backtop


Print 10 comment(s) - last by mindless1.. on Aug 12 at 1:52 PM


  (Source: sierraclub.org)
The U.S. Department of Energy (DOE) is providing $175 million in grants to 40 projects that include advanced technology vehicles over the next five years, and about $45 million is being awarded to Michigan companies

The U.S. Department of Energy (DOE) is providing $175 million in grants to 40 projects that include advanced technology vehicles over the next five years, and about $45 million is being awarded to Michigan companies.

Out of 400 applicants in 15 U.S. states, 40 projects were chosen. Projects chosen involved technologically advanced vehicles in the way of efficiency, materials, etc. Of the total $175 million awarded, Michigan companies, including Detroit's Big Three automakers, accounted for $45 million.

General Motors Co. won $14 million total for projects located in Warren and Pontiac, Michigan. Of the $14 million, $8 million was to create a thermoelectric generator system that converts waste heat to electric power at the Warren Tech Center, and the other $6 million was for the future development of high performance, low-cost inverter switching and power module technologies.

Ford Motor Co. won $2.7 million total, where $1.5 million was for the research of fuel properties that can enable new combustion strategies with low emissions in engines while the other $1.2 million was for the research of polyalkylene glycol-based engine oil technology to reduce engine friction. 

Chrysler Group LLC won $10 million total for the future development of a cost-effective multi-material vehicle, where the overall weight of the vehicle is reduced by 50 percent.

Michigan companies other than the Big Three automakers to receive grants from DOE include Denso International's U.S. unit in Southfield, Michigan, who won $2.6 million to develop a battery thermal management system that reduces the battery pack size for battery electric vehicles; Vehma International in Troy, who won $10 million for the future development of a new passenger vehicle design that reduces vehicle weight by 50 percent, and the U.S. Automotive Materials Partnership in Southfield, who won $6.5 million to demonstrate crash models for carbon-fiber composites and to test an "integrated magnesium automotive assembly" for the reduction of vehicle weight by 45 percent over steel structures.

"The Department of Energy is investing in new advanced technologies that will significantly improve vehicle fuel economy, save customers money and create skilled jobs for Americans," said Stephen Chu, energy secretary. "Investments in the next generation of autos will strengthen our economy and lead to a more fuel-efficient, clean energy future."

The companies who have been awarded the grants must match the Energy Department's offerings with funds. They must pay about 40 percent of the total, which will be about $300 million in investments total.



Comments     Threshold


This article is over a month old, voting and posting comments is disabled

$175M Savings
By ebakke on 8/11/2011 6:56:35 PM , Rating: 1
Oh, hey, look at that. I just found $175M in low-hanging-fruit government expenditures that can be cut. This is a no brainer. What's really astonishing is that we ever accepted this nonsense in the first place.




RE: $175M Savings
By YashBudini on 8/11/2011 10:59:55 PM , Rating: 3
They should have offered a $1 million prize to the best design by an MIT grad or something along those lines. They would get better results for far less money than this nonsense.


RE: $175M Savings
By Samus on 8/12/2011 12:31:35 AM , Rating: 2
This will help them achieve those new fuel efficiency requirements that will be required by the same people giving them this money ohh wait...


RE: $175M Savings
By AssBall on 8/12/2011 2:58:00 AM , Rating: 2
:( So true....


RE: $175M Savings
By BansheeX on 8/12/2011 3:28:22 AM , Rating: 2
Which proves that this is just corporate welfare. And while your idea is preferable, it isn't necessary to use tax money as a carrot. People want better XYZ. If you are able to innovate something real over your competitors, you will reap voluntarily relinquished rewards in the market.


RE: $175M Savings
By allingm on 8/12/2011 4:10:41 AM , Rating: 2
So if we need to cut spending and boost the economy, how do we achieve this? Cutting spending is fairly straight forward, but boosting the economy can be done in several ways.

-Spend more
-Spend less
-Cut taxes
-Add regulation
-Remove regulation
(all I can think of)

So, to add jobs we need to stimulate a certain field. Ideally we would boost a new job market, such as green energy, so that more jobs end up in our country instead of somebody else's. How do you propose we boost the economy? Personally I think spending $175 million on growing markets isn't too bad. I think the most important areas to boost are in fact composites and battery technology. How do you propose we boost these if not with grants? ...or what other fields should we boost?


RE: $175M Savings
By Paj on 8/12/2011 7:27:09 AM , Rating: 1
Yep - nothing wrong with governments supporting development of new technologies.

Gotta love dailytech - moan about innovation going overseas, and then moan when the government tries to address the issue.


RE: $175M Savings
By ebakke on 8/12/2011 11:41:02 AM , Rating: 2
quote:
Gotta love dailytech - moan about innovation going overseas, and then moan when the government tries to address the issue.
You've never seen me moan about anything going overseas.


RE: $175M Savings
By ebakke on 8/12/2011 11:58:43 AM , Rating: 2
quote:
Ideally we would boost a new job market, such as green energy, so that more jobs end up in our country instead of somebody else's.
I disagree. Ideally consumers would use their pocket books to decide a) which market will grow and b) where the jobs for those markets will reside.

quote:
How do you propose we boost the economy?
The government's repeated attempts to boost the economy are consistent epic failures. You and I can't predict the markets, yet somehow we expect the government to be able to do so, and more than that, to do so in sufficient detail that they know where we need to "stimulate" and where we should just "let the market do it's own thing". We constantly end up with unintended consequences that astonish the government officials. We start with some altruistic goal that everyone deserves to own a home. A couple decades later we watch our self-created bubble pop and are completely bewildered. We provide incentives for people not to be productive members of society, and then wonder why our unemployment is high and our gov't services are being maxed out. We throw out money left and right for "small" projects like this one, and after doing that a few hundred thousand times, can't understand why our federal budgets are way out of control and why corporations (and other special interests) own Washington. Politicians don't invest for an economic gain like you and I do. They invest for a political gain; they invest to keep their power.

The Feds have shown time and time again, that their solution to any economic problem is to stick themselves into the economy more than they already are. I say this time we try doing the opposite. Let's remove the masses from the public teet, give them a few years to figure out how to provide for themselves again, and see what happens.

quote:
Personally I think spending $175 million on growing markets isn't too bad. I think the most important areas to boost are in fact composites and battery technology.
But surely you can see it's not just $175M. The feds spend billions a year on various grants, subsidies, tax breaks, etc all favoring different industries. They take the level playing field and destroy it in exchange for something that increases their likelihood of getting re-elected.

quote:
How do you propose we boost these if not with grants? ...or what other fields should we boost?
I propose you boost whatever field/market you want to, and I'll do the same. Feel free to invest in "green" companies. Feel free to donate your own money directly. Feel free to purchase XYZ product made by said companies. The legitimate ideas (as defined by the mass market) will hang around. We don't need the government looking our for us and deciding who gets to succeed and who gets to fail.


GREAT
By mindless1 on 8/12/2011 1:52:52 PM , Rating: 2
I always wanted a higher tax burden leading to vehicles that cost more to purchase and repair too.




"Well, there may be a reason why they call them 'Mac' trucks! Windows machines will not be trucks." -- Microsoft CEO Steve Ballmer














botimage
Copyright 2015 DailyTech LLC. - RSS Feed | Advertise | About Us | Ethics | FAQ | Terms, Conditions & Privacy Information | Kristopher Kubicki