy infrastructure to the plugin hybrid or all electric vehicle sales, using that money to build the infrastructure to support all those vehicles. It should be based on the efficiency of the vehicle along with a minimum # of miles\year or they could purchase even more if they so choose. I think then that those people, get a credit for electricity for the amount of KW production they pay for each month.
I don't believe as some have said that the "battery problem" has been solved yet. I think there is still a long way to go to produce a battery that can give us 300-400 miles without a recharge, like our gas tanks do now and not make a $20,000 car cost $40,000. Those of us in more rural areas sometimes just can't get to work and back on 40 miles of electricity.
I think the general research and development needs to be spurred by government subsidies. Is $300 Million enough? Absolutely not!
If we could become completely energy independent, with cheap electricity, continued breakthroughs in battery technologies and a huge reduction in coal and oil consumption then much of the money spent on defense (and wars) could be channeled into other more useful areas.
That's just my opinion, for what it's worth.
Gary Birch