Slashdot Mirror


Stimulus Could Kickstart US Battery Industry

Al sends along a Technology Review piece that begins "Provisions in the Congressional stimulus bill could help jump-start a new, multibillion-dollar industry in the US for manufacturing advanced batteries for hybrids and electric vehicles and for storing energy from the electrical grid to enable the widespread use of renewable energy. The nearly $790 billion economic stimulus legislation contains tens of billions of dollars in loans, grants, and tax incentives for advanced battery research and manufacturing, as well as incentives for plug-in hybrids and improvements to the electrical grid, which could help create a market for these batteries. Significant advances in battery materials, including the development of new lithium-ion batteries, have been made in the US in the past few years; but advanced battery manufacturing is almost entirely overseas, particularly in Asia."

77 of 369 comments (clear)

  1. Environmental issues by phantomfive · · Score: 4, Interesting

    My understanding is that battery manufacturing pollutes the environment, and other countries have fewer environmental regulations, making it easier to do whatever you want. Realistically, think about it......do you want a battery manufacturer in your back yard? It may sound selfish, but I really don't. Maybe it would be ok, though.....

    --
    Qxe4
    1. Re:Environmental issues by h4rr4r · · Score: 5, Interesting

      I would want a nice clean one in my back yard. We should set tariffs on products that are not manufactured in a way that would be legal in the US. This would level the playing field.

    2. Re:Environmental issues by timeOday · · Score: 3, Interesting
      Certainly, some of the money should be spent studying environmental issues.

      And, not all "battery" technolgies are harmful; I read one proposal for storing and shipping hot water as a cheap and quite efficient means of energy storage. Pumping water uphill is another.

    3. Re:Environmental issues by Rei · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Every type of battery is different; categorizing them all with a single statement about the consequences of their manufacturing is silly. You might as well just claim "My understanding is that businesses pollute the environment... do you really want a business in your back yard?"

      FYI, but the sorts of batteries being looked at here -- mostly phosphate or manganese li-ions, lacking in cobalt cathodes -- are among the most environmentally benign battery chemistries out there.

      --
      You will be lose points for poor grammar.
    4. Re:Environmental issues by h4rr4r · · Score: 4, Informative

      Please stop making false claims that would have taken you 3 seconds to check.

      http://www.toxco.com/

      There you go they recycle. Besides if no one recycled them why would the recycling centers and such pay so much for old lithium batteries?

    5. Re:Environmental issues by Rei · · Score: 5, Interesting

      Where to start?

      1) We're talking about li-ion, not "lithium batteries". Lithium batteries are a completely different tech.

      2) There is no single type of battery known as "li-ion"; it's a family of different chemistries. Each one has their own different traits regarding recycleability.

      3) The single element that makes it hardest to recycle li-ions is the presence of a cobalt cathode, which makes the cells much more flammable and provides pretty much all of their (limited) toxicity. Most EV manufacturers are looking at li-ion variants that don't use them.

      4) Even in cells that use cobalt cathodes, such as Tesla's, they're perfectly recycleable.

      5) The main reason li-ions aren't generally recycled isn't due to some sort of impossibility of it; it's that the ingredients, especially in the newer variants, are dirt cheap. Cobalt is a relevant portion of the costs of traditional li-ions, but that's gone in the latest. What in a LiP cell is worth recycling? Lithium carbonate at $7 a kilogram? Graphite at even cheaper? Phosphorus and iron? The raw ingredients are pretty worthless. Which brings us to our next points.

      6) There is not a "limited" amount of lithium in the least. Lithium carbonate can be recovered from seawater in virtually limitless quantities at $22-$32 a kilogram with first generation technology. That's a couple percent of the total cost of the batteries. The reason people don't generally do that is because it can be gotten *even cheaper* from places like Bolivia, Chile, China, etc, for $7-8/kg (used to be $4-5/kg, but recent demand has outpaced scaleups of the mines). It's so cheap people can afford to use it for low-value uses like greases and glasses. In fact...

      7) At *current prices*, they have big competition right here in the US. These sorts of prices make the Kings Valley lithium deposits (Nevada) being developed by Western Lithium Corporation economical, for example. There's enough lithium in that one deposit, for example, to build hundreds of millions of electric vehicles.

      I could keep going, but I think I've made my point that you know nothing about what you're talking about.

      --
      You will be lose points for poor grammar.
    6. Re:Environmental issues by vux984 · · Score: 5, Informative

      But, would you like to pay $5 a AA battery? That's what the result would be. As much as we hate pollution and forced Chinese labor, we also hate high prices even more. Also, what would you do with Mexicans and Canadians smuggling batteries across the border. That's what will happen, like it or not.

      Exactly, I mean a factory that employs 50 people and makes millions of batteries per year would experience significant savings if they could pay Chinese wages.

      Wait a minute: Union wages x 50 employes / millions of units = very very small labor premium per unit. Turns out maybe battery manufacturing is probably dominated by the material costs, which aren't really any cheaper in China after all. All in all, it will probably add a few cents to the cost of "Made in USA" batteries.

      But I'm just /. spewing right? Anyone can pull numbers out of their ass!! If only there was some American AA battery factory out there so we could see the reality. Lucky us:

      "All Panasonic Alkaline batteries are made in the U.S.A. at our state-of-the-art manufacturing facility in Columbus, Georgia."

      Of course, those are "Panasonic Industrial Alkalines" those are gonna cost you a fortune:
      Panasonic Industrial AA Batteries 24/carton - $9.60
      Works out to $0.40 per battery. I think we'll cope.

      I accept your apology.

      Cites:

      Made in USA claim:
      http://www.panasonic.com/industrial/battery/oem/chem/alk/
      Panasonic Industrial AA's for sale:
      http://www.jirehsupplies.com/cgi-bin/commerce.cgi?preadd=action&key=PI-AA

    7. Re:Environmental issues by larry+bagina · · Score: 3, Informative

      Energizer industrial AA batteries are made in the US. They cost $0.33 apiece.

      --
      Do you even lift?

      These aren't the 'roids you're looking for.

  2. Check one for science by mc1138 · · Score: 4, Interesting

    It's really positive to see things like this coming out of the stimulus package. Yeah there's some serious question as to how well its going to do getting us out of this recession, but that being said, it does have some nice provisions in it for science related improvements, including a nice sized boost to NASA. Long term this is the sort of investment that will help keep our economy moving and on the forefront of innovation.

    1. Re:Check one for science by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Insightful

      You feel good about an agenda being forced on you and paid for with your taxmoney? This has nothing to do with the economy. They are using the economy as an excuse to pay for things that are not necessary.

      drink the cool-aid sheeple.

    2. Re:Check one for science by PitaBred · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Bullshit. This is just more pork that's avoiding the issue. A "stimulus" would be punishing the people responsible for this mess, setting things up so that it can't happen again, and giving people faith in the system so that they aren't scared to spend their money knowing it will come back to them.

    3. Re:Check one for science by Rei · · Score: 3, Insightful

      How do you plan to give people "faith in the system"? Do you have any clue how much toxic debt there is circulating out there? If you think things are bad right now, just wait to see what the unemployment situation is like by the time the financial system has worked it all out of its system; unemployment always lags behind everything else. Right now, about the only entities that *can* borrow money effectively are governments -- in particular, the US government.

      $800B sounds like a lot, but we'll be lucky if it even manages to stop the slide, let alone pull us back. The numbers I've seen going around from economists are more like $2-3 trillion over the same timeframe.

      --
      You will be lose points for poor grammar.
    4. Re:Check one for science by DerekLyons · · Score: 5, Interesting

      Right now, about the only entities that *can* borrow money effectively are governments -- in particular, the US government.

      The business my wife works for is stocking up for the summer, they just got a credit line for five million dollars - the same as they do every year.
       
       

      $800B sounds like a lot, but we'll be lucky if it even manages to stop the slide, let alone pull us back.

      Ah yes, taking money from one pocket (mine) and moving it someone else's pork barrel is a wonderful way to stop the slide. I suspect you've never heard of the Broken Window Fallacy.

    5. Re:Check one for science by bendodge · · Score: 4, Interesting

      I read an excellent book by James R. Cook called Full Faith and Credit: A Novel About Financial Collapse. It starts out with the US stock market over-leveraged, and then the stock market crashes, mortgages collapse, and massive inflation and interest rates occur as the government steps in and tries to help. The main character is a trader who buys gold and makes a vast fortune.

      As liquidity disappears, hedge and mutual funds and AAA companies fail and the dollar slides, Congress bails out banks and major funds to no avail. At the end a (laughable now) $100 billion stimulus is proposed (centering on infrastructure improvements), but the federal government teeters on default and starts having troubling paying bond interest. Unemployment benefit claims balloon, and in the face of imminent default and chaos, the president courageously proposes and passes a plan to cut the government down to actual income levels and shears off roughly half the government. There are various riots initially, but things finally settle down to a hard and thrifty recovery.

      At the end Cook includes a note saying that the collapse was compressed to 3 years for the sake of the story but that the real crash could take several more years. It's scary how realistic the entire things is, right down to terms like 'stimulus package' and 'bailout'. It's copyright 1999.

      --
      The government can't save you.
    6. Re:Check one for science by nedlohs · · Score: 2, Informative

      It's not taking it out of your pocket. It's taking it out of your kids pockets, since it's all borrowed.

    7. Re:Check one for science by Tubal-Cain · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Some good projects are just too big to be undertaken by the private sector. See also: Hoover Dam.

    8. Re:Check one for science by AK+Marc · · Score: 3, Insightful

      The broken window fallacy would be in play if they were paying 500 people to mess up a street and 500 more to clean it. Instead, they are doing FDR-style work (or intending to). Back then, they put people to work doing useless things like building the Hoover Dam and many government buildings still in use today. It's not just paying to fix something they break, or paying someone to sit idley (actually more efficient than breaking something then fixing it). No, they are building something that, has a use. They may not be projects that would have been worth the full cost, but they are certainly better than fixing a broken window or idleness.

      Ah yes, taking money from one pocket (mine) and moving it someone else's pork barrel is a wonderful way to stop the slide.

      Oh really? They took it from you? So, your taxes jumped by about $8000 this year? No? Then you are lying. They didn't take anything from you. They increased the $100,000 or so you already owe. And if you have a problem with that, you should have brought it up before, as the paltry $800 billion is nothing compared to the increase in debt over the past 8 years.

    9. Re:Check one for science by PitaBred · · Score: 2, Interesting

      And that STILL didn't pull us out of the depression. The only thing that pulled us out was WWII. We aren't learning from history... we're repeating it.

  3. Irony by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Funny

    I find this ironic as I got laid off from a battery company. Too late for me I guess...

    1. Re:Irony by Dolphinzilla · · Score: 2, Funny

      mod + funny

    2. Re:Irony by Locke2005 · · Score: 5, Funny

      Brought to you by: The Energizer Bunny! He keeps going, and going, and going... all the way to the unemployment line!

      --
      I've abandoned my search for truth; now I'm just looking for some useful delusions.
  4. Here we go again... by pieterh · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Every time I read "grant", "advanced research", and "tax incentive", I see "gift", "white elephant", and "sleaze".

    Yes, it's good to spend collective funds on roads, bridges, art, maybe even public fiber, insurance, and banking. But anything the market can do, it should. And I mean a free market, not that fake crony capitalism championed by Bush. In a free market, with proper authority to stop the powerful from escaping the rules, every company is free to compete without barriers. Every subsidy, cheap loan, and grant is a distortion of that market unless it goes to areas that cannot make a profit.

    1. Re:Here we go again... by OwnedByTwoCats · · Score: 3, Funny

      It's such a good thing that the government never subsidized research into computer communication networks!

      Now check the gauge on your sarcasm detector.

    2. Re:Here we go again... by pieterh · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Read my post again. A free market is not the Wild Wild West. Unions, labor laws, and environmental laws are about stopping the powerful from escaping the rules. In a free market, for example, an individual has the option to withdraw his/her labor. Big businesses try to remove this options. Unions put it back.

      At the same time, unions can work against a free market, when they get too powerful and themselves try to escape the rules (like competition).

    3. Re:Here we go again... by huckamania · · Score: 2, Insightful

      I'm not holding my breath until they do, but if you don't, you're a hypocrite for exhaling (dumping) your CO2 into the atmosphere.

      I'm sure we can find more examples of your using the atmosphere, oceans and earth for your private little toilet. You should stop now. Seriously.

    4. Re:Here we go again... by Spy+Hunter · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Whoa there. If you want to prevent atmospheric pollution caused by burning gasoline, a battery subsidy is not the correct way to do it. Instead, a tax on gasoline (or other CO2 sources) is the way to go. To the extent that batteries reduce gasoline use, they will benefit from a gasoline tax. But unlike a battery subsidy, a gasoline tax benefits every battery company, not just the ones successful in obtaining government grants. Furthermore it's not limited to benefiting battery companies either; it benefits any alternative energy source that reduces gasoline use, leaving the market free to decide the best option. Having the government pick winners and losers in alternative energy might sound nice in the short term but it is a recipe for stagnation, lobbying, and corruption in the long term.

      --
      main(c,r){for(r=32;r;) printf(++c>31?c=!r--,"\n":c<r?" ":~c&r?" `":" #");}
    5. Re:Here we go again... by StevenMaurer · · Score: 2, Interesting

      I'm not holding my breath until they do, but if you don't, you're a hypocrite for exhaling (dumping) your CO2 into the atmosphere.

      I've heard this argument made before. It's pretty funny.

      Everything we eat and breathe out as CO2 was formed from very recently grown plant material. Plants, as we all know, consume CO2.

      So excepting anyone drinking fossil fuels straight from the tap, human body processes, including breathing, are inherently carbon-neutral.

      This being the case, your charge of hypocrisy doesn't fly (except, of course, in whatever nutcase right-wing blog you got it from).

    6. Re:Here we go again... by garett_spencley · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Milton Friedman argued that the legal framework is already in place to deal with companies polluting the environment. It all boils down to private property. Few people pollute their own land and few people care if someone pollutes his/her own land.

      Companies that pollute another person's property are already liable for damage caused to that property. The problem comes into play when dealing with public property and with the atmosphere. What we need is to extend private property laws to be inclusive of the atmosphere above that property. If someone pollutes the air on your property then you can sue him for the damages. There are already laws in place that touch on this to an extent. For example: here in Canada, if I run a business out of my home I can not allow any toxic gases to escape onto my neighbour's property. The only reason big industry isn't punished under these same laws is the practicality associated. We already have mass dumping into the atmosphere and for the government to say that it will enforce these pollution laws will have gross effects on the economy. There's really no other reason the government doesn't begin to more stringently enforce this principle.

      The way I see it, the public should start suing companies in class action suits for damages to public property, the same way they do for damages to private property.

    7. Re:Here we go again... by Brandybuck · · Score: 2, Insightful

      The average congressman is barely able to find their own ass with both hands and a mirror. Yet we expect that these people are more qualified to run industries than the experts in those industries. This stimulus package is nothing more than a trillion dollars of salted pork.

      Just like 9/11 was an excuse for congress to meddle in our private lives, the economic crisis is just an excuse for congress to spend our money. Obama told us this package was so urgent that we couldn't even take the time to READ it. He didn't care about what was in the bill, he only cared that it had a lot of money in it.

      --
      Don't blame me, I didn't vote for either of them!
  5. Why batteries by jhfry · · Score: 4, Insightful

    I don't want another battery, I want something completely new. I hope that the text of the bill doesn't actually use the words "battery" or even "electro-chemical".

    I would so much rather a ultra-capacitor or some similar storage device that could conceivably be free of rare metals, and have extremely fast charge times (were the current available)

    --
    Sometimes the best solution is to stop wasting time looking for an easy solution.
    1. Re:Why batteries by Rei · · Score: 2, Interesting

      You left out the bit about them needing replacement every couple of years.

      1886 called; their want their knowledge of battery chemistry back.

      The longevity of a battery pack depends entirely on its chemistry. Early 1900s EVs were often powered by nickel-iron cells, which have extremely long lifespans. Jay Leno has one that's still operating on its original batteries today. At the same time, they also had lead-acid batteries, which were much cheaper and had more storage capacity, but had very short lifespans.

      You see the same thing in today's chemistries. Traditional li-ion gets 160-180Wh/kg. However, they're unstable and only last for a few years. But phosphates and stabilized spinels, while they only get 90-120Wh/kg, lasts for decades under accelerated aging tests.

      There is nothing fundamental about being a "battery" that means it must die in short order. Ask any owner of a RAV4EV.

      As for novel chemistries, there's a ton of them at various stages of working their way toward commercialization. Even if most of them fail, the odds of *all* of them failing seem vanishingly small. Li-ions should be in the 250-400Wh/kg range within a decade, and be significantly cheaper per watt hour to boot.

      --
      You will be lose points for poor grammar.
  6. That kind of language doesn't say much by bogaboga · · Score: 3, Insightful

    Stimulus Could Kickstart US Battery Industry...

    The stimulus *could* do this or that or else...

    I am tired of that kind of language. Can someone tell us what the stimulus *will* actually do? Could this or that or else does not say much at all.

    1. Re:That kind of language doesn't say much by snspdaarf · · Score: 5, Informative

      Can someone tell us what the stimulus *will* actually do?

      It *will* increase the deficit.
      Other than that, the jury is still out.

      --
      Why, without your clothes, you're naked, Miss Dudley!
    2. Re:That kind of language doesn't say much by senorpoco · · Score: 2, Informative

      http://www.rules.house.gov/111/LegText/hr1_legtext_cr.pdf QUALIFIED PLUG-IN ELECTRIC VEHICLE is defined as a vehicle "which is propelled to a significant ex- tent by an electric motor which draws electricity from a battery which "(i) has a capacity of not less than 4 kilowatt hours (2.5 kilowatt hours in the case of a vehicle with 2 or 3 wheels), and "(ii) is capable of being recharged from an external source of electricity.-"

    3. Re:That kind of language doesn't say much by timeOday · · Score: 2, Insightful
      Longer term, the deficit increase is far from certain. If successful, the stimulus will lessen the deficit in the next several years by increased employment, economic output, and tax revenue.

      Of course, we'll never know for sure, even in retrospect. Some people still think the New Deal was a net loss.

      To the grandparent I say, certainty is simply not a realistic request. Would I like certainty before investing in stocks, or taking a job, or starting a business? Sure. Ain't gonna happen.

    4. Re:That kind of language doesn't say much by Rei · · Score: 3, Informative

      You can hand-pick talking points out of the bill. Or, you could actually see the breakdowns. Your call, I suppose. Once the grants start going out, that site will even have every last contractor, what's going to what congressional district for what projects in that district, and on and on.

      --
      You will be lose points for poor grammar.
    5. Re:That kind of language doesn't say much by Brandybuck · · Score: 4, Insightful

      There are only three ways to finance a deficit: taxes, debt, and inflation. Add this trillion dollars to Bush's trillion dollars, and the inescapable conclusion is that payment will be large, painful, and unlubed.

      --
      Don't blame me, I didn't vote for either of them!
    6. Re:That kind of language doesn't say much by CrimsonAvenger · · Score: 2, Interesting

      Or, you could actually see the breakdowns [recovery.gov].

      The actual breakdowns you cite are so broad as to be meaningless. Why not try pointing people at the actual text of the law?

      Fascinating reading, really. Especially the oft repeated exception to exiting Federal laws at the discretion of the (Treasury) Secretary.

      --

      "I do not agree with what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it"
    7. Re:That kind of language doesn't say much by wytcld · · Score: 5, Insightful

      If you finance with debt, and spend the money borrowed on something that makes you markedly more productive, in the end it can be far cheaper than never going into debt at all. Let's say I'm selling firewood. If I borrow to buy a chain saw and a mechanized log splitter I'm going to be able to produce 20 times the firewood in the same amount of time, with the same amount of labor. That log splitter pays for itself in the first year. Smart debt is like that.

      The whole point of "capitalism" is capital - specifically borrowing it through various mechanisms so it can be employed to produce efficiencies that more-than-pay-it-back. A system without such mechanisms of debt isn't capitalist at all. Not all uses of debt work out; but when they do it's the very genius of the capitalist system.

      --
      "with their freedom lost all virtue lose" - Milton
    8. Re:That kind of language doesn't say much by GodInHell · · Score: 2, Informative
      Wow -- the ratio of mantra to mental effort on that post slid heavily toward BS.

      The market dictactes the most efficient way for capital to achieve it's end -- the creation of additional capital in the hands of those who hold capital. For the few who succeed in this effort it is an amazingly efficient system. Unfortunately these efficiencies include allowing the poor and the elderly to die of starvation and lack of health care -- a very economical solution to excess labor -- but one that our society fortunately rejected in Victorian England.

      The problem with market efficiency arguments are that they rarely consider the fact that we have an inefficient number of mouths to feed. The key force of market efficiency is destruction, the stripping away of that which cannot survive on its own -- like bad banks and people born with diseases that lock them out of the job market -- allowing them to die makes the market better.

      We do not have a free market, and we have rejected the concept that market efficiency is the same as human efficiency. Face facts, if you sat down the polis and debated between a pure free market solution -- including the mass starvation, depredation of wealth, exclusion and disolution of the middle class, they would rather string you up than vote for your dogma.

      Free market capitalism is the opposition to hardline communism -- both extremes are corrupt and useless ideological dead weight. Get over it.

      -GiH

    9. Re:That kind of language doesn't say much by novakyu · · Score: 2, Interesting

      Except, of course, in a capitalist system, the person who lends the money or tool has a choice.

      You don't have such choice when the government decides to "borrow" from you to fund some "capitalistic" venture. And, to note this distinction, most people use a different word when the government engages in a "capitalistic" activity. They call it fascism.

      You can look up what Mussolini said about merging of the government and corporation. As long as these two stay far apart, we are good. The moment they start touching each other (as they are now, especially with this stimulus package), you have a disaster like WWII brewing.

  7. most tech-y part of the stimulus? by wjh31 · · Score: 4, Interesting

    is this really the most important part of the stimulus in relation to tech, R+D, and similar things, how about a break down of all the ways it's going to affect anything that is 'stuff that matters' to nerds. I dont mean this as a troll, i would genuinely like to see a full list, new age batteries sound good, but cant be the only thing.

  8. Newsflash, paraphrased by Un+pobre+guey · · Score: 5, Funny

    Provisions in the Congressional stimulus bill could help jump-start a new, multibillion-dollar industry in the US for manufacturing advanced briberies for congressmen and senators and for siphoning off money from government pork to enable the widespread use of luxury homes and lifestyles by politicians. The nearly $790 billion economic stimulus legislation contains tens of billions of dollars in loans, grants, and tax incentives for advanced bribery research and manufacturing, as well as incentives for earmarks and kickbacks, which could help create a market for these briberies. Significant advances in bribery techniques, including the development of new fully off-shored briberies, have been made by corporate legal departments in the past few years. Advanced bribery manufacturing is primarily at the state and federal level, particularly in Washington D.C., but local governments are looking forward to far greater participation.

  9. Re:Bring industry home! by Daravon · · Score: 3, Insightful

    The problem with that idea is that we tried that before/during the Great Depression. We jacked up taxes on stuff not made here. US citizen then stopped buying stuff made "there". Once "there" got wind of this, they stopped buying our stuff. We were left holding our dicks.

    --
    I traded all my mod points for these magic beans.
  10. Better Headlines by D+Ninja · · Score: 5, Funny

    - Stimulus Could Give Battery Industry A Jolt
    - Stimulus Gives Battery Industry a Jump Start
    - Stimulus Gives the Battery Industry A Gift That Keeps Going and Going and Going...
    - Battery Industry Charged Over Stimulus

    1. Re:Better Headlines by Dr.+Spork · · Score: 2, Funny

      And the battery industry would kick-start the stalled auto industry?

  11. You can't have it. by tjstork · · Score: 2, Insightful

    Sorry, you can't have it. There's always going to be some set of people that don't want to live up to the same environmental standards as you. Some people might not care about a 1-million chance of getting cancer, but you might. What right do you have to hold them back, in a Democracy?

    I say, keep the asians out, but let each state do its own thing. I would add though, as an aside, if a state is blocking economic development due to environmental laws, and have to come crawling to the feds for a loan (say California), then maybe they should quit trying to enjoy nature on everyone else's dime and do some work for a change.

    We can only borrow so much government cheese money (stimulus) from the Chinese.

    --
    This is my sig.
    1. Re:You can't have it. by h4rr4r · · Score: 4, Insightful

      So other than racism do you have any comment you wanted to make?

      The reality is dumping in China or in California will impact everyone. Do you know where rivers end up going? We can and should set standards on environmental cleanliness. Then to ensure that our companies are not at a disadvantage all products imported to this nation must be produced in a way that meets those standards or its cost should be increased via tariffs to prevent abuse of the commons.

      The reality is dumping has a cost, but it is externalized. A tariff would merely internalize this cost.

  12. just keep the US auto industries hands off it by Locutus · · Score: 5, Interesting

    those companies once had millions to develop new battery tech and nothing came of it. Ovonics goes and invents the NiMH, partners with GM and sells a majority stake in the patent and then GM sells that to the oil industry who won't let anyone make large NiMH for electric vehicles. Leave the US auto industry out of this battery industry and maybe something will happen and it'll get a chance to be used in the next-gen autos.

    Remember, the EV1 got over 140 miles per charge on the NiMH batteries in the late 90s or very early 2001 period. GM is hardly getting 40 miles per charge of expensive lithium batteries today and nobody is using NiMH for mostly electric or all electric vehicles. It's not because the tech can't handle it. Ask any of the few Rav 4 EV owners out there.

    If the US auto industry is tied into this, I give it less than a 50% chance of working out to anything viable.

    LoB

    --
    "Anyone who stands out in the middle of a road looks like roadkill to me." --Linus
    1. Re:just keep the US auto industries hands off it by nxtw · · Score: 4, Interesting

      Remember, the EV1 got over 140 miles per charge on the NiMH batteries in the late 90s or very early 2001 period. GM is hardly getting 40 miles per charge of expensive lithium batteries today and nobody is using NiMH for mostly electric or all electric vehicles. It's not because the tech can't handle it. Ask any of the few Rav 4 EV owners out there.

      By volume, the Volt has 1/3 as much battery as the EV1 (even less by weight). (source)

      The EV1 was also designed to be as efficient as possible - it was a two-seater with the lowest drag coefficient of any production vehicle. I can't find any definitive sources, but it seems that the Volt is about 500 lbs heavier as well.

    2. Re:just keep the US auto industries hands off it by MtViewGuy · · Score: 2, Informative

      However, the EV1 had one gigantic problem: the battery pack was so big that you barely had room for a decent interior! Small wonder why the idea failed.

      A better solution is plug-in hybrid electric vehicles, where you have a powerful battery offering about 40-50 miles range on a full battery charge and then the vehicle operates like a normal hybrid vehicle a la Toyota Prius. Indeed, the 2010 Toyota Prius and 2010 Ford Fusion Hybrid already are ready for PHEV conversion as soon as higher density storage batteries are available (whether lithium-ion, zinc-air or ultracapacitor types).

      Since most commuting is under 15 miles in range, PHEV's will likely operate in mostly all-electric mode for commute drives.

    3. Re:just keep the US auto industries hands off it by WindBourne · · Score: 2, Informative

      Just, lets make cars have more weight than either approach alone, and have all the issues of both as well.

      I have never understood why ppl push such crap. The serial hybrid makes sense for SOME vehicles. For example, an offroad like a hummer, or a long distance semi truck. That REALLY makes sense for both. BUT for the average driver, they rarely drive more than 100 miles/day. So instead, cars should electrical with at least 100 mile range, AND the ability to have a trailer with power. In particular, a van is the ideal EV to start with. Not commercial, but home use. For moms. Most home vans carry ppl and little else for 10-30 miles. But if you could rent a small trailer and then drive across country, it would be ideal for the occasional event.

      --
      I prefer the "u" in honour as it seems to be missing these days.
  13. I want to see 'battery drop off centers' by TheGratefulNet · · Score: 2, Insightful

    a few years ago I bought a currie electric scooter, just for fun. it gets about 10-15 mi range before it runs out.

    the idea I would LOVE to see is where there are frequent stops (like gas stations) where you can swap your drained batt for a freshly charged one. they have that idea for propane tanks at supermarkets - you don't have to WAIT to have yours filled; you simply swap your empty for a full one.

    why can't the same thing be done for short-distance pure electric vehicles? the issue with these vehicles is distance on a single charge and if you can make the batts swappable (easily and safely) then you have removed the distance limitation.

    its a huge infrastructure to implement, but at some point, we NEED to rethink our whole energy plan. this could be one way.

    --

    --
    "It is now safe to switch off your computer."
  14. too late. the lunatics already run the asylum. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 4, Informative

    As an R&D type who has spent way too much time in the business world I can tell you that Obama, despite having thrown gargantuan amounts of money at this, is going to have a hard time making it stick.

    Western business has a sickness which one might call "middle man disease". For every $1 put into battery factories, 90c will go on financiers, accountants, marketers, "business development" and whatever else the middle men of today choose to call themselves.

    It is folklore that in certain parts of the world nothing gets done without bribing the right people. We have the same thing in the West except its a legalised, lobby-driven, slick form of bribing.

    For example in my native UK whenever the govt has some new "initiative" its remarkable how the same usual self-promoting suspects are quick to get around the trough. Despite inventing nothing (and contributing very little) this is where the vast majority if the funding gets creamed off. When the oxbridge/city/public school set have had their fill what little is left is passed on to their mates the next stratum down.

    And so on and so forth. On and on, down and down until the likes of you and me see a pitiful salary and a budget so tight nothing of value can be done and under terms and conditions so punishing (think: ownership of arising intellectual property) that nobody in their right mind would even think of getting out of bed to do it.

    Its a systemic sickness and Obama needs to get a clue real quick that between his lofty goals and the poeple doing the actual work lurk the layers upon layers of talentless parasites that got us here in the first place.

    It makes me mad that ANOTHER generation is lost to the same ivy-league/power/money/military-industrial complex.

  15. So NASA was given what? by Shivetya · · Score: 2, Insightful

    400 million for climate research? OK, another 450 for the manned space program (drop in a bucket) but their funds that were going to fix the place got butchered? (50m instead of the 250m they needed)

    So out of 789 BILLION NASA gets 1 Billion and that is OK? So, that puts NASA up to 18 billion? Well, who got more?

    So, lets see where did the rest go? The bulk of the 20 billion or so is for the NIH to establish a National Health Registry. Actually the figure is about 19 billion of what is allocated to "sciences" for this purpose alone. That is not about advancing science but advancing government. So we will spend more to establish bigger government control over our privacy and choice instead of funding science?

    Science, the only real science is where the bill was signed.

    --
    * Winners compare their achievements to their goals, losers compare theirs to that of others.
  16. NIMH?! by vivin · · Score: 2, Funny

    Oh my God! They were using RATS to fuel these cars?! Now I truly know The Secret of NIMH!

    --
    Vivin Suresh Paliath
    http://vivin.net

    I like
  17. How is it racism? by tjstork · · Score: 5, Interesting

    To say that the asian countries should be kept out of the USA. To a nation, China, Japan, S Korea, all adopt mercantile trading policies - essentially hoarding dollars the same way 18th century Britain tried to load up on gold. At the same time, they protect their own economies from foreign imports both by encouraging a nationalistic culture that rejects foreigners and foreign things, and also through a use of tariffs. The fact of the matter is, you would be extremely hard pressed to make any reasonable argument that any asian country is interested genuinely in free trade. Go ahead, name me just one. Call me a racist all you want, but the same damn US Trade Office report on Japan's own unwillingness to buy stuff is that.

    Trade with asia is like a black guy trying to get a job in the old american south. No matter how he dressed, what degree he had, he was screwed because he was black. The same thing with trade with Asia. They can complain about this feature or that feature all they want to, and then perhaps even bribe some American media whores to defend their points, but the overall thrust is that no matter what the USA makes, or Europe for that matter, there will be no significant free trade between the West and Asia. It's just not going to happen.

    Free traders have been predicting a leveling of trade with asia now for 40 years, and I'm sick of waiting. Kick them the fuck out!

    --
    This is my sig.
    1. Re:How is it racism? by djseomun · · Score: 2, Insightful

      The fact of the matter is, you would be extremely hard pressed to make any reasonable argument that any asian country is interested genuinely in free trade. Go ahead, name me just one.

      I'll give you two.

      According to the Heritage Foundation, the two most economically free countries(1) are Hong Kong and Singapore. Both had weighted average tariffs of ZERO percent in 2006. And guess where both are located? ASIA.

      Source

      (1) Yes, I know Hong Kong is not a country. That's not relevant.

    2. Re:How is it racism? by tjstork · · Score: 3, Interesting

      Neither Hong Kong or Singapore are countries in the country sense of the world. Singapore is just a city and Hong Kong is just a tiny, tiny island. They HAVE to have some measure of free trade because they have essentially no natural resources, no room for manufacturing... putting them in the same category as the rest of Asia is like saying all of Europe is like the Channel Islands.

      --
      This is my sig.
    3. Re:How is it racism? by arekusu_ou · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Maybe if overpaid workers and grossly overpaid management aren't raising the prices of products, they'd sell better overseas. Granted the auto-industry is too easy a dead horse to kick at the moment.

      But the fact of the matter is, the US economy is on a race to collapse, called inflation. They try to make profit as high as possibly raising the price of goods. This forces cost of living to go up, ultimately forcing the wage to go up following suit, and companies with set unrealistic profits raises the price of goods to maintain their profit. It's a vicious circle where the wage workers are always barely making ends meet at the bottom of the barrel.

      Some countries, whether or not it's ultimately good for their economy, forces inflation down. Forces cost of goods down. Forces wage down. Forces their currency's worth down. And keeps all the wealth in the government (and elite few), and in an ideal world, manage the money for the best of the country better than spreading to everyone in the country who'd squander it on luxury and living beyond their realistic means.

      Think about it, does it really make sense that you're making $50k a year, and paying $4.50 for milk and in 2000 making $33k you were paying $3.00

      You want an easy example of economies collapsing due to artificially created currency, look at MMORPG. In Everquest, items are bought and sold by the millions. It's not the same force driving inflation but it's the same result of inflation. Although if you want a real life example, Zimbabwae. While you purchase your month's grocery by a hundred dollars, they're doing it in millions.

      I'm not an economist, but it's easy to see when something like this isn't working out.

      Although I suppose if we take suit from Star Trek. We'll have a global war devastating the planet. Find alien life and realizing there's more to the world than just ourselves. Band together, removing currency (and replacing it with credit), and somehow get rid of greed (hahaha) and live in a socialist/communist society simply for the safety of the race, and further the collective achievement.

    4. Re:How is it racism? by kestasjk · · Score: 4, Insightful

      How convenient, after years of economic prosperity on the back of trade with China (which both benefited from) now that there's a crisis they're against free trade and everyone should isolate themselves.

      Like it or not it was the greed of certain Americans that caused this crash, the reason it spread all across the world is because the whole world has been investing in the US sub-prime sector.

      Trying to deny that we live in a global economy, just as it goes into a crisis, is extremely irresponsible and we'd only end up hurting ourselves.

      Finally if you want to "Kick them the fuck out" try not buying their products.. Good luck, their products are what make the Western lifestyle affordable.

      --
      // MD_Update(&m,buf,j);
    5. Re:How is it racism? by tjstork · · Score: 4, Insightful

      How convenient, after years of economic prosperity on the back of trade with China (which both benefited from) now that there's a crisis they're against free trade and everyone should isolate themselves.

      China and the USA have a complicated relationship that goes through weird phases. By and large most Americans like Chinese people... Chinese food is great, the history and artwork are just amazing. There's always going to be an American soft spot for China because the two countries are opposites in some ways - China is very old, and America is very young.

      Like it or not it was the greed of certain Americans that caused this crash, the reason it spread all across the world is because the whole world has been investing in the US sub-prime sector

      Well, I'm not buying the sub-prime thing. The total value of all mortgages in the USA is only about 10 trillion dollars, and so I would think that if the subprime mess were the problem, that's only about two trillion worth, and the USA has already pumped that much money into the banking system to cover those losses, either via TARP, or via games played with the Federal Reserve.

      Finally if you want to "Kick them the fuck out" try not buying their products.. Good luck, their products are what make the Western lifestyle affordable.

      Um, the western lifestyle was more affordable before those products happened. It used to be, before free trade, that a single man could work 9-5 at a steel mill, support a stay at home, a bunch of kids, pay for medical expenses out of his pocket, own his house and have two new cars and a TV, and he could send his kids to college. When he retired, he got a company pension that lasted not only until he died, but until his wife died. Since the emergence of free trade, bit by bit, that standard of living has been eroded and that's what the Democrats are just screaming about while, foolishly, Republicans keep pushing the free trade button despite all the ruin that it caused. Yes, its good on paper, free trade is, but it just doesn't work.

      --
      This is my sig.
    6. Re:How is it racism? by dodobh · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Perhaps you need to adjust for the fact the Free Trade is in fact benefiting a few million people out there, who just don't happen to live in the US?

      --
      I can throw myself at the ground, and miss.
    7. Re:How is it racism? by ZorbaTHut · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Um, the western lifestyle was more affordable before those products happened. It used to be, before free trade, that a single man could work 9-5 at a steel mill, support a stay at home, a bunch of kids, pay for medical expenses out of his pocket, own his house and have two new cars and a TV, and he could send his kids to college. When he retired, he got a company pension that lasted not only until he died, but until his wife died. Since the emergence of free trade, bit by bit, that standard of living has been eroded and that's what the Democrats are just screaming about while, foolishly, Republicans keep pushing the free trade button despite all the ruin that it caused. Yes, its good on paper, free trade is, but it just doesn't work.

      Technically, you are correct.

      However, the person staying at home had fewer luxuries. No large-screen TV. No XBox 360. No electronic picture frames. The food was probably not as varied - yes, the ingredients may have been higher quality, direct from the market (but of course you can do that today), but eating at a restaurant was more expensive.

      Yes, they had two new cars. But those cars were unsafe, noisy, and slow compared to cars we have today.

      The TV was half the size, a quarter of the resolution, and received an eighth of the stations.

      And medical expenses . . . why yes, he could pay medical expenses right out of his pocket! Of course, if he got cancer, he was just dead. If his children got any number of unexpected diseases? Yeah, they're dead too. Get into a car accident in your giant steel car with no airbags? Dead, probably.

      So, while technically you are correct . . . you're measuring the wrong things. Anyone who wants to live like someone from the 60's can do so easily, and they don't even need to work 9-5 at a steel mill.

      --
      Breaking Into the Industry - A development log about starting a game studio.
    8. Re:How is it racism? by WaZiX · · Score: 2, Insightful

      I'm not an economist, but it's easy to see when something like this isn't working out.

      I am, and your comment made absolutely no sense...

      But the fact of the matter is, the US economy is on a race to collapse, called inflation.

      The US had an annualized inflation rate of 0,09% in December 2008 and hasn't had an inflation rate above 4% since 1991. What exactly are you talking about?

      Maybe if overpaid workers and grossly overpaid management aren't raising the prices of products, they'd sell better overseas. Granted the auto-industry is too easy a dead horse to kick at the moment.

      BMW, VW, Mercedes all produce their cars in high-wage countries. The problem with GM is that they make cheap shitty cars in the US. No one wants their cars AND they are expensive to manufacture... Not exactly what I call a brilliant business model. If anything, wages in the US should _increase_, because American workers are highly qualified.

      Some countries, whether or not it's ultimately good for their economy, forces inflation down. Forces cost of goods down. Forces wage down. Forces their currency's worth down. And keeps all the wealth in the government (and elite few), and in an ideal world, manage the money for the best of the country better than spreading to everyone in the country who'd squander it on luxury and living beyond their realistic means.

      To lower inflation you increase the interest rate... which decreases its exchange rate (and hence INCREASE its value). You can't both artificially keep your currency low AND keep inflation low. (Unless you use price-fixing, but that always backfires anyways, so that can only work in the short term).

      Think about it, does it really make sense that you're making $50k a year, and paying $4.50 for milk and in 2000 making $33k you were paying $3.00

      Euh, yeah it does, not only because you have 8 more years of experience and should be paid accordingly, but also because the real growth (growth - inflation) is positive, and therefore goods should be cheaper to buy on average.

      You want an easy example of economies collapsing due to artificially created currency, look at MMORPG. In Everquest, items are bought and sold by the millions. It's not the same force driving inflation but it's the same result of inflation. Although if you want a real life example, Zimbabwae. While you purchase your month's grocery by a hundred dollars, they're doing it in millions.

      The creation of money is governed by supply and demand of loans, there is nothing artificial about it. Comparing the US to Zimbabwe is not very credible, I'm sorry.

    9. Re:How is it racism? by drsmithy · · Score: 2, Insightful

      However, the person staying at home had fewer luxuries. No large-screen TV. No XBox 360. No electronic picture frames.

      This argument pops up all the time in these types of discussions, and it's specious. Yes, people might not have had a TV half a room wide, or a massive SUV, or any of those fancy toys they have today.

      But they had contemporary equivalents, which is the OP's point - while absolute living standards have continued to increase, relative living standards (may) have declined.

      (Back then, of course, people like you would have been saying how half a century earlier no-one had cars, washing machines or electricity - and 50 years before that it would have been about how no-one had running water.)

    10. Re:How is it racism? by Abcd1234 · · Score: 2, Informative

      Well, I'm not buying the sub-prime thing. The total value of all mortgages in the USA is only about 10 trillion dollars, and so I would think that if the subprime mess were the problem, that's only about two trillion worth, and the USA has already pumped that much money into the banking system to cover those losses, either via TARP, or via games played with the Federal Reserve.

      The only reason you're "not buying" it is because you haven't actually learned anything about it. Go read about Credit Default Swaps. They multiplied the effect of the housing bubble many times over. We're talking 10s of trillions of dollars in a completely unregulated market, dollars that evaporated as the housing bubble burst.

      'course, why would you want to actually educate yourself? It's far easier, here on Slashdot, to just spout off without actually understanding the topic you're discussing...

    11. Re:How is it racism? by dodobh · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Actually, free trade was forced down the throats of a lot of countries by the world bank and the IMF, primarily under US pressure to open up their markets to US goods. They were offered US markets in return, and now that they are climbing up the value chain, the US is going to have to suck it up.

      What's sauce for the goose is sauce for the gander.

      --
      I can throw myself at the ground, and miss.
  18. Re:You can't have it. Too bad it took by tjstork · · Score: 3, Funny

    The "American made" Hondas are actually kit cars whose primary engineering and most labor intensive components are produced in Japan. People that buy Hondas in America are still traitors, no matter how you rationalize it. The Big Three, for all their faults, created the American class, and also provided the manufacturing know how and expertise to win two world wars, and secure freedom for the world. The Japanese, well, were on the other side.

    --
    This is my sig.
  19. Just like it did for ethanol... by feepness · · Score: 2

    ...causing starvation and riots in poorer countries that needed corn for food.

  20. And the end of the stimulus will kickstop ... by Russ+Nelson · · Score: 2, Insightful

    And the end of the stimulus will kickstop the US Battery Industry. There are many examples of subsidized industries that died when their subsidy went away -- and industries that remain subsidized because they lobbily heavily to keep their subsidy (cough ag subsidies cough) (cough mortgage deductibility cough).

    Subsidies are fucking stupid. The stimulus is fucking stupid. A trillion dollars later, we'll have tons of jobs -- all of which depend on further borrowing, further taxation, further inflation. Or do you think the US government can spend a trillion dollars without distorting the marketplace?

    --
    Don't piss off The Angry Economist
  21. An outside viewpoint by MadMidnightBomber · · Score: 3, Insightful

    I'm perplexed. Why is there so much fuss about spending $800bn on at least vaguely useful stuff when the Iraq war has already cost you $600bn and that's not counting ongoing medical care for the 30k+ injured veterans? Serious question guys - I really didn't see people complaining about the cost of the war in the same way as they're complaining about this stimulus bill.

    --
    "It doesn't cost enough, and it makes too much sense."
    1. Re:An outside viewpoint by MadMidnightBomber · · Score: 2, Insightful

      OK, you've won me over with your thoughtful, well-argued post. Consider the matter closed.

      --
      "It doesn't cost enough, and it makes too much sense."
  22. America is essentially bankrupt. by Colin+Smith · · Score: 2, Interesting

    Do you have any clue how much toxic debt there is circulating out there?

    There is far, far more debt than there is money. It can't be paid off. It's pretty clear that the US can't even pay the interest any more.

    You can approximate the percentage of people and businesses who may go bust by the credit/debt ratio. Once many of their debts have been written off and the ratio falls, the economy will be ok again for a few years until the debt grows out of hand again. (maybe the system will have been reformed by then, who knows).

    Approximate numbers (not quite up to date, but ballpark, they should be worse by now)
    US total debt is around 47 trillion dollars. That's national, business, personal.
    US total money is around 11 trillion dollars. (M3)

    The ratio then is around 4:1

    As each dollar of credit pays off one dollar of debt, it vanishes. So you see, any attempt to pay off the debt using credit is completely futile. What America has been doing for the last 40 years is create new credit and debt to pay off the interest on the debt. (Gotta love these Ponzi schemes.) That's what all the "growth" bullshit has been about.

    However that assumes that there is someone out there willing and able to take on that new debt. It used to be China, Japan and the UK as the primary holders. The UK is in an identical position to the US. Japan's economy just dropped 12%, so that pretty much leaves China, and they have a billion people internally to take care of.

    My, aren't you guys proud of yourselves?

    So... I think you'll find the government under Obama beginning to print (not borrow) trillions of dollars. Or rather, the fed will buy newly issued debt with freshly printed dollars. I'm fairly sure this stimulus package will be but the second of several more even larger packages. Obama gets to go on a spending spree of epic proportions. How would you like a 20% raise? What depression? It's going to be the roaring 10s.

    This has all been predicted, the system is predictable. Hell, there have been loads of books written about it, maybe you read them. No?

    (http://www.federalreserve.gov/releases/z1/Current/data.htm)

    --
    Deleted
    1. Re:America is essentially bankrupt. by maxume · · Score: 2, Insightful

      There really isn't any need to pay off the entirety of that debt with the money that happens to exist today, especially if the term on the debt is 20 or 30 years (like the $10 trillion that is in mortgages). That comparison is a red herring. If there was never any consumption or production of goods and services you would be correct, but that isn't true, even in the United Services of America.

      The whole principle behind credit is that it is probably o.k. to give me money I don't have today in exchange for me paying it back over time. Given that GDP is in excess of $10 trillion, $47 trillion seems managable (but taxes are going to have to go up eventually, and spending down, as the debt won't be paid off by taking out new debt).

      I do think that the U.S. government and people are carrying too much debt (financing a television is idiotic, and government debt, while managable, isn't a win as often as the goverment thinks).

      Since you are spouting this nonsense elsewhere, here is a simple way of looking at it: say Canada gives the U.S. 10 pounds of wheat, in exchange for a certificate that says that the U.S. owes Canada $20 (U.S.). The U.S., having come around to the notion that it doesn't want to owe Canada money anymore, plants some seeds in the ground and grows some grain. Cananda says "We will give you $25 (U.S.) for 15 pounds of wheat". The U.S takes the money for the wheat and then says "Hey, Canada, can I pay you back?" and then gives Canada the money (which was really just a placeholder representing the value of the wheat).

      The basic problem isn't that it is conceptually impossible for a nation to pay back a debt, the basic problem is that the U.S. government doesn't have any interest in paying back the debt.

      --
      Nerd rage is the funniest rage.
  23. You're thinking within the box by Colin+Smith · · Score: 2, Informative

    That is.

    You're imagining that there are dollars outside your system which can come in and pay your debt.

    National currencies aren't like that. All the dollars and all the debt are already there inside.

    The US is in this position; All it's debts are denominated in US dollars. There are 47 trillion in US debts. There are only 11 trillion US dollars.

    How can you pay back the debt? No matter what you do. No matter how efficient you are, no matter how hard you work. There are still only 11 trillion dollars to pay back 47 trillion in debt. Even worse, most of those dollars (90%) are credit, so they simply vanish when they pay the principal on the debt.

    The genius of the capitalist system is that it gets you busy working as hard as you can and you simply get deeper and deeper in debt.

    --
    Deleted
  24. Re:Dogs sleeping with cats? by TapeCutter · · Score: 2, Interesting

    I interpet the Pink Floyd quote in my sig as refering to ideological cages rather than physical ones. "Left leaning greenie" is how others would usually describe me (particulaly on a US centric site such as this one). OTOH I have also been described by fellow "enviornmentalists" as a captialist pig and an environmental rapist because of some of the following actions and opinions that are offensive to the dogma held by many in the green left.

    I spent a year working in an old growth sawmill, some of the trees were 350yo, 12-14 feet in diameter and took two log trucks to carry. As you can see from this link the forest is still there almost 30yrs later. It is still being logged in a responsible/sustainable manner and I see no reason why it cannot continue to provide jobs and timber in perpetuity.

    I spent another year working on fishing trawlers - somehow this makes me a dolphin killer even though it's impossible to catch dolphins with a scallop drag unless they lay on the seabed and commit suicide.

    I think culling kangaroos and using them for dog/human food is more humane than letting them starve due to over-population.

    I think we (Australia) should dig up our vast uranium resource and sell it to nations where renewables are impractical. If it wasn't for the embarrasing wealth of renewables in Australia I would also argue we use the uranium at home.

    Probably the biggest herasy I have is that I belive trees are valuable in their own right and should NOT be included as a credit in a CO2 cap & trade scheme. The science of the matter is that CO2 uptake by vegetation is too difficult to quantify on anything but a global scale and even then there are large error bars. The idea is ripe for corruption and will have the opposite effect to that desired by it's advocates (re: biofuels and Indonesian palm oil plantations).

    Anyway I wish you well in your efforts to chip away the dogma from the inside, but whatever you do, don't let the bastards put you in a cage. :)

    --
    And did you exchange a walk on part in the war for a lead role in a cage? - Pink Floyd.