Energy
Tough Times for U.S. EV Battery Makers
Companies need more consumer demand for electric vehicles to grow rapidly.
- Wednesday, February 1, 2012
- By Kevin Bullis
The U.S. government's effort to create an electric-vehicle battery industry suffered a setback last week when one of the companies it funded as part of this effort saw its parent company file for bankruptcy protection. Battery maker Enerdel had been awarded a $118.5 million grant to build a lithium-ion battery factory in Indiana as part of a $2 billion grant program for electric-vehicle component and battery manufacturing; its parent company is Ener1.
Ener1 hopes to emerge from bankruptcy, and says Enerdel will continue operations during bankruptcy proceedings. Yet its difficulties point to the challenges of creating a new industry: at least for now, there are too many companies chasing too few contracts for making electric- and hybrid-vehicle batteries.
Demand is expected to grow over the next few years as government regulations and incentives push automakers to roll out more battery-powered cars, and as technical and manufacturing advances make batteries cheaper. But for now, U.S. battery makers are competing in a tight market. Those that win key contracts—or that have large amounts of funding—will likely survive the next few years, while others could collapse.
Ener1's troubles are the result of a heavy reliance on a single major customer, the electric-car company Think. Last summer, Think itself failed after poor sales of its expensive two-seater car, in the face of stiff competition from GM's Volt and Nissan's Leaf, which are both cheaper and more practical vehicles.
According to a filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission, Ener1 had been counting on the market for electric cars to grow quickly, creating enough demand to sell its batteries alongside ones from Asia. "The demand for EVs, however, did not develop as quickly as anticipated," the company's filing says.
Dan Galves, an analyst at Deutsche Bank, says battery makers simply need to bide their time while the electric-vehicle market grows. "We are convinced that factories that can be built will be utilized over the long term," he says. "It's a question of timing, and how long battery companies can wait."
Nine companies received grants to build advanced-battery factories from the U.S. government as part of the 2009 Recovery Act. A 10th factory, proposed by a joint venture between Nissan and NEC, is being built with the help of a $1.4 billion federal loan guarantee.
- 1
- 2
Related Articles
Fisker's Woes Put A123 Systems at Risk
Both the plug-in hybrid startup, and the company that supplies its batteries, appear to be in trouble.
Making Electric Vehicles Pay Off
Can companies with fleets of cars take advantage of the electric vehicle's efficiency dividend?
New Battery for Cheap Electric Vehicles
Founder of A123 Systems starts a new company to commercialize the technology.
sault
151 Comments
- 478 Days Ago
- 02/01/2012
"The bank lowered its forecasts for electric-vehicle sales after weaker-than-expected sales of the GM Volt last year."
GM said they'd sell 10k vehicles, but they ended up selling 7k. However, this does NOT mean that there is sluggish demand for these vehicles. The rollout of the Volt took a little longer than predicted, so it wasn't available in as many states as GM had planned. In addition, there are few, if any, unsold Volts sitting on dealer lots that aren't demonstration models. Nissan and GM can't build these vehicles fast enough to satisfy demand! And do you think that a little thing like the JAPANESE TSUNAMI would put a dent in sales projections?
"Based on sales of about 20,000 to 30,000 for cars such as the GM Volt (compared to less than 10,000 last year), U.S. battery manufacturing capacity could exceed demand by five times or more by the time all of the Recovery Act money is spent..."
Hey, guess what? Mitsubishi has an EV coming to the market, Ford, Audi, BMW and Daimler Group ALL have plug-ins of some sort coming before 2015. And the 800lb gorilla of the plug-in Prius will take up a good deal of the battery supply in the U.S. and elsewhere. Japan, Korea, The EU and of course, China are pouring BILLION$ into battery development and manufacturing. Either we ensure that we have a piece of this market or we give up and retreat from our competitors. Besides, we're ONE errant Iranian missile away from $200 per barrel oil.
It's good that freight costs are being considered instead of a blind devotion to outsourcing. However, shouldn't there be a conclusion of some sort to this article? I mean, it goes on and on for paragraphs taking a negative bias against the battery industry and EVs. Then it offers a little positive news wrapped in another dig at this article's intended target by referencing battery shipping costs. If you're going to write a hit-piece that's missing several key facts, at least have the guts to close with some key idea or thesis.
There's no mention of oil price uncertainty, depleting oil reserves or the mountain of direct and indirect subsidies that make oil artificially cheap. I am relieved that we aren't seeing bogus, $1000 per kWh figures that I've seen in these types of stories. However, the balance is still clearly lacking.
Kevin Bullis
179 Comments
- 478 Days Ago
- 02/01/2012
Anderman's estimates are based on cars that U.S. factories can reasonably hope to supply batteries for. Many of the cars you mention are made by automakers that already have close ties to other battery makers.
yotab
56 Comments
- 477 Days Ago
- 02/02/2012
China and other foreign is where this technology will really jump, in most countries' gas is over $6 a gallon
arpad
16 Comments
- 476 Days Ago
- 02/03/2012
It's a $42,000 "economy" car. Of course sales are sluggish. What kind of an idiot would buy a Chevy Cruze for $42,000?
Looks like the population of idiots is lower then most people would credit.
mkogrady
425 Comments
- 478 Days Ago
- 02/01/2012
Battery companys need to diversify
In order to gain any momentum, they have to take what they know and apply it elsewhere in the marketplace. Batteries for EV's is only one such market, there's Renewable Energy that can use batteries too, so why not build lithium UPS systems for home and business to get momentum going?
Spicoli
166 Comments
- 478 Days Ago
- 02/01/2012
Re: Battery companys need to diversify
Who would people buy batteries for their UPS that cost more to do the same job? A UPS doesn't benefit from a lower weight advantage. I think they're having a difficult time finding other applications where they're competitive.
dcmeserve
215 Comments
- 477 Days Ago
- 02/02/2012
Re: Battery companys need to diversify
The idea would be that the core competencies of these companies would be such that they could offer superior products for the same or lower prices. They may not be capable of that (because economies of scale may dominate the cost structures), but I know I'd sure be happy to have what looks like a regular power strip be able to provide 10s of minutes of backup power, for only a few dollars more than a standard strip. My stupid bedside alarm clock would show the correct time more often, certainly.
dcmeserve
215 Comments
- 477 Days Ago
- 02/02/2012
Re: Battery companys need to diversify
Heck, with a battery that's as dense and robust as an EV battery needs to be, you could start seeing swap-in replacements for wall sockets that can provide some backup power too. That could be a nice little market niche. As long as it could be done without significant "vampire power" usage...
Spicoli
166 Comments
- 476 Days Ago
- 02/03/2012
Re: Battery companys need to diversify
There's already a market for small batteries in phones. It's the large scale that doesn't have a market.
Spicoli
166 Comments
- 477 Days Ago
- 02/02/2012
Re: Battery companys need to diversify
It's not a few dollars more. It's around 3x the price lithium-ion. NiMH is almost 6x. The lead acid battery is the cheapest way to chemically store potential. That's why we use them. The more expensive technologies offer smaller size and weight which makes them valuable for things like phones but not for something like a UPS where you sit it down and leave it. If you're trying to sell a $30,000 UPS when the competitors have $10,000 ones with the same capacity, you have 0% chance of selling any.
dcmeserve
215 Comments
- 478 Days Ago
- 02/01/2012
The only reason that a brand-new startup in the battery industry would not have a hard time of it is if they were sitting on a true breakthrough-class innovation, or if they otherwise find a market niche that no one else is serving. (As an example from a slightly different industry, Tesla found itself a workable niche in the luxury-class EV market, which gives it a fighting chance against the huge established car companies.)
Otherwise, for the sort of incremental improvements that are more commonplace in the battery industry, having an established production/customer/knowledge base is practically a requirement. So big companies like Toshiba are well-positioned to make progress. Also, forward-thinking car companies like Nissan had the resources to get into the game themselves, rather than rely on some outside startup.
On top of this, finding a battery that works well in an EV is one of the biggest "better mousetrap" inventions (and holy-grail kind of goals) out there today. So it's natural that there has been a flood of both private and public investment in it, to the extent that failure of some percentage of these startups is almost guaranteed.
I'd wager that one kind of battery-maker startup that could be better positioned to survive would be for the power-grid-storage market. This is a different area of optimization (can focus primarily on kwh per dollar rather than both that and kwh per kg), and it's one that probably has less competition because it's a bit more "off the radar" vs. EV batts. Also, it has existing, small-customer-volume-but-big-product-volume demand in utility companies looking to better-stabilize the grid and prevent cascading blackouts -- demand that is not so fickle as these early years of EV production. So that may be an area that some struggling startup might want to move into, if possible for their technology.
dcmeserve
215 Comments
- 478 Days Ago
- 02/01/2012
Just realized that my last paragraph above is basically the same thing that mkogrady said above.
gabrielg01
450 Comments
- 477 Days Ago
- 02/02/2012
The government could mandate a gradual EV adoption the following way:
1) Mandate that predictable-path, service vehicle fleets change to EV vehicles (or at least to EV hybrids). City buses, school buses, and US Postal Service trucks could all use battery powered propulsion.
2) Increase the gas-guzzler tax to discourage driving large SUVs and trucks. It is a fallacy to state that EVs cannot have a market share, because they are "too expensive". Small car gas guzzlers, like BMWs, are selling like gangbusters. Trucks are selling like gangbusters too. All these cars easily cross the $30k-$35k pricepoint. Tax them hard!
It is possible to switch away from fossil fuels. Once an EV market is up and going, the R&D will also accelerate and improve things.
dcmeserve
215 Comments
- 477 Days Ago
- 02/02/2012
I wholeheartedly agree with your point #2, to take poor-mileage SUVs and trucks and "tax them hard." Though there should be some kind of break for small business that really need to use trucks.
I wouldn't go as far as your point #1, though. That kind of direct mandate is getting into micro-management territory. I would instead do it more indirectly, by, say, steadily increasing the gas-mileage requirements and pollution restrictions (and I would also include noise pollution). Or at least making the standards for them closer to tracking the now-improving CAFE standards for passenger cars. Making buses be pure-electric is still a couple years away from being really viable, I think, and there does need to be some flexibility to let the technology find its way.
That's how markets work best, to all you "free-marketers" out there: the government sets the rules to not only ensure that everyone gets a fair shot, but also to make sure that externalities are properly brought into the pricing. Basically, the government must protect the interests of its citizens, both consumers and employees. The economy, like the government, is here to serve the people, not the other way around.
Spicoli
166 Comments
- 477 Days Ago
- 02/02/2012
What happened to be taxes being only for raising money to fund the government? This trend to punish behavior without trial is not something to encourage.
gabrielg01
450 Comments
- 477 Days Ago
- 02/02/2012
Have you heard of "sin taxes"? Alcohol, tobacco, gambling...gasoline should be part of that list too.
Spicoli
166 Comments
dcmeserve
215 Comments
- 476 Days Ago
- 02/03/2012
This trend to [use taxes to influence behavior] is not something to encourage.
Part of that "trend" was the American Revolution. (See my other post, below, in this thread today.) Please be advised that the kinds of ideas you're pushing will succeed in reversing that trend, if they continue to be enacted, thus making life in the U.S. the economic equivalent of Victorian England (read Charles Dickens to see what that was like; note, for example, that the character of Scrooge was middle class).
Spicoli
166 Comments
- 476 Days Ago
- 02/03/2012
I'm sure it was the right wing propaganda machine that rewrote all the history books away from whatever version of the US Revolution you have in your head. What is it about battery powered cars that brings out the nuts?
dcmeserve
215 Comments
- 476 Days Ago
- 02/03/2012
You really don't believe the revolution was about the idea that government can serve the people better than King George had?
yotab
56 Comments
- 467 Days Ago
- 02/12/2012
The government funded the internet, what a great return on that investment, in terms of personal freedoms and trillions in financial payback. They are already succeeding with EVs and Battery. $500 billion we now give to all manner of dictators can be re-invested right here in the Good ol' US of A . Plus no more silly wars
falstaff
275 Comments
- 465 Days Ago
- 02/14/2012
The government did not 'fund the internet'. There was some government funded research in the 60s and 70s that led to packet switching communications, but the many hundreds of billions of dollars of actual infrastructure build out and practical technology came almost entirely from private industry.
falstaff
275 Comments
- 476 Days Ago
- 02/03/2012
What happened to be taxes being only for raising money to fund the government? This trend to punish behavior without trial is not something to encourage.
I agree with the sentiment, but any tax the government imposes will punish something, so to govern is to choose. I like the idea of a gas tax replacing some of the income tax, but then I don't drive that far. Many people do, especially in the western US, to simply get to remote subsistence jobs. A gas tax would hit them hard.
dcmeserve
215 Comments
- 476 Days Ago
- 02/03/2012
So, subsidies are a way to help promote a better technology without hurting those with no choice but to continue to use the old one.
Of course, note also that the petroleum industry -- and perhaps foreign governments -- are effectively levying that tax on our consumers. Because the #1 export (by revenue) of the U.S. is currently refined petroleum product (gasoline, diesel, and jet fuel). If less was exported, prices would certainly decline here at home. Also, the foreign demand is artificially propped up (to some extent) by big subsidies of these fuels by foreign governments, for their own people.
falstaff
275 Comments
- 471 Days Ago
- 02/08/2012
Because the #1 export (by revenue) of the U.S. is currently refined petroleum product (gasoline, diesel, and jet fuel).
No, US exports are ~$1.4 trillion/year now, the largest area being capital goods, e.g. jet engines, then there are agricultural products, etc. Petro products are small fraction of total exports, less than 5% of the total, though they are increasing. The news with petro products is that for first time in decades, the US exports more refined products than it imports.
http://www.census.gov/foreign-trade/Press-Release/current_press_release/ft900.pdf
dcmeserve
215 Comments
- 471 Days Ago
- 02/08/2012
Ok, I should be more specific: those 3 refined products, taken together, are the largest "single" export (by some definition). From a report in USA Today:
"Measured in dollars, the nation is on pace this year to ship more gasoline, diesel, and jet fuel than any other single export, according to U.S. Census data going back to 1990."
This doesn't change my point.
A better counter would be to point out that, should the U.S. govt actually block exports, prices wouldn't actually drop so much, because some refineries would shut down.
But regardless, domestic prices clearly currently include a very, very healthy profit margin for the petroleum companies. I would rather see this price premium go to a government tax (by some means) instead.
arpad
16 Comments
- 467 Days Ago
- 02/12/2012
Uh, sorry. Petroleum companies aren't particularly profitable as evidenced by their unexciting P/E ratios. You want to see which stocks the market expects to see rise due to their spectacular profitability look to the companies whose stock prices, and whose price/earnings ratios, are surging.
dcmeserve
215 Comments
- 467 Days Ago
- 02/12/2012
P/E ratios? A low P/E ratio means the market doesn't expect a company to grow. It doesn't necessarily say anything about profitability. The world records for most-profitable quarters are basically all held by oil companies, from the last few years.
That the market doesn't expect these companies to grow, despite the profitability, is an indication that most everyone expects that the market is saturated (even with India's & China's growth?) -- or that end of the line may be near. Peak oil, rise of EVs, etc.
dcmeserve
215 Comments
- 476 Days Ago
- 02/03/2012
...influenced of course by those that wanted to sell what people were forced to buy.
...
Sorry, I don't buy conspiracy theories...
Ok...
Electric vehicles have been around as long as gasoline vehicles, and they just do not fill the needs of consumers. ... Why not put your own money into it?
I don't have enough money to spur the development of the battery technology that would make EVs universally useful. As I have said many times, they are (and have been up to this point) a niche product. But with a consistent push to advance battery technology, that niche will grow bigger and bigger, until it fully outcompetes gasoline-powered vehicles, and ulimately relegates the ICE to museums.
Why use force?
It's called bringing externalities into the market. The externalities in this case are that vehicle emissions and use of fossil-carbon-based fuels have been very bad for the people of the country, and will be very, very much worse in the future. Requiring that just a small fraction of the fleet be zero-emission would have pushed the industry to take the first steps toward taking those externalities into account (and it succeeded while it was in effect).
It's appropriate to use "force" to make companies stop hurting people!
And passing requirements at the government level -- if properly designed -- keeps the marketplace fair for all companies. They will make investments in the more forward-looking technologies that don't have short-term payoff only if they are confident that their competitors are having to do the same.
Remember, the government is a tool. The most powerful tool there is. And like any tool, it can be used for good or for ill. If something isn't going right, you don't just get rid of such a tool, you fix it. That's why democracy is a good idea: it provides for a feedback mechanism for the people to make sure this tools is serving their interests properly. It's when the people start abdicating that responsibility that things start to go wrong, and the people with the most economic power start wielding the most political power. That describes the trend in this country for the last few decades.
And, by the way, dismissing the concepts of regulation and taxation altogether, as you do, plays right into the hands of such powerful interests.
What happened to be taxes being only for raising money to fund the government?
Where did the idea come from that taxes were only for that purpose? The right-wing propaganda machine that has snowed you under, that's where.
The founders of the United States knew damn well that they needed to target the taxation they levied so as to serve the interests of the country. The very concept of the "invisible hand of the market" came from, I believe, Alexander Hamilton's writings on why the country should adopt a protectionist tariff system.* He viewed taxation as a very efficient mechanism to encourage U.S. industry, by targeting tariffs so as to leverage the power of the marketplace to take care of the details, rather than the govt trying to exercise some kind of direct control.
* Someone please correct me if I'm wrong on the term's origin. But I am certain about Hamilton's opinions on tariffs.
dcmeserve
215 Comments
- 476 Days Ago
- 02/03/2012
Someone please correct me if I'm wrong on the [origin of the term "invisible hand".]
Looked it up. It was Adam Smith who first applied the term for use in economics. His work served as a strong influence to the founding fathers such as Hamilton:
http://adamsmithslostlegacy.blogspot.com/2008/02/alexander-hamilton-fredrich-list-and.html
Spicoli
166 Comments
- 476 Days Ago
- 02/03/2012
Stopped at "right wing propaganda machine". Doing the partisan conspiracy thing makes for an instant fail in rational circles.
dcmeserve
215 Comments
- 476 Days Ago
- 02/03/2012
Yeah, I guess it's not worth my time trying to debate someone who's just going to just weasel his way out like this. At least it's given me an incentive to get things down in writing.
arpad
16 Comments
- 467 Days Ago
- 02/12/2012
Sorry, I don't buy conspiracy theories...
Which is an easy way to avoid the obvious fact that there is a constituency that simply adores electric cars so much that they're willing to spend any amount of other people's money to get them.
I don't have enough money to spur the development of the battery technology that would make EVs universally useful.
Hence the requirement that other people, who don't have a similar attachment to electric cars, must be compelled to fund what you want.
It's called bringing externalities into the market.
Yes, externalities which you claim but for which you provide no supporting metrics simply claiming, and claiming again, and attacking anyone who disagrees, that those externalities are a sufficient reason to justify subsidizing a technology no one wants.
The cost of those externalities is, in the case of the Volt, $42,000 per car. The reaction among people who have to make the buying decision? No thanks. Maybe you ought to work on the case for those externalities instead of simply trying to set them up as a taboo. Ooops, there is no case, is there?
dcmeserve
215 Comments
- 467 Days Ago
- 02/12/2012
*Sigh* Externalities of fossil-carbon burning are well-established. Health impacts, environment problems, security issues. You really don't even understand that?
erbium
343 Comments
- 474 Days Ago
- 02/05/2012
the problem with batteries is they are so variable.
lookup reviews of electric bikes like the currie ebike. This is one of the better models.
quite a few of the customers have problems with capacity diminishing after 20 to 40 uses.
one had a problem where he discharged the thing per factory instructions before using and it was immediately dead.
others recommend just the opposite: never go below 50% charge and they will last longer.
unlike an internal combustion engine, where performance problems can be diagnosed and fixed, batteries cannot be repaired, and they have problems being diagnosed also.
how many customers or techs have gear that will test the top voltage, current draw over time and total capacity? with an internal combustion engine, all this could be done.
add in the very low energy density compared to chemical fuels, the short life in terms of total recharges and long recharging times (12 hours for the ebike, 30 minutes is the fastest I've seen for an ecar type device), low range and they are losers.
that said, I'll probably buy an ebike as a backup for around town for my car, or for summer use to goto work.
why should govt pay to try and decide what people should buy by artificially pumping up production companies, with their failures like the Solyndra govt backed loans bankruptcy?
Do you suppose that henry ford would not have mass produced the model t without a govt loan? no, he cut costs and went ahead with it.
Battery producers need to stop whining, innovate, cut costs and improve technology for batteries to work.
dcmeserve
215 Comments
- 474 Days Ago
- 02/05/2012
the problem with batteries is they are so variable.
Yes, the rechargeable battery isn't anywhere near a mature technology. That's actually why there's so much room for hope -- especially given the very heavy investments being poured into it, both private & public.
Stability is one of the key areas of battery tech, in addition to energy & power density, that is needed for EVs to be successful. We should have batteries that can last a decade without showing bothersome amounts of capacity loss. (Note that "bothersome" may depend on context -- if it's double the size you really need to being with (due to big improvements in energy density & cost), a loss of 30% may be acceptable.)
unlike an internal combustion engine, where performance problems can be diagnosed and fixed, batteries cannot be repaired, and they have problems being diagnosed also.
A few years ago, my wife's Camry required a $3000 transmission rebuild after some idiot at Wal-Mart drained the transmission fluid (we figure) when he was supposed to be doing an oil change. And it cost hundreds of dollars just for the mechanics to get to the point where they figured out what the problem was. I'd imagine that significant repairs to the engine itself would run similar or higher prices.
So yeah, mechanical stuff can be repaired... but how do the costs actually compare? A decade from now, that $3k will likely get you a whole new battery for a Camry-class EV.
why should govt pay to try and decide what people should buy by artificially pumping up production companies, with their failures like the Solyndra govt backed loans bankruptcy?
It does seem true that, apparently, the Obama administration "put too many eggs in one basket," politically speaking, with this one company. However, there were plenty of other loans from the same program that haven't failed, and also note that these weren't exactly supposed to be investments in savings accounts -- this was a fund for helping out new and risky technologies. It is always virtually guaranteed that there will be some failures when you do that. Venture capitalizes know this very well. But the country (like VCs) sees potentially huge net benefits when some of the recipients are successful.
Is it possible that such a grant process can be run poorly? Of course! But that doesn't mean you throw the baby out with the bathwater.
Do you suppose that henry ford would not have mass produced the model t without a govt loan? no, he cut costs and went ahead with it.
I honestly don't know the history of Ford, but I do know that both the aviation and shipping industries were enormously reliant on government intervention, both in terms of protectionism (see the 1817 "Act Concerning the Navigation of the United States" & the 1920 "Jones Act") and big government orders for equipment. The auto industry certainly benefited from such big orders, too, in WWI/WWII.
I don't know if govt loans were part of these processes, but there's not a lot of philosophical difference there, I think.
Battery producers need to stop whining, innovate, cut costs and improve technology for batteries to work.
Businesses sometimes need support to get them going at the beginning, if they show good promise of benefits down the line. Fox News, for example, was an enormous money-loser for the first 5 years of its existence, but was kept afloat because its funders knew it would benefit them (and boy, were they right!).
erbium
343 Comments
- 471 Days Ago
- 02/08/2012
you have some points,
but you appear to not know the difference between govt and private enterprise.
your comment about fox news funding:
I seriously doubt the govt funded fox news.
When private funders back a company,
1) they are not using taxpayer money
2) they are much more likely to do due diligence,
meaning they have a better conviction that the project will be a success or has a chance of making money later.
As to Solyndra, 'faceless bureaucrats' as mentioned by John Stewart, DID perform due diligence and told the Obama administration NOT to do the loan. So this shows to a T exactly that govt handouts are very often politically motivated.
The 'infrastructure bank' in japan is a prime example of this. Obama is proposing same thing for here. The japanese version has been heavily corrupted as political handouts to supporters since day one per forbes article.
dcmeserve
215 Comments
- 471 Days Ago
- 02/08/2012
So this shows to a T exactly that govt handouts are very often politically motivated.
It doesn't show that it's "very often". It just shows that it's possible.
And when it happens, perpetrators need to be called into account. That's why an actual, truth-telling news industry, and a well-educated electorate, were viewed as so vital by the Founding Fathers. A country needs a robust feedback mechanism in order to be properly run for its people.
So, when there are problems such as these, calls to halt entire categories of government activity are misplaced. The real focus should be on how well these feedback mechanisms are working. To dismiss the entire process as hopeless is fundamentally anti-democratic, and amounts to a call for rule by monarchy, or through a Mussolini-style fascist system (meaning companies explicitly control the government; not the Nazi death-cult thing).
For the Japan "infrastructure bank" example -- I don't see Japan as having a very strong feedback mechanism from the people to the government. Again, the answer is to improve that mechanism, not simply halt government investment in the country.
dcmeserve
215 Comments
- 471 Days Ago
- 02/08/2012
One more point:
>>So this shows to a T exactly that govt handouts are very often politically motivated.<<
...
It just shows that it's possible. ... And when it happens, perpetrators need to be called into account.
Solyndra is actually an example of how the media is mis-targeting its criticism: is it asking "who made this decision" etc. etc. to the point that the Administration is forced to fire someone to show a response? Perhaps somewhere, but that kind of coverage is nothing compared to how the Solyndra failure is being used as a call to cancel all subsidies for renewable energy (of which your post serves as a reinforcing echo). That is decidedly not a productive sort of feedback for the people of the United States.
dcmeserve
215 Comments
- 471 Days Ago
- 02/08/2012
Just want to clarify my core point: when you say
why should govt pay to try and decide what people should buy by artificially pumping up production companies, with their failures like the Solyndra govt backed loans bankruptcy?
and then support that by asserting that the government inherently can't make these sorts of decisions, you are in fact saying that the feedback mechanisms of democracy cannot function (as opposed to saying they need improvement). Which means you are saying that democracy cannot work. Which then leaves the alternatives -- fascism, monarchy, etc.
But if, as I assume is the case, you are of the opinion that that democracy does work, how can you then support the argument that a democratic government is fundamentally incapable of making investment decisions that will benefit its people?
yotab
56 Comments
- 470 Days Ago
- 02/09/2012
Didn't the previous government just spent $4 Trillion fighting their phoney wars for oil? How big a subsidy is that ? solyndra pales in comparison
http://www.reuters.com/article/2011/06/29/us-usa-war-idUSTRE75S25320110629
yotab
56 Comments
- 467 Days Ago
- 02/12/2012
France told bush going to war in Iraq would be a disaster , cost taxpayers $Trillions and 4500 American lives, greed for oil is all it was about
Anumakonda
168 Comments
- 474 Days Ago
- 02/05/2012
Here are findings of a study on Electric Vehicles in US forecast:
ELECTRIC CAR SALES: In the baseline forecast electric cars account for 64% of U.S. light-vehicle sales by 2030 and comprise 24% of the U.S. light-vehicle .eet. The rates of adoption are driven by the low purchase price and operating costs of electric cars with separate battery ownership or battery leasing. The estimates include the cost of installing charging and battery switching infrastructure to extend the range of electric vehicles.
LOWER OIL IMPORTS: U.S oil imports in 2030 under the electric vehicle deployment scenarios are projected to be 18-38% lower than the scenario of improved internal combustion engine fuel efficiency, equivalent to 2.0-3.7 million barrels per day. For reference, the United States in 2008 imported 2.3 million barrels per day from the Persian Gulf.
IMPROVED TRADE DEFICIT: The U.S. imported $400 billion of petroleum in 2008, which accounted for 59% of the trade deficit. This paper estimates that electric car adoption lowers the annual trade deficit by between $94 and $266 billion by 2030 over a scenario of improved internal combustion engine fuel efficiency.
NEW SOURCES OF INVESTMENT: Business investment in a domestic battery manufacturing industry and the deployment of charging infrastructure grows to account for between 1.1% and 1.5% of total U.S. business investment by 2030. With additional investment in battery manufacturing, the United States has the potential to become an exporter of automotive batteries.
HIGHER OVERALL EMPLOYMENT: There is a net employment gain of between 130,000 and 350,000 jobs by 2030. New jobs are created in the battery manufacturing industry and in the construction, operation, and maintenance of a domestic charging infrastructure network. The job gains outweigh modeled job losses among gas station attendants, mechanics, and parts industry manufacturers.
HEALTH CARE COST SAVINGS: Health care cost savings stem from lower emissions of airborne pollutants. The net present value of the health impact of electric vehicle deployment to 2030 is between $105 and $210 billion when vehicles are charged using non-polluting sources of electricity. Health care cost savings remain positive when electric vehicles are charged using the current electricity grid(Electric Vehicles in the United States A New Model with Forecasts to 2030,Center for Entrepreneurship & Technology University of California,Berkeley Thomas A. Becker , Ikhlaq Sidhu (PI), Burghardt Tenderich, Number: 2009.1.v.2.0).
Dr.A.Jagadeesh Nellore(AP),India
E-mail: anumakonda.jagadeesh@gmail.com
arpad
16 Comments
- 467 Days Ago
- 02/12/2012
Perhaps the study contained information about the costs of upgrading the electrical grid, and who'll be expected to pay for them, and I just didn't see it? Could highlight where that externality is accounted for?
Then there's little surprise package buried in the footnotes:
<i>The unsubsidized payback period for hybrids varies with the price of gasoline, but is around 4 years for traditional hybrids and between 8-10 years for plug-in hybrids (Deutsche Bank 2008).</i>
Somehow I doubt there'll be many takers for a car, the initial expense of which, will only be made up for in 8-10 years. Also, some of the assumptions made in the article are open to question.
For instance, claims are made about the advancement in the energy density of Li-on batteries. To borrow a phrase from the financial industry, past performance doesn't guarantee future results. If the battery industry can maintain their 6% per annum rate of advancement then good for them but setting policy that ties the economic health of the nation to the assumption of those advancements is dangerous and foolish.
Also, what recent fires in the Volt point out is that to achieve the levels of performance necessary to make battery power commercially feasible in the auto market the complexity of the vehicle has to increase significantly. That undercuts several of the claimed advantages for electric cars - efficiency, simplicity, reliability.
Another interesting item in the report is to be found on page 13 wherein the cost of ownership is obfuscated by excluding the cost of the battery. Inasmuch as a battery is nothing more then a vessel for the power that motivates an electric car, in exactly the same sense that a gas tank is the vessel for the energy that motivates an internal combustion-powered car, the exclusion of that cost is questionable at least.
On page 18 there are assumptions made on the purchase of electric cars on the basis of governmental interference. Among the states listed is California whose perilous economic condition is practically a cliché. Turns out several of the other listed states have significant economic problems. How responsible is it to make predictions based on factors which are already of doubtful validity and are likely to become distinctly more unlikely?
dcmeserve
215 Comments
- 467 Days Ago
- 02/12/2012
EV have to get better. No question whatsoever.
But the prospects looking forward are good, as long as the development pressure is kept up. That means, yes, govt subsidies --because transitioning the world away from fossil fuels is very much in your interest, even if you don't want to buy an EV right now. And even if you don't accept Global Warming!
dcmeserve
215 Comments
- 467 Days Ago
- 02/12/2012
Sorry, just one more:
If the battery industry can maintain their 6% per annum rate of advancement then good for them but setting policy that ties the economic health of the nation to the assumption of those advancements...
What policy is tying the economic health of the nation to... anything, much less battery tech?
arpad
16 Comments
- 467 Days Ago
- 02/12/2012
Actually, there's a large question about the success of electric cars. As uncompromising as you are on the subject even you can't construe a viable electric car out of current technology so we've got to look forward to that fabulous day when electric cars make sense to more people then just the true believers.
Sorry, but your certainty isn't a selling point. Matter of fact, it's entirely irrelevant and represents nothing but your emotional investment in the idea. Electric cars may, someday, be economically viable but that day isn't today, it isn't tomorrow and that day may never arrive. Internal combustion engines aren't evil and there's no good, economically-worthwhile reason to abandon them just to satisfy the conceits of people who are constitutionally unable to take responsibility for the damage their ideas cause.
And as to what is, or isn't, in my interest, I'll determine that.
I know that's not good enough for you, and for some time people such as yourself have gotten a good deal of what you want but those days are coming to an end. Longer term "the masses" for whom you hold nothing but contempt and of whom you are a member, are seeing through the detestable tactics people such as yourself are willing to utilize to try to fool enough people for long enough. That's why solar and wind projects are being shelved the world over - the realization is taking hold that the promises made were false and based on false premises.
Oh, and the economic health of the nation depends on putting resource to efficient use. Throwing vast amounts of money away on a technology that's immature - and may never be mature - to satisfy fervent beliefs of people who are incapable of entertaining the possibility that they might be wrong endangers the nation.
dcmeserve
215 Comments
- 467 Days Ago
- 02/12/2012
Again, wrong on every point -- every point. Wish I had time to elaborate.
arpad
16 Comments
- 467 Days Ago
- 02/12/2012
You'd be better served by wishing you had substantive responses to make that didn't rely on the uncritical acceptance of convenient assumptions.
dcmeserve
215 Comments
- 466 Days Ago
- 02/13/2012
Well, then, I look forward to seeing any of your future posts live up to the expectations you have decreed for me.
On Twitter
Become a Fan on Facebook
Subscribe to the Feed
wctopp
65 Comments
mandate
the u.s. govt cannot mandate that citizens buy cars they cannot afford. each year the average u.s. citizen is less well off than the year before. you cannot launch an expensive mass market consumer product into that demographic.
Reply
kbillet
60 Comments
Re: mandate
Yes you can! That is exactly what is happening! This is an economic war with China. Did you see the article says the Chinese have all the demand currently. Well americans need to get behind USA manufactures whom currently are in competition with the Chinese who's [dishonest] government subsidizes the manufacturing cost, selling at a level that otherwise would not be possible [In a free Market], in an effort to drive the competition away. Just like they have been doing for 30 years now! Horay USA! Don't them roll over us any longer! Get up and fight!
Your right about on thing, "each year the average u.s. citizen is less well off than the year before", why, because the Chinese are reaping the rewards of our USA funded research and cheating when it comes to [Free Markets]!
They engage in anti-free market activity, which is what subsidizing their own manufacturers, below actual cost, to win the markets is, after which they can than drive prices to what ever level the market will bear. It's time we kick their collective butts for this evil communistic behavior which is not [Free Enterprise]. We do not need to stoop to their behavior of treating humans in-humanely to compete. We just need to fight their in-humane behavior for what it is! So yes, we need to do something we haven't done prior, in order to fight back, something we don't believe in, fight fire with fire, subsidize our economy to win back our business that was stolden by the Chinese, sadly with the helping hands of our own congress and Huge Corporations!
Oh and by the way, The Chinese are investing in Canadian Oil Shell, thanks to our Government's politics! It's too bad the average USA citizen cannot get into understanding the details of the Pipeline issue!
Best Regards,
Reply
Spicoli
166 Comments
Re: mandate
Stop running this spew script. It's getting really old.
Reply
dcmeserve
215 Comments
Re: mandate
It's time we kick their collective butts for this evil communistic behavior which is not [Free Enterprise].
Actually, taking regulatory and other steps to favor & protect domestic industry is not "communistic" -- it's American. Such "protectionist" policies were practiced in the U.S. starting with the George Washington administration, and they continued right up until they started being dismantled under Reagan. In fact, these concepts were around even earlier -- the Boston Tea Party was not a protest about a tax increase; it was about the British Crown taking away the colonies' ability to levy their own tariffs!
Now, dumping across international borders is definitely "bad neighbor" behavior, and should be responded to. But otherwise, every country is well within its rights to take protectionist steps. That's the job of any properly-run government: to protect its people.
Thing is, even as a lot of other industrialized countries officially lowered their tariffs along with the U.S., they also rejiggered their VAT and similar systems to compensate, to maintain their protectionism. The U.S., however, did not have any similar fallback system, so we are the sole industrialized country left unprotected. That's the core problem.
Lobbing accusations at China is convenient and very soundbyte-friendly, but this is not a problem with China -- it's a problem with anti-American, "free market" idealogues taking over the reins of the U.S. government (and the academic field of Economics, too) in the last 30 years.
It's well past time to reverse that trend.
Reply
Lasertop
11 Comments
Re: mandate
In 1990 California passed a law that stated 10% of all Cars in the State would be Zero Emmission by 2003. Needless to say that didn't work out so well. Now we have passed a new law that says 15% of cars will be Zero Emission by 2025, I doubt that will happen either, although at least some percentage will be. The simple fact is you can't make people buy what they don't want, but you can encourage them too.
Reply
dcmeserve
215 Comments
Re: mandate
And why did CA's law "not work out so well"?
Because right-wingers, oil interests, etc. were able to get it repealed.
The EV market would be at least 5 years, if not a decade, ahead of where it is now, if that hadn't happened. In hindsight, GM would be doing a lot better today, too.
Bastards.
Reply
Spicoli
166 Comments
Re: mandate
Yea, that problem with a ridiculous mandate was the people that wanted to get rid of it...
Reply
dcmeserve
215 Comments
Re: mandate
Ok, I'm calling you on this.
1. What exactly was ridiculous about it? The fact that it tried to jump-start a new technology that would benefit everyone? The fact that it didn't assume gas would be super-cheap forever?
2. Who exactly were the "they"? The car companies who just wanted to make SUVs? Free-market right-wingers? Or do you actually think consumers were against it?
Reply
Spicoli
166 Comments
Re: mandate
Yes, consumer were not interested. It was some social architects trying to force their agenda on the public influenced of course by those that wanted to sell what people were forced to buy. Big government at its worst.
Reply
yotab
56 Comments
Re: mandate
Yes, I do remember those social architects who forced their $4 trillion dollar Iraq oil war agenda on consumers.
Reply
dcmeserve
215 Comments
Re: mandate
... influenced of course by those that wanted to sell what people were forced to buy.
Ok... who were they? I honestly can't think of anyone who cold possibly fit that description for EVs in the 1990s. Certainly not the major car companies, who had to incur the expense of producing EVs, and would have rather been selling SUVs. Battery makers? Again, this law was designed to encourage them to make more investments in improving the technology for the automotive environment; since they were not doing that of their own accord beforehand, then they couldn't be the ones you're talking about either.
The requirement passed because people recognized the need to get off oil, and away from all the environmental problems it causes. Some even understood the danger of global warming.
It was repealed later in the decade because the "free market solves all problems" ideology was infecting a lot of people at the time (myself included, to an extent). It's the same thinking that lead to deregulation of the power utilities around the same time... and the resulting disaster soon after.
Everyone who leased an EV1 was very happy with it, by all reports. They only became unhappy once GM decided to not allow anyone to renew their leases, and took the cars back. And no one was forced to buy them either, by the way. If you can't even keep that straight, then I think you really need to question whether your account in any way matches reality.
Reply
Spicoli
166 Comments
Re: mandate
Sorry, I don't buy conspiracy theories (or that particularly lame Iraq red herring). Electric vehicles have been around as long as gasoline vehicles, and they just do not fill the needs of consumers. If there was demand, anyone could open up shop, build one, and cash in on the alleged unsatisfied demand. You can build your own with off the shelf parts if you so desire. Why not put your own money into it? Why use force?
Reply
arpad
16 Comments
Re: mandate
"Why not put your own money into it? Why use force?"
You're missing the point. It's not all that important what the issue is - electric cars, CO2, civil rights - but that it provides an opportunity for those of noble mien to impose their noble views on their inferiors.
Reply
falstaff
275 Comments
Re: mandate
Electric vehicles have been around as long as gasoline vehicles
Even longer actually. But the key to the EV is the battery, and long life 1MJ/kg rechargeable batteries have been around about 6 months. That and the fact that oceans of petroleum can no longer be retrieved from 50' underground.
Reply
falstaff
275 Comments
Re: mandate
GM's EV1 cost $80K to manufacture back then. It would have been impossible to sell them up to 10% of all California vehicles.
Reply
R Sweeney
72 Comments
Re: mandate
Mandate,
I think that you will agree that solar power is wonderful.
So let's mandate that YOU purchase and install 10 KW of solar for YOUR home, at YOUR expense of course.
You have until 2013 to comply.
And don't expect those right wingers and oil interests to stand up for you.
Reply
gblaze44
97 Comments
Re: mandate
Right wingers in CA? That's a new one.
Reply
mkogrady
425 Comments
Re: mandate
Orange County - the republicans control it! Those damn rich people!
Reply
Lasertop
11 Comments
Re: mandate
My point Gentleman was simply that the Government can not force people to buy something or force an industry to grow at a set rate. The EV1 was ahead of its time, however it was also too expensive to be practical something that GM understood and the main reason the program got killed. Today Electrics are closer to being economically viable, and given another 5 to 10 years I truely believe they will start to take the place of the Gas Powered Car.
Reply
arpad
16 Comments
Re: mandate
Fine. Then you pony up your own funds and design/produce an economically viable electric car. Drop the pretense that the technology needs to be jump-started and accept the fact that the technology's not ready which is why, in the absence of massive government funding, no one wants to bother with electric cars.
As for the EV1, that was a vanity project by the man who was, perhaps, General Motors' worst chairman, Roger Smith. The scuttlebutt is that the proper price of an EV1 was in the neighborhood of $125,000 which was simply nuts.
Reply
falstaff
275 Comments
Re: mandate
<blockquote> in the absence of massive government funding, no one wants to bother with electric cars.</blockquote>
Yes many want electric vehicles. They're not ready for everyone, everywhere, yet, but there already niche applications - fleets, around town trucks, small countries, that already find EVs economical. It will take some time, but one day, 10-15 years from now you'll see every other new vehicle on the road will be an EV. An efficiency advantage of 3 or 4:1, no exhaust system or starter or fuel system or air intake system or oil pump, brakes that last the life of the vehicle - it is going to happen.
Reply
arpad
16 Comments
Re: mandate
Fine. The let's wait ten to fifteen years to see those advantages and not waste vast amounts of tax-payer money on an immature technology the immaturity of which you've just, implicitly, admitted.
It's also relevant that you've chosen to ignore the previously crucial reason to force electric cars on an unwilling public - environmental hysteria.
The global-warming-any-minute-now terror's died down and with it the political momentum of the issue. So economic factors are being emphasized but those economic factors represent nothing more then a change of tactics. There's still no reason for electric cars other then as a niche product and certainly no reason to try to accelerate the development of what's just another consumer product. The market will take care of that issue when the technology ripens.
Also, your bias shows in your completely one-sided prediction.
Electric cars carry with them costs which you carefully ignore.
Attaching large numbers of, necessarily, power-hungry electric cars to the electrical grid will require large scale investment in that electrical grid. The grid's simply not capable of handling more then a few electric cars per neighborhood which means someone's going to have to pay to have that additional capability installed. If electric car owners are the party responsible for creating that demand then they should also carry the cost burden of the improvement.
Then there's the additional power generation capacity that'll be necessary. EV owners certainly ought to absorb that cost as well having created the demand.
Reply
dcmeserve
215 Comments
Re: mandate
You stated one correct item above: battery tech is still developing. No question. Why you seem to think that translates into the govt having no role in investing in its development is beyond me. Common sense dictates the opposite.
Every single other thing you have said is wrong. Not just wrong, but thoroughly debunked and laughably out of date.
I don't have time to spoon-feed you a response on all this. I've been repeating myself so many times recently, even just on this site alone. But all you have to do Is look around at the other comments here. You could also look at my comment history. Sorry I can't be your personal tutor.
Oh, and
Also, your bias shows in your completely one-sided prediction.
Uh, that's you.
Reply