Slashdot Mirror


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.'"

23 of 394 comments (clear)

  1. If the advanced technology comes from China... by SirGarlon · · Score: 3, Insightful

    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.

    --
    [Sir Garlon] is the marvellest knight that is now living, for he destroyeth many good knights, for he goeth invisible.
    1. Re:If the advanced technology comes from China... by AKAImBatman · · Score: 4, Insightful

      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.

    2. Re:If the advanced technology comes from China... by internerdj · · Score: 3, Insightful

      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...

    3. Re:If the advanced technology comes from China... by John+Whitley · · Score: 4, Insightful

      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.

    4. Re:If the advanced technology comes from China... by Shotgun · · Score: 3, Insightful

      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.

      --
      Aah, change is good. -- Rafiki
      Yeah, but it ain't easy. -- Simba
  2. Why play catch up? by critical_point · · Score: 5, Insightful

    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.

  3. Battery development on my tax money?? by Eggplant62 · · Score: 5, Insightful

    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?

    1. Re:Battery development on my tax money?? by Smidge204 · · Score: 4, Insightful

      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=

    2. Re:Battery development on my tax money?? by billcopc · · Score: 4, Insightful

      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 ?

      --
      -Billco, Fnarg.com
    3. Re:Battery development on my tax money?? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Insightful

      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.

  4. Re:I can't support this use of tax dollars by lysergic.acid · · Score: 5, Insightful

    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.

  5. Re:Environmentalism by sexybomber · · Score: 4, Insightful

    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.

  6. Re:I can't support this use of tax dollars by dgatwood · · Score: 4, Insightful

    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?

    --

    Check out my sci-fi/humor trilogy at PatriotsBooks.

  7. Re:Environmentalism by DittoBox · · Score: 3, Insightful

    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.

    --
    Good. Cheap. Fast. Pick Two.
  8. But are they US companies building in China? by Jackie_Chan_Fan · · Score: 3, Insightful

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

  9. Re:I can't support this use of tax dollars by Luthair · · Score: 4, Insightful

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

  10. Research is woefully underfunded. by CrazyJim1 · · Score: 3, Insightful

    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.

  11. I CAN support this use of tax dollars by AJWM · · Score: 4, Insightful

    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.

    --
    -- Alastair
  12. Re:Capitalism? by joh · · Score: 4, Insightful

    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.

  13. Re:I can't support this use of tax dollars by russotto · · Score: 5, Insightful

    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.

  14. Re:I can't support this use of tax dollars by An+Onerous+Coward · · Score: 4, Insightful

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

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

    --

    You want the truthiness? You can't handle the truthiness!

  15. Re:I can't support this use of tax dollars by russotto · · Score: 4, Insightful

    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.

  16. Re:I can't support this use of tax dollars by lysergic.acid · · Score: 3, Insightful

    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.