Filed under: Emerging Technologies, EV/Plug-in, Hybrid, DaimlerChrysler, Ford, GM, Legislation and Policy
Big Three to White House: help us build better batteries (by giving us $500,000,000)
The Wall Street Journal yesterday reported that the Big Three have asked the federal government for a $500 million helping hand to develop advanced batteries for use in future vehicles, like the Chevy Volt that has made so much news recently.
And here's the interesting part. This request, which GM, Ford Motor and DaimlerChrysler AG's Chrysler Group say they need in order to keep up with the Japanese car companies in battery technology, is not new. Instead, it was submitted sometime last month. It was a follow-up to the November meeting between executives of the Big Three and President Bush. My question is why haven't we heard about this until now? Was it supposed to be secret? Did no one think it was important to talk about until the Volt made headlines?
For now, a technology advisor to Bush and the Department of Energy is reviewing the proposal. Neither the White House nor the DOE would comment on the story to the WSJ.
An AutoblogGreen reader let us know about this story, and had some good comments:
First of all, Tesla did it with venture capital alone. Second, why should the feds bail them out, just because they missed the bus? And third, if it's so critical for Detroit, then surely they can justify investing heavily in it themselves, right?
Related:
- Detroit automakers issue joint statement on their meeting with President Bush
- Bush, auto execs' meeting deals with health care, strength of the yen
UPDATE: Reader's name removed for privacy
Reader Comments (Page 1 of 1)
Peter 8:04PM (1/10/2007)
This means that the Volt will actually have three power sources: electricity, gasoline, and taxpayers!
Reply
Devilstower 8:51PM (1/10/2007)
If they want the government to spend that kind of money, make it an order for $500 million worth of electric or plug-in hybrid vehicles.
I'd have no problem at all with the government replacing its fleet vehicles with a hundred thousand or so Volts.
Reply
Matt 9:15PM (1/10/2007)
First of all, I'm sure GM could do it alone as well. If by do it alone, you mean build a pure electric car with the specs of the Tesla and offer it for $100k.
The thing is, they're not going to sell many at that price point. GM is the #1 automaker because they cater to the mass market. They're waiting until the battery technology is at a point where they can offer a car that has safe, reliable, & long-lived batteries at a price point that is comparable to other cars in their class in today's market. Batteries are still too expensive right now...but just wait a couple years. Then we're going to see some cool things start happening!!!
Reply
Murc 9:31PM (1/10/2007)
good points. I think they are putting much more effort into flex fuels then battery tech.
However, as everyone knows...batterytech is the only hurdle left for electric vehicles...not to mention how much this would impact everything else that uses batteries. I would give them 500 mill...maybe 50 mill, but no more then 100.
BTW, why do you still call them the big 3? Since as of 98' Chysler is fully German owned.
Reply
OhmExcited 9:48PM (1/10/2007)
I'm cautiously in favor of this proposal. Considering what we are paying hundreds of billions of dollars for failed policies, $500 million would be a bargain if it translated into real action. The important thing is that this can't be mere corporate welfare.ook at how much corporate welfare was pumped into "clean coal" yet we taxpayers are stuck in the real world with nothing to show for it. THERE HAVE TO BE QUANTIFIABLE RESULTS THAT BENEFIT THE PUBLIC INTEREST OR ELSE CONSEQUENCES FOR SQUANDERING THE MONEY. Put it in those terms, and American taxpayers will support you beyond what you are asking for.
Reply
alphaseinor 1:33AM (1/11/2007)
$500,000,000/100,000 cars = $50,000
Wasn't the EV1 an $80,000 car?
$80,000 - $50,000 = $30,000
Then they can develop the "mass production of current battery technology", which is more useful than expanding current "battery technology".
There are plenty of Hollywood types, rich dot commers, geeks, etc. to market 100,000 pure electric cars to. I could afford one (I would even buy a Volt for that).
It would make more sense to subsidize (read, not a tax break) an existing technology, then to throw money at a problem that doesn't exist.
GM got a black eye by crushing the EV1s. They don't want to release the Volt, or they will do the same shitty job of marketing it... or it will only be available in one or two markets. Bring it to TX please, and I'll buy one off the lot... to go along side of my Accord Diesel.
Reply
A5-14 9:34AM (1/11/2007)
Sanford, Note that the battery life claims made by Altairnano are projections. They admit this in their own promotional material.
I'd like to see them do long-term tests rather than projections to verify that this battery is the solution for PHEV.
Thanks for the links.
Reply
LaughingTooHard 9:58AM (1/11/2007)
Just for comparison can we get some numbers of the tax breaks given to foreign automakers as incentives to build plants in the US?
BMW got $230m for their SC facility
DCx got a $280M tax break from Toledo
Hyundai got $252m break for their Alabama plant.
Kia got $410m in total tax breaks for their US operations (6/06)
Toyota has received $160m for their Texas plant and an nearly $800m for all their other US operations to date.
Where is our tax money being well spent? Makes sure that foreign car makers can make the biggest profits.
Reply
BuckDiablo 10:05AM (1/11/2007)
I think tax dollars spent on developing battery technology is a far better investment than what we're currently pouring down the toilet in Iraq. Certainly the big three "deserve" to get their asses handed to them by foreign companies, but from a purely practical standpoint, the car business is arguably the most important industry we have left in the US and it makes sense for the government to assist it. Native U.S. auto makers are in dire financial straights and can't afford that kind of investment.
Reply
Alex 10:49AM (1/11/2007)
In addition to the already developed Altair's battery tech, there are other companies such as Toshiba who has it's own variant of nanomaterial-based Li-Ion battery:
http://www.toshiba.co.jp/about/press/2005_03/pr2901.htm
as well as companies like A123Systems:
http://www.greencarcongress.com/2005/11/a123systems_lau.html#more
There's no NEED at all for GM to "re-invent the wheel", the ONLY reason they are asking for all these "research" $$$ is to use them to directly cover at least some portion of their ever-existing profit losses.
Reply
Michael 12:25PM (1/11/2007)
I want our taxes to stop paying for big oil, and big business. Let's have a level playing field so that the best companies, products win. I am worried that this fund that the democrats are putting together for green technology is going to be a porkfest with all the money going to go to companies with crappy technology and well funded lobbyists.
That said, if we the taxpayers pay for the battery technology it should be released under the general public license (GPL).
More on the the GPL:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gpl
Reply
Tim 2:40PM (1/11/2007)
12- Yea, and I think we all know just who's getting porked!
By the way… Hey GM… the Battery, motor and controller issues for the E-Flex were solved last year!! http://www.rasertech.com/media/movies/html/evs-22.html
Reply
Sanford 1:01AM (1/13/2007)
Altairnano - Nanosafe Battery - is everything the big three GM, Ford Motor and DaimlerChrysler AG's Chrysler Group (and Tesla Motors) need to power a 'safe' fully electric vehicle.
In fact Phoenix Motor Car is using Altairnano - Nanosafe Battery to power its new fully electric vehicles.
Altairnano - Nanosafe Battery has Lithium Titanate battery technology. Similar to lithium-ion chemistry, it implements an electrode compound containing titanium (instead of graphite), that prevents the fundamental cause of uncontrolled thermal runaway which can cause fires and explosions.
The Phoenix Motorcars SUV will be introduced in late 2007, having a range of 130 miles, top speed 95mph (can go to 120mph) and can be recharged in less than 10 minutes with an off-board charging unit or trickle-charged overnight when plugged into a 220V power source, similar to the SUT. The estimated cost to recharge the battery pack is a small fraction of equivalent gasoline costs ($3 vs $40).
Phoenix is currently working on an expanded battery pack that will allow a 250-mile range, still permitting a 10-minute charge. It will be available in late 2007.
Temperature range of battery – Operates from -50°C to +75°C
Life of battery about 20,000 cycles (12 to 20 years)
– Safe – will not explode and no thermal runaway
(by the way - currently the batteries used in the battery pack Tesla Motors uses are only convention lithium batteries with special sensors/controls to isolate individual battery cells that may be developing thermal problems)
see:
http://www.altairnano.com,
http://www.altairnano.com/documents/AltairnanoEDTAPresentation.pdf,
and
http://www.phoenixmotorcars.com/
The Big Three have been sitting on their rear-ends
regarding this Altairnano Battery Tecnology - while Phoenix Motors cars is running away with the Altairnano - Nanosafe Battery.
The Big Three have to stop playing the sham and shame game and start talking to Altairnano (and now Phoenix Motors) instead of seeking hand outs from Washington.
Reply
Sanford 1:01AM (1/13/2007)
Regarding Alex's comments:
Yes, aside from Altairnano's Nanosafe Battery - there are other companies such as Toshiba who has it's own variant of nanomaterial-based Li-Ion battery (details of which are sketchy) and also A123Systems (which uses graphite electrode materials ... this decreases cycle life and could be problematic regarding safety)
Both these other batteries require exacting precision and lamination in their manufacturing processes. This causes the price of and infrastructure needed for manufacture of these batteries to be problematic for massive production.
[Altairnano's process of titanate lithium manufacturer is easy (a dehydrated aerosol solution that allows precise particle size and easy production in massive - ton - qualtities)]
However the real Achilles heel of these other batteries is that because their fabrication requires exacting precision & thin lamination they become vulnerable to failure during stress/disaster testing/situations . . . these safety tests such as crush test and drop test must be passed for true inherent batterries safety and therefore vehicle safety.
Altairnano's Nanosafe Battery has passed
all stress/disaster testing/situations
ie:
• Short Circuit Test ………… Pass, no smoke or flame
• Forced Discharge Test … Pass, no smoke or flame
• Over Charge Test ………… Pass, no smoke or flame
• Over Discharge Test …… Pass, no smoke or flame
• Nail Puncture Test ………… Pass, no smoke or flame
• Crush Test …………………… Pass, no smoke or flame
• Over Temperature Test … Pass, no smoke or flame
• Drop Test ……………………… Pass, no smoke or flame
In fact China has been testing electric batteries to power buses during the upcoming Beiking Olympic Games. The only battery that has passed all their safety tests is the Altairnano's Nanosafe Battery.
Reply
Roy Harvie 1:21PM (1/17/2007)
GM has awarded contracts to A123 Systems and Saft, both of which have packaged their small commercial Lithium Ion batteries in larger packages more suitable for automobile use. A123 at least has some advanced chemistry, but neither have announced major advances like http://www.europositron.com or http://www.polyplus.com See http://www.plasticlabels.ca/index_files/compareEVbatteries.htm for comparisons. If the government wants to give away $500M then it should be to PolyPlus, not GM or Ford, they just want to subsidize existing technologies.
Reply
JTGH 10:45PM (1/23/2007)
lets pretend these new batteries are just
$300 a set for a whole car and are on sale at
every Kmart/walmart etc. "unlimited supply"
blink once , now :
where is all that cheap free electricity going to come from.
not nuclear (frozen since 1970 , shinking for real)
not Natural gas (it's in depletion ! )
thats right , 51% of all us Electricity comes from Coal. so we would have to increase coal
for these new cheap battery cars.
dont get me wrong I love them and have even built one in 1982.
I did the electronics controls and my friend put in a Aircraft gen.(modified to be a motor). " what a rocket"
There is no such thing as free lunch.
do the math on :
600 million motor vehicles in the world today 1997 figure.
Solutions are easy , an most just hide from the hard cold truths of physics and natural resources. Sad really.
Reply