U.S. Department of energy Announcement
President Obama Announces $2.4 Billion in Funding to Support Next Generation Electric Vehicles
DOE Support for Advanced Battery Manufacturing and Electric Vehicle Deployment to Create Tens of Thousands of U.S. Jobs
POMONA, CA - March 19, 2009
On March 19th, President Barack Obama announced the availability of $2.4 billion in funding to put American ingenuity and America's manufacturers to work producing next generation Plug-in Hybrid Electric Vehicles and the advanced battery components that will make these vehicles run. The initiative will create tens of thousands of U.S. jobs and help us end our addiction to foreign oil. Americans who decide to purchase these Plug-in Hybrid vehicles can claim a tax credit of up to $7,500.
"This investment will not only reduce our dependence on foreign oil, it will put Americans back to work," President Obama said. "It positions American manufacturers on the cutting edge of innovation and solving our energy challenges."
While visiting Southern California Edison's Electric Vehicle Center, the President announced the following:
- The Department of Energy is offering up to $1.5 billion in grants to U.S. based manufacturers to produce these highly efficient batteries and their components.
- The Department of Energy is offering up to $500 million in grants to U.S. based manufacturers to produce other components needed for electric vehicles, such as electric motors and other components.
- The Department of Energy is offering up to $400 million to demonstrate and evaluate Plug-In Hybrids and other electric infrastructure concepts -- like truck stop charging station, electric rail, and training for technicians to build and repair electric vehicles.
By contributing to the reduction of petroleum use and greenhouse gas emissions, these projects will advance the United States' economic recovery, national energy security, and environmental sustainability. Today's announcement will also help meet the President's goal of putting one million plug-in hybrid vehicles on the road by 2015.
Advanced batteries, capable of meeting standards for durability, performance, and weight, are a key technology for plug-in hybrid electric vehicles and other electric vehicles. DOE plans to provide assistance to construct or upgrade battery manufacturing, component, and recycling plants for lithium-ion and other advanced batteries, as well as for production factories for electric drive vehicle power electronics. These agreements will help lower the cost of battery packs, batteries, and electric propulsion systems, enabling manufacturers to establish a thriving domestic electric vehicle industry. These advanced battery factories will also support battery manufacturing for consumer products, as well as military and utility applications.
DOE will also support demonstration, evaluation, and education projects to help develop the market for advanced electric drive vehicles. These vehicles will get up to 100 miles per gallon, achieve a driving range of up to 40 miles without recharging and run much like today's hybrids beyond that 40 mile range. Under this program, the DOE will also demonstrate other electric vehicle technologies such as truck stop electrification to reduce idling, electric rail, and necessary infrastructure. The solicitation covers demonstration projects that test a variety of vehicles, including small off-road vehicles, passenger vehicles, and over-the-road trucks, in geographically and climatically diverse locations.
These projects will be funded with funds appropriated by the President's American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009. Together, the Administration expects these projects will create tens of thousands of U.S. jobs and help end our addiction to foreign oil. The Act gives preference to activities that can be started and completed expeditiously. DOE's approach includes jointly funding partnerships with industry to develop technologies that will support the Recovery Act's goals and accelerate the adoption of successful technologies in high volume production vehicles. More information on the Recovery Act and projects funded by it are available at Recovery.gov
recommend this
email
print
link to this page
Comments: 56 ( 2 removed by Sam Carana )
This is so refreshing after the Bush administration schizophrenic attitude towards elecric vehicles: "they are going to be important, someday, but in the meantime we will stay on the sidelines and let the technology evolve on its own in an environment where gasoline is the 800 pound gorilla". Okay, it's not an exact quote, but I think I got the gist of it right.
No, AC, we're finally acknowledging the harm that is caused by gasoline cars and we're now making a start with rectifying the way the Bush administration has subsidized and supported pollution for so many years. What's yet to come are fees on fossil fuel in order to better reflect this harm, while the proceeds of such fees should be used to fund local rebates on better ways to produce electricity. It's sickening to look back at the disgusting way the Bush administration did pervert the car market and manipulated the industry for the benefit of those who bankrolled his political campaign. The people have spoken and have decisively rejected such distortion of the market.
Have a look at this MIT special report on Better Batteries.
MIT lists Donald Sadoway's Liquid Battery as one of the 10 technologies that can change the way we live.
MIT researchers have managed to dramatically reduce the time it takes to recharge lithium ion batteries. GM-Volt.com gave the story the title a 100-Fold Lithium-ion Battery Breakthrough.
Earlier this year, A123Systems announced $2.3 Billion Lithium Ion Battery Facilities in Michigan.
LG Chem, chosen to supply batteries for General Motors' Volt, is likely to open manufacturing facilities in the United States.
I had actually expected that A123 would become the main supplier for the Volt's batteries. A123 already supply the batteries used by Hymotion who converts the Prius into a plugin.
One of the problems with batteries is that they gradually lose their charge over time. Tests by A123 indicate that their batteries can keep working for a decade or longer. On their site, you can find a chart like the one below:
In early 2008, CNET reported how researchers used silicon nanowires to give rechargeable lithium ion batteries a tenfold improvement in battery life. The study can be found at Nature.
Battery provider Southern California Edison (SCE) has demonstrated a lithium ion battery with a lifespan of more than 180,000 miles. Since the average family car travels about 10,000 to 15,000 miles each year, the battery could last a decade before it needed replacing.
In earlier articles, I have also written about the Altairnano Nanosafe battery, which has a life expectancy of 12+ years, and can retain up to 85% charge capacity after 15,000 charges. With a 3 phase power supply, it can be recharged in about 10 minutes. Altairnano has demonstrated that a NanoSafe cell can be charged to over 80% charge capacity in about one minute.
New Scientist wrote about this more than four years ago in an article called Charge a battery in just six minutes. Here are also some technical details, from a Altairnano presentation dating back to 2006.
As I often said, mass production and economies of scale will further bring down cost and increase performance.
The automobile market, actually any market, is driven by supply and demand. Why do you think the automakers produce SUVs? It's because consumers want them.
If there was sufficient market demand for electric cars, the automakers would produce more of them because doing so would generate revenue for them. For example, when gas prices hit $4 a gallon last summer, the demand for hybrids went up. The response from the automakers: they began to make more hybrids.
As gas prices came down, the demand for larger vehicles like SUVs began to climb, not to where it was, but still up.
Do you see how this works?
"The people have spoken...."
A Gallup poll released yesterday revealed that for the first time in a quarter century respondents said the economy trumps the environment. Introducing artificial factors into the market does nothing to help the economy.
The Gallup poll can be found here:
http://www.gallup.com/poll/116962/Americans-Economy-Takes-Precedence-Environment.aspx
I see it like this.... Look at the recent auto industry bailout that the car companies used to keep making cars. Not enough people were buying them. This resulted in more cars in the lots. Basic economics 101 says that demand drives prices. Many car lots were forced to sell at "cost" or below to keep afloat since they had contracts with the carmakers for inventory. Some survived, some didn't. Continuing to make cars that aren't selling (or aren't profitable) is a compounding burden for the industry.
Back to basic econ 101.... a low demand for electric (or any alternative fuel vehicle) will mean higher prices per vehicle putting the cost out of the reach of many consumers that would opt to purchase one for the right reasons. The only way to control the cost is to increase the demand. That demand comes from the consumer. How do you get them to buy the cars?
We should be careful about depending on our electrical grid to power these vehicles. The east coast blackout we had a few years ago suggests to me that our grid is not in the best shape.
Instead of building a vehicle that gets 100 mpg and barely seats two people, we should start by electrifying and hybriding our SUVs and trucks. It would be easier to build the components needed in large vehicles first, then downsize them.
We should be looking into storage capacitor technologies. Capacitors could be charged immediately, unlike the hours it takes to charge batteries. The trouble here being that I have no idea how far along storage capacitor technology is.
But, whatever happens, electronics will be involved, which might just put me back to work. :)
Maybe we don't need the capacitors, after all.
The poll that counts most is the one we just had, i.e. the elections. People rejected both the mismanagement of the economy and of the environment of the Bush administration and there's no poll that indicated we want to return to such a bad administration, ever. So I suggest you change your icon to something that makes more sense.
Again, Sue, more care for the environment doesn't have to mean that things will be more expensive. We need a shift in technology and what Obama is funding has to be done because the Bush administration sabotaged clean cars and gave the money that was needed for the development of clean cars to the wrong parties, such as oil importers and speculators.
As to cap-and-trade, I believe a framework of feebates would work better and would be more appropriate. Fees on fossil fuel that fund local rebates on better ways to produce energy would be the most effective way to facilitate the shift. As GE says, the cost of wind energy is some 3.5 to 4 cents per kilowatt hour and declining. That's less expensive than coal, oil, nuclear and most natural gas-fired generation. Furthermore, wind turbines produce a lot of surplus energy that could be used for processes that would otherwise be too expensive, as I discussed in Four Cycles of a Sustainable Economy.
How convenient.
And I like my icon just fine thank you.
Purchase cost of electric cars is still high, partly due to battery cost, but all that could change rapidly with mass production. Manufacturing electric cars should be cheaper, because they have less parts; the motors can be in the wheels. so there's no need for a differential, axle, or shaft. There is no need for a gearbox. There's no need for the starter motor, alternator and traditional battery of gasoline cars. This also means there's no need for maintenance on those items. Apart from the purchase price, cost of driving a car is an important consideration.
With an electric car, you don't need to change engine oil, filters, gaskets, hoses, plugs, belts, there's no catalytic converter or exhaust pipe to replace. There's not the heat and vibration of gasoline cars causing wear and tear, and there's no need for a radiator to cool things down (some battery packs still need cooling, but that may no longer be needed with future batteries). Driving a car on electricity can cost only a fraction of driving a car on gasoline, most of them can be recharged at night when there's sufficient surplus capacity on the grid and when there's a lot of surplus power available from the increasing number of wind turbines.
Despite the high cost of batteries, it already makes sense for a lot of people to get an electric car now, given that most people only make short trips anyway and therefore don't need a lot of battery capacity.
It could work the other way as well. Some cars may be on their way home. They may have been recharged by the solar panels on the roofs of the offices where they worked during the day, so they are almost full. If they have a lot of surplus power, they could sell that at such service stations, through rapid transfer of electricity from their car battery to the stations large liquid batteries, keeping enough charge in their battery to take them home. Then, in the garage at home, they recharge again during the night at when the rates are low.
Except for that upfront cost!
>>
> Except for that upfront cost!
The support program will help out here. Within the time span of a few years, with mass manufacture and the associated economies of scale, I expect electric vehicles to be cheaper than conventional vehicles, even without such a support program.
As said, I would have preferred feebates, as they are more effective in facilitating the shift to clean cars, but the emphasis of this program is on support for the US car industry.
> How much does your electric bill go up charging this thing constantly?
Plugin vehicles can be recharged overnight when electricity rates typically are low, at a cost that's significantly lower than gasoline (I'd say about one third or one quarter of the cost of gasoline, it depends on your electricity rates and it differs per vehicle). Even recharging during the day is likely to be cheaper than driving on gasoline. If you set things up right, you'll also save in trips to the gasoline station and, as said in above comment, you're also likely to pay less visits to a mechanic for servicing.
Would that be the program where government TAKES money from taxpayers who actually pay taxes and gives to people who agree to buy one of these cars?
Electric Vehicles have been around for many years - users say that the cost isn't prohibitive, the contrary. Where did you hear otherwise?
Sue: "it's the nature of any new technology to be far more expensive upon first release."
Sure, this applies to nanotechnology batteries, but this support program will remove that obstacle.
Sue: "Look at the safety factors. These cars fastest speeds are 65mph, the speed LIMIT on most federal highways. If you think I'm going to risk my life in a car that can't get out of its own way in the midst of 18 wheelers and SUVS, it just won't happen."
EVs can have safety features that exceed conventional cars, e.g. they may use carbon fiber which is stronger than steel. The fact that they have less moving parts makes them more reliable too. Some EVs are classified as NEVs (neighborhood electric vehicles) - they're not intended to be used on highways. They're usually small, which makes it easy to park them and they are great for people who only drive small distances. Note that 50% of cars are driven for 50 miles or less daily.
As I said, this program should be seen more as an effort to save the US car industry, which had been guided in the wrong direction by the Bush administration. It will assist people who buy electric cars, which - as long as EVs still are expensive - are more likely to be tax-payers than not. As said, I would have preferred a feebate program that imposes fees on polluting cars, with the proceeds funding local rebates on clean cars.
As I also said above, people who drive gasoline cars currently do so without paying for the harm they inflict, which exceeds the $2.4 Billion of this program numerous times. Fees on fossil fuel would go some way to reflect this harm. The proceeds of such fees should not disappear in the consolidated federal budget, but should be used to fund local rebates on better ways to produce (and possibly store) electricity. That would be the most effective way to facilitate the shift we need and both taxpayers and non-taxpayers would benefit from that.
You are wrong on all counts, AC. It is a support program, necessary due to the disastrous market distortion of the Bush administration. It's not just taxpayers who are paying for this, everyone is. I did already explain this to you. I suggest that you read my comments before posting any further incorrect and repetitive statements.
Electric powertrains are about three times more efficient than gasoline counterparts. Battery electric vehicles are also cheaper to maintain and operating costs for charging range from $2 - $3 for 100 miles at average US electricity rates.
The TH!NK city vehicle draws on the company’s 17 years of experience in EV development and production and more than $100 million invested by Ford Motor Company during the four years the company held a majority stake in Think. [source]
The Think City is a two-seater with an optional back seat. The City for the European market has a top speed of 62 mph, a range of 112 miles and its batteries need several hours to recharge. Think's goal is to produce a car priced at less than $20,000 with a $90 monthly lease for the batteries, according to a report in The Detroit News. The new TH!NK city has a top speed of 62 mph. Before offering the car to American consumers, Think aims to increase top speed to 70 or 75 mph and to further improve driving range and acceleration, reports Autoweek.
Think’s subsidiary, Think North America, plans to apply for low-interest loans from the US Department of Energy’s $25-billion Advanced Technology Vehicle Manufacturing (ATVMIP) program. Think currently has contracts with three battery makers: MES-DEA, A123 Systems and EnerDel. Two of them are US-based lithium-ion battery makers Ener1 and A123, which are also seeking ATVMIP funding, according to reports by Green Car Congress and The Detroit News.
You can put lipstick on a pig. But it's still a pig.
I agree that we need to save the auto industry - the only reason it is where it is is because we as individuals stopped buying the cars that are being offered. They can make all the electric cars they want to too, but if no one buys them - well.... you know the rest.
We are going to continue to buy cars however - the horse and buggy days are over. It would be nice if the government could help us have more choices - but we are still the ones that have to make a choice.
We as individuals just need to choose to buy the ones with the least amount of impact on the environment but still meet our basic needs - getting to and from.
Kind of like the choice so many of us have made in buying energy saving light bulbs. Do they cost more? Yes - (they have gotten cheaper over time because there is more of a demand for them) but we still choose these over the old ones.
We choose to buy light bulbs in the first place because we don't want to burn candles for light anymore - nor do we want to hitch up the horse to drop off the kids at school and get to work.
At the Geneva Motor Show 2008, Morgan displayed a prototype hydrogen fuel cell car with the following specifications:
- acceleration from 0-60mph in seven seconds
- top speed of 90mph
- range of 200 miles
- weight 700kg (hand-built aluminum-bodied coupe, ultra light chassis and wheels)
- four electric motors
- regenerative braking recouping 50% of power, by using ultracapacitors
The Tesla Model S costs about $4 to fully charge. You can charge it from any outlet. With QuickCharge, Model S can charge to 80% of capacity in 45 minutes. Standard charging times will vary depending on battery capacity, ranging from approximately 3 to 5 hours. Alternatively, you can apply a 5 minute battery swap. Three battery pack options offer a range of 160, 230 or 300 miles per charge. The Model S battery will have a useful life of 5 to 7 years, while proper care can result in a 10-year life.
Model S will start at $49,900, after a $7,500 federal tax credit. Deliveries of the Signature Series Model S will begin at the end of 2011 with deliveries of the standard model beginning in early 2012.
Clue: The Datsun can do 0-60 mph in 2.9 seconds. Also note the KillaCyle electric bike. It can do 0-60 mph in under 1 second, can do the quarter mile in 7.89 seconds and can reach a speed of 174.05 mph. It used only around $0.07 worth of electricity for each run.
On 21 March, I added a comment, and added an image on how many miles most people drive. The comment should say that 80% of cars are driven for 50 miles a day or less.
On June 23, 2009, the Department of Energy announced $8 billion in conditional loan agreements to the auto industry in America, including $5.9 billion to Ford.
Tesla will receive $465 million in loans and the Tennessee facilities of Nissan will receive a loan of $1.6 billion to manufacture electric vehicles and batteries. Nissan expects to cut the cost of its batteries in half and to ramp up to production of 150,000 American-made and competitively-priced electric vehicles annually.
These are just the first of up to $25 billion in loans that will be offered through the Department of Energy’s Advanced Technology Vehicles Manufacturing program. Over the next several months, additional loans will be awarded to large and small auto manufacturers and parts suppliers up and down the production chain.
From: Secretary Chu Auto Loan Annoucement - US Department of Energy
Was there an evaluation of the funded technologies - which was published?
I'm expectationally interested in low temperature behaviour and thermal management though. Any info on that?