US Corps Want $1B From Gov't For Battery Factory

tristanreid writes "The Wall Street Journal reports that a consortium of 14 US technology companies will ask the Federal Government for up to $1 billion for a plant to make advanced battery technology, as a part of the broad fiscal stimulus package that Pres. Elect Obama is planning. The story quotes a report by Ralph Brodd, which suggests that while existing battery technology was developed in the US, the lead in development is now held in Asia. From the WSJ story: 'More than four dozen advanced battery factories are being built in China but none, currently, in the US.'"

Comments

I can't support this use of tax dollars

[Wonko the Sane]

Unless, of course, they develop Mr Fusion

Re:I can't support this use of tax dollars

[lysergic.acid]

i say give it to them. it's a wise investment.

that is, of course, so long as:

• any battery technology developed is released into the public domain. (if you want public funding, you need to make your research results public as well.)
• there are government price controls to ensure the public isn't getting reamed on products they're subsidizing. and every 2-3 years the government and industry representatives get together to renegotiate the prices. (this is similar to how health care is run in Japan as a hybrid between privatized and socialized medicine.)
• small companies/start-ups also have access to the plant, and it's not just a handful of major corporations that are benefiting from this federal aid.

we need improved/cheaper battery technology to boost the development & adoption of electric vehicles.

Re:I can't support this use of tax dollars

[dgatwood]

I think a battery design firm would be a good investment with those rules. I don't think a battery factory would be a good investment under any circumstances. What's the advantage to building them in the U.S.? It's not like it will create more than a dozen jobs---those sorts of plants are all pretty much automated anyway.

Besides, most manufacturers build their products in Asia, so a component plant in the U.S. is likely to have a hard time selling any products, particularly given China's stiff import restrictions.... You'd have to make the products a lot cheaper than they can be made in China, which seems dubious at best. Otherwise, no manufacturer in their right minds would go through all the hassle and expense of buying batteries from an American plant, shipping them to China to be assembled into a product, then shipping them back to the U.S. for consumption....

See why this is a silly idea?

Re:I can't support this use of tax dollars

[brian0918]

The end result of your plan would be something similar to the local telecom monopolies we're all familiar with. You can't contrive competition through central planning. You must simply let competition exist. But competition cannot exist so long as the determining factor is the size of the bribe given to the politicians controlling the service.

Re:I can't support this use of tax dollars

[larry bagina]

not to mention (but I will!) the US environmental regulations are much more stringent. Batteries, advanced or otherwise, involve some nasty substances.

Re:I can't support this use of tax dollars

[inviolet]

Hi, yes, I'd like to buy points 1 and 3, but can I still get package pricing if I don't want point 2?

To wit:

there are government price controls to ensure the public isn't getting reamed on products they're subsidizing. and every 2-3 years the government and industry representatives get together to renegotiate the prices. (this is similar to how health care is run in Japan as a hybrid between privatized and socialized medicine.)

If anyone other than a free market sets the price, then you will get oversupply or undersupply. Oversupply means that consumers are getting reamed qua high prices (above demand), and undersupply means that consumers are getting reamed qua scarcity.

So how about neither?

Re:I can't support this use of tax dollars

[Anonymous Coward]

Perhaps you should change any battery technology developed is released into the public domain. (if you want public funding, you need to make your research results public as well.)

Be public domain to American companies that are manufacturing in the US, not somewhere else.

Re:I can't support this use of tax dollars

[Anonymous Coward]

The end result of your plan would be something similar to the local telecom monopolies we're all familiar with. You can't contrive competition through central planning. You must simply let competition exist. But competition cannot exist so long as the determining factor is the size of the bribe given to the politicians controlling the service.

You can say that, but Japan has the longest lifespan in the world, specifically because of how they handle their health care. So the principal you cite is clearly flawed.

Re:I can't support this use of tax dollars

[need4mospd]

I say don't give it to them. Because no matter how many great plans we come up with here, I'd bet what's left of my life savings they wouldn't pick one of those. On top of that, it will end up like every other government program, broke and asking for more money in a few years.

"Oh Mr. Congressman, we're THIS close to releasing it, all we need is a little more money. $2b or so should do..."

Re:I can't support this use of tax dollars

[Tiro]

Otherwise, no manufacturer in their right minds would go through all the hassle and expense of buying batteries from an American plant, shipping them to China to be assembled into a product, then shipping them back to the U.S. for consumption...

That's how a lot of US turkey is produced--shipped to Asia for processing then returned for sale. Of course the difference is that turkeys are labor intensive to process and consumers would avoid foreign-raised meat.

Re:I can't support this use of tax dollars

[brian0918]

You can say that, but Japan has the longest lifespan in the world, specifically because of how they handle their health care.

I thought it was because of their relatively low risk of heart disease. Did they invent some magic drug I'm unaware of, or do they simply eat differently? If you're going to make such extraordinary claims about the wonders of Japan's healthcare system (which somehow has a limitless supply of cash on hand), you're going to have to provide extraordinary evidence to back it up.

Re:I can't support this use of tax dollars

[SkyDude]

A manufacturer wouldn't ship batteries to Asia or anywhere else if it was for the purpose of assembly. Any battery would add many many pounds of weight to, say, a container of products, and that extra weight translates into dollars spent on shipping.

If the batteries stay in this country and be assembled into the products here, the wages and other fixed costs would be the deciding factor.

Re:I can't support this use of tax dollars

[gnick]

...most manufacturers build their products in Asia, so a component plant in the U.S. is likely to have a hard time selling any products, particularly given China's stiff import restrictions.... You'd have to make the products a lot cheaper than they can be made in China, which seems dubious at best. Otherwise, no manufacturer in their right minds would go through all the hassle and expense of buying batteries from an American plant, shipping them to China to be assembled into a product, then shipping them back to the U.S. for consumption....

Yes, most manufacturers build their products in Asia. But this is about car batteries. The auto makers (the folks that TFA focuses on as the main consumer for next-gen batteries) aren't in China. Most vehicles bought in North America are assembled in North America. No round-trip necessary for these batteries.

You are correct about the price - American-made batteries would likely cost more than batteries made in China. Probably even after factoring in the shipping on those heavy suckers. However that would be largely due to China's lax environmental restrictions rather than labor costs (a typical culprit). So, while we'd save some money by just abandoning the battery industry and letting China take it, every time a consumer bought a "green" car, they'd be making an excessively nasty dent in the environment. (Battery production would be messy here too, but a helluva lot cleaner than in China.)

All that said, I'd really prefer to see private investors step up for factories and tax-dollars only used for public-domain research...

Re:I can't support this use of tax dollars

[Presto Vivace]

I dunno, it strikes me as shake-down financing. If it is commercial viable, they should come bleating to government.

Re:I can't support this use of tax dollars

[OeLeWaPpErKe]

Better to change the regulatory climate to be competitive with China and let the battery manufacturers come here.

Much cheaper. Much more jobs.

Re:I can't support this use of tax dollars

[Luthair]

How do you plan on changing the cost of living so you can pay workers $1/hour?

Re:I can't support this use of tax dollars

[Anonymous Coward]

You can say that, but Japan has the longest lifespan in the world, specifically because of ninja training

Fixed that for you

Re:I can't support this use of tax dollars

[OeLeWaPpErKe]

You can say that, but Japan has the longest lifespan in the world, specifically because of how they handle their health care. So the principal you cite is clearly flawed.

Humor us, tell us what healthcare has to do with battery manufacturing.

Also one white raven does not mean that they're not black. You could disagree with that statement of course. If not we could say "look what happened to the soviet social care system". And point to the 100 million dead.

Re:I can't support this use of tax dollars

[Synn]

What's the advantage to building them in the U.S.?

From the military's standpoint, building them in the US means that that part of their war supply infrastructure isn't in another country.

You could pretty much build a plant that only sells to the military because the prices are too high, but makes all the batteries based on specs setup by the military. It'd probably be pretty profitable.

Re:I can't support this use of tax dollars

[Anonymous Coward]

Boy are you going to dislike Obama

Re:I can't support this use of tax dollars

[dgatwood]

But products are usually not destined exclusively for the U.S. market, so if you do the assembly here, that means you're shipping products back to the U.S. to add the batteries to them, only to then turn around and ship a bunch of them to Australia or Europe. That makes even less sense than shipping the batteries. The alternative is to have battery plants around the globe, which is just not particularly efficient.

If we really wanted to have tech manufacturing in the U.S., we needed to have beefed up American component manufacturing twenty or thirty years ago when the Asian component market was still nascent. At this point, it's pretty much like trying to put the cat back in the bag. As far as the global economy is concerned, we're better off having the component manufacturing and finished goods manufacturing in the same place, much as we'd be better off with more car parts manufacturing in the U.S. (Cars can't be shipped cost-effectively once assembled, so it makes economic sense to move production closer to the point assembly even if that means automating more of the manufacturing to keep labor costs down.)

Re:I can't support this use of tax dollars

[smoker2]

Fffiiiiissh !

Re:I can't support this use of tax dollars

[dgatwood]

IMHO, that's taking a bit too narrow a view of the problem. Car batteries generally use the same cells as batteries for hundreds of thousands of other products. They just use a heck of a lot more of them, built into larger packs with different configurations. It's not like engine parts that are pretty much limited to use in cars. Building additional plants to manufacture a general-purpose part and targeting sales specifically to a single industry isn't likely to be cost effective by any stretch of the imagination. Quantity-wise, the packs for cars are likely to represent a small percentage of the cells sold and manufactured for a very long time.

When you're talking about batteries, you are likely better off trying to make the packing density as high as possible for the cells themselves so you don't waste volume during shipping. Then, ship the individual cells over and assemble the packs in the U.S. That way, you do the custom work (pack assembly) as close as possible to the point of assembly.

Besides, battery technology is not the most effective way to power cars. They are too volatile, have too short a life expectancy, and produce too much nasty chemical waste (both during manufacture and disposal). We should be focusing on ultracapacitor research, not chemical storage. It seems pretty clear that the future for automotive power storage does not lie in battery technology.

Re:I can't support this use of tax dollars

[smoker2]

Odd you should say that when the free market has just imploded due to under supply (faith, confidence, credit).

Re:I can't support this use of tax dollars

[Anonymous Coward]

I think that his plans for that are already working!

Re:I can't support this use of tax dollars

[Anonymous Coward]

Private investors have not because they don't see any opportunity at this point for it to become a profitable viable technology. The logical consequence of this is that it is less efficient to produce the batteries.

So why should the government take the money out of our pockets to invest in something that we don't want to invest in because it's less efficient?

Re:I can't support this use of tax dollars

[Anonymous Coward]

haven't you been keeping up with the news? they're working on it right now.

Re:I can't support this use of tax dollars

[Rei]

What sort of "nasty substances" do you think are "involved" in, say, lithium iron phosphate cells?

Re:I can't support this use of tax dollars

[Score Whore]

Easily solved.... the CEOs, boardmembers, stakeholders and major profit earners of these companies have to live adjacent to the factory. On a daily basis they have to 1) drink a nice 64 oz. glass of any waste water that may exist, 2) they have to sit for an hour in a room fill with any exhaust gases, and 3) any solid waste is ground up and sprinkled over their food.

You can bet that any byproducts will be clean or the guilty parties will receive their just rewards.

Re:I can't support this use of tax dollars

[OrangeTide]

If Trader Joes sells Tomatoes shipped from Denmark (not a joke, they really do), I think we can ship ipods and cellphones around to install batteries in them before sending them to Europe and Latin America.

Re:I can't support this use of tax dollars

[Rei]

Besides, battery technology is not the most effective way to power cars. They are too volatile, have too short a life expectancy, and produce too much nasty chemical waste (both during manufacture and disposal).

False.

1) I don't know what you mean by "volatile", but if you mean "catching fire", that's mainly just a problem for traditional li-ion. The phosphates, titanates, and stabilized spinels don't do that because they don't get lithium metal plating and the like. The worst you can say for the advanced li-ion cells is that the electrolyte is often flammable, and that if you had both a puncture and a spark (puncture alone won't cut it), you could get fire. But you know what? So is gasoline. At least the electrolyte is isolated into a bunch of small containers that would, worst case, fail individually.

2) The life expectancy notion is way off. Let's start by busting the basic premise -- that all batteries inherently have to have short lifespans. Jay Leno's early-20th century Baker Electric still runs on its original nickel-iron batteries. Decade-old RAV4EVs are still running fine on their original NiMH packs despite heavy usage. It's simply a myth that there's something inherently about being a battery that means you must have a short lifespan; it all depends on the chemistry. And getting to the advanced li-ion types being looked at -- the various olivine and spinel cathodes and titanate anodes -- they're incredibly stable. Assuming you keep the temperature in the packs from getting ridiculously hot, you're good for the lifespan of the car. A123 and Valence's LiPs, for example, are good for about 7,000 cycles at 1C before losing 20% capacity. AltairNano's titanates take tens of thousands of cycles to lose that much.

3) What nasty chemicals do you think are involved here? The worst you can say is that the titanates, like traditional li-ion, have a LiCoO2 cathode. But that's only mildly toxic. Phosphates and spinels, you can literally throw straight into the trash in some places. The worst thing in them is that the electrolyte is corrosive. Manufacture is no worse. Phosphates, for example, traditionally have their cathodes made from phosphoric acid, iron powder, and lithium carbonate, with a carbon binding from burning sugar. The anodes are just graphite. The separator is just plastic.

Re:I can't support this use of tax dollars

[russotto]

Easily solved.... the CEOs, boardmembers, stakeholders and major profit earners of these companies have to live adjacent to the factory. On a daily basis they have to 1) drink a nice 64 oz. glass of any waste water that may exist, 2) they have to sit for an hour in a room fill with any exhaust gases, and 3) any solid waste is ground up and sprinkled over their food.

You can bet that any byproducts will be clean or the guilty parties will receive their just rewards.

And that nothing will ever be made, ever again.

Re:I can't support this use of tax dollars

[OrangeTide]

modern batteries are all custom made these days. Even if there is no technological difference between the battery in a Nokia and the one in the iPhone.

Car manufacturers do need batteries that are custom shaped with custom capacities to meet the design and marketing requirements of their products. Same as us folks who order special batteries for the handheld products we create.

While it would be wonderful if the Big Three got together and defined a standard size for future US made electrics then we could have a general purpose cell to install as if we were dealing with AA's or 9V (pp3). Would be nice, but I suspect that's a pipe dream.

Re:I can't support this use of tax dollars

[Net_fiend]

I would think the Japanese diet and their way of life is what keeps the Japanese going.

I highly doubt it has much to do with health care since centuries ago and they were still living long lifespans. And this is before "health care for everyone" sprouted up in peoples minds.

Re:I can't support this use of tax dollars

[DarthJohn]

What sort of "nasty substances" do you think are "involved" in, say, lithium iron phosphate cells?

um... lithium for one?

Re:I can't support this use of tax dollars

[Anonymous Coward]

3 packages of ramen noodles $.30
propane canistor stove $5
government ownership of your home, priceless

for everything else their is Chinese Yuan

Re:I can't support this use of tax dollars

[Rei]

Private investors have not because they don't see any opportunity at this point for it to become a profitable viable technology.

Yes, marques have plans to produce and commercially sell EVs within the next few years. Except, of course, Aptera, Audi, BMW, BYD, Chevrolet, Chrysler, Daimler AG, Duracar, Fisker, Ford, Heuliez, Hyundai, Lightning Car Co, Loremo, Mazda, Mercedes-Benz, Miles, Mitsubishi, Nissan-Renault, Phoenix, Pininfarina/Bollare, Range Rover, Saturn, Shelby Supercars, Subaru, Tata, Tesla, Th!nk, Toyota, Venturi, and Volkswagen. But apart from them...

I could give you a similar list for battery manufacturers if you're interested.

Re:I can't support this use of tax dollars

[Score Whore]

No free market has just imploded. What you are seeing is the failure of central planning. Even in western societies the results come from lack of transparency and government intervention (ridiculously low interest rates, mandatory lending to unfit borrowers, etc.), both are toxic to a free market (if you don't have informed parties or you have government intervention you don't have a free market by definition.)

Re:I can't support this use of tax dollars

[Rei]

Checkout healthcare costs in Japan. They're incredibly low. You get sick in Japan, you don't sit around and debate whether you should see someone; you just go.

I once had a professor of Japanese Society from the US who found that it was cheaper to fly to Japan, get a hotel room, and pay out of his pocket for dental work, then fly back home than to have *his insurance cover it* in the US. He decided to have his dental work done in Japan after being treated for cancer over there; he had had major surgery, including having a lung removed. He had his doctors itemize every treatement done, down to the pain killers in his room, and brought it back to his doctor in the US. According to his doctor, it literally would have cost him over ten times as much over here.

I can't say why medical care is so much cheaper over there, but it is.

Re:I can't support this use of tax dollars

[Mr3vil]

Count me in as well. This could put American workers back to work and provide us with much needed battery technology so we can replace alot Internal combustion engines with electric motors.

Re:I can't support this use of tax dollars

[Anonymous Coward]

I think the national labs should do the development work and license any technology they find to US companies for free. The development is the risky part, so by taking on that, industry can focus on what it does best, building things. Right now, the companies that own much of the tech refuse to license it, eg NiMH is owned by an oil company and is due to enter public domain around 2012... coincidentally about when it will become commercialized for large format batteries suitable for battery electric vehicles. The patent system is broken and only serves to delay innovative products entering the marketplace, but natiolizing the research will bypass the patent problems.

Re:I can't support this use of tax dollars

[EastCoastSurfer]

You can say that, but Japan has the longest lifespan in the world, specifically because of how they handle their health care.

Haha...um no. Japanese people live pretty healthy from what I saw when I was over there. First, very few overweight people. I remember commenting that most people I saw while I was there seemed underweight. Second their diets are a ton better than ours. Portions are smaller and food is generally fresher. Then you have odd things like green tea being sold in soda machines more often than sodas and stuff like that. So, while their healthcare may be a piece of living longer, I would argue it's more of a cultural thing.

Re:I can't support this use of tax dollars

[Score Whore]

No, it just means that costs will be internalized as they should be. Why should people who aren't interested in a product bear the burdens of that product's creation?

Re:I can't support this use of tax dollars

[EastCoastSurfer]

Haha...the free market with respect to mortgages died the day FNM was created by the government.

Re:I can't support this use of tax dollars

[tukang]

any battery technology developed is released into the public domain. (if you want public funding, you need to make your research results public as well.)

The problem with that is once you release it into public domain other countries - who did not contribute to the funding and whom the US is competing with - also gain access to the research.

Re:I can't support this use of tax dollars

[Anonymous Coward]

Round trip tickets from LAX to Tokyo are ~$1600. Most dental insurance covers 80%+ on major work, so the break-even would be a $8000 dental bill. What the hell kind of freaky dental work was he having done!?!

Re:I can't support this use of tax dollars

[CodeBuster]

any battery technology developed is released into the public domain.

If the government is going to finance it with taxpayer money then I would prefer to see it licensed for a fee, price depending upon the end user, with preference given to American corporations, groups, and individuals. If you public domain it then the Chinese, Indians, and all of our foreign competitors will simply take the fruits of US taxpayer funded research and sell the results back to us at undercut dumping prices, which will do very little to stimulate our economy. The goal should be to encourage domestic research and production, not facilitate more outsourcing at the taxpayer's expense.

Re:I can't support this use of tax dollars

[aaarrrgggh]

It doesn't really matter how many people are employed there; it would likely be at least 50-100 per shift running three shifts. The value is that you get a low-margin part of the business subsidized and you allow for better risk management. Batteries are pretty heavy, and if you can build a factory in the midwest then they will favor domestic consumption.

The biggest problem with a battery factory is dealing with the EPA (for good reason).

Re:I can't support this use of tax dollars

[Anonymous Coward]

That's only about two molar root canals plus crowns. Possibly three. Not too out of the ordinary, I'd expect.

Re:I can't support this use of tax dollars

[russotto]

No, it just means that costs will be internalized as they should be.

How you get that from a demand for potable wastewater, edible solid waste, and breathable exhaust gases is beyond me.

Re:I can't support this use of tax dollars

[gormanw]

I sort of agree with your comments about the public domain, however... Battery technology is very sensitive, as the enemies of the US still use diesel-powered submarines,like Iran, China, Russia. I know that China and Russia aren't stated enemies, but have the potential to be. When submarines are on battery power, they are quieter than nuclear powered submarines. Further, I would like to see batteries developed that make the use of home alternative energy more accessible, like wind power.

Re:I can't support this use of tax dollars

[Rei]

Lithium is not a "nasty substance", and it's not found in raw form, either in production or in the batteries, anyways (they use lithium salts, like lithium carbonate, a common red colorant in fireworks, for that). Try again.

Re:I can't support this use of tax dollars

[dgatwood]

Sure. But that doubles the amount of transportation, adds a month or more of product-in-pipeline time, and doubles the environmental impact of shipping all so the batteries can be made in the U.S. Consider it from the perspective of boat shipping, which typically takes 4-6 weeks to get from China to the West coast of the U.S. (plus probably another three or four weeks to get to Europe). Compare that with sending it via truck or rail transport from Asia directly to Europe, which probably takes a couple of weeks. With that in mind, you'd have to be out of your mind to ship a product to the U.S., add a trivial component to it, then ship it out to the rest of the world. Do you have any idea how big the economic impact would be adding almost an extra two months of pipeline time between when you shut down a line and when products are cleared out of store shelves so you can release the next version?

Trader Joe's isn't selling products on a release cycle. That's pretty atypical as products go. That's why transportation isn't a problem for them. Outside of food products, that just isn't feasible.

Re:I can't support this use of tax dollars

[dgatwood]

1. I don't just mean catching fire, but sure, let's go with that. Lithium cells don't stop burning until the contents are power. Lithium can burn through steel. Even gasoline fires won't do that. Lithium also can reignite after you put the fire out. I'm assuming Lithium because quite frankly no other battery tech has enough energy density to really be viable, last time I checked.

2. Yes, lots of batteries last a long time. Let's put that in perspective. Those advanced Li Ion batteries are still only rated for a couple of decades. I could buy a capacitor-based power storage cell and my great grandkids could still be using it. Also, the Rav4 EV had a maximum range per charge of roughly a third what is expected from a consumer vehicle, and requires five hours to charge, which is also unacceptable for most people.

3. Sure, it's not as nasty as some stuff, but if you're just throwing these things in the trash every few years---even every twenty years---that's a significant amount of metal salts leaching into the soil. I'd be concerned about the health effects if that much of these chemicals end up in our water supply.

I would also add that the biggest problem with batteries is charge time. Sure, they've made some advances in that area, but in general, the faster the charge, the shorter the lifespan of the battery. That's another clear win for capacitors, which can take a huge charge very rapidly without degradation.

Re:I can't support this use of tax dollars

[dgatwood]

Depends on whether you're talking about Li ion or Li polymer packs. Lithium ion packs are quite common, and contain standard cells. Lithium polymer packs tend to be custom shapes and sizes, designed for a specific application. In something as big as an automobile, though, there's little advantage to not standardizing on a single cell size, regardless of whether it's a round cell or a square pack. The tiny bit of extra energy density you'd get out of custom-shaped packs would likely be completely overshadowed by the need to dismantle large parts of the automobile whenever some of those oddly-shaped packs needed to be replaced.... :-)

Re:I can't support this use of tax dollars

[An Onerous Coward]

Paging Captain Obvious! People ingest lithium when they want to feel better!

Sigh. So much misguided thinking to correct, so few mod points.

Re:I can't support this use of tax dollars

[Score Whore]

I get it from the idea that someone that creates noxious fumes, toxic solid waste, and poisonous wastewater should clean it up before releasing it into the environment. Cleaning it up and paying that cost is internalizing, dumping it into the environment is externalizing.

Re:I can't support this use of tax dollars

[Rei]

You're just digging yourself into a deeper hole.

1. I don't just mean catching fire, but sure, let's go with that. Lithium cells don't stop burning until the contents are power. Lithium can burn through steel. Even gasoline fires won't do that. Lithium also can reignite after you put the fire out. I'm assuming Lithium because quite frankly no other battery tech has enough energy density to really be viable, last time I checked.

Lithium ion batteries contain no metallic lithium. Now, traditional li-ion batteries have a defect, where when they age significantly or are charged in sub-freezing temperatures, metallic lithium can plate out. This ruins the batteries. This effect does not happen in the advanced li-ions that are being considered for use in EVs. *There Is No Metallic Lithium In Them*.

2. Yes, lots of batteries last a long time. Let's put that in perspective. Those advanced Li Ion batteries are still only rated for a couple of decades.

That's a great point, because as you know, the average person keeps their car around for about 4,000 years. ;)

Also, the Rav4 EV had a maximum range per charge of roughly a third what is expected from a consumer vehicle, and requires five hours to charge, which is also unacceptable for most people.

Which is, of course, completely unrelated to the topic of how long batteries take to charge, but if you'd like to talk about that, that'd be golden! :) The more the range an EV has, the *longer* its battery pack lasts. Each cell goes through fewer cycles per mile travelled. As for charge times, phosphates and stabilized spinels can fully charge in 10 to 20 minutes. Titanates can fully charge pretty much as fast as you can cool them down; individual cells have been charged to 80% in under a minute, while pack charging times are more in the 5 to 10 minute range due to cooling. The titanates are capable of such fast charges and are so stable in doing so that they're being promoted for grid stabilization, where the grid feeds megawatts of power into them or pulls it out of them depending on its needs, with cycle times on the order of 5 to 10 minutes, over and over nonstop for decades.

3. Sure, it's not as nasty as some stuff, but if you're just throwing these things in the trash every few years---even every twenty years---that's a significant amount of metal salts leaching into the soil.

Lithium is not a heavy metal. It's not toxic. Heaven forbid that the average person throw away, say, LiPs, which are made from about 1kg of lithium carbonate per kilowatt hour, so ~30 kg for a ~30kWh pack, once every couple decades, when I dump that much sodium salts on my driveway every couple years. Much better is to burn a hundred kilograms of gasoline straight into the air every year, right? Mmm, I love the smell of VOCs in the morning!

Disposing of these batteries is a nothing environmental consequence. The metal in the car's frame poses more of an environmental consequence as the batteries (hey, ever looked what's in alloying agents?). The plastics in the interior probably pose more environmental consequences. So do the tires. Heck, the *single* lead-acid battery in a conventional car is probably ten times more of an environmental risk than an entire EV LiP battery pack. Or antifreeze for that matter. LiP battery disposal is simply not an issue.

I'd be concerned about the health effects if that much of these chemicals end up in our water supply.

You do realize that mineral water contains 0.05-1mg/l of lithium *already*? Lithium isn't exactly rare. And seriously, do you *really* want to try and avoid lithium? Better boycott lithium greases! Better boycott air conditioners! Better boycott glazed glasses! I could go on for days. Lithium is used all over the place.

I would also add that the biggest problem with batteries is charge time.

You have a problem with 5 to 20 minute charges every 2-3 hours of driving? Because that's *current* tech. Let alone what we'll have in five years.

Re:I can't support this use of tax dollars

[Anonymous Coward]

Lithium is a brutal antipsychotic and not suited for people with just a depression, as you seem to suggest. Tricyclic antidepressants and SSRI's (or MAOI's but they have some NASTY side effects) would be better, but they are not used in batteries. :)

Re:I can't support this use of tax dollars

[An Onerous Coward]

Lack of transparency was a free choice by an underregulated industry.

Nothing in the CRA required any bank to lend to a borrower who wasn't fit. It just made redlining illegal. Further, the CRA has been gutted over the course of the Bush administration, which reduced reporting requirements, reduced the number of institutions covered, and slashed the regulatory budget.

Further, investment banks were never covered by the CRA, and investment banks were the ones launching themselves into the subprime lending business over the last five years.

There has never in the history of the world been a "free market" consisting of more than 100 persons. This makes it convenient for lazy libertarians, who can always say -- no matter how clearly the free market failed -- can always find some tangential regulation. Aha! The free market could have worked, but for that!

Re:I can't support this use of tax dollars

[bugs2squash]

I don't see how the investment can best benefit the taxpayer financially if it is not used to actually get a jump on manufacturing something.

It's all very altruistic to research a better way to make anything, and it's great to think that the outcome may benefit humanity or employ a starving egghead. But I think taxpayers are in a mood to get something financial back for their money and I don't see why we shouldn't.

Re:I can't support this use of tax dollars

[Goodgerster]

You forgot Volvo. :)

Re:I can't support this use of tax dollars

[bugs2squash]

How about lots of electricity ?

I'd love to see something that generated electricity on the spot from a fairly innocuous fuel than something that stored large amounts of energy in a small space and was willing to to release major quantities in a flash.

Re:I can't support this use of tax dollars

[russotto]

I get it from the idea that someone that creates noxious fumes, toxic solid waste, and poisonous wastewater should clean it up before releasing it into the environment.

When you drink a 64 oz glass of your own urine each day, spend an hour each day in a room filled with nothing but your exhalations and flatulations, and have your feces sprinkled over your food, then you can make the demand you made in your original post. Until then, you're totally unreasonable. Any useful process creates waste, and the process of "cleaning up" that waste is both unlikely to make that waste actually consumable, and generates waste of its own.

Re:I can't support this use of tax dollars

[lysergic.acid]

it's pretty simple:

if you institute environmental regulations that force each company to minimize their environmental impact--using scrubbers, wastewater treatment, dust collection, etc.--then the cost of producing the product (material costs, manufacturing costs, and environmental costs) will all be paid for by the manufacturer and product consumers.

but if you don't employ any such regulations, then most industrial corporations will simply ignore their environmental responsibilities to save money. and in this situation the environmental cost of producing the product is being paid for by everyone in terms of the environmental degradation caused by the industrial pollution.

Re:I can't support this use of tax dollars

[radl33t]

Battery technology is not the most effective way to power cars.

True!

Avoiding energy density for a second, it has been about -20 to -10C here for the past few days. It will get colder for about the next month. I know that my lead acid battery is now jelly and has something like 40% capacity. What happens to the fancy batteries? What happens to my range? How much energy will my resistance heater use?

Re:I can't support this use of tax dollars

[warmflatsprite]

There are tons of reasons for doing it the US. Off the top of my head I can think of (future) tax revenue, potential to increase US exports, and yes, actually -- jobs. In spite of the high degree of automation in factories, there is still a need for large numbers of skilled and unskilled workers in manufacturing.

Also, they're not talking about a factory for building products that have a bajillion years of process engineering behind them. Having the factory would give these companies feedback on new processes for making efficient batteries more efficiently.

Sure, a lot of people assemble products using these batteries overseas. However, if that were to change the US economy would see quite a boost. If this is a key component in making that change, I'm all for it. Not to mention that I'd love to see the US make some amazing new discoveries on these kinds of fronts, especially with the rules the GP mentioned.

Re:I can't support this use of tax dollars

[warmflatsprite]

All that said, I'd really prefer to see private investors step up for factories and tax-dollars only used for public-domain research...

Can you comment a bit more on that? I genuinely feel like I might be missing something. My take is that if the government can make some sound investments, why not let it invest in private industry? Increased revenue is a good thing, is it not?

Of course, the key phrase is "sound investments." I don't think Uncle Sam needs to hire a crack team of Wall Street day traders, and I do think there needs to be a ton of legislative oversight on government investment in private industry (to prevent corruption and the like).

Re:I can't support this use of tax dollars

[tepples]

You have a problem with 5 to 20 minute charges every 2-3 hours of driving? Because that's *current* tech.

That sounds reasonable. After 2 to 3 hours of highway driving, you and your family might need to take a McBreak. Should battery-powered vehicles take off, you should be able to park your car at a filling station with fast food (or even vice versa), swipe your card, then go inside for a meal.

Re:I can't support this use of tax dollars

[shutdown -p now]

No free market has just imploded. What you are seeing is the failure of central planning.

Which is why the "socialist" Canada and EU seem to be doing much better in this crisis than the Land of the Free, right? Oh...

Re:I can't support this use of tax dollars

[Lazarian]

Lithium compounds are prescibed to people who have certain physiological conditions that affect their brain chemistry. It is not a "happy element".

I can't fucking believe anyone modded that "interesting".

Re:I can't support this use of tax dollars

[s_p_oneil]

I think you mean a Shipstone (which was actually supposed to be a battery).

Re:I can't support this use of tax dollars

[lysergic.acid]

well, i think that's indeed a poignant concern as tukang, gormanw and you have each raised the same point. however, let me share my perspective with you. (this post might seem a little circuitous at first, but please just bear with me.)

the way i see it, the strength of the human species is our social intelligence. our ability to empathize with other individuals, to co-exist with them, and to even cooperate with others to achieve common goals is our greatest virtue. it's how we developed language and subsequently culture. without human culture every generation, and indeed every individual, would have to rediscover and reinvent everything for themselves. this greatly limits one's breadth of knowledge.

whether we like it or not, globalization is here to stay. long before neoliberalism came to be associated with the term "globalization," the world was already a global community. gunpowder was discovered in China and used to create fireworks and rockets, which were appropriated by Mongols who spread the technology to India and the Middle East by invasion. and then finally, through their Arab neighbors and the Silk Road, the Europeans too acquired gunpowder technology. each time gunpowder was introduced to a new society, the technology was further refined and improved upon. though the Europeans were the last to acquire gunpowder, their advanced metalworking technology allowed them to greatly improve the primitive firearms/cannons invented in China and the Middle East, and by the 18~19th century China was importing firearms from Europe.

gunpowder is just one example of the global exchange of knowledge, ideas & technology. practically any field of science/technology that exists today has resulted from the collective efforts of countless thousands of individuals, each building on the work of their predecessors, often from different societies or even civilizations. and in the end this interchange of knowledge & information between cultures benefits everyone.

i mean, this nationalistic "us versus them" mentality is pretty arbitrary if you think about it. people don't choose which country they were born in any more than they choose what race they're born as. placing artificial restrictions on the exportation of knowledge is counterproductive. as a global leader, we should be promoting international cooperation and scientific & technological collaboration--especially technology that can facilitate ecological sustainability. China has over 1.3 billion people, many of whom want to live like Americans and drive around in cars of their own. China is already starting to rival the U.S. in oil consumption and competing with us for overseas oil supplies. it would behoof us all if cheap, efficient high-capacity batteries became available in China and around the world, not just in the U.S. besides, we control the lion's share of the world's resources--far disproportional to our population size. it wouldn't kill us to give a little back.

and everyone here is using computers with processors made in Japan/Malaysia/Singapore/etc. and motherboards made in Taiwan. and i'm sure many people here also own foreign (designed/engineered) cars. if foreign companies manage to improve on battery technology developed in the U.S. (and they will if they're given access to it), you can be sure that we'll see these improvements and benefit from them as well. lastly, if you're a libertarian who believes in the virtues of Free Market capitalism, then foreign appropriation of advanced battery technology can only be a good thing; it means more competition to drive prices down on advanced battery technology.

Re:I can't support this use of tax dollars

[coolsnowmen]

Because the modder didn't know any better and didn't double check the 'fact'.

AFAIK, Lithium is prescribed to bi-polar/manic-depressives. It makes all your moods closer to gray; the lows->not as low, the highs->not as high.

Re:I can't support this use of tax dollars

[Miseph]

Whatever commie. GO USA WOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO!!!!!!!

Next you're going to suggest that, if money is so tight, maybe they could cut the salaries of executives making over $500K in half rather than laying off employees who make $50k. What a load of anti-America pinko bullshit THAT idea is.

Re:I can't support this use of tax dollars

[aliquis]

But with point 1 won't the chinese copy any methods even faster? I don't say it's true I'm asking.

Re:I can't support this use of tax dollars

[Score Whore]

When you drink a 64 oz glass of your own urine each day, spend an hour each day in a room filled with nothing but your exhalations and flatulations, and have your feces sprinkled over your food, then you can make the demand you made in your original post. Until then, you're totally unreasonable. Any useful process creates waste, and the process of "cleaning up" that waste is both unlikely to make that waste actually consumable, and generates waste of its own.

The problem you seem unable to grasp is that some waste is tolerable and some isn't. Barring infections you could drink 64 oz of someone's piss every day without it killing you. Most people spend every day in rooms full of exhaled breath and farts and we are none the worse for wear. And if you are bent that way, you could eat your own shit and if you are healthy, the worst that will happen is your breath will stink.

True most processes create waste, some don't, but so what. Not all waste is inimical to life and health. There are many useful processes that don't have heavy metal byproducts. That don't release high concentration noxious gases into the atmosphere. That don't dump millions of gallons of polluted and toxic water into our aquifers.

The point of my original post was to get people to think about ways to encourage responsibility. Surprisingly enough you not only missed that idea but have gone into full defensive mode to justify everyone else carrying the burdens of your lifestyle. I'm guessing that you're one of those assholes who went out and bought a house for five times its actual worth and now want the rest of your country to pay your mortgage, because "gosh, it would really cramp my lifestyle to have to be responsible for my own choices." You want a big house, you want high tech consumer goods, you want fresh citrus in January, you want "clean" nuclear power? Go ahead, I really don't care. But have enough character to take the fucking responsibility for your actions. We aren't your mommy and your daddy.

Re:I can't support this use of tax dollars

[lysergic.acid]

well, that's the point of making it public domain--so that more people have access to the technology, making it cheaper, more widely available, and thus more useful. just because the Chinese have the same technology doesn't mean we would get any less use out of it.

as i mentioned in an earlier post, when technology transfers from one culture to another, it usually gets improved upon. cultural exchange rapidly accelerates technological progress, so we should be encouraging international collaboration rather than competition. or if you want, you could release the technology under something analogous to a copyleft license so that any improvements on the technology would have to be made public.

if you're worried about economic competition from foreign companies, meaning you want to give domestic industries an advantage, then you're basically advocating protectionism, and that's perfectly fine; so just put a tariff on imported batteries.

Re:I can't support this use of tax dollars

[Score Whore]

Lack of transparency was a free choice by an underregulated industry.

If people don't have access to the same information and are free to do business with whoever they choose you don't have a free market.

There has never in the history of the world been a "free market" consisting of more than 100 persons.

So you agree then, the current financial troubles in the world are not a free market failure.

Re:I can't support this use of tax dollars

[Anonymous Coward]

So what you're saying is... you don't approve of the spending of the money.

(As you know none of that is going to happen, otherwise it would already be happening with government funded university research.)

Re:I can't support this use of tax dollars

[bishiraver]

The poster's point was that we should be moving towards a "Cradle to Cradle" type manufacturing climate. Companies that clean up their wastes, or change their processes so the waste can be sold as raw material in either their process or someone elses', end up paying a lot less in regulatory fees.

The point is, our urine, feces, and flatulance/exhalations are used in a cycle. The nitrogen cycle, the water cycle, the carbon dioxide cycle. Waste from manufacturing isn't used in any cycle - it's typically collected and stored (even scrubbers need to be replaced; sequestering waste products isn't the same as reusing them).

Every time you eat food, you're eating your ancestor's waste matter. It's just transformed.

Every time we make something new, we should be figuring out how to incorporate waste matter into it.

Recycling as we have it today isn't true recycling. It's just delaying the junkyard (carpet made from soda bottles is unlikely to be used to make new carpet or new soda bottles - it goes directly to the dump; mainly due to the backing).

Any useful process creates waste, and the process of "cleaning up" that waste is both unlikely to make that waste actually consumable, and generates waste of its own.

The process of life creates waste, and the process of cleaning up that waste creates more life. We need to use biomimicry and smart manufacturing techniques if we're going to survive past the next 2-3 hundred years. Otherwise we're just making the world a little more poisonous every year...

Re:I can't support this use of tax dollars

[Score Whore]

Which is why the "socialist" Canada and EU seem to be doing much better in this crisis than the Land of the Free, right? Oh...

You might want to take the time to become a little informed before you start pounding on your anti-US drum. On the year the US dollar is up compared to the Euro and the Looney.

I'm not arguing fiscal policy. I'm saying that free market has a definition and the various nation's economies are not free markets. Some may be freer than others, but they're not free.

Re:I can't support this use of tax dollars

[bishiraver]

If they utilized a C2C approach, they wouldn't have to even follow a lot of the regulations out there (because they would either re-use the waste products or sell them to someone else who would use them, instead of sequestering/disposing of them). Biomimicry for the win.

Re:I can't support this use of tax dollars

[BananaPeel]

Yes ....I get tired of repeating this, but you could just swap out the whole power pack in less time than it would take to fill the tank.

Re:I can't support this use of tax dollars

[shutdown -p now]

You might want to take the time to become a little informed before you start pounding on your anti-US drum. On the year the US dollar is up compared to the Euro and the Looney.

You might want to take the time to learn Economy 101. Currency exchange rate is not a good sole indicator of how well economies are doing, especially in a major recession. Dollar had only held its ground because the Federal Reserve had been steadily decreasing the interest rate. The problem is that they cannot decrease it any further - it's at 0%.

For Canada in particular, you might want to look for indicators such as, well, companies filing for bankrupcy in drovers, major lay-offs, or large financial institutions asking for bailout. You'll have to look very hard, though :)

EU is worse off, but still not as much as the US - here the recent rise in USD/EUR is actually an indicator (note: not the difference as such, but the rise - it means that people are buying Euro, because its prospectives are perceived as better).

I'm not arguing fiscal policy. I'm saying that free market has a definition and the various nation's economies are not free markets. Some may be freer than others, but they're not free.

Sure, and there is a good reason for that, too. The West has experimented with free markets abouy a century ago, and those experiments uniformly didn't wen't well, which is why they were abandoned by everyone sooner or later. Today, probably the only remaining free market - for the lack of government to regulate it - is Somalia. Not exactly an economic wonder, either.

Re:I can't support this use of tax dollars

[lysergic.acid]

what's C2C? i think if there were more waste-to-energy plants (like plasma arc waste disposal) then that would be a great way to recycle/dispose of industrial waste. but i don't think companies would make the effort to do that without environmental regulations in place. i mean, if companies were paid to ship their solid waste to WtE plants, then some companies might make the effort voluntarily, but they'd all still be pumping pollutants into the air and water so long as it cuts costs.

Re:I can't support this use of tax dollars

[Anonymous Coward]

It might have something to do with your inflationary war spending. Somehow your wars tend to result in increased inflation rather than increased taxaion.

Also, Iceland.

Re:I can't support this use of tax dollars

[Anonymous Coward]

My feces and gasses will be broken down, and stimulate plant growth.

The same can not be said about bromides and the like.

Re:I can't support this use of tax dollars

[Ihmhi]

What's the advantage to building them in the U.S.?

Offhand:

-Property taxes on the factory
-Accountability to regulations
-Easier to enforce accountability
-Materials may come from U.S.A. to save on transportation costs
-That good "Made in U.S.A." feeling
-Manufacturers pay less for batteries (again, lower transportation costs) which may translate to lower consumer costs on batteries and devices that include them.

Re:I can't support this use of tax dollars

[OrangeTide]

I think you underestimate the way the automobile industry works. And having a standard cell size does not mean you will organize it into a standard battery size. Automobile manufacturers design and order expensive parts that often are only used on a narrow range of models.

It is certainly *simple* to base a new car design on some standardized large battery system. But I don't see this happening with the Big Three. And I also don't think it is even that important, you rarely replace the batteries today in EVs and in the future the rate the operable life of a battery will likely improve. Who cares if you have to special order a pack from the dealer after 100k miles? How many other model specific parts did you have to replace during that 5-7 year period that it took to get to 100k? For me it's usually around 6-10 specialized parts. As stupid as it seems, I can't bolt any old heater core in my car. It has to be one that fits about a half dozen different GM models. Nothing magical about a twisty pipe with fins on it, all people had to do is agree on where to put the holes from the bolts. But they didn't bother.

Re:I can't support this use of tax dollars

[sunnyflorida]

Bailing out the Venture Capitalists that have sinking investments in this technology. " boost the development & adoption of electric vehicles" Why what is wrong with gasoline and CNG powered vehicles?

Re:I can't support this use of tax dollars

[An Onerous Coward]

I can't believe it either.

I was hoping to get modded "funny".

It probably deserved a "troll", though.

Re:I can't support this use of tax dollars

[An Onerous Coward]

No free market failure here? Sure, in the same way that there has never been a failure of the Communist ideology, or the Christian ideology, or of Libertarian philosophy, or in Keyenesian economics. If you want to protect your ideas from criticism by invoking this asinine defense, go ahead. Just realize that you're arguing yourself into a corner where you'll also define away any evidence that would support your beliefs.

Meanwhile, the rest of us will see this crisis for what it was: free people, left to themselves, without any coercion or oversight from government, choosing to bugger themselves and six billion innocent bystanders.

Re:I can't support this use of tax dollars

[EvilBudMan]

Put it next to the X over the border or at least anything that can't be automated anyhow.

Re:I can't support this use of tax dollars

[lysergic.acid]

gasoline engines are dirty, inefficient, and increase our dependency on foreign oil. CNG vehicles are similarly inefficient as they use ICEs and also produce green-house gases (both in combustion and during extraction).

with an electric-powered transportation infrastructure, if we want to continue to exploit our domestic oil and natural gas supply, we can do so far more efficiently (and cleanly) at centralized power plants. but more importantly, we would also be able to take advantage of other cleaner & more sustainable energy sources, like tidal power, solar thermal, geothermal, wind, wave power, hydro power, nuclear power, etc.

and as far as i can tell, this is more of an inter-industry alliance than any kind of bailout. batteries are used in everything from cars to iPods, and demand for advanced batteries will only increase. a bailout would be giving more money to domestic car manufacturers who are failing because of their failure to adapt to changing markets (and develop cleaner, more efficient vehicles).

Re:I can't support this use of tax dollars

[Rei]

You mean their ReCharge concept? My list was only companies with A) solid production plans, and B) either an established name or having shown solid progress towards their goal. Concept cars not included :) Also, they had to be cars, trucks, minivans, or SUVs -- no large commercial trucks or electric motorcycles.

Re:I can't support this use of tax dollars

[Score Whore]

Currency exchange rate is not a good sole indicator of how well economies are doing, especially in a major recession.

Currency exchange rate is the best objective measurement available. It sums up the global opinion of a nation's total economy. You are cherry picking your metrics resulting in a partial picture demonstrating your desired result. The problem with your argument is that a national economy isn't about five percent of it's workers, or two percent of it's businesses. It's about one hundred percent of everything. And today, the people who put their money where their mouths are are seeing the US economy as better place to put their money.

Dollar had only held its ground because the Federal Reserve had been steadily decreasing the interest rate. The problem is that they cannot decrease it any further - it's at 0%.

You might want to actually read the article you linked to before coming and saying the dollar has held it's value because of interest rate cuts. Your statement has it exactly backwards, reduced interest rates put downward pressure on a currency in the exchange markets. That's why the USD has gone down in the last few weeks, because of the interest rate cuts coming from the Fed. And yet the dollar is still stronger on the year against the CAD and EUR. Maybe you should get some Econ 101.

Re:I can't support this use of tax dollars

[shutdown -p now]

Currency exchange rate is the best objective measurement available.

The numbers by themselves are meaningless - what matters is growth or fall relative to some other currency. Even that can mean different things: one economy is going down, another is going up... or both are going down, but one goes down faster than another, which is what is happening at the moment.

Re:I can't support this use of tax dollars

[Rei]

It's not just for psychological conditions. It's also used to treat ALS, for example, and helps fight cluster headaches. The dose of lithium needed to have an effect is pretty large -- 15-20mg/kg, just under the lethal dose -- and it has no apparent psychoactive effects in normal patients. FYI, mineral water is generally 0.05mg/l to 1mg/l lithium.

I can't understand why so many people are so concerned about lithium. Is it just because it sounds exotic? Lithium some super-rare element in our natural world. It's the ~17th most common element in the oceans and the ~31st most common in the crust. Yeah, if you use lithium salt as a substitute for table salt it could kill you, but apart from that, it's not particularly problematic. It's not long-term bioaccumulative and it's LD-50 is well higher than anything you could get without intentional ingestion. There are tons of things far worse than lithium that we throw into landfills on a regular basis. If you want to talk about health risks, just look at what comes out of tailpipes: carcinogenic VOCs, lung-disease inducing particulate matter, irritating NOx and SOx, cardiotoxic carbon monoxide, and so on down the list.

Re:I can't support this use of tax dollars

[bishiraver]

Most industrial waste cannot be incinerated safely.

C2C is Cradle to Cradle - a biomimicry effort spearheaded by William McDonough. It's also the name of his book: an explanation of the movement, and case studies where he has been brought on to design new factories and processes. One case was the river rouge ford plant; another case was a carpet manufacturer. The River Rouge plant now features things like a green roof (vegetation) where prairie birds nest. It also reclaims and cleans rainwater and runoff from the parking lots. As a result of his efforts, the water coming out of the plant is cleaner than the water coming into the plant.

Ted Talks has a great talk by him: http://www.ted.com/index.php/talks/william_mcdonough_on_cradle_to_cradle_design.html

Re:I can't support this use of tax dollars

[lysergic.acid]

hrmm, i'd never heard of C2C, but it sounds interesting.

however, i think i should point out that plasma arc waste disposal is actually the preferred way of disposing hazardous materials. since the reaction fuel is being atomized and broken down into basic elements, anything coming out of the plasma reactor would likely be safer than the original waste material. it's not just incinerating waste material by combustion. plasma reactors run at temperatures twice as hot as the surface of the sun (13,900 C as opposed to 5700 C). new WtE plants are so clean and efficient that they are carbon negative and have a lower environmental impact than most other buildings. they're also completely self-contained and operate under a light vacuum so that not even smells can escape the plant.

C2C would probably cut down on the amount of industrial waste to be disposed of while WtE would be able to safely dispose of and recycle the rest.

Re:I can't support this use of tax dollars

[StikyPad]

That's funny.. the overwhelming majority of cars built by foreign automakers are shipped to the US in driveable form, and most of those companies are doing just fine, especially the Japanese makers. Yes, some of their plants are in the US, but those plants produce a minority of vehicles, and exist more for the tax breaks and subsidies than any direct cost savings. They're more of a conciliatory gesture to keep in the good graces of lawmakers who keep tariffs low.

Meanwhile the Unholy Trinity of US car manufacturers, with their products built on US-made AC Delco, Mopar, and Motorcraft craponents, is about to implode.

It's not really that inefficient to ship fully assembled vehicles, and adds very little to the cost when done in bulk. My own car cost me under $2000 to ship across the Pacific when I moved back to the states, with fuel prices near their peak, and I'm not exactly a frequent-shipper with the economies of scale that go along with that. For companies that can charter entire freighters, the cost probably adds a few hundred dollars per vehicle, tops. Marine and rail shipping in general are very cost efficient forms of transportation, and getting better with larger ships and more fuel efficient propulsion. Sure, you have to distribute the cars to dealers around the country, which becomes less efficient, but that's a factor regardless of whether your US point of distribution is Detroit or the Port of Los Angeles.

Re:I can't support this use of tax dollars

[StikyPad]

Revalue the USD by removing two zeros. Hey, it worked for Zimbabwe. Sort of.

Re:I can't support this use of tax dollars

[X0563511]

... and phosphoric acid as well! I would say the iron is the only benign substance involved, not to mention all the intermediates and solvents...

Re:I can't support this use of tax dollars

[dgatwood]

I'm not sure we disagree on anything here. I wasn't arguing that pack manufacturing shouldn't happen in the U.S. I was arguing that there's little advantage from a car manufacturer's perspective to using custom cells within the pack versus using standard ones, and thus little advantage to actually manufacturing the cells themselves here relative to the cost of having to build up all the infrastructure necessary to make that possible.

Re:I can't support this use of tax dollars

[dgatwood]

Only if you have a crane. Those things weigh hundreds of pounds and are usually mounted under a seat.

Re:I can't support this use of tax dollars

[dgatwood]

Even Lithium Polymer batteries burn fairly violently when they overheat or get punctured, though. If you've never watched one burn, you should do so. Gas tanks in cars don't have a habit of suddenly bursting into flames while you fill up your tank, the rare static discharge notwithstanding.

Your assertion that batteries last longer if they have greater capacity is certainly true, but I fail to see what bearing that has on my assertion that NiMH batteries aren't practical for car use much beyond hybrids because of their limited energy density.

On the issue of Lithium and health, yes, it exists in nature. So does uranium. That doesn't mean I want to add more of it to my drinking water. Lithium salts have fairly well understood impacts on the human nervous system, so to imply that there's no risk by dumping this stuff is reckless and irresponsible, IMHO. Unlike metal car parts that are recycled at a near 100% rate when looked at over the long term, Lithium-based batteries currently are not. That makes them a completely different ball of wax in terms of the threat to health.

Similarly, regarding your comparison with lead acid batteries, it is true that lead-acid batteries contain more substances that shouldn't be disposed of. There are also laws that require them to be recycled and require anyone who sells them to provide said recycling services. That's not currently true for Lithium Ion and similar batteries, which are currently allowed to be disposed of as ordinary trash.

Re:I can't support this use of tax dollars

[Rei]

Even Lithium Polymer batteries burn fairly violently when they overheat or get punctured, though. If you've never watched one burn, you should do so. Gas tanks in cars don't have a habit of suddenly bursting into flames while you fill up your tank, the rare static discharge notwithstanding.

LiPo are a traditional li-ion chemistry -- LiCoO2 + graphite. They suffer from the exact same plating problem, the exact same overcharge problems, and on and on down the list as your standard 18650 cells. That is *not* what any EV manufacturer (except for Tesla) is using. What you're arguing is like arguing that because tin melts at low temperatures, we shouldn't make a radiator out of steel. It's just a silly line of argument.

Your assertion that batteries last longer if they have greater capacity is certainly true, but I fail to see what bearing that has on my assertion that NiMH batteries aren't practical for car use much beyond hybrids because of their limited energy density.

Wow, yet *another* line of argument! You hadn't brought up NiMH packs yet (I brought them up once as an example of how batteries need not inherently have short lifespans, and that it all depends on the chemistry). Whether NiMHs are practical for EV applications in the present day is irrelevant because that's not what's being proposed; we're talking about the stable olivine and spinel cathodes and the stable titanate anodes in a li-ion cell. They're actually *more* cycle tolerant than NiMH. I wouldn't call NiMH impractical, mind you -- it's just not as good as the advanced li-ions.

On the issue of Lithium and health, yes, it exists in nature. So does uranium. That doesn't mean I want to add more of it to my drinking water.

It'd be an irrelevant percentage increase *even if* the landfills leaked, because it's already in your drinking water. Lithium is deemed such a low risk chemical that it's completely unregulated in tapwater. Let me repeat that: there is no legal limit for lithium in tap water in the US..

Lithium salts have fairly well understood impacts on the human nervous system, so to imply that there's no risk by dumping this stuff is reckless and irresponsible, IMHO.

We dump things that are far, far, far, far, far more bioactive than lithium into our waste every day. Given how livid you are about lithium, why aren't you out there protesting them? Run! Run! Lithium requires 15mg/kg before you get any neurological effects from it. To put that into perspective, that's about 1/4th the lethal dose of nicotine. It's 1.5 billion times higher of a concentration than botulinum toxin takes to kill you. And to top it all off, lithium has no psychotrophic effects on normal patients. Every year, every American dumps a quarter pound of lead into landfills just from picture tube TVs alone (they only have an 18% recycling rate). Run! You've got to stop it! If you care this much about lithium of all things, certainly you care about that appalling amount of lead entering out landfills! Where's your TV recycling protest? Every year, the average driver drives 12,000 miles, emitting huge quantities of VOCs, carbon monoxide, particulate matter, NOx, and SOx straight into our air at surface level, an environmental consequence a thousand times worse than any you would get from a 0% rate of LiP battery recycling. Why aren't you out there stopping them!? You could get rid of most of that simply by a quick switch to electric cars, after all. ;)

Your outrage at lithium is just silly and completely disproportional to the environmental consequences involved.

Unlike metal car parts that are recycled at a near 100% rate when looked at over the long term

False. It's about 75%.

Similarly, regarding your comparison with lead acid batteries, it is true that lead-acid batteries contain more substances that shouldn't be disposed of. There are also laws that require them to be recycled and

If the advanced technology comes from China...

[SirGarlon]

Maybe Congress should take a look at why U.S. companies didn't choose to manufacture this technology domestically, and implement policy changes to fix the underlying problems. Otherwise it's just economic Whack-a-Mole.

And no, I'm not a supply-sider. I think the incentives are more complex than "high taxes drive jobs away." Maybe that's part of the answer, but only a part.

Re:If the advanced technology comes from China...

[Anonymous Coward]

Congress has already fixed that problem, we were too rich.

Re:If the advanced technology comes from China...

[Marxist Hacker 42]

The reason US Companies didn't choose to manufacture this technology domestically is because Wall Street only cares about projects that turn a profit in 4 months. The answer? Do away with Wall Street's drag on R&D, fund it directly. Or better yet, add a 5% consumption tax on all stock transactions to fund Japanese style industry research cooperatives.

Re:If the advanced technology comes from China...

[AKAImBatman]

The reason US Companies didn't choose to manufacture this technology domestically is because Wall Street only cares about projects that turn a profit in 4 months.

While that probably does have some effect, there are three words that come to mind when I think of battery development:

Environmental
Impact
Statement

That right there will kill any power generation or storage technology before it's even a glimmer in an scientist/engineer's eye.

Re:If the advanced technology comes from China...

[internerdj]

Like how US workers demand to be paid something for their work? How they demand not to work in places that are deathtraps? With all the horror stories of what it is like to make clothing, I can't imagine what it would be like to work in a Chinese factory whose products contained large amounts of caustic chemicals...

Re:If the advanced technology comes from China...

[jeffshoaf]

I think the real issue w/ battery manufacturing is evironmental more than high taxes. Making batteries requires the use of a lot of toxic chemicals and generates toxic waste. Since China and other Asian countries have less stringent (or no) regulations on those chemicals, it's much cheaper to make batteries there than it is to deal with the proper handling, storage, and disposal of the toxic stuff in the U.S.

Personally, I'd prefer that the policies and regulations governing use and disposal of that nasty stuff not be "fixed."

Re:If the advanced technology comes from China...

[Kohath]

Personally, I'd prefer that the policies and regulations governing use and disposal of that nasty stuff not be "fixed."

even though those regulations make everyone poorer.

Is there any room for a cost/benefit analysis in your position? Or is it dogma?

Re:If the advanced technology comes from China...

[Marxist Hacker 42]

Yeah, that might have an effect on the actual factory...depending on the technology that is. Seems to me the best power generation and storage tech actually uses more pollution than it creates. Which is something many companies forget in their EIS filings.

Re:If the advanced technology comes from China...

[OldeTimeGeek]

Yeah, because we all want to live next to Love Canal.

Yes, the process is slow and is often abused, but there is a good reason why it's there...

Re:If the advanced technology comes from China...

[John Whitley]

Enivonmental Impact Statement

Duh, what? Yes, requiring industry to figure out what it's going to dump on us before it does so can be a "burden". So be it. At the same time, it drives innovation into avenues that don't dump pollution on the rest of us. And as more people get into the act, "green" approaches previously not up for consideration are discovered to often yield better results (more efficient, cheaper, etc.). The more baseline work that goes into sustainable industry, the easier it gets for everyone.

Also, take a walk on the other side for a minute -- a friend visited Shanghai a few weeks ago. The air pollution was often so bad that he could barely see a block ahead from the brown haze. Quote, "my lungs feel tanned." Look also at the environmental disaster zone that are the former Soviet states. One Russian I spoke to put it this way: many people there know that excessive smoking and drinking aren't good for their health, but do it anyway out of the belief that it won't really matter because of everything else they're exposed to.

Re:If the advanced technology comes from China...

[Anonymous Coward]

Because legislation and additional policies solve everything.

Re:If the advanced technology comes from China...

[Anonymous Coward]

Maybe Congress should take a look at why U.S. companies didn't choose to manufacture this technology domestically, and implement policy changes to fix the underlying problems. Otherwise it's just economic Whack-a-Mole.

And no, I'm not a supply-sider. I think the incentives are more complex than "high taxes drive jobs away." Maybe that's part of the answer, but only a part.

The problem is that, not only are direct labor costs lower overseas, but also indirect regulatory costs like OSHA, FDA, ADA, etc, etc, etc.

One solution is to impose an across the board tariff on all manufactured goods entering the country, say 10% to 15%. Enough to compensate for the regulatory burden on US manufacturers, but not enough to protect inefficency.

The proceeds can be used to fund unemployment benefits and retraining for laid-off manufacturing workers.

No, this wasn't my idea, but it's a good one.

Re:If the advanced technology comes from China...

[module0000]

"Wall Street" isn't obligated to fund anything.

Re:If the advanced technology comes from China...

[Captain Splendid]

Or is it dogma?

How about just good health?

Your projection is showing....

Re:If the advanced technology comes from China...

[module0000]

One solution is to impose an across the board tariff on all manufactured goods entering the country, say 10% to 15%. Enough to compensate for the regulatory burden on US manufacturers, but not enough to protect inefficency.

So you think we should all pay 10 to 15 percent more for these products? Because they aren't just going to eat the tax, they are going to pass it right along to us with price increases on the products.

Re:If the advanced technology comes from China...

[genner]

even though those regulations make everyone poorer.

Is there any room for a cost/benefit analysis in your position? Or is it dogma?

It wouldn't if we taxed chinese imports so we could compete.

Re:If the advanced technology comes from China...

[greg_barton]

Environmental
Impact
Statement

I'll see your three words, and raise you one:

Melamine

Re:If the advanced technology comes from China...

[Perf]

One Russian I spoke to put it this way: many people there know that excessive smoking and drinking aren't good for their health, but do it anyway out of the belief that it won't really matter because of everything else they're exposed to.

I'd bet that is their excuse to smoke, but not the real reason. Most people who smoke do it because they want to for some reason.

Re:If the advanced technology comes from China...

[jeffshoaf]

Is there any room for a cost/benefit analysis in your position? Or is it dogma?

Yes, the chemicals are bad for dogs, too.

Seriously, though - I guess our definitions of "poorer" differ. You seem to be talking in terms of money or material wealth, while I'm thinking in terms of our overall quality of life. I'd rather have a little less money and be healthier (though folks may not think so by looking at my fat self).

Based on the affects of working with (or living near) a lot of these toxic chemicals, though, I'd have to say that we'd be comparing having a little less money and being healthier to having a little more money and being in extremely poor health. And having frogs w/ extra legs and eyes. Not to mention the children - think of the children!

Actually, my preference would be for China to have the same enviromental regulations as we have here in the U.S. I'd just as soon their children (think of the children!) not be exposed to the toxicity either.

Re:If the advanced technology comes from China...

[Anonymous Coward]

..Seems to me the best power generation and storage tech actually uses more pollution than it creates...

That sounds fantastic! I'm not sure what kind of power generation/storage tech you've got running that's using pollution, but I'd like to buy it. Especially if it uses more than it creates!

Wait - You're not talking about throwing trash into a Mr Fusion are you?

Re:If the advanced technology comes from China...

[Colonel Korn]

High quality of life drives jobs away. Until Americans are willing to work like Chinese factory workers must - think 80 hour weeks for very low wages that aren't sufficient to fund what most westerners would consider to be an acceptable life, it will be cheaper to manufacture in China. More likely, this will remain true until China has enough money and prosperity that its citizens push for a higher quality of life, and the factories move somewhere less developed. That's the way the global economy works.

Re:If the advanced technology comes from China...

[Anonymous Coward]

So you think we should all pay 10 to 15 percent more for these products? Because they aren't just going to eat the tax, they are going to pass it right along to us with price increases on the products.

Yes, so what's your point?

Our government passes all these regulations to "protect" workers and what happens? We send the jobs overseas to countries that don't have all these regulations in the name of "Free Trade". What good does it do to "protect" workers if "protecting" them costs them their jobs? All so you can save a couple bucks on a pair of pants at Walmart.

There are two simple solutions. One is eliminate most or all of the regulations and agencies protecting workers in the US; OSHA, FDA, ADA, etc, etc, etc. Not gonna happen.

Or second, impose a tariff to a least partially compensate for the regulatory burden on US manufacturers and use the proceeds for unemployment benefits and retraining for displaced workers. Ok, also not gonna happen, but it is a good idea.

Re:If the advanced technology comes from China...

[Shotgun]

No, but you can imagine what it would be like to buy clothes that are made there.

The facts of the matter are that people hate pollution just enough to legislate it out of their immediate neighborhood, but not enough to pay more for the stuff they buy if they can find the same stuff cheaper. Businessmen with money to invest usually aren't stupid, else they wouldn't have money to invest. All the factories have left the US, because the produce pollutants and the labor is cheaper overseas.

Re:If the advanced technology comes from China...

[Marxist Hacker 42]

True enough. Which, of course is a big hole in capitalism- hard for a technology to progress if it can't find funding for research. Historically, of course, that hole has been filled by government funded war research, but what do you do if your war machine is already so technically advanced that the enemies aren't there to push technology further?

Thus, the idea of a tax on the ponzi scheme con game that is eating up 20% of our GDP.

Re:If the advanced technology comes from China...

[Z34107]

The reason US Companies didn't choose to manufacture this technology domestically is because Wall Street only cares about projects that turn a profit in 4 months

I wonder where people get this idea that "Wall Street" is one monolithic individual, who is good friends with Mr. Corporation, and neither of their optometrists have prescribed them lenses to see more than 5 seconds into the future. There are plenty of rational people in business, because otherwise it is harder to stay in business longer than 4 months.

But, your 5% "consumption tax on all stock transactions" intrigues me. Is this like a poorly implemented "capital gains tax?" And would taxing the main way companies get capital for expansion and R&D cause more research to happen, or less of it?

Re:If the advanced technology comes from China...

[Marxist Hacker 42]

No, I'm talking about mining the lead out of old landfills to make new lead-acid batteries. Or using algae to suck the carbon dioxide out of the air to make biodiesel. Or refining Lithium, copper, and salt out of seawater to make fresh drinking water & Lithium-ion batteries. Or the best yet- using cow waste to create fertilizer, flower pots, and electricity (that one was actually on Dirty Jobs).

That's the problem with labels sometimes.

Re:If the advanced technology comes from China...

[Marxist Hacker 42]

But, your 5% "consumption tax on all stock transactions" intrigues me. Is this like a poorly implemented "capital gains tax?"

Well, for one, trades are NOT the way companies get capital for expansion- when you buy a stock, unless it's an IPO, the company doesn't get any of that price you paid for the stock- the guy you bought the stock from does.

So instead of a "capital gains" tax, it's a "market volatility" tax, which would encourage people to hold on to their stocks longer instead of jumping in and out at every opportunity.

I wonder where people get this idea that "Wall Street" is one monolithic individual, who is good friends with Mr. Corporation, and neither of their optometrists have prescribed them lenses to see more than 5 seconds into the future. There are plenty of rational people in business, because otherwise it is harder to stay in business longer than 4 months.

If there are plenty of rational people in business, how did Bernie Madoff stay in business so long? The answer is that the rational people in business don't get capital from Wall Street- they know that an IPO means letting the madness in. And so they stay small companies, private companies. The market itself is irrational, and yes, it's incredibly hard to be a market based business and stay in business more than 4 months. EVERY 4 months you've got to produce a report saying you are profitable (or even better yet, prove it with a dividend), or else the stockholders will either sue you or drive your stock price down, so that the next time you go to the market looking for capital, it won't be there.

And would taxing the main way companies get capital for expansion and R&D cause more research to happen, or less of it?

Well, that's the point isn't it? PROFITS should be used for expansion and R&D, not selling off pieces of ownership in the company. That is the RATIONAL way to do it. To go to the stock market for expansion/R&D capital is irrational.

Re:If the advanced technology comes from China...

[module0000]

Sad state of affairs. At first I wanted to disagree with you, but I suppose you're right. It is a con.

Re:If the advanced technology comes from China...

[Tablizer]

The reason US Companies didn't choose to manufacture this technology domestically is because Wall Street only cares about projects that turn a profit in 4 months.

Although the main reason is probably the environmental complications raised in other replies, the short turn-around time for investments is actually based on well-accepted investment principles and theory. There's kind of a money-time continuum in investment theory, to mis-borrow terms across disciplines, where the dollar looks smaller the further away it is and when one weighs the various options, a shorter turn-around is often favored over a longer one because the longer one has been shrunken by the money-time dilation of the theory.

It's not that investors are inherently impatient. If you want to get them to take a longer-term view, then you need to present sound investment theory to replace the current theory and explain why its better in a logic and math sense. (The actual turn-around is more like 18 months, but that's still an oversimplification.)

Re:If the advanced technology comes from China...

[CodeBuster]

PROFITS should be used for expansion and R&D, not selling off pieces of ownership in the company. That is the RATIONAL way to do it.

Not necessarily true. If a dollar of profit cannot be reinvested in the business so as to generate more present value than the next best alternative use of that dollar (i.e. the opportunity cost), then the dollar should be returned to the shareholders (i.e. the owners of the company) so that they can put that dollar to its best alternative use. They are the owners of the company and their shares of the profits belong to them, not the public or the government. If they want to reinvest those dollars back into the company then they are free to do that, but the decision is theirs by right of their ownership.

Re:If the advanced technology comes from China...

[j. andrew rogers]

The reason US Companies didn't choose to manufacture this technology domestically is because Wall Street only cares about projects that turn a profit in 4 months.

Utter rubbish that can be easily disproven by the very numbers that Wall Street uses. The market prices on Wall Street, for example, are priced with a mathematical horizon that ranges from a couple years to a couple decades depending on the company we are talking about. And most derivatives and other financial contracts also have explicit performance horizons measured in much, much longer terms than "4 months". Obviously, Wall Street cares about and considers profitability explicitly on a much longer time horizon than you assert by their very actions when they have to actually put their money on the line.

Or better yet, add a 5% consumption tax on all stock transactions to fund Japanese style industry research cooperatives.

Apparently you are blissfully unaware that the productivity of investments in those Japanese research cooperatives have markedly underperformed American private R&D, so what you are recommending is spending a lot more money to produce far fewer results. The problem with the government picking One True Research Project is that, like with all research, the odds are very high that they will actually be researching the wrong thing, and without a messy, uncoordinated, and diverse research ecosystem like you get with decentralized private R&D, progress tends to stall as what (in hindsight) is the correct research path becomes almost entirely ignored and defunded in favor of politically expedient or favored research topics. This ignores the issue that when you look at modern countries, in many important fields like medicine the majority of the world's research is private American R&D funding.

The germane point that you are furiously trying to remain ignorant of is that American private sector R&D is atypically productive in terms of producing useful advances, largely because they try so many different things and prune low-quality research paths so quickly. Government directed R&D projects, while producing some very important results on occasion, have a long history of relatively low productivity for the money spent no matter which government we are talking about. This is further complicated by the fact that governments only make the investments when convenient since they have no particular political motivation to do more research beyond grandstanding. I would like an explanation, for example, as to why the total R&D investment in the EU is a tiny fraction of American R&D despite having a larger economy and population, and how that oft-replicated result would be avoided this time.

At the end of the day, I do not want to pay for research, I want to pay for productive results. There is nothing intrinsically good or worth funding about "research theater" if it is not producing results we can actually use with all due haste. Fast, results-oriented government research seems to require a palpable imminent threat to life and limb that the population at large recognizes, and battery manufacturing technology does not qualify.

Re:If the advanced technology comes from China...

[Anonymous Coward]

It's not that the process is often abused, but that an EIS often lengthens the process by anywhere from 18-36 months and it's not uncommon for it (and it alone) to be $100k-250k or more. After that time, a verdict may be reached, and it may not be in favor of your project.

Simply put, an EIS is a humongous hurdle in both time (=money) and money. Corporations, and moreover investors & their investment dollars, aren't likely to invest that much, let it sit around for 3 years to have their project ultimately decided by committee (e.g. government) and by unscientific, usually irrational & stubbornly uninformed, public sentiment (e.g. NIMBY).

yes, I work in this field.

Re:If the advanced technology comes from China...

[Marxist Hacker 42]

Individual investors are not inherently impatient- but the SEC reporting schedule has a tendency to force businesses to report on their income quarterly- and if a project shows up as a dollar sink two quarters in a row, the investors are going to want a darn good reason why, as they rightly should when "investment" is seen as a means of earning a living.

That's where my four months came from anyway. I happen to disagree with investment as a method of gaining capital for R&D entirely for this reason.

Re:If the advanced technology comes from China...

[Marxist Hacker 42]

Which, once again, just proves that funding your company on investments is irrational- and will leave you falling behind on R&D.

You're absolutely correct about right of ownership- which is why the free market can't be trusted for innovation.

Re:If the advanced technology comes from China...

[Marxist Hacker 42]

Utter rubbish that can be easily disproven by the very numbers that Wall Street uses. The market prices on Wall Street, for example, are priced with a mathematical horizon that ranges from a couple years to a couple decades depending on the company we are talking about. And most derivatives and other financial contracts also have explicit performance horizons measured in much, much longer terms than "4 months". Obviously, Wall Street cares about and considers profitability explicitly on a much longer time horizon than you assert by their very actions when they have to actually put their money on the line.

In my experience, as soon as a company passes that first IPO, there's a HUGE amount of pressure brought to bear on R&D to make sure that no line item in any quarterly report is a money sink more than two quarters in a row. That's where my 4 month bottom line comes from.

Apparently you are blissfully unaware that the productivity of investments in those Japanese research cooperatives have markedly underperformed American private R&D, so what you are recommending is spending a lot more money to produce far fewer results. The problem with the government picking One True Research Project is that, like with all research, the odds are very high that they will actually be researching the wrong thing, and without a messy, uncoordinated, and diverse research ecosystem like you get with decentralized private R&D, progress tends to stall as what (in hindsight) is the correct research path becomes almost entirely ignored and defunded in favor of politically expedient or favored research topics. This ignores the issue that when you look at modern countries, in many important fields like medicine the majority of the world's research is private American R&D funding.

Can't tell that by the consumer electronics that actually hit the market though, can you. For instance, there isn't a single American TV factory anymore- Sony owned the last plant and they closed it. American car companies are on the rocks and haven't produced anything new in decades. Factories have been shut down nationwide, so where is all of this R&D going? Certainly NOT into new products- and I suspect strongly it isn't actually getting done at all, not when every project I've been on gets the chopping block if it doesn't ship in the 2nd quarter of development.

The germane point that you are furiously trying to remain ignorant of is that American private sector R&D is atypically productive in terms of producing useful advances, largely because they try so many different things and prune low-quality research paths so quickly. Government directed R&D projects, while producing some very important results on occasion, have a long history of relatively low productivity for the money spent no matter which government we are talking about. This is further complicated by the fact that governments only make the investments when convenient since they have no particular political motivation to do more research beyond grandstanding. I would like an explanation, for example, as to why the total R&D investment in the EU is a tiny fraction of American R&D despite having a larger economy and population, and how that oft-replicated result would be avoided this time.

The EU is largely "free market based" as well, with loads of stock markets. They suffer from the same short-sightedness you seem to in your next paragraph:

At the end of the day, I do not want to pay for research, I want to pay for productive results. There is nothing intrinsically good or worth funding about "research theater" if it is not producing results we can actually use with all due haste. Fast, results-oriented government research seems to require a palpable imminent threat to life and limb that the population at large recognizes, and battery manufacturing technology does not qualify.

And thus we're stuck with a bunch of solutions that only support the status quo. Nobody's willing t

Re:If the advanced technology comes from China...

[servognome]

The reason US Companies didn't choose to manufacture this technology domestically is because Wall Street only cares about projects that turn a profit in 4 months.

Yeah, we should go back to the good ol' dotcom days when turning a profit in 10 years was enough to get Wall Street dollars.

Do away with Wall Street's drag on R&D, fund it directly.

Fund what? There's R&D investment going on, It just isn't necessarily in new consumer products, but rather improving efficiency. Given the current economic climate, evolutionary new products from most big companies aren't going to help the bottom line. So instead spend the bulk of R&D money which is used on evolutionary development, and buy new software, training, and other systems to reduce costs - and maintain the smaller amount of risk captial investing in small companies hoping to strike the "next big thing."
Economic recovery is going to come out of disruptive technology, and most Wall Street companies don't handle disruptive technology well. They prefer to adopt it buy buying stakes in small startups rather than trying to constantly redirect a monolithic organization.

Re:If the advanced technology comes from China...

[j. andrew rogers]

Which, of course is a big hole in capitalism- hard for a technology to progress if it can't find funding for research. Historically, of course, that hole has been filled by government funded war research, but what do you do if your war machine is already so technically advanced that the enemies aren't there to push technology further?

In 1950, the US government spent slightly more on R&D than private organizations. Half a century later, that gap has grown so that privately funded R&D completely dwarfs government funded R&D. The US government does fund some basic science (and military) research that would not likely get done by the private sector, but even that research is being increasingly funded by private foundations with deep pockets. You might want to revisit your model of how most research gets funded. The US government invests a lot in research relative to places like the EU, but that research investment is a small fraction of a total research funding pie that is completely dominated by the US private sector.

A topic of discussion in the EU is that due to their dependency on the private American research industry, research topics related to things local to Europe are relatively underfunded and European governments have shown little interest in making the required investment. We do not really need the US doing more research so much as we need the rest of the industrialized world doing as much productive research as the US.

Re:If the advanced technology comes from China...

[Marxist Hacker 42]

Yeah, we should go back to the good ol' dotcom days when turning a profit in 10 years was enough to get Wall Street dollars.

Every single dotcom I ever worked for went bankrupt within 6 months of IPO.

Fund what? There's R&D investment going on, It just isn't necessarily in new consumer products, but rather improving efficiency.

As in, moving factories to the third world to take advantage of lower standards of living.

Given the current economic climate, evolutionary new products from most big companies aren't going to help the bottom line.

The mistake there is focusing on the bottom line.

So instead spend the bulk of R&D money which is used on evolutionary development, and buy new software, training, and other systems to reduce costs - and maintain the smaller amount of risk captial investing in small companies hoping to strike the "next big thing."

Most of which won't be the next big thing anytime soon- so shouldn't we find a completely different method to fund them?

Economic recovery is going to come out of disruptive technology, and most Wall Street companies don't handle disruptive technology well. They prefer to adopt it buy buying stakes in small startups rather than trying to constantly redirect a monolithic organization.

And even then, it's usually a big mistake for a small startup to sell. I've seen WAY too many companies ruined by stock offerings to believe any different. A company should be owned ONLY by people who believe in what that company is attempting to do, not by people looking for the "next big thing" or profit merely for the sake of profit, and this goes doubly so for any investment in R&D, especially in disruptive tech.

Re:If the advanced technology comes from China...

[j. andrew rogers]

Consumer electronics and automobile manufacturing have very little to do with R&D. They were, however, enabled by technology R&D that was largely funded in the US. Countless billions of dollars were invested in semiconductor R&D, almost entirely in the US, so that slivers of silicon could be wrapped in plastic overseas and sold to the masses. Modern medical technology is another example of an industry where well over half of the global R&D is funded by the American private sector, with the American public sector funding a significant portion of the remaining minority fraction. You can access all of this technology anywhere in the world, but the actual funding of the underlying R&D that made it possible is largely American and mostly private. You seem to be conflating technology R&D with trinket manufacturing that exploits the R&D.

As for profit, no one should care. What they should care about is results for the amount of money invested. R&D is not a ritual of essential purity that we do for its own sake, we do it because we are looking for advancements in capability. If profit produces more advances for a given amount of investment, and by every metric it does, then that is the best way to do research. The only real contrary argument is for areas like pure science research where there is no plausible profit and so inefficient non-profit research may be better than no research at all, but even that is increasingly being done by private non-profit foundations.

Re:If the advanced technology comes from China...

[Marxist Hacker 42]

In 1950, the US government spent slightly more on R&D than private organizations. Half a century later, that gap has grown so that privately funded R&D completely dwarfs government funded R&D. The US government does fund some basic science (and military) research that would not likely get done by the private sector, but even that research is being increasingly funded by private foundations with deep pockets. You might want to revisit your model of how most research gets funded. The US government invests a lot in research relative to places like the EU, but that research investment is a small fraction of a total research funding pie that is completely dominated by the US private sector.

My comment was based more on my observation of companies moving from true private funding to public, stock market based funding. I hadn't thought about private charity foundations funding research- but if that's what we're depending on for disruptive technologies to save the world, it's a pretty small pocket in comparison to $700 billion bailouts of the financial industry.

A topic of discussion in the EU is that due to their dependency on the private American research industry, research topics related to things local to Europe are relatively underfunded and European governments have shown little interest in making the required investment. We do not really need the US doing more research so much as we need the rest of the industrialized world doing as much productive research as the US.

What we really need is a better way to fund research at all. One that is cooperative, rather than competitive. One where the end point isn't a patent or a copyright, but rather an open source knowledge base that anybody can tap.

Re:If the advanced technology comes from China...

[Marxist Hacker 42]

Consumer electronics and automobile manufacturing have very little to do with R&D. They were, however, enabled by technology R&D that was largely funded in the US.

So basically, what you're saying is from the point of view of the common US citizen, the research is happening but the fruits of the research, those nice high paying factory jobs that built the middle class, are all going overseas.

As for profit, no one should care. What they should care about is results for the amount of money invested. R&D is not a ritual of essential purity that we do for its own sake, we do it because we are looking for advancements in capability.

Where I'm saying, that's completely the WRONG attitude to take, and when we take that attitude, we end up with a huge trade deficit.

Re:If the advanced technology comes from China...

[CodeBuster]

Do all of the innovation you like, but do it on your own dime. I will be deciding how best to spend the money in my pocket, thank you very much.

Re:If the advanced technology comes from China...

[Tablizer]

Maybe blue-sky (high-risk/high-reward) R&D is simply not profitable.

Re:If the advanced technology comes from China...

[Marxist Hacker 42]

It isn't. It never was, and never will be. Profit isn't the end-all-be-all of decision making however, it just appears to be.

Re:If the advanced technology comes from China...

[Marxist Hacker 42]

Do all of the innovation you like, but do it on your own dime. I will be deciding how best to spend the money in my pocket, thank you very much.

Ah yes, the last blast of the blasted individualist- assuming that money that belongs to the FED and is lent to business/government is theirs merely because it's in their pocket. Or to put it in another way paraphrasing Christ- assuming that it's your head on the coin instead of Ceaser's.

Scientific advancement helps the entire species, so shouldn't the entire species pay for it?

Re:If the advanced technology comes from China...

[geekoid]

So how does that explain the battery manufactures currently in the US?

Re:If the advanced technology comes from China...

[Larryish]

DO NOT EAT the Chinese batteries.

They have melamine in them.

This has been a public service announcement.

Re:If the advanced technology comes from China...

[Z34107]

If you can't transfer shares of ownership, or transferring them is prohibitively expensive, then those shares of next to zero value.

Also, believe it or not, shares of ownership are a perfectly legitimate, and generally a very good way of raising financial capital you otherwise wouldn't have access to.

I really hope you don't keep your money in a bank, either. You may be shocked or otherwise disappointed should you learn how one of those works.

Re:If the advanced technology comes from China...

[Marxist Hacker 42]

If you can't transfer shares of ownership, or transferring them is prohibitively expensive, then those shares of next to zero value.

Good. They should have next to zero value. The only reason you should EVER invest in a company or corporation is if you agree with the corporate charter and want to support jobs in your local community. There is NEVER any reason to invest in a corporation outside of your local community.

Also, believe it or not, shares of ownership are a perfectly legitimate, and generally a very good way of raising financial capital you otherwise wouldn't have access to.

Oh, it's perfectly legitimate alright- but it's a rotten way of raising financial capital, because it involves people who have *NO* interest in maintaining the corporate charter or good relations with the community or the workforce. Just because it's legitimate doesn't mean it's morally right.

I really hope you don't keep your money in a bank, either. You may be shocked or otherwise disappointed should you learn how one of those works.

I have been extremely disappointed since last August in learning that banks generally work by creating fake money that they don't have (fractional reserve banking). Since then, I've moved my money to an interest-free Islamic credit union, and am three months from paying off the last of my bank loans, and I will NEVER do business with those crooks again.

Re:If the advanced technology comes from China...

[aliquis]

Over here there exist a bank for people who don't like interests and how they work at all.

You can save your money there but you won't get any interest, but I guess they will loan the money to others which want money but they also pay no interest. I have no idea how the loan stuff works though. I think one have to have saved money for a while there to be allowed to take loans.

http://www.jak.se/

Oh, they even got an english webpage:
http://jak.aventus.nu/22.php?HIST=
"Membersâ(TM) deposits finance all loans. The members have saved a total sum of â 97 million and have borrowed â 86 million. (2008)

Annual membership fees and loan fees (equals approximately 2.5 % effective rate of interest) cover administration and development costs."

Ok, so a loan actually do cost something (administrational fee + all members pay 200 SEK the first year and 250 SEK / year for the rest of the time), but not very much atleast.

Seems like you can even decide what you want to loan out your money to, for example only for environmental friendly usage or whatever.

Personally I hate interests since they obviously just give more money to the people who already have them, though many people would rather invest than save them without interests. Around 50% of what you pay for a product is supposed to be made of interest (loans on equipment, for starting the company, on buildings, and so on so on.) Not weird that the banks get so rich.

Re:If the advanced technology comes from China...

[aliquis]

Though cheaper don't mean worse manufacturing or environmental consequences, amount of middle men, brand recognition, modern modell or casual and so on affect price to.

It may be possible to get more political clothes/items for less if you don't pay that much for the label / store location / marketing / ...

Re:If the advanced technology comes from China...

[SirGarlon]

High quality of life drives jobs away.

Half right. High quality of life drives jobs away in a "free trade" scenario. That's "free as in beer," by the way. If the country with the higher quality of life (USA) imposed trade tariffs on imports from countries with lower quality of life, there would be little or no economic advantage to manufacture overseas.

In the 1980's, free-trade proponents convinced Congress (and, I admit, the public) that manufacturing jobs were something that we're better off without, and we should move beyond sweaty, grimy production into a "knowledge economy." And so we signed trade agreements that moved all the factories overseas. Now in the 2000's we find out that "knowledge" jobs are just as profitable to export and the trade agreements are still in place to drive them overseas as well.

In my opinion, this is not progress.

Re:If the advanced technology comes from China...

[Kohath]

You seem to be talking in terms of money or material wealth, while I'm thinking in terms of our overall quality of life. I'd rather have a little less money and be healthier ...

Poverty correlates negatively with health. Poorer people tend to be less healthy.

Why play catch up?

[critical_point]

Instead we should invest that $1B into researching fundamentally new battery technologies.

Hopefully Obama realizes how many theoretical research salaries can be paid with $1B and chooses to spend the money on this kind of long-term project.

Re:Why play catch up?

[Bobzibub]

Bingo!
You reached your critial point quota today.

Re:Why play catch up?

[ArsonSmith]

Better yet, don't take the $1B in the first place and let the people buy what they actually want.

Re:Why play catch up?

[bagsc]

Lithium Ion batteries were invented in the US. Now, almost no company in the US produces them, because:
1) Labor unions reduce productivity per dollar
2) Logistics/Supply Chains in the US are shit compared to Japan
3) Taxes are high compared to Korea
4) Japan and Korea give massive government subsidies to these strategic technologies

Battery development on my tax money??

[Eggplant62]

Um, say gents, you can feel free to pool your resources on your own to develop new battery technology. However, there's no need for the government to pony up my tax dollars on this endeavour, especially considering how eager you folks are to outsource jobs overseas left and right, mm-kay?

Re:Battery development on my tax money??

[jornak]

Battery development... on your tax money? It's more likely than you think.

Re:Battery development on my tax money??

[dk90406]

Given the current economical environment, government aid may be needed. But *if* money are granted, they should be considered an investment, so the government (and US taxpayers, in the longer turn) should be given stocks appropriate to the investment size.

Government: do not give 1BN gifts.

Re:Battery development on my tax money??

[Anonymous Coward]

Actually, investing in efficient portable sources of electricity is a great way to spend tax money. It's the kind of thing that comes back in a good way. You assumed that these people are full of resources to throw at advanced new technology, and also that they are responsible for job outsourcing, which is just ignorant. To stay on the cutting edge the US gov't needs to fund exactly this kind of research. Otherwise we're spending the same tax dollars buying the batteries from China.

Re:Battery development on my tax money??

[afxgrin]

You do realize that most foreign countries get these sort of facilities because they offer large grants to corporations to build them in their country.

I personally would like to have an R&D job within North America, they don't all have to go overseas ...

And on a semi-related note ... Battery by Metallica.

Re:Battery development on my tax money??

[brian0918]

so the government (and US taxpayers, in the longer turn) should be given stocks appropriate to the investment size.

And thus you've completed the transition to socialism.

Re:Battery development on my tax money??

[Smidge204]

So what you're saying is: you'd rather leave scientific development in the hands of private finance, where practically nothing will get done unless someone sees a very straightforward and profitable outcome to the research within a few year's time and the distribution can be effectively suppressed with copyright and patent laws.

Congratulations! You have just created the pharmaceuticals industry, which gave us a dozen meds for erectile dysfunction but no actual cures for important things like AIDS or cancer.

The alternative is to let the government fund science, and historically speaking the government is not afraid to spend money on purely theoretical and/or nonprofitable research. Even more so if the technology can be used for a military edge - and new battery tech is definitely something the military wants.

Electronic computers? Satellite communications? GPS? The Internet? Nuclear power? Jet powered aircraft? All born of government funded projects.

Of all the things government pisses away money on, science is the last thing I'd complain about.
=Smidge=

Re:Battery development on my tax money??

[MBCook]

Don't worry, you'll be given a free pack of 3 AAs once every 36 fortnights, tax free, as an additional payback on your investment.

It will be sort of like the Alaskan Permanent Fund, but weirder and more pointless.

Re:Battery development on my tax money??

[Midnight Thunder]

Um, say gents, you can feel free to pool your resources on your own to develop new battery technology. However, there's no need for the government to pony up my tax dollars on this endeavour, especially considering how eager you folks are to outsource jobs overseas left and right, mm-kay?

Actually if the companies does get this grant, then it should come with strings attached. Basically all research must be done in the US, giving priority to existing US resident researchers. The government should impose that any new technology developed through this funding must be assigned to a public domain patent - the companies can patent it, but they won't be allowed to gain any licensing dollars from it. I take this stance because in some many other cases companies complain about government regulation - you either accept government intervention with the attached strings or you go out and spend some other investor's money with the strings they attach.

Re:Battery development on my tax money??

[dk90406]

As opposed to capitalism: Failing companies begging for money to survive in the market?

Re:Battery development on my tax money??

[brian0918]

As opposed to capitalism: Failing companies begging for money to survive in the market?

Err... what? Was that supposed to be an argument? Or just a non-sequitur?

Re:Battery development on my tax money??

[Quiet_Desperation]

How is it socialism for the government to invest in a private business and get a return? That's not complete ownership. As a person who hates government waste and loves free markets, I think it's the best idea out there. Maybe after enough of these investments, the government could develop its own revenue stream and they could stop raping my wallet.

Re:Battery development on my tax money??

[0xdeadbeef]

RON PAUL!

Re:Battery development on my tax money??

[Anonymous Coward]

No kidding. Government-funded research is all well and good for things that likely won't turn a profit but will still benefit the taxpayers, but this is another clear cut case of something with a massive public demand.

Let the companies put their own R&D dollars into it. The people are willing to buy highly efficient batteries, same as efficient cars. There's no reason to fund them.

Re:Battery development on my tax money??

[Chandon Seldon]

The government is already stealing your money at gunpoint and spending it on stuff. Cutting that spending would be nice, but it doesn't seem to be happening. If you have some practical plan to make it happen, I'd love to hear about it. Until such a plan has succeeded, asserting that the alternative to a given spending proposal is no spending is simply false.

As long as the government is spending a bunch of money, the question of where that money gets spent is an entirely relevant one. Given the options: bombing poor brown people, subsidizing companies with failing business models, subsidizing companies with no business model but lobbying for government money, etc, basic research is probably the least harmful way for the government to spend our money.

Re:Battery development on my tax money??

[Anonymous Coward]

What's wrong with socialism? If we convert to socialism, China will sooner or later start sending outsourcing jobs to us!

Re:Battery development on my tax money??

[billcopc]

I believe the GP answered with a question, ideally for you to answer.

Many of you Americans are quick to bash socialism (for reasons I do not know), even while the "American way" is crashing down and ruining your so-called lives.

Tell me, what good does it do to give money to corporations, if they don't do anything for you in return ? Pure socialism only works on a small scale (think remote islands with no outsidevisitors), it is indeed quite fragile, but applying some aspects of socialism to a handful of areas can be quite beneficial to society at large.

If there is a product or service that can benefit the great majority of people, I think it should be owned and controlled by the government (thus the people) and turned into a non-profit. I'm not sure batteries are such an essential need, maybe later... but for many other things the socialism model leads to greater efficiency and no greedy bastards skimming off the top.

If anything, recent history should have taught you that corporations will take any funding and spend it in the most irresponsible way they can think of, usually by giving their top brass lavish bonuses for "bringing in the dough". I personally don't think one person's work in a management position can impact society in a way that justifies multi-million dollar bonuses, but I'm one of those goddamned socialists! What the hell do I know, right ?

Re:Battery development on my tax money??

[billcopc]

It would probably be cheaper to invade China and steal the batteries :P At least they have a bunch of stuff worth plundering, unlike Iraq.

Re:Battery development on my tax money??

[Shotgun]

And you assume that the government has been given the power to 'invest' in anything. The government is a notoriously awful investor.

Re:Battery development on my tax money??

[ceoyoyo]

Better than... what is it called when governments give private companies money for nothing in return? Extortion? Extreme corruption? Emelda's shoes? I don't think the economic model has ever been tried, at least not for long.

Re:Battery development on my tax money??

[Anonymous Coward]

Congratulations! You have just created the pharmaceuticals industry, which gave us a dozen meds for erectile dysfunction but no actual cures for important things like AIDS or cancer.

Of course, this ignorant trash-hyperbole does not account for the fact that enormous resources are put into both AIDS and cancer research in any case from both private and public sources. Also that erectile dysfunction is rather easier to treat medicinally ("make blood vessles relax") than curing cancer ("prevent all of the potential reasons that can cause any of the body's cells to divide uncontrollably"). DNA is almost even designed to be damaged. Here's some advice: Be less of an evil person?

Re:Battery development on my tax money??

[Anonymous Coward]

Ummm... Sorry to refuse to be the whipping boy here, but I'm a Pharma guy in a company that's put out 7 new drugs for cancer and cancer related complications in the last 5 years.

You may see lots of ads for viagra, because the drug companies market it at you, Mr. Limp Dick Consumer. For cancer drugs, however, they spend their money educating doctors about treatment options and conducting clinical trials.

Just because you're not a target of the drug company hematology/oncology media spend doesn't mean that advancements aren't being aggressively made in those areas... just that they have no interest in letting you know about them. You're not a doctor and you're not going to "ask your doctor" about a chemotherapy or targeted therapy.

Re:Battery development on my tax money??

[Rei]

I guess we're not supposed to care that pharmaceutical companies today spend more money on advertising than on research. Chalk that up to the "efficiencies of the free market" or something.

Re:Battery development on my tax money??

[Anonymous Coward]

So when did your company put out its latest antimalarial drug?

Re:Battery development on my tax money??

[DougWebb]

I think that'd be fascism, actually. Socialism would be when the government takes the profits from investing the taxpayer's money and spends it on the people who are too poor to pay any taxes.

Re:Battery development on my tax money??

[ArsonSmith]

That is not capitalism that is socialism. Handouts are socialism whether they are going to a begging 100 year old company or a begging 32 year old Vietnam vet.

As opposed to capitalism: Failing companies fail and new ones take their place.

Re:Battery development on my tax money??

[Anonymous Coward]

The US obsession against anything considered socialist comes from a variety of sources.

- The rich and large corporations seeking to guard their power and wealth. They have historically been the biggest source of anti-union, anti-public assistance, anti-regulation propaganda. The union busting during the 1800-early 1900 is a stark example of this. The hysteria of the dying monarchies and the industrial barons of Europe during WWI and the Russian Revolution further fed this.

- The Calvinistic belief that continues to lie in the US unconsciousness that the poor are that way because they are fundamentally flawed or sinners.

- The mythology of the "self made man/woman" that anything is possible and if you don't get it it is because you lack the will. According to this, there are no outside forces you need help to surmount. Therefore socialism is bad because it helps those who do not deserve help. In the US everyone thinks that they are the next star and those very tiny numbers that do achieve that are held up as proof of the "self made man/woman" myth. No mention will be made of help from relatives, good luck, monetary help, etc. It is class advancement via dice rolling.

Re:Battery development on my tax money??

[Anonymous Coward]

Far more important is that the public owns the patents after the tech is developed. And no, I don't mean in the sense of patents reverting back to public ownership after x number of years. I mean they should be owned by the US Govt from the get-go.

If they are going to publicize the risk, they must not privatize the profits.

Re:Battery development on my tax money??

[dk90406]

I answered sarcastically to brian0918. Sorry if that wasn't clear.

Re:Battery development on my tax money??

[b4dc0d3r]

To prop up your argument, it's the companies' fault they are in this mess due to greed.

Ralph Brodd, a Nevada-based energy-storage consultant, recently published a report on battery manufacturing for the National Institute of Standards and Technology. He said that though much of the advanced battery technology was developed in the U.S., American companies "opted out" of battery production because of the low returns the business offered. Asian manufacturers picked up the business because of their proximity to makers of electronic devices, which need a steady supply of batteries.

Re:Battery development on my tax money??

[cashman73]

Hate to burst your bubble here, my friend,... but have you ever seen the NIH budget? The federal government spends a lot of money on scientific research for drugs. Granted, even with that, there's still a lot of lawyers, copyrights, and patent laws -- but a major source of funding for research comes from the federal government already.

The solution seems to me to shut down all the law schools for about 20 years, and don't create any new lawyers. There's too many of the bastards and it's really hurting scientific progress in this country.

Re:Battery development on my tax money??

[SydShamino]

Sure, I'll cover you're share of the 1% of the U.S. budget that might go to research and other similar tasks. Just as soon as you cover my share of the 57% of the U.S. budget that goes to defense, much of which is to protect us against people made rich and restless by oil, or to protect us against people upset because we occupy regions of the world that produce oil, or to protect the generation and transportation of oil in those regions.

Re:Battery development on my tax money??

[knarf]

I think the 'net needs a new corollary to Godwin's law. The only needed change would be to replace 'nazi' with 'socialism'.

What is it you folks are so afraid of concerning the S-word? Would you prefer the state to hand over your tax money to for-profits so they can have some more caviar on their toast?

Re:Battery development on my tax money??

[kelnos]

Yeah, agreed. My question would be -- if we pony up our tax dollars for this kind of thing, what do we get in return? Partial ownership of the technology? Full specifications for the technology put into the public domain?

Oh, wait, you just wanted free money? Well, fuck right off then.

Re:Battery development on my tax money??

[fabs64]

Replied because I hit the wrong button on moderation and needed to cancel it.

For the record I was aiming for "Funny"

Re:Battery development on my tax money??

[kelnos]

so the government (and US taxpayers, in the longer turn) should be given stocks appropriate to the investment size.

And thus you've completed the transition to socialism.

That's the thing tho -- are really the only three options:

1. Government gives money to / bails out corporations for free without any expectation of anything in return.
2. Government gives money to / bails out corporations in return for a stake in the company.
3. Government loans money to corporations at a favorable (to the gov't) interest rate with reasonable repayment terms.

The first option is just repugnant to me. Why should I help prop up some moron's failing business model?

But you're right, the second one looks quite a lot like socialising corporations. And while I don't see that as inherently bad, there are plenty of ways that can -- and will -- be abused, by both the corps involved and the gov't.

So that leaves us with loans. I can stand behind them to a certain extent, but there needs to be some prudence: the gov't needs to evaluate a potential borrower's likelihood of default just like any respectable lender would do for any borrower (the subprime mess notwithstanding).

Or we can just tell the gov't to shut the hell up and stop giving money to idiots who clearly don't know what to do with it.

Re:Battery development on my tax money??

[kelnos]

The thing is, this sounds like a bunch of companies are saying "hey, we want to do advanced tech research together, give us some money and then leave us alone." That sounds pretty shady. I think I'd rather see gov't research agencies get funding to do this kind of development. And sure, they'll likely contract out some of the work, but that's just how it's done.

Re:Battery development on my tax money??

[geekoid]

Why would you think AIDS and cancer are an alternative to developing a vaccine for AIDS?

Why do you think even if that was true the rest of the world wouldn't have a cure fro AIDS?

Why you think..oh wait, you don't.

AIDS is a tricky SOB and we are loosing.

Yes, I agree the Government RnD is critical now, more then ever but don't imply that there was a choice "Cure fro AIDS or a cure for erectile dysfunction."

If anything the increase in revenues generated by erectile dysfunction cures is helping fund the fight against AIDS.

Re:Battery development on my tax money??

[geekoid]

Completely meaningless.
What is the cost of advertising? how much money does it bring in?
Your comparing Apples and Oranges there.

Re:Battery development on my tax money??

[Anonymous Coward]

I agree with you, but are they talking about funding research or production? Not so sure the government should get involved in the production side of things.

Re:Battery development on my tax money??

[An Onerous Coward]

And not a moment too soon.

Re:Battery development on my tax money??

[GreatBunzinni]

I don't get it. The corporations are asking for an investment. How exactly is it socialism if the potential investor demands a return from it's investment?

Re:Battery development on my tax money??

[Copid]

And you assume that the government has been given the power to 'invest' in anything. The government is a notoriously awful investor.

I'd be interested in seeing this quantified, given that the same set of state and federal governments that give us overpriced tools in the DoD also brought us the interstate highway system and countless other pieces of infrastructure we base our society around.

Re:Battery development on my tax money??

[Shajenko42]

Also, a country with the label "communist" was our biggest enemy for a few decades.

Re:Battery development on my tax money??

[Anonymous Coward]

How about you chalk it up to government monopoly in the form of intellectual property?

Sorry, I forgot that IP legislation is an integral part of a market free from government interference.

Re:Battery development on my tax money??

[Anonymous Coward]

So what you're saying is: you'd rather leave scientific development in the hands of private finance, where practically nothing will get done unless someone sees a very straightforward and profitable outcome to the research within a few year's time and the distribution can be effectively suppressed with copyright and patent laws.
YES! Except for the abusive copyright and patent laws part. (You forget that's been added by corrupt officials AFTER the U.S. started)

Congratulations! You have just created the pharmaceuticals industry, which gave us a dozen meds for erectile dysfunction but no actual cures for important things like AIDS or cancer.
Yes, after corrupt govt officials had cannabis/hemp criminalized and allowed them to kill us with side effects from their pills.

You should really look for the source of the issue. Try not to get wrapped up in all the symptoms.

want $1bn from Govt?

[hierophanta]

when did it become ok to rely on the government to put up funds to save / create business? this is the opposite of lazaire faire (no i dont know how to spell that).

Re:want $1bn from Govt?

[paulthomas]

I agree with your sentiment, but it's "Laissez-faire", and you'll be more convincing if you don't sound proud of your ignorance when you've got the whole internet at your service.

http://www.google.com/search?client=safari&rls=en&q=Laissez-faire&ie=UTF-8&oe=UTF-8

Re:want $1bn from Govt?

[pitchpipe]

when did it become ok to rely on the government to put up funds to save / create business? this is the opposite of lazaire faire (no i dont know how to spell that).

It became OK when economists looked down the track where the train that is called the U.S. Economy is heading and discovered a great big fucking hole called The Great Depression II.

Re:want $1bn from Govt?

[De Lemming]

laissez-faire

Re:want $1bn from Govt?

[GweeDo]

Laissez-faire

Re:want $1bn from Govt?

[paulthomas]

Looking at the replies, mine included, my conclusion is now: "how resourceful!"

Re:want $1bn from Govt?

[eln]

Sorry to burst your bubble, but true Laissez-faire capitalism doesn't exist in the real world, and really hasn't since we stopped bartering as cavemen. Arguably, true Laissez-faire capitalism produces an unsustainable economy, as it will tend toward the creation of monopolies which will erect barriers to entry to keep competitors out.

It's generally well understood these days that at least some government intervention is required in order to sustain a healthy economy. Now we just argue endlessly over how much government intervention and what form it should take.

Re:want $1bn from Govt?

[FiloEleven]

Are you suggesting that economists see Depression 2.0 as inevitable, so they might as well give a bunch of cash to their friends before the shit hits the fan? Or are you seriously suggesting that government bailouts and nationalization of damn near everything is going to switch us to a different track?

The same economists that predicted the crisis we are living through are the same ones who (continue to) say that throwing more money at failing business will only make the great big fucking hole greater, bigger, and more fuckinger.

The rhetoric we've been hearing about the need for bailouts is exactly the same rhetoric we heard about the Patriot Act: if we don't do something, we will suffer. It is the same rhetoric we heard about going into Iraq: if we don't do something, we will remain in grave danger. The US government as a whole has not had a good track record in recent times, yet very few question the credibility of its latest statements.

So go ahead and continue to believe the rhetoric of your state-sponsored economists despite the fact that the credit crisis is laregly a lie. Despite the fact that the first big bailout hasn't solved fuck-all even though it was oh-so-important that it be passed immediately. Despite the fact that the first big bailout is openly being used for purposes radically different from what was legislated.

The next year is going to suck no matter what. Unless we change course by doing the opposite of what we are now, Depression 2.0 will ensure that the suckiness lasts far longer than a year. Unfortunately, it looks like the people running this sideshow are calling for full steam ahead.

Re:want $1bn from Govt?

[ceoyoyo]

Sure it does. See "Somalian warlord."

Re:want $1bn from Govt?

[hierophanta]

fair play (i.e. i agree) but try to google any phonetic spelling of the word. i kept getting http://uncyclopedia.wikia.com/wiki/Laser-Faire_Economics

Re:want $1bn from Govt?

[Anonymous Coward]

it seems that at this point in time- to protect "national interests" the US goes to war every 5-10 years. evidently this is the state of acceptable government intervention.

this really isnt supposed to be flamebait but i know it is

Re:want $1bn from Govt?

[geekoid]

If only someone would create a network of smaller networks, then someone could put some dictionaries or a type of 'engine' that could look at all the information and tell you how to spell it.

sigh, someday perhaps, someday.

Re:want $1bn from Govt?

[Anonymous Coward]

So the crises in the 30's 70's 80's and 00's and 08's are a sign of a sustainable and healthy economy? You don't find the increasing frequency the least bit troublesome and correlated to the opposite of laissez faire?

I would also like you to mention a free market monopoly (that didn't rely on government regulation i.e. telco's are out) that lasted for more than five years. Just name one, it should be easy.

No surprise

[djupedal]

>"...the lead in development is now held in Asia."

And Asia has the lead with no intention of looking back. Batteries of the kind mentioned here will follow on the heals of a steady stream of wind turbine imports shortly.

The US has been a bona fide service industry for years...get used to it already.

Re:No surprise

[Anonymous Coward]

Where are cells made? Japan, China, and Canada. China is not leading in tech and quality. Advanced cells? I see lots of articles but no one has hit more than a few percent increse at a time.

The 2009 Stimulus Package

[JBG667]

... batteries not included

why isn't this socialism ?

[rs232]

"a consortium of 14 U.S. technology companies will ask the Federal Govt for up to $1 billion"

Re:why isn't this socialism ?

[h4rr4r]

Because it is closer to fascism than socialism. Why do Americans have such trouble separating those two very different schools of thought?

Corporatism is pretty much exactly what this and all the bailout have been.

Re:why isn't this socialism ?

[canajin56]

It's only socialism when you tax people to the bone and use that money to fund social programs. If you use that money to fund corporate programs, it's corporatism, which is a fancy name for FREEDOM, you elitist commie pinko DEMOCRAT.

Re:why isn't this socialism ?

[Anonymous Coward]

Simple government matrix for the politically impaired:

Who owns the resources?|Who Allocates the resources?|Government type
Private individuals     Private individuals          Capitalism
Government              Government                   Communism
Private individuals     Government                   Fascism
Government              Private individuals          Socialism

Re:why isn't this socialism ?

[Anonymous Coward]

No. You are making an insulting generalization about "Americans", demonstrating nothing more than your ignorance of them. You also try to call government backed R+D funding fascism. First of all, that word has been completely bastardized and means different things to different people depending on context. Go ahead post some more about the US's fascist policies. We both know that you are a liar.

Re:why isn't this socialism ?

[Anonymous Coward]

You should be modded +9999999.

One question though. How is the fourth option physically possible? Could you come up with a for instance or a real world example? Thanks.

Re:why isn't this socialism ?

[jandrese]

I don't see how funding battery technology with tax dollars is authoritarian at all. Government deciding where my money goes seems to be the basis of socialism. I agree that they are two very different schools of thought, but this looks a lot more socialist than fascist to me.

Re:why isn't this socialism ?

[ceoyoyo]

Socialism: the people/government owns the company, tells them what to do, and takes all of the production/profits for it's own purposes.

This: the company owns the people/government tells them what to do and takes their money for it's own purposes.

Pretty much exact opposites, actually.

Re:why isn't this socialism ?

[Anonymous Coward]

Say the government owned some widget factory, and produced widgets, either because no company was willing or able to produce widgets or because of a legal reason. The government would then "own the resources" so to speak, but they would give them for a fee to private individuals, who would then allocate the widgets as they pleased. The fee would then go back to the government to produce more widgets. This is a "socialized" industry. Different from communism, because in communism the government would create the widgets and then allocate them based on some (usually miscalculated) criteria.

Re:why isn't this socialism ?

[geekoid]

Becasue propaganda in the 50's melted forms of government and forms of market in the same pot.

Re:why isn't this socialism ?

[shutdown -p now]

That doesn't get socialism and communism correctly. The difference between the two is not who owns and who allocates what - it's the same in both cases. The difference is that socialism retains the traditional "monopoly to use force" type of government, and enforces fair allocation of resources, while in communism, that allocation is supposed to be handled directly by the people themselves (with everyone taking only what's needed and minding the more important needs of the others).

Of course, that's theory, but in practice, there was never a communist state, and not even one which claimed to be communist. All countries labeled "communist" by the West actually self-declared themselves as socialist "on the way to communism". So, really, the "theoretical" kind of communism is the only one that can be reasonably discussed - and for it, your matrix is clearly wrong.

Re:why isn't this socialism ?

[Anonymous Coward]

That was a great help. But suppose every industry was socialized in the manner you described? That was the scenario I was thinking of, causing me to not think of your scenario.

Would my scenrio described above then be communism?

Environmentalism

[Archangel Michael]

I can assure you that one of the biggest reasons we don't build toxic batteries here in the US, is because of Environmental Regulations would make them prohibitively expensive. And China would steal the tech and make them cheaper, and without a care about environmental concerns.

We have effectively regulated the ability to produce anything away.

If I were a manufacturer, I wouldn't make anything in the US either. I wouldn't even consider it.

Re:Environmentalism

[sexybomber]

Yeah, but China's natural environment is, to quote Zero Wing, "on the way to destruction." If a country takes absolutely zero environmental precautions (like China is doing currently,) then that country is going to get fucked six ways from Sunday eventually.

Nature has a way of squaring any debt you might have with her.

Re:Environmentalism

[DittoBox]

Yes but the people in charge today will be dead when nature/Gaia/God-Almighty/FSM decides to smite them for abusive assholes.

It's their children—and quite possibly ours—that are getting shafted by it.

Re:Environmentalism

[Midnight Thunder]

If I were a manufacturer, I wouldn't make anything in the US either. I wouldn't even consider it.

This is why environmental controls should be imposed on the chain of supply. Just because you are manufacturing something in someone else's backyard doesn't suddenly make it environmentally friendly. The chain of supply should ensure that there are no environmental issues from the point of manufacture to the point of use and then on to the point of disposal.

Re:Environmentalism

[registrar]

If I were a manufacturer, I wouldn't make anything in the US either. I wouldn't even consider it.

Good. We wouldn't want someone like you making things.

The point of regulations is to stop people irresponsibly polluting the environment. If you aren't smart or caring enough to manufacture things without destroying the country, please do take your business somewhere else.

Re:Environmentalism

[jandrese]

It's not like the US has always had the best environmental record either. We've had our share of burning rivers. Just like it took years for us to enact all of the environmental legislation that has started to turn the country around, China will someday be forced to take a similar path. Sure it might mean more manufacturing jobs going to even shittier third world countries, but also means that they can't keep doing what they're doing forever.

Re:Environmentalism

[Archangel Michael]

Fine, but don't complain about Starbucks and MickeyD's as being the only job you can get.

And if you buy a computer, with parts made in China, rest assure, you're just as much of the problem as anyone, as you don't care enough about the environment as long as it is someone else's back yard that pays for it.

It is like all those Kennedy Liberals wanting "clean renewable engegy" but don't want windmills blocking their view of Martha's Vineyard.

Re:Environmentalism

[sheldon]

So we'd be better off with air we can't breath and water we can't drink?

Re:Environmentalism

[modecx]

If I were a manufacturer, I wouldn't make anything in the US either. I wouldn't even consider it.

And even if you really, really, wanted to have something made in the US you're almost certainly not going to find someone to manufacture it for you. I've tried. It's next to impossible. The manufacturing and raw materials sources, if they exist in the US at all, are already so specialized that they either won't or simply can't deal with you... Unless you have can order a million or more units from the start, that is.

Even if you wanted and had the capital to start up a plant to manufacture your generic widget, chances are you'd still have to import materials from Canada or Mexico or float it on a boat from China, just to start making something here. It's pretty of sad.

Re:Environmentalism

[bill_mcgonigle]

We have effectively regulated the ability to produce anything away

Yes, but now that we've moved all of our dirty-industry needs overseas, we're clean and lily white and can look down our noses at the dirty, stupid people.

Somebody get me the WTO on the phone!

Re:Environmentalism

[bill_mcgonigle]

So we'd be better off with air we can't breath and water we can't drink?

Depends if we have houses to live in and food to eat.

Re:Environmentalism

[Anonymous Coward]

It's their children--and quite possibly ours--that are getting shafted by it.

Ha! Shows what you know. I'm sterile from working in a toxic environment. :(

Re:Environmentalism

[Burning1]

But, if you ease environmental and employment regulations enough to compete like China, we'll end up being like China: massive pollution, unlivable wages, and the destruction of the American dream. Personally, I'd rather not see that happen.

America is a MAJOR consumer of Chinese products. Our leverage exists in the ability to set import restrictions designed to give American industry the ability to compete domestically.

Hell, you don't even have to use a tariff. Simply set limits on the prices the Chinese are allowed to sell their products for.

"We aren't going to charge a tariff. You just have to charge the same price for your products as domestic producers. What you do with that money is up to you. We suggest you pay your workers."

Re:Environmentalism

[roman_mir]

Yes but the people in charge today will be dead when nature/Gaia/God-Almighty/FSM decides to smite them for abusive assholes.

- so what's the problem then?

Environment?

[Anonymous Coward]

Maybe there's more factories over there because it's okay to dump toxic wastes into the environment. In turn this makes it cheaper to operate these types of plants. When China has allowed toxic pollution to kill or maim most of its residents, the jobs will come back for lack of a work force. Or, they'll go to the next country with a workforce that willing to put up with it.

Re:Environment?

[L0stm4n]

Except China has a metric assload of people. They could power the plants with people used as fuel and still have more than enough for cheap labor.

Re:Environment?

[Amazing Quantum Man]

Which is bigger... a metric assload or an imperial assload?

Re:Environment?

[Anonymous Coward]

Wait. Do I take the red pill or the blue one?

Re:Environment?

[Anonymous Coward]

Who cares? The "English" assload used in the US dwarfs them both.

Re:Environment?

[Cowmonaut]

You have it wrong. A crap ton is metric, an ass load is imperial. Imperial is larger, mostly because we Americans striving to be #1 in everything are #1 in obesity.

Re:Environment?

[Anonymous Coward]

Soylent Green Biofuel!

Re:Environment?

[snspdaarf]

Hell's bells, man, I'm still working out furlongs per fortnight.

Re:Environment?

[Anonymous Coward]

An imperial assload is equal to a metric assload divided by four, plus thirty-two micro-assloads for every assload over one-hundred. You should also note that twelve imperial assloads equals one fuckload versus the metric ten per fuckload.

Re:Environment?

[Anonymous Coward]

Which is bigger... a metric assload or an imperial assload?

An imperial assload of people is bigger, but that's only because it consists mainly of dime-a-dozen clones.

Re:Environment?

[bacchus612]

1 metric assload = 2.02 imperial assloads.
simple.

Re:Environment?

[gnick]

1 (furlong per fortnight) = 59.8714286 centimeters per hour
http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&client=firefox-a&rls=org.mozilla%3Aen-US%3Aofficial&hs=pXk&q=1+furlong+per+fortnight+in+centimeters+per+hour&btnG=Search

So, if you have a clock with a minute hand 9.5 cm long, its tip is moving at approximately 1 furlong per fortnight.

Hope that helps. (Although it will probably distress the mods - Off-topic, Funny, or Informative? Mwa-ha-ha-ha!)

Re:Environment?

[Anonymous Coward]

Duh, everyone knows that a metric assload is 1.2 times the size of an imperial assload except for very large values of imperial ass.

Re:Environment?

[snspdaarf]

Arrgh! I wanted imperial units!

Let's see... one hour, times 9, divided by 5, and subrtact 32. Or is it add 32? My head hurts.

Re:Environment?

[ColdWetDog]

If you have a *nix system try this trick.

Re:Environment?

[Anonymous Coward]

The imperial equivalent is the fuckton.

2.333 metric assloads to the fuckton

Re:Environment?

[kat_skan]

I found a handy visual aid. Metric system on the left, imperial on the right.

Re:Environment?

[Anonymous Coward]

Anyone got a LoC conversion?

Batteries for the US car industry?

[Brad_McBad]

Who's certain that Li-ion batteries are going to be the way forward? Last time I checked, Hydrogen fuel cells were the way forward...

Re:Batteries for the US car industry?

[martin_henry]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Battery_EV_vs._Hydrogen_EV.png

This image explains why hydrogen cells are not viable for any large scale deployment. Combine this with their extraordinary cost, and you have a big myth which car companies have used to bait us for years...

Re:Batteries for the US car industry?

[codepunk]

Fuel cells will be the way to go, once you tell us how to economically produce hydrogen.

Re:Batteries for the US car industry?

[Brad_McBad]

Well, that's all fine and dandy, but ignoring (for now) hydrogen generation being rather difficult to do in volume and cheaply, Electricity generation itself isn't exactly efficient as it's implemented now...

Universal batteries

[haystor]

This should carry the requirement that batteries be interchangeable.

Re:Universal batteries

[bagsc]

This doesn't make any sense. You want watches, smoke detectors, iPods, laptops, electric Civics, SUVs, satellites, F-22s, submarines, and aircraft carriers to use interchangeable batteries?

Batteries are about as versatile as "electricity" or "hydrocarbons," and are substitutes for both.

EPA

[GottliebPins]

And as soon as the money is available to build this billion dollar battery factory the EPA will demand that 20 years of environmental studies be done to determine the safety of the batteries and what affect their production will have on the snail darter and fart bat and whatever endangered creature lives within a thousand miles of the proposed factory. Meanwhile the batteries will be pouring in from China and India and we won't have to actually worry about building the plant or outsourcing the jobs. We already outsourced all of our industry years ago. The earth is so much cleaner now that we don't make our own steel or other products. Thank goodness we don't have to breath the same air they breath and drink the same water they drink in China and India where all of our products are made. That environmental bubble we built over the US has really come in handy.

What's the problem...?

[Anonymous Coward]

" 'More than four dozen advanced battery factories are being built in China but none, currently, in the U.S.'"

So what?

If we want advanced batteries, we will buy them from China. That's why we need them built in
China.

You give the peasants half a handful of rice over there, and they toil for 23 hours a day in an atmosphere of nickel and cadmium. Then we just print a few more dollars and buy the batteries for use over here.

That's the advantage of being the top country in the world, and running the reserve currency. We can just suit ourselves what we take from the rest of the world. What's not to like...?

Re:What's the problem...?

[AJWM]

If we want advanced batteries, we will buy them from China. That's why we need them built in China.

And if China doesn't want to sell them to us? Consider hybrid/electric military vehicles or robots.

You give the peasants half a handful of rice over there, and they toil for 23 hours a day in an atmosphere of nickel and cadmium.

Has anyone made NiCad batteries in the last decade? That's last-millenium technology. TFA mentions Li-poly and newer.

I don't get it either

[aliquis]

How will more money solve the problem? Isn't the problem that the ideas comes from somewhere else or that developing them is much more cheaper over there?

How will more money solve that?

It's the wrong solution, if american companies can't make cars people want for prices they are willing to pay or develop competitive battery technologies why invest in those areas? Invest in something you do better (or compete in price of the work but I doubt many americans would want to go that road.)

Shoot for high-tech engineering or something such (which battery technology may be but unless it's competitive to manufacture them over there why do it? You can't generate "real" money if you have to get the money from the government / taxes. If only more parts of Sweden understood that to ..)

Re:I don't get it either

[ianare]

No, the problem is that now that making the batteries here could actually be profitable, all the experienced workers, materials, manufacturing plants are elsewhere. Without the government stimulus, the as-yet unborn US battery industry would never become profitable simply because it wouldn't exist.

The idea that private industry could survive without ever receiving help from the government is ridiculous.

Re:I don't get it either

[StikyPad]

The idea that private industry could survive without ever receiving help from the government is ridiculous.

Of course it can. Plenty of private industries function without government assistance. There's nothing to stop a private investor from putting up the capital to create a domestic battery industry, and nothing to keep that industry from becoming profitable in the long term, even if it's in the red for a few years. It's possible, and it's how many businesses operate.

That's really beside the point anyway. The question is whether government can help create new industries, and whether it's in our collective best interest that they do. That's the discussion.

Re:I don't get it either

[ianare]

As far as major industries go, I can't think of any that operate without any government help.
We all know of the car and banking industry's plight and their huge rescue plans; the aeronautics industry has been the focus of WTO complaints because both sides of the atlantic were giving 'unfair' government subsidies; pharmaceutical and especially biotech corps often get state or city money to fund private research/production centers; IT gets big tax cuts or other incentives to set up data or call centers; farmers get big subsidies; even the oil industry is given tax payer money; I could go on ...

Note that these subsidies/tax cuts are usually sold to tax payers as a way of creating jobs in an area, with the expectation that this will generate even more money for the area's economy in the long run. When successful, these incentives can indeed have a very positive effect on a community. But I fail to see the "Plenty of private industries [that] function without government assistance" ... even in a so-called "free market" economy like the US.

Re:I don't get it either

[StikyPad]

Software, hardware, insurance, construction, textiles, toys & games, film, television, publishing, porn.. Payday lenders and pawn brokers. Retail, food service & bars, casinos, liquor stores, grocery stores. The "hospitality" industry, firearms industry, furniture, carpet, and tool manufacturing. Aftermarket car parts, car washes. Service industries like car repair, landscaping, plumbing, heating & cooling, and carpet cleaning.

It's very possible for an industry to exist without direct government support, and even in the face of government opposition. Illicit drugs, prostitution, and illegal gambling are still alive and well despite the efforts of government.

Battery = Phallos

[ZarathustraDK]

From the WSJ story: 'More than four dozen advanced battery factories are being built in China but none, currently, in the U.S.'"

We, chinese, have vevvy small penises. You amevicans, LARGE penises, but no batevvies to power them HAHAHAHA!

Communism

[nightfire-unique]

Can anyone quantify the difference(s) between communism, and capitalism in which the government hands out tax money, extracted at gunpoint, to various large corporations?

Is it just a question of degree (percentage points) or is there some other major difference?

Re:Communism

[lyml]

Communism doesn't hand it out to various large corporations, communism hands it out to government owned institutions.

Personally I would prefer communism to corporationism(tm).

Re:Communism

[Keychain]

Capitalism is the exploitation of the man by the man. Communism is just the contrary

Re:Communism

[joh]

Additionally, in true communism (which has never been achieved yet) there is no state or government left, since there is no need for it anymore.

But it's true that the kind of fascist corporatism which our capitalist democracies evolve into is the worst of all worlds. The market gets less and less free for all (since startups can't get a foot on the ground) and democracy gets less and less useful (since hardly any of the actual decisions are democratic).

If the US weren't such fearful of everything socialist, the government could just build a factory from tax money, finance R&D together with universities and companies and then rent the factory out to whoever wants to build batteries.

Giving corporations money to do that instead means having the taxpayers pay for it and corporations make a profit from it. Again the worst of all alternatives. But then it seems to be the usual scheme of screwing with the people while at the same time loudly speaking of "freedom" and "free market".

If the market really wants to be free, well, let all these banks and auto companies go bankrupt and the economy collapse.

Re:Communism

[ceoyoyo]

Sure. In communism, the government owns the factories and takes the profits and production from them to give to the people. If the government is corrupt then "the people" can have various non-ideal definitions.

What the US is doing is taking money from the people to give to the companies, which own the factories, and do as they please.

They're opposites. I believe there was even part of a big war fought between a country that was communist and another that had a kind of milder form of the second system you mentioned.

Re:Communism

[shutdown -p now]

Can anyone quantify the difference(s) between communism, and capitalism in which the government hands out tax money, extracted at gunpoint, to various large corporations?

Sure. In communism, the money (or other benefits - free housing, healthcare, education etc) goes directly to the people, not to the corporations.

Re:Merica

[Anonymous Coward]

Son of bitch Colonel Sanders Colonel Sanders is pig Do you want my breast? Do you want my leg? Colonel Sanders is disgusting KFC is a murderer Fuck Kentucky Fried Chicken

So much ore.

[Icegryphon]

Nickel, and Cadmium, and Zinc, and Lithium, These are a few of my favorite things. Where are those loco tree huggers?

F batteries

[Mateo_LeFou]

Ultracapacitors ftw

what about electro energy?

[jgilbert]

apparently, they already have a plant in gainsville florida. although, it's currently not running for whatever reason related to funding.

Electro Energy Receives First Order for U.S. Produced 18650 Lithium-Ion Batteries

maybe that's not what they're looking for.

But are they US companies building in China?

[Jackie_Chan_Fan]

If so... no battery stimulus for you. And BTW.. they can fuck off and die.

Re:But are they US companies building in China?

[initialE]

1. Secure the grant with clear directives to benefit your own country
2. Change the rules. If not, change the rulemakers
3. Do whatever you want
Let's not go on to "Profit", I'm tired of that

why?

[curtix7]

In a few years there won't be any US car companies left to make our cars, might as well let Toyota and Honda make the batteries that go in our cars too.

How About Paying the $1B to eeStor to get them..

[Vortran]

to put up or shut up already?

Seriously, if they do anything near what they say, the world is about to be changed. Couple the vaporware of eeStor (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/EEStor) with the existing products of www.nanosolar.com, and bye-bye base load and bye-bye distributed power grids.

Since Zenn (www.zenncars.com) auto has the exclusive license on the eeStor technology for automobiles, look to them to obsolete fossil-based portable fuels as well.

Am I dreaming? Please tell me no.

Vortran out

Government Intervention

[mmustapic]

It's funny how free-market advocates call for no government intervention in the economy. It's ok for it to take risks and invest (with taxpayer money), just keep away from the rewards, those will remain private.

Important difference

[Lonewolf666]

Telecom is a natural monopoly, because building multiple networks in parallel is economically inefficient. Hence the attempts to regulate the one existing network, often with poor success.

With batteries it is easier to start up a competing factory, if the technology is well documented.
So I think GP's point #1 would be sufficient, no need to regulate prices on top of the requirement to release the research into the public domain. That release, however, should be closely checked for completeness and correctness.

Re:Important difference

[brian0918]

Telecom is a natural monopoly, because building multiple networks in parallel is economically inefficient.

Inefficient for whom? Companies are independent and have their own goals. Their goals - whatever they may be - are not the same as your idealized "goal" for the economy or country as a whole. If a service provider is providing poor service, then there is a huge incentive for a large company to come in and providing competing service. The only thing stopping them is the local government's restriction on laying parallel lines.

Re:Important difference

[Duradin]

Say you're an up and coming non-evil telco and you want to spread your non-evil services to a new community over your own non-evil copper or fiber. Sounds good so far, right?

Well, to spread your non-evil copper and fiber you have to tear up a lot of streets to lay it and you have to do it in a way that doesn't damage or disrupt the existing evil copper and fiber.

Then after you've sunk all that money into the non-evil copper and fiber that's plowed into the ground you have to be able to recoup the cost and provide a better to the community you just invaded, err, saved. The evil telco, having already recouped its cost from its ancient evil copper (with some fiber), cooks up some evil bundles that it can afford to offer but that your non-evil telco can't compete with.

End result? Your non-evil fiber and copper goes dark and is added to the pile of corpses building up under the streets.

Yup, totally not inefficient.

Re:Important difference

[smoker2]

If a service provider is providing poor service, then there is a huge incentive for a large company to come in and providing competing service. The only thing stopping them is the local government's restriction on laying parallel lines.

And which is more efficient ?

• Let a company get replicated, have to lay new lines, start from scratch with the management then take the dominant position in the market, then let the other company die and put people out of work, and have to fund them through taxes
• regulate the existing company to achieve the same effect (better service)

The issue is that even though some of the job losses are offset by the new company taking on, not all of them are. This is the future of all manual labour. What is being done about it ? Other than turning people into extremely inefficient data input drones.

Re:Important difference

[brian0918]

And which is more efficient ?

Again, efficient for whom? A central planner, or individual companies? I'm arguing against central planning, so it's futile for you to present it in the reference frame of a central planner. The *only* way to avoid a persistent, deleterious monopoly is to have completely parallel services that are privately owned. Any attempt at central planning by a government is simply going to open the door to corruption (and thus the monopoly).

Re:Important difference

[Score Whore]

Telecom is a natural monopoly, because building multiple networks in parallel is economically inefficient.

If you're going to argue efficiency, then at least do it from the perspective of economics. The most efficient provider will drive the inefficient models out of business. Anytime a more efficient model comes along it will eliminate the older, less efficient models. Always leading to the most efficient result.

Unless you happen to think that somehow you own everybody's money and get to decide how it's spent. Then your argument makes lots of sense. But you don't own anyone else's money and you don't get to decide how it is spent. Governments exist at the whim of the people, not the other way around. Neither the government nor you have any right to tell a private individual how they can use the resources that they have acquired.

Re:Important difference

[ianare]

What's to stop a larger service company from buying a smaller one just to tear it apart for less competition ? Less competition, more money for larger company, which grows even larger. So they buy yet another company ... and so on and so forth until you have a monopoly.

The *only* way to avoid a persistent, deleterious monopoly is to pass and enforce laws that require it.
(see ATT, MS, standard oil, etc ... )

Re:Important difference

[Duradin]

Here's a neat little (relatively unknown) fact about I(ncumbent)LECs.

They are required to provide a dial tone to anyone in their service area that wants it. Even if it would take 99 years of service to make that line profitable THEY HAVE TO PROVIDE SERVICE. A government mandate that's part of the bargain for being allowed to be a monopoly in that area.

Do you really think that a market driven infrastructure (like internet service, for example) would plow a line they'd know they'd never make the money back on? Not getting cell service is bad enough but imagine having no one willing, or required, to provide you with at least a landline.

Re:Important difference

[Lonewolf666]

In this case, both definitions offered by Wikipedia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Natural_monopoly) apply:
1) Two parallel networks are probably more expensive than one, because you will end up digging up the streets repeatedly. In particular the "last mile" to each house.
2) In a competition scenario, the company with less customers will be at a significant disadvantage, because it has similar fixed costs. For example, a city wide network, assuming both of the competitors offer service to all city residents.
Typically that would be the newcomer, unless the incumbent ISP is so lousy that the new company can quickly win close to 50% of the customers in the area.

Avoiding this requires either
1) regulation where the incumbent has to rent the "last mile" to other service providers at a maximum rate.
That is what Germany does, after privatizing the former telephone authority and turning it into a regular company. Works more or less, but the company is regularly wrangling with the regulation authority about appropriate rates and terms.

2) a state-owned "last mile" that is rented to whatever service provider the customer buys his service from. Loosely comparable to streets and car tax.
My gut feeling is that this could work better, but AFAIK it has not really been tried anywhere. So this one remains speculation.

Capitalism?

[sunderland56]

So:

• in China, corporations build factories to make batteries, and profit from their investment.
• in America, corporations whine and plead for the government to build factories for them.

Quick quiz: which is the capitalist country, and which is the communist one?

Re:Capitalism?

[Anonymous Coward]

Epic troll, 10/10

Re:Capitalism?

[joh]

China is for a large part a kind of capitalism gone wild, uncontrolled and unregulated. Corporations there build factories without looking at how their workers fare, without looking at the environment, without looking at anything else than profits.

If you want to work for $1/h or less while living on the streets and travelling all over the land looking for work, without any health insurance or any protection against work-related accidents (lost a hand? You're fired!), look to China and its capitalism.

Re:Capitalism?

[jandrese]

I dare you to find a major Chinese company that doesn't have close ties to the government, especially the local government. Even foreign governments that set up shop in China frequently have to set up a constant stream of bribes to the local government to get all of the preferential treatment and government largess needed to build a major factory.

Re:Capitalism?

[Anonymous Coward]

>UID of 485
inb4 circle jerking

Re:Capitalism?

[Shotgun]

We'll have to wait and see. Right now, they're just pleading for money. They haven't received any yet.

I'm hoping every industry in the country takes a trip to Washington to beg. Maybe at some point, the politicians will come to their senses and realize that our country doesn't run that way.

Re:Capitalism?

[bill_mcgonigle]

Pop-quiz back at you:

Part 1: Which country is increasing capital gains taxes to 25% and which country has 0% capital gains taxes*?
Part 2: Capitalism requires _______ to flourish. If you want to reduce economic output in a capitalist system you reduce available ________ (same answer in both blanks).

* partial credit for Singapore; only partial because it's not what we're talking about in this thread.

Re:Capitalism?

[seraph1m]

Otherwise known as lobbying...

Re:Capitalism?

[servognome]

Quick quiz: which is the capitalist country, and which is the communist one?

Trick question, they are both mixed economies

Basically both countries are coming to points somewhere in the middle of the economic spectrum from different sides.

Re:Capitalism?

[geekoid]

Only a very tiny bit of china is allowed to ahve a very limited form of free market.
And ALL of the companies there tie very closely with the government.

Re:Capitalism?

[twostix]

Sounds just like every single western country from 1800-1930.

My grandfather was telling me about his father many years ago...

"He was working in a quarry and a hundred men were swinging pickaxes, my old father included. Up on the ridge there was a hundred unemployed men sitting down watching. If you stopped swinging your pick, even for a moment, even to stretch your back the foreman would nod his head in your direction, his offsider would yell at you to drop your pick, give you money owed and that was it, you were replaced.

Part of a rock wall fell on a man while he was working and a group of men quickly ran over to help. They pulled him out and took him off to the nearest hospital, when they came back a few hours later they all no longer had a job. The company didn't pay the injured man a red-cent, his kids ended up in the poor-house"

What's funny is there's a bunch of unfit, lazy, socially inept middle class boys here on the internet, who for some insane reason, think that those times were better and strangely believe that it wouldn't be them who would be sitting up on there on the ridge.

Re:Capitalism?

[Anonymous Coward]

Um, actually, every single lithium ion battery plant in China is funded by the Chinese government. (Well, there are a couple that are not -- they are funded by U.S. corps.)

I'm not saying we should immitate Communist China, but, the problem is they've created an attractive situation via government funding for the U.S. startups to go to Asia to manufacture products.

How do we compete, exactly?

Re:Capitalism?

[shutdown -p now]

I dare you to find a major Chinese company that doesn't have close ties to the government, especially the local government. Even foreign governments that set up shop in China frequently have to set up a constant stream of bribes to the local government to get all of the preferential treatment and government largess needed to build a major factory.

So, basically, what you're saying is that, in China, even the government itself is bought and sold on a free market?

Re:Capitalism?

[Anonymous Coward]

What a ridiculous statement, given that in China corporations *are* the government. There is no separation there.

The fact of the matter is, we are allowing our businesses to be destroyed by overseas competition which get significant funding from their governments and we do nothing in our marketplace to penalize them for this.

In short: "Mr American company, your competition enjoys a wage advantage, a benefits advantage, government cash, lax environmental laws and we in the government won't assign tariffs that erase any of that. So clearly, you must suck if you can't compete with this 'free trade' deal we've set up."

Re:Capitalism?

[bagsc]

In China, the Communist Party decides who can make a profit, who is allowed to invest, who is allowed to live in places with jobs, and summarily executes anyone who criticizes the dictating this process.

In the US, a company like 3M, with $28 billion in assets, $4 billion a year in profits, 75,000 employees, and 106 years of leading the world in innovation has to spend a decade lobbying the Government to give $1 billion to a consortium of 20 companies.

Which is communist indeed.

Re:Capitalism?

[Dragon213]

In the US, a company like 3M...$4 billion a year in profits...lobbying the Government to give $1 billion to a consortium of 20 companies.

So why can't an interested company with $4 billion a year in profits invest 1/4 of a year's profits to this consortium rather than begging the Government for help? Seems to me that if they are truly interested in innovation, they can take some of the risk as well.

Imperial, naturally.

[Dr_Barnowl]

.. since the USA uses Imperial measures and definitely has the biggest asses.

Re:Merica

[denis-The-menace]

I wish I could mod you (-1 Incomprehensible)

Better approach is battery X-Prize

[SuperKendall]

Instead of just handing a handful of companies a billion dollars to do more of the same, the better approach is to offer up some large sum (say 500 million) as an X-Prize for some advanced state of battery technology - such a thing gets a lot more people trying to reach the goal, and expending private capital for R&D. It gets money flowing just as well only gives groups outside the mainstream a shot to come up with something truly innovative.

And then...

[OneSmartFellow]

... twenty years from now, when they have no fresh water supply left after polluting the shit out of it with the heavy metal wastes, we can trade fresh water for their batteries.

I say it's time to stop the bullshit. We need to concentrate on what's important. Air Quality, Water Quality, Food Quality these are the growth industries for the 21st century. I could give a fuck about a battery factory, and I don't want my tax dollars going to some CEO's private jet.

Re:And then...

[geekoid]

Good battery tech leads to cleaner air\water\food quality.

and modern batteries aren't as toxic as many people think, and toxin controls is a complex, but solved problem.

Re:And then...

[tabrnaker]

You won't have any fresh water after all those cows to feed your fat asses pollute it all.

Haha, Then again, you'll probably just steal it from canada :)

I agree with you, but it's still the reason

[Trepidity]

You don't have to think environmental impact assessments are a bad thing to agree that they're a major reason there are no battery factories being built in the US. Battery factories are very dirty, at least using current production methods, and possibly inherently at least questionable (there are a lot of heavy metals and whatnot going into them).

Re:I agree with you, but it's still the reason

[Rei]

So, praytell, what heavy metals go into lithium ion batteries? That's what we're talking about, after all.

(A: You're thinking of PbA and NiCd)

Re:I agree with you, but it's still the reason

[Lonewolf666]

With "traditional" ones, cobalt for the lithium cobalt oxide cathode.

With LiFePO4 (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lithium_iron_phosphate_battery), iron which is technically a heavy metal even if harmless. Plus traces of other materials for doping. Overall much less harmful, and LiFePO4 promises much better safety and battery lifetime :-)

Re:I agree with you, but it's still the reason

[Rei]

I guess that depends on your definition of "heavy metal"; the term is poorly defined, although I don't think anyone would dispute lead or that many would dispute cadmium. Cobalt is atomic number 27 and only mildly toxic (small amounts of it are even required in the body, and the body gets rid of it reasonably well); its LD50 in rats is 6,171mg/kg -- twice that of table salt. Iron is atomic number 26 and... well, deficiency is far more common than having too much, so I don't think people are going to complain about that. ;) I suppose that if you went by what's probably the least common definition -- density in their metallic states -- then you could call them heavy metals (although not *that* heavy). But, of course, they're not in their metallic states.

Re:I agree with you, but it's still the reason

[dryeo]

We have a local (Canada) battery factory, http://www.molienergy.com/ , that I drive by regularly. Seems pretty clean, and we have perhaps more environmental laws then most.
People I've known who have worked there were pretty happy and the pay was decent.

Research is woefully underfunded.

[CrazyJim1]

There are a lot of people who could be working for the betterment of humanity on research. Because there is no profit in research(unless you make a breakthrough), it is basically a field where you can't support yourself. Research is something that could be funded by the government like public roads.

Re:Research is woefully underfunded.

[Tablizer]

But most non-military gov't-funded research becomes public domain, meaning that *any* nation can use it. It's true we need global technologies to reduce "bad" emissions, but as a competitive tool, it may not be.

I CAN support this use of tax dollars

[AJWM]

What's the advantage to building them in the U.S.?

Comes time to build electric (or hybrid) replacements for Humvees and the like, (as well as various robotic systems), you really don't want to be beholden to other countries for your battery supply. (Even if the manufacturing company is an ally, you have to worry about supply-line disruption.)

For that reason alone (and there are others), this is worth some government up-front money.

Re:I CAN support this use of tax dollars

[dgatwood]

The disadvantage of electric Humvees is pretty significant. In a war environment, you want something you can top up rapidly. Even hybrids add extra layers complexity and are therefore are more likely to break down when things start blowing up around it. IMHO, military is the last place I'd want to see anything nontraditional as far as engines are concerned.

Re:I CAN support this use of tax dollars

[geekoid]

The post was talking about person "HumVees", I think.

Re:How About Paying the $1B to eeStor to get them.

[Dr_Barnowl]

They could throw a few million the way of Eric Lerner as well.

I mean, after all, if we're going to have all these super-batteries we'll need some cheap 'leccy to fill them up with.

Houston, TX proves otherwise

[Anonymous Coward]

It's easy to assume last-mile connections are a natural monopoly when few companies have ever been given the chance to prove otherwise. Fortunately Houston, TX has three last-mile carriers in some neighbourhoods, and last I heard, they have some of the lowest cost telco costs of any city in the US.

Re:Merica

[jeffshoaf]

Noes - I haz cheezburger!!!!111!!

Sure... but there's a catch.

[Sun.Jedi]

If I'm paying for them up front as a taxpayer, I expect the products to be given to me for free.

Re:Sure... but there's a catch.

[geekoid]

Well that won't happen.

How about if the product technology can be licensed to any American company so they can compete and bring you the lowest possible price?

Sure, free is better, but this works. If you keep it in America, then the tax revenue generated would pay for the Billion dollars. Probably pretty quickly. That would depend how how improved the electrical storage is. I mean, if the invent MR. Fusion, then the tax revenue generated from it's sale would more then cover the billion dollar. probably in the first quarter!

Re: Profit in 4 months? Two years IMO

[Lonewolf666]

I think you're overly pessimistic there - but only a little ;-)

Up to a few weeks ago, I worked for a US company (through a German subsidiary). Based on my experience there, I estimate top management's planning horizon was about two years. Within that time frame, they were capable of planning ahead. Research that takes longer than two years to turn a profit? Forget it.

Of course, if you are doing medical technology and have to show post operative results two years after treatment for FDA approval, that means times of 3 years or more from project start to market (development time, plus time for treatments in clinical study, plus two years waiting for final results, plus finishing the paperwork).

Not willing to think that far ahead?
You will be unable to make meaningful innovations. All you can do is small changes that you can get through FDA without a new clinical study. The competition will gradually pull ahead of you. Finally, you will lose market share. And that is exactly what happened. At least I got a nice severance packet when 1/3 of the employees in my department (including me) were laid off. In that regard, I cannot complain.

Oil is ~$36. The electric car is DEAD. Again...

[elmerfud2000]

Oil closed at ~$36/bbl today. The electric car is dead. Again. Gasoline is about $1.50 per gallon. Consumers are broke. Nobody wants to buy an electric car these days. Its funny how we think that electric cars would save Detroit. Detroit isn't very tech savy. They are savy at building big hulking SUVs and pickup trucks. They can't compete in the small car market. How will they ever compete in the electric car market. Do we really think that US made batteries, managed by the likes of Rick Wagner (sp?) and assembled by Joe Detroit Autoworker at a cost of $75/hour are going to be competitive with batteries built in China ? Its funny how just a couple years ago we had billions and billions of dollars for home mortgages. Now we have to go to the government to finance something that our future may depend on.

shocking

[Anonymous Coward]

What is more shocking ... suggesting the Gov't be a venture capitalist... or suggesting we Americans manufacture hard goods in the states? I mean, c'mon people, this place is supposed to be an upper class of financial wonks being served lattes by us service class wanks? We are doomed for failure if we don't stick to this model.

This is why my head explodes...

[rickb928]

1) Get govt. funds to build state-of-art battery mill. Maybe even next-insanely-great-battery mill.

2) GM postpones building engine plant for Volt, which should be using these batteries we will make in the govt. funded mill.

3) GM does NOT furlough production workers in November when they know they are going broke at a furious pace, and demand is not even leveling off.

4) We give GM money to keep the joint running as if things are basically ok.

Seriously, Chrysler and Ford (who hasn't asked for money *yet*) have basically shut down production for a month. From CNN.COM:

"GM (GM, Fortune 500) said it will cut 250,000 vehicles from its production schedule for the first quarter of 2009, which includes a cut of 60,000 vehicles announced last week. Normal production would be around 750,000 cars and trucks for the quarter, spokesman Tony Sapienza said"

This should have been done last week, gentlemen. You are bunring through cash how fast, and you can't apply a bandage and stop the bleeding?

I'm in favor of helping an auto industry that is helping itself. 2 out of 3 are. But to prop up a failing company that shows no signs of trying to save itself? This is wrong.

Bankruptcy seems ok for many companies that had little choice. GM doesn't seem to have an alternative to a handout. Sending the workers home until you need them is an unfortunate and cruel, but necessary choice. If you do not, you may have to send them home for good soon.

And the management of GM has a responsibility to their workers to at least *try* to be a profitable organization. At least try, gentlemen.

Then we can talk about funding the basic research and production you need to go into the next decade. Otherwise, we are paying for failure.

Where's my handout?

[d_54321]

Dear Congress,
I believe that if you see the attached graph (Fig 1), you'll see that the stock market has been doing quite well in general since my birth. However, lately, I've been quite annoyed, and as such the the world wide financial health has been shaken (see attached Fig 2). I request a meager 10 million USD to support me to help alleviate this situation. I promise you that things in the US economy will get worse in the coming months if you do not heed this request. I will need at least 100 thousand USD to get me thru the next 4 months. In light of the other economic stimulus packages of late, I'm sure you'll agree this is a small request well within reason and I assure you it will be absolutely worth the investment. I urge you to not spend a moment more thinking about this and cough up the money immediately, lest you fall behind in the world market of funding me.

Thank you.

I only need $500 million

[PingXao]

My perpetual motion machine factory will provide every benefit that battery factory does, and more. My perpetual motion machines will allow water to flow downhill a la traditional hydropower, but with some of that generated electricity used to pump the water back up the hill again, to be used over and over in a never-ending cycle of very cheap electricity. And I can do all that for half what those battery dipsticks want!

Seriously, a trend that has been evident in the US that will probably aid in our demise is that we, as a society, value ignorance and a good line of bullshit over well-thought-out positions and opinions. The sad part is that with the right PR people and lobbyists, my perpetual motion idea might actually find support in Congress.

The saddest part of all is that such a scheme is no longer morally repugnant to too many Americans. See "Wall Street and the Banking Industry, 2008" for truly mind boggling fraud. Now see Paulson and Bernanke rip off the taxpayers to enrich their friends and get away with it.

My perpetual motion machine venture pales beside those corruptions in moral turptitude. It's going to be either that or start my own religion.

Re:I only need $500 million

[forceman130]

In this house we obey the laws of thermodynamics.

plant

[WingedEarth]

Instead of building a new plant, why don't they just buy Ultralife, who makes most of the batteries for the military?

ok lets talk turkey

[bussdriver]

US turkey are messed up birds that don't live a few years past their slaughter date (making pardons silly.) Drugs, bad food, and run away breeding and now genetic engineering make me not want to touch a US produced bird. 13 lbs for a turkey was not odd 100 years ago; now the USA mutants are near 30 lbs!

As for shipping them to china and back for the labor, that likely isn't too good for them either (aside from side issues.)

I wonder if there is a sub-grade for Turkey for McDonalds? They get their own grade beef so they can literally feed you more shit than the FDA grades allow. Its ok, they cook it to spec-- eating a little shit won't hurt you...

Re:ok lets talk turkey

[Wandering Wombat]

I find it much easier to buy a 10 lb chicken from the farm down the road, where I can go and pick out the little sprinter that I want to cook up. I swear, all that running and fresh air makes them so TASTY!

Your turkeys don't get to run? Well, what do they do all day?

Re:ok lets talk turkey

[EastCoastSurfer]

I wonder if there is a sub-grade for Turkey for McDonalds? They get their own grade beef so they can literally feed you more shit than the FDA grades allow. Its ok, they cook it to spec-- eating a little shit won't hurt you...

I know food at McDs is crap, but how do they get around the FDA when feeding people beef the FDA won't even grade?

Re:ok lets talk turkey

[bussdriver]

McDonalds has its own GRADE of meat that they created because FDA defined grades didn't have the loopholes they wanted. Naturally, the FDA let them do it (approval) - you don't think the FDA wants to waste time/money fighting fast food (and politicians) do you?

I highly recommend reading Fast Food Nation (and AVOID the film.)

Re:ok lets talk turkey

[fucket]

I highly recommend not believing everything you read.

Re:ok lets talk turkey

[bussdriver]

I highly recommend not eating just anything the FDA allows you to eat. Taking drugs too for that matter.

The shit in the meat is a result of fast slaughtering of the cows and occasional leakage of the bowels of the cow getting into the meat. Its a cost issue. This is besides the facts about the cows and what they feed them etc...

I know a nutritionist who works for a massive corp and she said they figure in the rodent food value even though its a tiny amount. mice get into the food stock and some don't make it out and they do have stats on how many are in there --no they don't attempt to remove them (its not worth the cost of trying to spot a tiny mouse in a large amount of grain.) Food production is NOT what you think it is; nor was it as 'sterile' in the past either...

It also is true that the colors and flavors added are not included in the label (other than a vague reference) and they are hardly regulated (excuse is cost and the small amounts in which they are used; plus the fact that many common ones would make the label a page long.)

Re:ok lets talk turkey

[fucket]

I was talking about beef from McDonald's, not all that other stuff. Nothing you said made any sense. I'm not a fan of food from McDonald's but if you're looking to argue against them you should stick to the facts (insanely high sodium and saturated fat levels to start) and avoid bullshit FUD composed of half-truths and urban legends. 1) The FSIS inspects meat, not the FDA. This is a binary pass/fall system. 2) USDA grading of meat is a VOLUNTARY process, there's no reason to get "their own grade of meat". 3) McDonald's ground beef is made from a mixture of fatty domestic beef and lean, mostly imported beef. I think this is done mainly for the sake of consistency but the fact that it's cheaper this way doesn't hurt.

Re:ok lets talk turkey

[zippthorne]

Putting aside that the FDA grades are about tastiness, not food safety, a little cow shit probably won't hurt you. Cows are herbivores, and what comes out is not all that different from what goes in. They make it up in volume.

Besides, if you don't like manure in your food, you ought to spend more time not eating mushrooms. Which are basically made of the stuff.

Re:ok lets talk turkey

[apoc.famine]

Eat, shit, and get really fat while being constantly injected with massive doses of hormones and antibiotics to keep them alive.

It's a mirror for modern American life.

(You fresh-air, aerobic-loving hippy. Or do your birds not mirror your personal existence?)

Re:ok lets talk turkey

[StikyPad]

Wild turkey actually tastes like shit and has very little, and very tough meat. All the hormone doping, antibiotic-pumping, genetic vegetable engineering, and so forth exists for one reason, and one reason only: It works. It makes delicious goddamn food, and I'll take it any day over some overpriced worm-ridden apples from Whole Foods.

There's nothing pretty about eating or digestion.. it's an inefficient, disgusting, slimy, unholy marriage of bacterial and chemical processes that keep our meatbags alive, and always ends with the discharge of biohazardous material. Might as well make the best of it and eat something that tastes good.

Re:ok lets talk turkey

[Slur]

I highly recommend healthy skepticism over cynicism.

Come on, everyone! Step up to the trough!

[divisionbyzero]

Don't be ashamed! Just stick your head in there eat as much of the tax-payers money as you can!

Competition IS facilitated through central plannin

[bussdriver]

Government defines nearly all markets; even the black markets (but in the inverse.) That is central planning to create competition. Same with splitting up monopolies to re-introduce competition is central planning. Its not micromanaging but it is central "planning".

Corporate Welfare has been the NORM in the USA for over a generation! Its not planned in your context nor does it usually promote competition; however, we still have plenty of competition (and not just between lobbyists.)

One way this works is people like politicians that bring in welfare to THEIR state; so while this undermines fair competition-- other groups of people have their politicians trying to get that money brought into their community... They compete for pork; especially the 2004 red states which all took in more federal money than they payed out.) Its the reason the military industry is untouchable.

Lightbulb Blinks On

[Anonymous Coward]

"If you manufacture everything in China, you lose control of the technology," Mr. Brodd said.

So, is this just a way to keep some control?

clean coal

[bugs2squash]

This would be better spent on clean coal technology for cars.

I'm sure I could find a group of lobbyists to back me on that one.

Re:clean coal

[geekoid]

clean coal is a myth in all practicality.
Seriously, it cost money, and the coal industry does what it can to get extensions. after all, what's the government going to do turn off power plants to millions of people? No.

The only way to change this is to find a coal power plant, Build in IFR reactor right next to it, and give the electricity away. After the coal plant shuts down THEN the coal industry will make that a priority.

For practical purposes clean coal will never take off.
It's something the coal industry PR machine brings out when people start looking critically at the coal industry.

Re:clean coal

[bugs2squash]

But think of the advantages...

Refueling is quick - just park under the hopper and pull the rope.

In a pinch you might get home by gathering sticks or clumps of peat or elephant dung to burn. You can even borrow a few shovel-fulls from your co-workers. Try that with Gas.

The car would always be toasty warm on a cold day with a welcoming cosy glow.

And nothing beats the taste of eggs fried on a hot shovel in the firebox.

And really, what do you need to make coal clean ? surely just plastic coat it or something so it doesn't blacken your hands or soil your clothing.

!(Invented in the US)

[lytir]

The first researchers on battery technology were Volta, Galvani, and Daniell. The lead-acid battery (as used in cars) was developed by Planté, and the dry cell (as used everywhere else) was developed by Leclanché, Hellesen and Gassner. All of them are European.

Further developments include the nickel-iron battery (Sweden), the alkaline and lithium batteries (Canada) and the NiMH battery (Europe and Japan).

The nickel-iron battery was commercialized by Edison, but not invented by him. No battery technology whatsoever originates from the US.

Fuel cells anyone?

[Anonymous Coward]

How about fuel cell technology instead of batteries.

Lets not trade one non renewable resource for another please. I'm pretty sure we will never run out of hydrogen :P

Just take a look at the Honda Clarity for an example of why we should ditch the lithium ion batteries in cars.

Can you say POLLUTION?

[cdrguru]

The problem is that making batteries involves the use of chemicals. This is a watchword for environmentalists, housewives and others deeply involved in the protection of children. Any one of these people knows that chemicals are dangerous to the environment and to people. It doesn't really matter what kind of chemicals, just hearing the word "chemicals" means it is dirty, dangerous and life-threatening.

Attempting to explain to people in these groups that their glass of water contains "chemicals" will get you a lecture on the safety of drinking water in the US and the amount of pollutants that are being added to the water every day. Trying to focus the discussion back on "chemicals" like oxygen and hydrogen is a complete waste of time.

Trying to build a battery factory in the US will be met with thousands of people like this that will do their utmost to delay and defeat any measures to build such a plant. Eventually, the backers of such a plan - including the government - will give up and build it in Mexico or Singapore. Because it is not possible to build such a plant today in the US.

Sorry, but it isn't going to happen here. And no amount of money can make it happen. The people obstructing its being built aren't interested in being paid off. They know it is their lives and the lives of all of our children they are fighting for.

Why do you need Govt money?

[Anonymous Coward]

What ever happened to old fashion start ups? Why all of a sudden do you need government funding to start a business? I'm from the mid west so I might be a little to comfortable with working hard to get by but I just don't understand these people asking for handouts.

Write a kick ass business plan, get some investors - sure you might have to start a little smaller but if your business/ideas/products are as good as you are saying, you shouldn't have a problem expanding later.

Re:Oil is ~$36. The electric car is DEAD. Again...

[geekoid]

the electric car is not dead. research still moves on. It turns out making an electric car that meets certain demands is hard. I mean really, really hard. And since it's New technology, nothing to base progress on.

stop exagerating costs, or STFU.

And if they are battery then the batteries made in Chine, then yeah it will compete.
BTW there are several battery manufacturers in the US.

Re:Oil is ~$36. The electric car is DEAD. Again...

[An Onerous Coward]

Detroit labor is not $75/hr. That's basically a made-up statistic (also). Detroit used to employ many, many more workers, to whom they promised a good retirement. Counting the cost of those retirees against the company's bottom line makes sense; saying it's part of the current worker's paycheck is not.

When you do the math properly, a line worker for the UAW and a Japanese plant in the South make very similar wages.

$36/barrel is still 50% above the $24/barrel that we had when Bush took office, and nobody is expecting these prices to survive even the lamest economic uptick. Try buying a barrel of oil to be delivered five years from now. I'll bet you can't get one for less than $80.

It gets worse because the current low prices aren't enough to fund the next round of exploration that would be needed to keep this unsustainable resource going another decade.

Direct funding vs bail outs

[Anonymous Coward]

Direct funding of battery tech makes more sense than funding the bailouts of Tesla (or funding the phony GM "Volt" chimera).

conspiracy..

[fireheadca]

Perhaps this is a sign that there might be a battery shortage in the near future.

---
Ok my tinfoil hat is on...and.. I'm now receiving AM.

Tag

[Anonymous Coward]

How do I tag this: !domesticdisturbance

Time Machine....

[Anonymous Coward]

I'd rather see $1bn be sent for development on a time machine than this.

Re:Oil is ~$36. The electric car is DEAD. Again...

[EmagGeek]

The electric car isn't dead because of cheap oil. The electric car is dead because electric cars are twice as polluting as gasoline cars when the environmental impact of battery manufacturing is taken into account.

GoogleMap Sudbury Ontario and view the 20 mile circle of death around the nickel mines. The Toyota Prius is singly responsible for destroying those 300 square miles of formerly pristine habitat.

NO!

[Anonymous Coward]

This is NOT how money is used wisely and advances in technology are produced.

This is a complete waste of the resources of the country.

Figure out some other means to solve the problem.

You don't understand how undermining that is

[Anonymous Coward]

The govt is to be minimal an non-invasive.

The reason the U.S. is crashing is because the basic civil rights have been compromised and the checks and balances have been disrupted.

Rider bills are legal (Insanely stupid move)
Cannabis Isn't! (Super Insane Prohibition boner move)
We have a commerce dept that exerts authority where it shouldn't
We have alphabet bureaus and secret ops
We have a runaway military industrial complex
Our fingers are up the asses of foreign countries

And it all comes down to a govt that is no longer accountable for their actions.

Their idea of "For the people" has no basis in reality for the real 'Population' of the U.S..
Their concept of "the people" is skewed because they are too far removed from the common people and what we deal with on a daily basis.
They don't see how their "policy decisions" REALLY affect our lives.

My f'ing gas per month was the same cost as my car payment.
I went homeless and lived in my car for a year.
I now live in a shitty trailer (better than the street) and have lost my car because I couldn't afford both.

Now gas is less than $2 a gallon!!??!!??.

F YOU GOVT and your F'N LOBBYISTS!
Don't even give me this "it's the towel-heads" bullshit either. Gas prices in this nation are a direct result of your screwed up relations with other countries.

I'm sick and tired of this shit.

'The end' as a weapon

[unassimilatible]

The process of life creates waste, and the process of cleaning up that waste creates more life. We need to use biomimicry and smart manufacturing techniques if we're going to survive past the next 2-3 hundred years. Otherwise we're just making the world a little more poisonous every year...

I think you need to read this article.

Give it to DARPA

[aoheno]

Some government agencies are quite competent at conducting R&D of new technologies. For example, DARPA used government funds for R&D to create TCP/IP for a new fangled thing called the 'Internet'. Maybe we need to give them the funds for this effort as well. Seem to do their job well without having to outsource the task to anyone that will do the job 'cheaper' in the interest of short-term 'profit'. Without new patents for technology developed in the US, we will lose our edge.