GM and Johnson Controls say the government must help develop next-gen batteries
General Motor's director of hybrid energy storage systems, Denise Gray (pictured), and Mary Ann Wright, vice president and general manager of hybrid battery systems at Johnson Controls Inc., told a congressional panel today that U.S. auto suppliers need the federal government's help to create the high-tech future-car batteries we're all waiting for. Those lithium ion and nanotech batteries aren't going to create themselves, you know.
Automotive News (subs req'd) is reporting that the two experts spoke at a subcommittee of the House Science and Technology Committee hearing. Rep. Nick Lampson, D-Texas, chairman of the subcommittee on energy and environment, said that advanced battery legislation is being drafted by committee leaders.
Related:
[Source: Harry Stoffer / Automotive News]
Reader Comments (Page 1 of 1)
Chris M 9:41PM (10/03/2007)
I have mixed feelings about this.
On the one hand, it is a blatant case of corporate welfare, and would increase the national debt.
On the other hand, the environmental and social benefits of a successful plug-in battery development are immense, and the fact that it was government funded should mean it will be available to all manufacturers.
Reply
beanjapan 10:04PM (10/03/2007)
damn i look good in that photo
Reply
slntax 10:22PM (10/03/2007)
man mi tired of company's asking for handouts from the government. wtf i don't get any handout and im not a multi million dollar company. esp the auto company's which ask for money and fight and kind of regulation for better gas mileage.
Reply
Phil L. 10:30PM (10/03/2007)
In general, I disapprove of government programs that effectively pick a technology "winner". Introducing politics into a decision that should be based on demonstrable results and real improvement almost always skews the results (see ethanol corn subsidies for a classic example). Worse, once such a program is in place, it's almost impossible to get rid of it, even if the original idea has been discredited. The recipient becomes a constituent, which creates a much different dynamic.
That said, government support of research efforts can be an effective way to help push technology development along. Battery improvements can help solve a wide variety of problems.
Of course, didn't we go down a portion of this path some ten years ago with the Advanced Battery Consortium? Why don't we hear about them anymore?
Reply
Brian Dreggors 10:46PM (10/03/2007)
The Japanese government openly funds alternative power initiatives. You people want this technology here and now, yet don't want your tax dollars going to help develop it. Wha...?
Reply
Tony Belding 11:46PM (10/03/2007)
GM want the government to fund battery development. Yet GM neither make batteries nor develop their own battery technology.
Well, of course. . . GM would love to see battery technology developed with government funding -- and unencumbered by any patents. The companies actually developing the technology may have a different view on the subject.
Reply
Mack 12:52AM (10/04/2007)
Lead Acid worked pretty good before...
Reply
Jack S. 2:45AM (10/04/2007)
wrong on patents. see the Bayh-Dole Act + presidential decree...government financed inventions go to the inventor unless the government really really wants it, which they usually don't..they just want the non-exclusive license.
Reply
TX CHL Instructor 6:47AM (10/04/2007)
If it needs government subsidy, it's probably a bad idea. Main problem is the inevitable unintended consequences of governmental subsidy. I have some trouble believing that battery tech research needs it. Better to have a battery "X-prize".
Reply
Domenick 7:05AM (10/04/2007)
Yo! Government! Give ME the money! I'll hook GM up.
The batteries they want the handout for is already here. Rep. Nick Lampson, D-Texas should know that since it's the University of Texas that developed it along with Hydro-Quebec. GM wants to prey on the "ignorance" of politicians and consumers. Freakin' scammers.
Reply
Jack Daniels 8:48AM (10/04/2007)
To the person who says and I quote "the fact that it (battery) was (US) government funded should mean it will be available to all manufacturers". I say hog wash to that!! If the US government helps to develop a hybrid car battery with US tax dollars, the technology should be used only by the domestic car manufacturers. I'm tired seeing foreign car companies coming to this country and being able to compete with Ford,Chrysler, and GM with no legacy cost. To me that is insane. You could never see this happen in reverse in Japan. The mentality of the US government has got to change or we will lose all of our manufacturing base in the US.
Reply
Jack Daniels 9:53PM (10/04/2007)
Yo! Government! Give ME the money! I'll hook GM up.
The batteries they want the handout for is already here. Rep. Nick Lampson, D-Texas should know that since it's the University of Texas that developed it along with Hydro-Quebec. GM wants to prey on the "ignorance" of politicians and consumers. Freakin' scammers.
The company you are referring to is: EnerDel.
I think, EnerDel is making false claims saying the technology that A123 System is using comes from them. EnerDel stocks is worth only .39 cents a share and they are urging people to invest in them. To me this looks like a scam so some can make a quick buck. Time will tell.
Reply
tim 9:19AM (10/04/2007)
Why is it that EVERYBODY wants to put their hands in the taxpayer's pocket? I guess they've learned that private investors are just too smart whereas those pandering idiots in gov't are eager to buy votes with OUR money.
Reply
BlackbirdHighway 9:23AM (10/04/2007)
Last time around, the Advanced Battery Consortium, which included GM, Ford, and Chrysler, spent about $100 million in gov't money. The end result: All of the automakers stopped producing electric vehicles, and crushed the ones they did produce, they only slowly offered hybrids, and GM sold critical battery patents to Chevron-Texaco, which then sued Toyota to stop them from using the batteries. No other car maker is using these batteries either.
It's hard to see that as gov't money well spent, and I don't see why we should giveaway lots more money to the automakers. The best way to promote battery technology is to tax gasoline. Investment money will then flow to alternatives. It won't cost the gov't anything.
Reply
Domenick 11:18AM (10/04/2007)
Jack Daniels: Actually, I wasn't referring to Enerdel. I was referring to Phostechlithium. http://phostechlithium.com/index.asp .
Reply
alex 11:31AM (10/04/2007)
maybe instead of giving rebates to hybrid buyers (which is such a freakin joke) they should apply that money to battery research.
this is something that LOTS of other countries do. it's a win win situation... the country gets the technology they want (greener cars to reduce pollution) and it helps the economy by making domestic companies more competitive at home and around the world
Reply
Charles S 12:49PM (10/04/2007)
Personally, I'd like to see the good ol' days, when the fire dept. used to be privately owned. Like the movies, we'll see fireman sat around, waiting for people to pay them before they will put out fires.
Before people get all excited, they need to know it's a vicious cycle when it comes to funding; private companies do not want to be funding projects (even for noble causes like cure for cancer) if they can't make money on them. Gov't may be more willing to take a chance, especially if there is great taxpayers support, but then get accused of social engineering.
Marketplace does not solve all our problems:
If some small start-up is seeking funding form the gov't. What will the TopDog Corp that dominate the market say? "Let the marketplace take care of itself" which equates that the start-up will probably never make it. In such a scenario, no progress will be made.
On the other hand, whenever the domestics are in trouble, they always look to the gov't for legislative help; quota on imports, relax rules on emissions for SUVs, etc. In such a scenario, gov't inventions keep the status quo.
People with certain political bend would like to cherry pick one scenario over the other. I say there is no one method/philosophy that can solve all our problems. I do not like to see the domestics fail, but do not want to reward them for their poor management either. If we are just focusing on the need for better batteries, then I say the marketplace alone will not bring the innovation, the competitive spirit needed to bring progress.
Just a fine point, gov't agencies create grands and companies do COMPETE for this money. While some corporations may abuse such programs, this is also how many start-ups got its 2nd or 3rd stage funding. I'm sure people have many different opinions on the matter, but the truth is, such model works.
Reply