What is the benefit to society of Battery Building Obama Style?

http://www.technologyreview.com/n...tric-cars/

In August 2009, President Obama announced a $2.4 billion grant program designed to create an electric vehicle battery industry in the United States. Three years on, the factories funded by those grants are sitting idle or operating well below their originally intended capacity..

Even grant recipients that do have agreements to supply major manufacturers are struggling. LG Chem, for example, supplies battery cells for Chevrolet's Volt. It built a factory in Holland, Michigan, with the help of an award of $151.4 million. But the plant isn't producing any batteries yet. Volt sales have been lower than originally anticipated, and the battery cells for the Volt so far come from Korea, where LG Chem is based; even there, it's still operating at only 20 to 30 percent of capacity, Anderman says. Companies in Asia had a head start on U.S. batteries companies because of their existing capacity for producing batteries for portable electronics or hybrid cars.


http://www.wzzm13.com/news/region...-batteries


It was a promise of hundreds of new jobs with competitive wages, but now almost all the workers at LG Chem in Holland are on furlough. Two years after President Obama visited the city, touting the potential of the company, it still has yet to begin production.


Two years later, LG Chem has not produced a single battery and almost all of the 200 employees are on rolling furloughs, missing a week of work every month. Holland Mayor Kurt Dykstra says its a gamble the city had to take. LG Chem received more than $150 million from a U.S. Department of Energy Grant.


http://www.westernfreepress.com/2...e-company/

Of course, like the failed solar companies, A123 Systems believes there is too much manufacturing capacity on the market to produce its batteries at a profit. Alternatively, this statement can be interpreted to read that there is not enough demand for their product to necessitate as many manufacturers as exist. But since when has the Obama Administration let that kind of market-based logic get in the way of its various green energy projects?





So we borrowed money from China to build a bunch of batteries that few want.

We've giving that borrowed money to a bunch of people who aren't doing anything. And A123, which of course is headed by a big Obama donor, gets $249 million to hire 1000 workers and walks away with the difference. Today, A123 is now partially controlled by the Chinese after it was bribed with money borrowed from the Chinese.

Advancing new tech is kewl.

Might have to think about a 2016 Volt.

Maybe they should have sunk this money into just making the Volt a lot cheaper???

A hybrid combustion-engine generator and electric motor is the BEST form of transportation since you can operate the engine only as needed, so you provide ridiculous range and efficiency. From a car guy's viewpoint, its pretty sad that the Volt is being squished because it does offer a lot, its just not cheap enough to make sense for most people.

It is the same reason the Soviets built such cool cars. Government trying to tell the people what they want instead of letting the free market discover what people want.

Quote from vaultaddict : Advancing new tech is kewl. Might have to think about a 2016 Volt.

Ah, so we borrowed money so vaultaddict can think about buying a 2016 Volt?

Quote from Krazen1211 : Ah, so we borrowed money so vaultaddict can think about buying a 2016 Volt?

Thanks.

I think Obama will be proven right on the electric battery vehicle.

Just not sure how long it'll take.

Quote from Lilian : I think Obama will be proven right on the electric battery vehicle. Just not sure how long it'll take.

What are the criteria to be proven right, and how much in losses do these battery companies need to dump on the taxpayer first?

Quote from Krazen1211 : What are the criteria to be proven right, and how much in losses do these battery companies need to dump on the taxpayer first?

You'll probably need to factor in the subsidies oil/gas gets from the states and feds over the same period for an apples to apples comparison. That sounds pretty fair, no?

Would we include all our activities that support our Middle East producers? The money we spend on keeping the Strait of Hormuz open and available? Seems like we should. I wonder how we could cost that. That number just feels high to me. Prolly real high.

That's the point at the end of this right? This energy technology that we spend for vs. what we spend for current energy "support"?

It is like asking:

What is the benefit to society of building ginormous rockets to send men to moon JFK style?

Quote from kharvel : It is like asking: What is the benefit to society of building ginormous rockets to send men to moon JFK style?

The ability to have sattelite communication and to discover the rest of the universe? I would say that pumping money into rockets was far more productive since they could be used for many more varied tasks than a battery can. The money we spent on NASA has yielded a lot of science and useful everyday products.

Quote : I think Obama will be proven right on the electric battery vehicle. Just not sure how long it'll take.

At least 100 years have passed since the first "revolutionary" electric car came out, and we're still on Step 1 of making an actually usable electric car. Maybe the govt should have focused on getting the electric car right FIRST, before throwing down money to build batteries.

Quote from MISHNAH : I would say that pumping money into rockets was far more productive since they could be used for many more varied tasks than a battery can.

Like nuking the Soviet Union. Let's be real - the space race was 99% about being able to nuke the other guy efficiently and 1% about putting men on the moon.

This green energy / electric car stuff is 99% about 0bama handing out government money and 1% about energy independence.

Quote from MISHNAH : The ability to have sattelite communication and to discover the rest of the universe? I would say that pumping money into rockets was far more productive since they could be used for many more varied tasks than a battery can. The money we spent on NASA has yielded a lot of science and useful everyday products.

What makes you think the same thing won't happen with the development of battery? For starters, if a breakthrough is achieved, we could have electric cars going 1000 miles before charging and costing the same as today's car. Then we can say good bye to fossil fuels. That goal is just as worthy, if not more so, than having satellite communication and discovery of the universe.

Quote : At least 100 years have passed since the first "revolutionary" electric car came out, and we're still on Step 1 of making an actually usable electric car. Maybe the govt should have focused on getting the electric car right FIRST, before throwing down money to build batteries.

The reason we are still at Step 1 is because for the past 100 years, the government has focused all its funding and energy towards fossil fuels.

Quote from MISHNAH : At least 100 years have passed since the first "revolutionary" electric car came out, and we're still on Step 1 of making an actually usable electric car. Maybe the govt should have focused on getting the electric car right FIRST, before throwing down money to build batteries.

The only thing preventing electric cars from market success is battery technology.

Helping create a market for batteries, will jumpstart additional battery R&D.

Or we could just leave another new technology market to the Asians....