backtop


Print 108 comment(s) - last by monkeyman1140.. on Jul 16 at 12:15 AM


GE WattStation  (Source: GE)

Ford announced that Compact Power would be producing the batteries for its electric Ford Focus.  (Source: Ford via Autoblog)

Obama was visiting Michigan today, promoting his plans to develop $10,000 EVs by 2015.  (Source: Detroit News)
President and his staff hit the road to promote the over $2.4B USD in federal money they're offering auto companies

U.S. President Barack Obama certainly isn't setting modest goals when it comes to electric vehicles.  The President is taking a gamble, pouring over $2.4B USD into the budding industry.  A 100-mile range battery EV today costs around $33,000 USD to make, but Obama hopes to drop that cost to $16,000 by 2013 and $10,000 by 2015.

President Obama was visiting Michigan this week to check in on many pending battery projects that are receiving a piece of that $2.4B USD pie.

Among the events he attended was the groundbreaking ceremony in Holland, Michigan of a Compact Power Inc. plant that will be used to provide batteries for the Chevy Volt.  Compact Power, owned by South Korea's LG, announced news more big news at the ceremony -- Ford picked it to produce batteries for the plug-in Ford Focus.  

The plant will cost $303M USD to build, but the government will be chipping in $151M USD.  The plant is expected to employ 450 workers by 2013 according to the Obama administration.  The jobs are expected to pay $14, providing a decent standard of living to workers.

Obama also checked out Johnson Controls-Saft's new $220M lithium-ion battery plant, also in Holland, Michigan.  That plant may prove to be a key competitor to Compact Power in the near future, and is also receiving federal stimulus funding.

On Friday, Energy Secretary Steven Chu will visit Delphi Automotive in Kokomo, Indiana.  Delphi is one of the auto industry's top suppliers.  The U.S. government is offering it $89M USD in grants to develop new components for electric vehicles.

Meanwhile, Ed Montgomery, executive director of the White House Council on Automotive Communities and Workers, will be visiting General Motor's new plant in in White Marsh, Maryland.  While GM will buy battery cells from suppliers like Compact Power, it will assemble its own battery packs and supporting systems in house at this new plant.  GM is receiving $241M USD in federal funding for its EV efforts in total, including $106M USD towards this new plant.

Charlotte, North Carolina-based Celgard will be receiving a visit from Labor Secretary Hilda Solis.  Celgard will receive $49M USD in stimulus money, which will allow it hire 100 employees, open a plant, and reach production.

While grants to promote the actual manufacturing of electric vehicles and their battery systems are one key aspect of Obama's efforts, another major component is the creation of electrical vehicle charging stations.  By spreading EV chargers out like gas stations, the range of EVs can effectively be extended.

Companies like Coulomb Technologies will be deploying the stations across the country later this year and next year.  New York-based Coulomb is receiving a $15M USD stimulus grant to spread 4,600 such stations in nine cities by September 2011.  That's a big chunk of the 20,000 station Obama hopes to deploy by 2012 (there are currently 500 such stations in the U.S.).

The goals are lofty -- Obama is shooting for over 20,000 electric vehicle stations, 1 million EVs on the road, and bargain EV prices of $10,000 per vehicle by 2015.  In short, he's trying to completely reinvent the American auto industry, much of which essentially collapsed during the recent recession.  



Comments     Threshold


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

that's some loafty goal
By superPC on 7/14/2010 10:18:05 AM , Rating: 5
reducing 70% of the electric car price in 5 years? impossible I say!

Materials for electric car are in limited supply. rare earth is essential in electric car and right now China is the only major supplier. it would take years to open new mines and for it not be limited. 5 years is overly optimistic at best or delusional at worse.

But hey in case they succeeded? bring me my 33000 $ tesla roadster!




RE: that's some loafty goal
By Reclaimer77 on 7/14/2010 10:21:52 AM , Rating: 2
quote:
reducing 70% of the electric car price in 5 years? impossible I say!


To Obama nothing is impossible provided unlimited taxpayer funding.


RE: that's some loafty goal
By Reclaimer77 on 7/14/2010 10:24:36 AM , Rating: 4
Also..

quote:
In short, he's trying to completely reinvent the American auto industry


Since when was it the job of the President to "reinvent" industries? And who decides which ones get reinvented? Obama and a Car Czar? That's not how things are supposed to work here Jason.


RE: that's some loafty goal
By retrospooty on 7/14/10, Rating: 0
RE: that's some loafty goal
By JimboK29 on 7/14/2010 12:03:16 PM , Rating: 3
quote:
We need to get off oil at all costs.


Why?


RE: that's some loafty goal
By retrospooty on 7/14/10, Rating: 0
RE: that's some loafty goal
By Dorkyman on 7/14/2010 1:36:08 PM , Rating: 5
"We need to get off oil at all costs."

Really? At all costs?

Yes, it's true that our demand for oil is transferring money to countries that have values very different from our own. The solution is obvious to anyone not blinded by their own prejudices:

(a) Drill here. Eliminate the artificial roadblocks to oil extraction. Oil shale, tar sands from Canada, ANWAR, lots of opportunities.

(b) Go all-out on nukes. It is an embarrassment that we get only ~20% of our electricity from nukes while France (FRANCE!) gets 90%.

I completely agree that by refusing to do the obvious we are really putting ourselves in a very dangerous position with regards to the Middle East and the threat of a future war. But, you know, Messiah in the White House is not exactly a practical man. He wants his windmills and knows better than you and I that electric cars are the answer. I do thank him, though, for shaking the American public back to their senses. Looking forward to an amazing November election cycle.

As for air pollution: as someone who lived in LA decades ago, I can vouch that things are amazingly better now. Nothing's ever perfect, but we've made remarkable progress.


RE: that's some loafty goal
By retrospooty on 7/14/2010 2:41:36 PM , Rating: 4
"(a) Drill here. Eliminate the artificial roadblocks to oil extraction. Oil shale, tar sands from Canada, ANWAR, lots of opportunities."

Yes, a good idea to get us by for a while while other entergy sources get researched, prefected, and cheeapened, but it wont last forever.

"(b) Go all-out on nukes. It is an embarrassment that we get only ~20% of our electricity from nukes while France (FRANCE!) gets 90%."

Yes, nuclear= not oil, so I totally agree.

We are totally in agreement.


RE: that's some loafty goal
By AEvangel on 7/14/2010 5:29:46 PM , Rating: 5
quote:
Yes, a good idea to get us by for a while while other entergy sources get researched, prefected, and cheeapened, but it wont last forever.


Actually there is really no SOLID proof that oil wont last forever. People need to realize that oil is not created by decomposing dinosaurs and quite a few oil reserves that were depleted 20 years ago are now found to be refilling themselves.

http://www.oralchelation.com/faq/wsj4.htm

What we need to do is develop greener methods of oil recovery and exploration.


RE: that's some loafty goal
By fleabag on 7/14/10, Rating: -1
RE: that's some loafty goal
By Reclaimer77 on 7/14/2010 6:02:37 PM , Rating: 2
He's referring to the Deep Hot Biosphere theory by Thomas Gold. Which states that oil is actually produced deep in the mantle by the Earth and then rises, where it is then attacked by bacteria and other organisms. So that when tested, it appears organic in nature.

I think it's a very interesting theory personally. And before you dismiss it offhand I should tell you Thomas Gold also theorized neutron stars and was ridiculed before the theory was eventually accepted and backed up. Gold is one of the best minds out there today.


RE: that's some loafty goal
By Paj on 7/15/2010 5:39:13 AM , Rating: 2
Pretty shaky foundation to base energy planning on though. 'Theres no problem, the oil will replenish itself!' Its like something the crazy Texan oil magnate from the Simpsons would say.

And Thomas Gold died in 04 (RIP).


RE: that's some loafty goal
By Reclaimer77 on 7/15/2010 10:28:32 AM , Rating: 3
quote:
Pretty shaky foundation to base energy planning on though. 'Theres no problem, the oil will replenish itself!


As apposed to the brilliant energy planning we have currently. Which is... no plan. Unless you refer to the magical pixie dust that is "alternative" energy.


RE: that's some loafty goal
By monkeyman1140 on 7/16/2010 12:00:28 AM , Rating: 1
The problem is not oil availability, its oil itself.

Earth is full of life because a considerable amount of carbon is locked deep inside the earth. When you dig it up and burn it, it goes into the active ecosystem permanently and changes everything, the weather, the seas, the land...and not in a good way.

Right now the oceans are cleaning up our mess, so we don't really notice the effects, but there's a "tipping" point where oceans will no longer be able to absorb all the carbon, and it will be quite sudden, and probably the death of the planet, or at least the death of humanity. Once we all are dead, earth will recover nicely. Of course thats not a fairy tale ending for us.


RE: that's some loafty goal
By quiksilvr on 7/14/10, Rating: 0
RE: that's some loafty goal
By moenkopi on 7/14/2010 4:41:26 PM , Rating: 2
Nuclear has a future in thorium fuel cycle technology! The US has the second largest reserves of thorium fuel which will be able to sustain us for 200 years. By that time, maybe we really will have fusion or we'll have control over the suns energy.


RE: that's some loafty goal
By FITCamaro on 7/15/2010 12:45:09 AM , Rating: 2
Obama is pushing for government loan guarantees. He is doing absolutely nothing to actually make it easier to build a nuclear power plant. You still have the massive red tape. You still have the environmentalists who can sue without end.

Obama knows this. I don't think he cares. He wants to look like he supports nuclear knowing that its highly unlikely plants will make it to completion because of the road blocks. Loan guarantees don't mean the plants get built. Even if they get built it doesn't mean they become operational.

The only reason nuclear plants aren't being built is because of the red tape and potential endless lawsuits. Enivironmental groups should not be able to sue on the behalf of the people. If people want to sue, they can do it on their own.


RE: that's some loafty goal
By The0ne on 7/14/2010 4:38:56 PM , Rating: 2
LA is better in the sense that it doesn't appear to be getting any worse. It's NOT better because we are reducing any pollution. It takes a long time to "clean" what was already done, smog for example. Comparing LA to San Diego is almost like night a day because of that brown cloud. I hack and cough going up there all the time.


RE: that's some loafty goal
By priusone on 7/15/2010 4:12:59 AM , Rating: 2
Palm Springs does have some beautiful sunsets thanks to all the air that blows in from LA.


RE: that's some loafty goal
By LordSojar on 7/15/2010 1:51:30 AM , Rating: 2
quote:
I do thank him, though, for shaking the American public back to their senses. Looking forward to an amazing November election cycle.


You know what I'm looking forward to? In 30 years, when we still haven't moved off oil, and it runs dry. Watch, as societies collapse, governments fall, and chaos envelops us. Oil makes the world go round, and when the tit runs dry, so does the order it brings.

Absolute power corrupts absolutely. See where being a Democrat or Republican or Libertarian gets you then; you'll just be another povertized fool. Human beings are foolish creatures indeed... more concerned with a penny today than the progress of society as a whole.

You can tag me as a person with my head in the clouds, a flaming liberal, it's all irrelevant tripe. Politicians in the US are all backwards, inbred fools who wouldn't know progress if it was a train hitting them. Politicians are pawns for lobbyists in this country, who control everything. You are money, another plus on the balance sheet. Unfortunately, when the wells run dry, so too shall your pathetic existence, the same as the rest of us.

I recently took a trip up to northern Indiana, and saw a huge wind farm. It was actually beautiful... not just on the material level, but to see some parts of society progressing beyond technology principles that are 200 years old. Wind isn't the final answer, that role falls to fusion. However, it's a start; a good, clean start.

quote:
Really? At all costs?


What cost do you put on life? I don't put a price tag on the human spirit; the spirit of innovation. We are a wonderful race when we get our minds out of that shallow gutter that is greed. Learn to care for humanity as a whole, and where we are going, not where we are. I don't pretend to have all the answers, but I do know this; only through technological progress can we ever hope to see our society achieve greatness.


RE: that's some loafty goal
By hashish2020 on 7/15/2010 1:30:12 PM , Rating: 2
Yea, it's not like Obama is pushing nuclear at all, right?

And I dunno, personally, I kinda like Obama's first energy secretary being a Nobel Prize winning physicist, while our last president's brilliant first choice was a...lawyer.


RE: that's some loafty goal
By Reclaimer77 on 7/15/2010 2:18:55 PM , Rating: 2
lol Please! Do you really want to go there? Obama's appointees are the biggest bunch of unqualified wacko radicals I've ever seen. I especially liked his choice for finance being a proven tax evader. Nice touch.


RE: that's some loafty goal
By monkeyman1140 on 7/16/2010 12:04:33 AM , Rating: 1
As compared to Bush appointees, like Lyn Nofziger and Eliot Abrams, both former felons who spent time in Federal Prison for various crimes committed under the Reagan Administration?
Or perhaps Bush's wonderful appointing of that moron Donald Rumsfeld, who destroyed our military and munged up our 2 wars on Iraq and Afghanistan so badly that we're still fighting them?

or maybe Bush's secretary of the treasury, who is a member of goldman sachs and created TARP which cost the taxpayer 1.5 TRILLION DOLLARS.

And you want to put these clowns back in power?


RE: that's some loafty goal
By clovell on 7/14/2010 1:41:15 PM , Rating: 5
> I dont agree with alot of what Obama nd hte dems do, but this one isnt a bad thing. We need to get off oil at all costs. It cant be done immediately it takes time and it takes actions like this.

It takes multi-billion dollar handouts? Funny, I thought tax incentives worked just fine up until now. Leaf, Volt, Prius, Insight, Fusion, etc. were all driving to that same goal long before we started handing out cash. Please don't use the failure of a couple US automakers as justification for this. And don't forget that Ford didn't touch gov't. cash.

Getting off of oil isn't happening soon. That's a pipe dream. Getting off of foreign oil isn't a bad idea, though, and is much more feasible. Obama's actions towards meeting that goal are contradictory.


RE: that's some loafty goal
By retrospooty on 7/14/2010 2:56:19 PM , Rating: 1
"Getting off of oil isn't happening soon. That's a pipe dream. Getting off of foreign oil isn't a bad idea, though, and is much more feasible."

Thats the goal... And yes it will take time, researcha nd a great deal of effort. But if we dont start we wont finish, thats for sure.


RE: that's some loafty goal
By xmichaelx on 7/14/10, Rating: -1
RE: that's some loafty goal
By YashBudini on 7/14/10, Rating: 0
RE: that's some loafty goal
By FITCamaro on 7/15/2010 12:39:16 AM , Rating: 2
Isn't that the automotive companies problem? Not the governments. The auto industry nearly went under as a result of the recession and years of union strong arming them. Obama's solution? Let the unions run them. Yeah that will do it. Sure now GM and Chrysler are free of the massive liabilities they had, but at our expense.

And we need to get off oil at all costs huh? So lets spend trillions of dollars to solve a problem we force on ourselves. We could easily produce a large portion of our own oil. But idiots like Obama don't want us to. We can't drill, we can't refine.

But hey it gives idiots like you a warm and fuzzy feeling.

A better solution would be to throw our weight behind diesel produced by algae. Then gradually switch to diesel from that. It wouldn't need subsidies. Just water. Water that could come from desalinization plants powered by nuclear power. Notice I've left a word you seem to love out. Government. The free market can take care of the problem. It may not happen as fast as you'd like. But it sure will result in more wealth for everyone and less government debt.

Sorry used that dirty wealth word. Democrats don't like that word unless its their own.


RE: that's some loafty goal
By iNGEN2 on 7/15/2010 10:21:02 AM , Rating: 2
Between the alternatives of utter destitution and liberty or prosperity in socialism, that is an easy decision. I choose destitution. Better poverty than a "planner".


RE: that's some loafty goal
By DPigs on 7/14/2010 11:41:25 AM , Rating: 1
quote:
Since when was it the job of the President to "reinvent" industries?


Hugo Chavez does it all the time!


RE: that's some loafty goal
By Kurz on 7/14/2010 12:46:25 PM , Rating: 2
Lets hope he doesn't come to arrest you!


RE: that's some loafty goal
By bignickmetro on 7/14/10, Rating: -1
RE: that's some loafty goal
By clovell on 7/14/2010 1:48:18 PM , Rating: 2
Space travel was an invention. This is a direct intervention. My issue is that the industry is developing fine on its own - has been for ~ a decade. Now they need billions of dollars? If this was part of something bigger, maybe I could get on board, but right now it seems like Obama is giving handouts to people he likes.

And let's be clear - forcing the hand of the economy in a sustainable manner is IMPOSSIBLE. We learned tat after the dot-com bust, and we got taken back to school with the housing debacle, after congress and the president thought it'd be a great idea to make home-ownership easy enough for everyone.

Everything else, we, as a country are fully capable of - including self-deception.


RE: that's some loafty goal
By monkeyman1140 on 7/16/10, Rating: 0
RE: that's some loafty goal
By consumerwhore on 7/14/10, Rating: 0
RE: that's some loafty goal
By drycrust3 on 7/14/2010 1:38:07 PM , Rating: 2
RE: that's some loafty goal
By Stoanhart on 7/14/10, Rating: 0
RE: that's some loafty goal
By FITCamaro on 7/15/2010 12:47:29 AM , Rating: 4
So the answer to fixing the problems caused by an overreaching and obstructive government is more government.

Yeah just like spending massive amounts of money you don't have helps you get out of debt.


RE: that's some loafty goal
By tedrodai on 7/14/2010 5:06:58 PM , Rating: 2
I keep waiting to hear that's he's promoting something financially that I actually agree with...and I keep waiting...


RE: that's some loafty goal
By monkeyman1140 on 7/15/2010 11:57:15 PM , Rating: 1
We built a nuclear bomb and went to the moon on unlimited taxpayer funding.

You're not bitching about that


RE: that's some loafty goal
By kattanna on 7/14/2010 10:34:30 AM , Rating: 2
maybe this is more what he has in mind

http://ep.yimg.com/ca/I/nycewheels_2112_284286246

is there even any car in the US market now that sells for $10K?


RE: that's some loafty goal
By 67STANG on 7/14/2010 11:22:35 AM , Rating: 2
Yep. As long as you don't need to go over 25mph, this is already possible.

Behold, the $9k EV :
http://chronicle.augusta.com/news/business/2010-06...


RE: that's some loafty goal
By knutjb on 7/14/2010 1:39:02 PM , Rating: 2
Obama doesn't get it, $10K EVs are nothing like a moon shot, they don't captivate peoples imagination. ALL it makes me think of are plug-in Trabants. Maybe that's what he wants for you, he gets the limo.

He has never run a business but now that he has GM he will make bad market decisions for them, as if they didn't know how to do that already. Then they will require another "booster loan" annually, just like Amtrak, to help subsidize EVs that no one wants so he can feel better about the country. Can't allow his Union support to wain.

If he only allowed real capitalism to function and you would see this http://www.technologyreview.com/energy/25540/ by Ford.


RE: that's some loafty goal
By monkeyman1140 on 7/15/2010 11:41:48 PM , Rating: 1
Really? Under Obamagov, GM seems to be recovering. Its camaro is a hit. How ironic GM is being rescued by a gas guzzler. Apparently americans just don't learn.


RE: that's some loafty goal
By borowki2 on 7/14/2010 3:23:28 PM , Rating: 1
Impossible? That's what they say about the Black Sea Canal. Nonetheless it was built. When people unit, we are capable of anything.


RE: that's some loafty goal
By Phoque on 7/14/2010 5:13:59 PM , Rating: 2
By rare earth metals, are you refering to the lithium battery?

If so, aren't there potential alternative to lithium battery that could eventually make their way to electric cars? Like fuel cells?

-------------

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fuel_cell

In 2003 President George Bush proposed the Hydrogen Fuel Initiative (HFI), which was later implemented by legislation through the 2005 Energy Policy Act and the 2006 Advanced Energy Initiative. These aimed at further developing hydrogen fuel cells and its infrastructure technologies with the ultimate goal to produce commercial fuel cell vehicles by 2020. By 2008, the U.S. had contributed 1 billion dollars to this project.[34]

-------------

I'm not saying hydrogen fuel cell is the solution right now, but maybe some other similar fuel cell technologies...


RE: that's some loafty goal
By superPC on 7/14/2010 8:44:45 PM , Rating: 2
No, by rare earth i'm refering to http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rare_earth_element see most of it are used in magnet that's essential to an electric car. even fuel cell electric car need rare earth magnet for their electric engine. and these rare earth would still be rare years from now. so cheap electric vehicle is a pipe dream for at least the next decade.


RE: that's some loafty goal
By monkeyman1140 on 7/15/2010 11:40:00 PM , Rating: 2
Hydrogen fuel is a FRAUD. Its like fusion power, it will never ever be viable nor cheap.

This is why the Bush Regime liked it, and why the oil companies promoted it. They know it will never ever become practical and it delays implementation of electric battery powered cars by defunding research and infrastructure investment. Meanwhile billions are wasted on hydrogen fuel research and we continue to use gasoline.

Mission accomplished.


RE: that's some loafty goal
By Schadenfroh on 7/15/2010 10:27:54 AM , Rating: 2
It can be done, if we stay in Afghanistan to mine the newly discovered Lithium reserves and invade Bolivia, topple the Chavez wannabe that runs it, and turn it into a vassal state to harvest their lithium as well.

We can justify the two "lithium wars" in the name of Green Energy, it will be a much better sell than the Iraq oil war (which has a larger carbon footprint). I am sure we can get the Europeans to go for it, but it will be a tough sell on nations that are not trying to become green.


RE: that's some loafty goal
By monkeyman1140 on 7/15/2010 11:51:08 PM , Rating: 1
I think Bolivia has had enough of American interference, that's why they elected Evo Morales. They're tired of suffering under capitalism where they work like slaves while we profit off their backs.


Stimulus at Work
By Reclaimer77 on 7/14/2010 10:16:56 AM , Rating: 2
You have to love when the "stimulus" creates a few hundred jobs here and there amidst massive nation wide unemployment. Is anyone else still buying this crap?




RE: Stimulus at Work
By HotFoot on 7/14/2010 10:27:32 AM , Rating: 2
Why is it that wars are good for the economy, but stimulus spending isn't? The biggest problem I see isn't that the government is trying to prime the pump, it's that you weren't in a financial position to do so, having run large deficits throughout economic good times. Keynesian economics isn't something that can be pulled off only during the hard times of economic cycles - you have to work on savings during the good times.

But my original question still stands. I don't understand why the government putting billions into war machinery is so good for the economy, while spending on infrastructure is so bad. And I'm not against either, really.

To the topic at hand, I really don't think electric cars make a lot of sense. I'm sure there will be some people for whom they are a good fit, but I need a vehicle that doesn't just do every-day commuter and groceries. I also need a car I can take on the highway from time to time. Maybe down the road there will be some shift, where I own only a commuter vehicle and for weekends/vacations I rent, but for now I'd rather have a vehicle where I can hop in and hit the highway on a whim. It's a kind of freedom I enjoy.


RE: Stimulus at Work
By Reclaimer77 on 7/14/2010 10:39:33 AM , Rating: 2
I'm not against "infrastructure" spending, per say. I certainly am against hoarding a trillion dollars in hard economic times, slowly dolling it out to your favorite pet projects, and keeping the rest in a slush fund to reward people who got you into the White House. Come on Hot, how is giving money to ACORN, a campaign contributor, "infrastructure" spending?

quote:
Why is it that wars are good for the economy, but stimulus spending isn't?

???

Why are we talking about this again? Ok I'll shoot. I would say very simply that War's stimulate the economy. Goods need to be manufactured in huge supplies. This is done by the private sector. And so on and so forth. People need to be hired in large numbers to meet the increased production needs.

But I mean.. why did you bring up wars? Where did I say that we should start wars to stimulate the economy?


RE: Stimulus at Work
By HotFoot on 7/14/2010 10:48:15 AM , Rating: 2
I didn't mean that you took the position that wars stimulate the economy. Rather, I mean that as generally accepted fact (which you may not even agree with). In my mind, it makes a lot of sense. However, I would also think that infrastructure spending would be just as good - or even better, as that infrastructure ought to make future commerce more efficient.

But yes, the devil is in the details. $1T stimulus doesn't mean $1T infrastructure spending. It's whatever they actually choose to fund, and it is so very open to corruption as to be disgusting.

I'm sure the nation could use $1T of love to the road system alone - though I'm not sure of the wisdom of spending it all on one thing, nor the capacity for the economy to meet that demand.

I think, ultimately, there needs to be a focus to reduce conflicts of interest and corruption in government. Campaign contributions need to be addressed.


RE: Stimulus at Work
By Reclaimer77 on 7/14/2010 11:13:13 AM , Rating: 2
quote:
I didn't mean that you took the position that wars stimulate the economy


Ok cool, my mistake. I get accused of lots of things around here so I had to be sure :)

quote:
I would also think that infrastructure spending would be just as good - or even better, as that infrastructure ought to make future commerce more efficient.


Well I would agree if the infrastructure was so neglected that it actually started interfering with the ability to conduct business and maintain basic services for the population. And I know Obama tried hard to make it seem like that was the case when he sold America on the "stimulus", but I'm not convinced. If you build a road or a bridge, you hire people to build it, but when it's completed they are out of work again. These are projects, not economic growth.

quote:
But yes, the devil is in the details. $1T stimulus doesn't mean $1T infrastructure spending. It's whatever they actually choose to fund, and it is so very open to corruption as to be disgusting.


I completely agree. It's a travesty honestly.


RE: Stimulus at Work
By YashBudini on 7/14/10, Rating: 0
RE: Stimulus at Work
By Shadowmaster625 on 7/14/2010 10:53:01 AM , Rating: 2
Wars are only good for the economy when its not OUR infrastructure and industrial capacity that is being destroyed.


RE: Stimulus at Work
By torpor on 7/14/2010 2:05:53 PM , Rating: 2
Actually, if our infrastructure had been leveled in the 1940's along with the rest of the 1st world, the power grid in the east (for example) might be a lot more robust.

There's a lot of retooling we haven't done because what's there still works. And there's nothing like war to force retooling.


RE: Stimulus at Work
By clovell on 7/14/2010 1:56:02 PM , Rating: 2
It creates jobs? Think about the drop in production, sales, and R&D that will result in the ICE vehicle segment. This is a 'Reggie Bush' - running 40 yards across the field for a 1-yard gain.


RE: Stimulus at Work
By WalksTheWalk on 7/14/2010 4:29:38 PM , Rating: 2
Exactly. Take this excerpt:

quote:
The plant will cost $303M USD to build, but the government will be chipping in $151M USD. The plant is expected to employ 450 workers by 2013 according to the Obama administration. The jobs are expected to pay $14, providing a decent standard of living to workers.


So according to this, the US is spending $151M to create 450 $14/hr jobs. This equates to $336K per job created. An average American works about 2K hrs per year, so it would take about 500 years (conservative estimate) to generate enough taxes from those 450 jobs at $14/hr. to repay the $151M to the government and break even. That's not even including the opportunity cost of having the $151M allocated to more profitable means. Classic government stimulus.


RE: Stimulus at Work
By monkeyman1140 on 7/15/2010 11:53:35 PM , Rating: 1
I think President William McKinley's foolish subsidizing of this thing known as an "automobile" is a major threat to horse and buggy, with the potential to put thousands of horse trainers, buggy manufacturers, and whip factories, as well as poop scoopers out of business.

This is intolerable. Write President McKinley today!


EV charging stations
By DigitalFreak on 7/14/2010 10:14:06 AM , Rating: 2
quote:
By spreading EV chargers out like gas stations, the range of EVs can effectively be extended.


Except for the fact that it takes at most 5 minutes to fill up your gas tank. How many hours would it take to charge an EV? Not even close.




RE: EV charging stations
By Pirks on 7/14/10, Rating: 0
RE: EV charging stations
By Shadowmaster625 on 7/14/2010 11:01:17 AM , Rating: 2
There is no way that the energy efficiency savings from using an EV can ever make up for the costs of infrastructure like that. Filling a gas tank is easy. The infrastructure for building thousands of gas pumps already exists and is not even running at capacity. To push all that aside and implement totally new infrastructure is foolish unless the savings are an order of magnitude greater. They are not. Lack of education is really killing this country... from the flagellar motor to "fossil" fuels, our ignorance is costing us so dearly.


RE: EV charging stations
By Pirks on 7/14/10, Rating: -1
RE: EV charging stations
By ebakke on 7/14/2010 2:20:12 PM , Rating: 2
Pirks, did your little brother just post with your account?


RE: EV charging stations
By marvdmartian on 7/14/2010 11:25:44 AM , Rating: 2
We'll just have to design better quality electricity pumps then, won't we?? ;)

I really can only see this as being feasible around larger metropolitan areas. At least until they get better battery packs or more efficient motors that can give longer ranges.

Really too bad that no one can design replaceable battery packs that can be quickly changed out. Then you don't worry about how long to charge the battery.....you just swap your depleted unit for a fully charged unit, and be on your way, while the recharging station puts that depleted battery back on a charger, for someone to use once it's regained it's charge.

Only problem with this is that you'd have to limit the size/shape of the batteries, and every vehicle designer would have to conform to that....fat chance of that happening, since we can't even get the cell phone companies to go to one universal charger plug design!


RE: EV charging stations
By taber on 7/14/2010 1:00:48 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
Really too bad that no one can design replaceable battery packs that can be quickly changed out

That's the way I see EV tech going if it ever gets mass adopted, otherwise you're limited to commuter or hybrids. The government could standardize battery packs like they do gasoline now. It could be somewhat similar to how propane tanks work.


RE: EV charging stations
By tng on 7/14/2010 1:42:14 PM , Rating: 2
So my trip from central California to Southern Oregon (about 400 miles), it would me take 3 days just to arrive...... If there are any charging stations in the Southern Cascade/Northern Sierras.

My commute to work (50 miles) means that if I don't have a full charge, I may not make it home......

Great idea, this will go over allot better than all of the EV concepts that have came out over the last 20 years. ;)

When will these people learn that to make this marketable the range has to be comparable to an equivalent gas powered car


RE: EV charging stations
By clovell on 7/14/2010 1:54:12 PM , Rating: 2
Exactly, if Obama truly wanted a green revolution where he could handout billions of dollars to other people and watch the magic work, he'd fund T. Boone Pickens (much as dislike the guy). The grid is going to have to be upgraded before we can even talk about widespread charging stations.

This reeks of conflicts of interest.


RE: EV charging stations
By monkeyman1140 on 7/15/2010 11:55:42 PM , Rating: 2
It would be a boon to restaurants and coffee houses, where people stop for a pastry and a cup of joe while their cars charge.

You DO know that you can charge your car in the garage while ya sleep right?


Woohoo!
By IcePickFreak on 7/14/2010 10:29:36 AM , Rating: 3
400 jobs at $14/hr! That's nearly $30,000 a year gross income. There's some change (quarters, dimes, nickels) you can hope for.




RE: Woohoo!
By 67STANG on 7/14/2010 11:25:44 AM , Rating: 3
Where I live in California, $30k/year will get you house under a freeway overpass.


RE: Woohoo!
By bobsmith1492 on 7/14/2010 1:17:24 PM , Rating: 2
You should move.


RE: Woohoo!
By chmilz on 7/14/2010 1:17:38 PM , Rating: 2
It'll buy you a city block in Detroit. It's the price you pay to live in California, or any in-demand area with high land value.

I'm willing to bet homes in Holland, Michigan, are a fraction of the price.


RE: Woohoo!
By The0ne on 7/14/2010 4:58:18 PM , Rating: 2
Yea, I've moved around the country to different states and 30k/year could be well spent for a good life but you'll be hard press to be able to live off of it in CA.

Work hard and enjoy life, it's ok for what I earn. Nice beautiful city (San Diego) makes a big difference.


RE: Woohoo!
By Spuke on 7/15/2010 3:25:09 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
Where I live in California, $30k/year will get you house under a freeway overpass.
You could probably qualify for a $100k house if you had 10% down. A FHA loan would lower the downpayment but I think the qualifications are a little stricter (don't know). You can get a $100k house in CA but more than likely you will be living pretty far from work (3-4 hours a day commuting), the neighborhood will suck, and the local grocery store won't carry Lucky Charms in the bigger box.


This will hurt the economy more
By bill4 on 7/14/2010 1:35:49 PM , Rating: 5
Mick, slobber some more over Obama's cock, ok?

Anyway, this will destroy the economy even more, government spending never creates jobs only destroys them. It will also cause a lot more pollution, since electric cars pollute far more than gas burning ones.

Heres an article about how unpopular Obama is because of the environmentalist devastated economy Mick: http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/38229525/ns/politics/




RE: This will hurt the economy more
By bill4 on 7/14/2010 1:41:29 PM , Rating: 2
I'll be sure to post the bad news for Democrats in a lot of your articles Mick, lolololololololololololol

CO2 caps have destroyed all jobs. No jobs equals no votes for Democrat incumbents. Equals Republicans win and remove CO2 caps.


RE: This will hurt the economy more
By YashBudini on 7/14/2010 11:49:20 PM , Rating: 1
"CO2 caps have destroyed all jobs."

Really? I'll bet Wall St scum is relieved about that.


RE: This will hurt the economy more
By Spuke on 7/15/2010 3:27:48 PM , Rating: 2
WTH is he talking about? There aren't any CO2 caps (yet). And hopefully there won't be any. Won't stop CA from implementing their own although the Governor wants to put a hold on it until unemployment is under a certain percentage.


RE: This will hurt the economy more
By Dorkyman on 7/14/10, Rating: -1
RE: This will hurt the economy more
By moenkopi on 7/14/2010 4:52:23 PM , Rating: 1
electric cars pollute far more than gas burning ones? WTF ARE YOU EVEN DOING HERE? this blog is far intelligent people!
electric motors are close to 85% efficient while gas motors are 17% efficient, even burning coal is more efficient because coal is usually used as a base load energy source, so even if 30% of the electric cars are charged during night time hours, then they can soak up the unused energy at night. Nevertheless, a large point source coal generator is more easy to filter than a small one from an ICE car.


RE: This will hurt the economy more
By Bateluer on 7/15/2010 2:16:54 AM , Rating: 2
You're overlooking the manufacturing and mining processes for the batteries required in EVs. Its not exactly a 'green' process.

On the open road, the EV is probably cleaner than the ICE, but there's the production, and disposal, of the batteries that must be considered too.


By monkeyman1140 on 7/16/2010 12:09:17 AM , Rating: 2
And how is this any different from the manufacture of internal combustion engines? You can crank out batteries easily, its not complex technology. electric motors are simple to make.

Internal combustion engines are remarkably complex, and require constant maintenance.


Grid
By fishman on 7/14/2010 10:44:01 AM , Rating: 3
Sorry, but the electric power grid in this country is in poor shape, and has barely enough capacity on certain days. Add to that hundreds and thousands of EVs, and you have a recipe for disaster.




RE: Grid
By fleabag on 7/14/2010 1:40:38 PM , Rating: 3
This administration was a disaster from the very beginning. The 2008 election was a sham, falsely leading people to believe they had the opportunity to make the "right choice" when in fact there was no right choice, because they were both bad choices. I mean the fact that the last 3 presidents (Obama, Bush and Clinton) are all supporting a secret treaty to jail its citizens for things that are currently not a crime (and shouldn't be) says that we've never really had the choice of a good candidate in a LONG time. I mean I don't want to give H.W.B any credit but at least I'm not reading reports of him supporting the ACTA Treaty.


RE: Grid
By The0ne on 7/14/2010 5:01:55 PM , Rating: 2
That's usually how it is. There is no good choice but you vote for the one that you think is the lesser evil. The CA elections were the same. I opted to just sit out this time because I just didn't see a lesser evil.

When you think about this situation, this whole voting process becomes a joke.


RE: Grid
By monkeyman1140 on 7/15/2010 11:44:58 PM , Rating: 2
Actually a 2007 study found out the grid is just fine, and while it does need dramatic improvements anyway, it can handle EV's.

There was a bigger problem facing the grid with the millions of plasma and huge LCD TV's sold in the USA, and there are no outages.

Lastly, don't forget the rolling blackouts in California were caused by Enron, not a power shortage. They admitted cutting power to raise the scarcity and thus the price of energy to keep the company afloat since it was essentially bankrupt.


More bad news for you Mick
By bill4 on 7/14/2010 1:49:59 PM , Rating: 3
quote:
Slate: New poll numbers devastating for Obama


quote:
Economists may say, yes, the economy is recovering (maybe), but the country says no. Only 25 percent say the economy is improving, according to a recent CBS survey. That's just one of the dark findings for the administration in a slew of recent polls that suggest that the administration's summer tour will do little to improve the president's political fortunes and those of his party.


quote:
Three polls that came out in the last two days offer discouraging news for the White House. In the Washington Post/ABC News poll, public confidence in the president has hit a new low. Six in 10 voters say they lack faith in the president. In a CBS News poll, 54 percent of the country disapprove of his handling of the economy, the highest number to date. In a Pew Research Center/National Journal poll, the number of Americans who approve of the president's health care legislation, the signature achievement of his presidency so far, sits at an anemic 35 percent.


quote:
Candidate Obama used to joke about rays of sunshine coming in when he started to speak. Now he brings the clouds. He's spent a great deal of time talking about the Recovery Act and health care reform, but the political fortunes of those programs are dismal, which suggests his ability to persuade and change minds is seriously damaged.


Ouch Mick, just ouch.

But if you post more pics of a triumphant looking Obama Mick, and hug your Obama teddy bear tighter and post more about electric cars, maybe it will be OK Jason. Except it wont. The American public has seen through Obama and his media owned lackeys like you.




RE: More bad news for you Mick
By bill4 on 7/14/2010 1:59:46 PM , Rating: 4
How long before liberals cut and run from Obama like they did Gore, Kerry, and a slew of other losers as soon as their value to the cause was exhausted?

Obama is the Democrats Bush, except possibly even less popular. He's setting you guys back 20 years with his incompetence.

The only difference is Obama's unpopularity is of course not hammered home by the left wing mainstream media all the time, like Bush's was. But the fact is the public dislike of Obama is stunning.


RE: More bad news for you Mick
By YashBudini on 7/14/2010 11:47:30 PM , Rating: 1
"Candidate Obama used to joke about rays of sunshine coming in when he started to speak. Now he brings the clouds."

Please explain the scientific significance of this statement. I've taken statistics courses and none of them covered clouds.


By monkeyman1140 on 7/16/2010 12:15:27 AM , Rating: 2
Only republicans would be cheering the demise of America's economy.

Their lust for power is greater than their patriotism.


Lets get this out of the way...
By quiksilvr on 7/14/2010 10:13:42 AM , Rating: 3
This is great! Obama is pushing for the future!

This is terrible! Obama is throwing money away and sinking us into a hole!

This is great! He's giving more American jobs! Yay change!

This is terrible! We're becoming commies!




RE: Lets get this out of the way...
By Kurz on 7/14/2010 12:43:32 PM , Rating: 2
ignoring and not discussing the effects of government spending is not the way to go.


Bill
By btc909 on 7/14/2010 5:19:28 PM , Rating: 2
So is this what Bill Clinton told the Obama administration what to do? Oh I know how you can meet those numbers, subsidize the cost of the electric vehicles with taxpayer money.

Ohhh but uhhh err you have to pay taxes on the free money that was given to you. So we take the money from you & tax you on your own money.




RE: Bill
By monkeyman1140 on 7/16/2010 12:13:55 AM , Rating: 2
Clinton gave GM $1 billion to research and develop an electric car. GM came up with the wonderful and practical EV-1. In fact it was so practical that GM began to worry about it, and refused to sell it, only leasing it out to select customers and limited its production run.
When newer battery packs extended the range, it became a threat to the rest of GM's product line, and they cancelled production, forced everybody to give the cars back, and then shredded every EV-1 except for 2 museum pieces which have the electronic workings ripped out.

We would be driving electric cars from GM if not for GM itself. Their claim that it was expensive is ridiculous, because the EV-1 had very few parts and its electronic management system was "off the shelf". Engineer Alan Cocconi said that an electronic motor drive system is equivalent to a big stereo amplifier, you just turn the knob and vroom you're off.


I have a dream....
By Alexstarfire on 7/14/2010 11:23:06 AM , Rating: 2
I didn't realize he was so much like MLK. :P Just because he can dream of $10k EVs by 2015 doesn't mean it's going to happen.

Unless cars start using standardized parts that's nothing but a pipedream. We haven't even gotten ICE cars down to $10k and they've only been out for about 100 years, after adjusting for inflation of course.




RE: I have a dream....
By moenkopi on 7/14/10, Rating: -1
RE: I have a dream....
By monkeyman1140 on 7/15/2010 11:48:08 PM , Rating: 2
Cars are over $10k because they keep adding features to them, most un-necessary. Low priced cars have a horrible profit margin, which is why no auto manufacturer wants to be stuck selling $7000 cars. The cash cows are the $30K-up cars.

Perhaps if executives were't demanding bonuses and leather lined offices with $10,000 desks, we could make a car for the people.

Apparently only Hitler was able to make a people's car, mainly because if Dr. Porsche didn't want to, Hitler would have executed him.


Depreciation accelerated
By Mitch101 on 7/14/2010 12:54:02 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
A 100-mile range battery EV today costs around $33,000 USD to make, but Obama hopes to drop that cost to $16,000 by 2013 and $10,000 by 2015.

As if depreciation wasn't enough whats my incentive to buy a $33K car only to have it cost 10K by 2015?




RE: Depreciation accelerated
By YashBudini on 7/14/2010 11:52:05 PM , Rating: 1
"As if depreciation wasn't enough whats my incentive to buy a $33K car only to have it cost 10K by 2015? "

Did large panels TVs ever have a problem?


Scrap the batteries
By Shadowmaster625 on 7/14/2010 10:51:11 AM , Rating: 2
Take an electric car with existing series hybrid setup, replace the gas generator with something more efficient. Such as an MYT engine. 100mpg is easily possible with a 70% efficient generator @ 2000lbs vehicle weight.




By Beenthere on 7/14/2010 12:51:26 PM , Rating: 2
Whatever chemicals they are consuming at the House on the Hill must be damn good? I suppose next they'll be curing world hunger?




That's funny...
By The Raven on 7/14/2010 1:10:37 PM , Rating: 2
I'm aiming for a $25k gas powered car in 2015.
I'm also aiming for a $500 man powered bicycle.

It's funny how we have different beliefs and priorities here in America. This guys thinks that we should all believe that coal power will save us all from the evil oil?

No thanks, I will do what I believe is best for my family and my planet.




I admire what the president is doing
By moenkopi on 7/14/10, Rating: 0
By Dorkyman on 7/15/2010 1:12:01 PM , Rating: 2
God help us.


This was possible in 1997
By monkeyman1140 on 7/15/2010 11:37:28 PM , Rating: 2
The oil companies sued California to stop the implementation of a mass electric infrastructure to charge electric cars. The coal industry complained but the oil companies had bought enough california resources boardmembers and legislators and used their considerable pressure to kill any funding. The GOP was very happy.

Why do Republicans hate progress?




"Intel is investing heavily (think gazillions of dollars and bazillions of engineering man hours) in resources to create an Intel host controllers spec in order to speed time to market of the USB 3.0 technology." -- Intel blogger Nick Knupffer














botimage
Copyright 2014 DailyTech LLC. - RSS Feed | Advertise | About Us | Ethics | FAQ | Terms, Conditions & Privacy Information | Kristopher Kubicki