McCain proposes $300 million prize for better battery
After serving large helpings of hope to the offshore drilling, "clean" coal, and nuclear power plant hungry crowd, John McCain is set to dish up some tasty dessert for famished clean car proponents. In a speech he will deliver today at Fresno State University in California, the presidential hopeful will lay out a series of proposals aimed at quickening the transformation to carbon-free transportation. The one that really caught our eye was his "Clean Car Challenge" that would award the not-insignificant amount of $300 million to the developer of new battery technology that has "the size, capacity, cost and power to leapfrog the commercially available plug-in hybrids or electric cars," and do it at 30 percent of the cost of what is currently available. Quite a challenge indeed.
Another enticement on the menu is a $5,000 tax credit for every new zero-carbon car. He is expected to announce, "For every automaker who can sell a zero-emissions car, we will commit a $5,000 tax credit for each and every customer who buys that car," (The AP version of the story claims the credit is for auto-makers while Reuters says it's for the buyer) Other "if-elected" actions are said to include higher fines for non-compliance with CAFE standards and a speeding up the flex-fuel capability of the nations fleet. "Whether it takes a meeting with automakers during my first month in office, or my signature on an act of Congress, we will meet the goal of a swift conversion of American vehicles away from oil." It all sounds pretty good. Now, if he can just win that pesky election we'll see if he follows through.
[Source: Associated Press / Reuters UK]
Reader Comments (Page 1 of 2)
meme 11:46AM (6/23/2008)
And here comes the obvious question: Why did he oppose basically the same thing in the Senate? He didn't earn a 0% current rating and 24% lifetime rating from the Sierra Club for nothing. When two different bills calling for a repeal of oil company subsidies to pay for an expansive pack of subsidies for renewable power, incentives to buy EVs, and funding for battery development came in from the House (H.R. 5351 and H.R. 6049), McCain was against them. The obvious question is, thus, why should we trust him on this?
Reply
bjd002004 12:17PM (6/23/2008)
Golden Boy,
This relates to the previous McCain article where he was touting more nuclear and clean coal. My question was why and what would all this new electricity be usd for?
McCain has finally connected the dots. By "plugging" electric cars, McCain's ideas for more nuclear, clean coal now make sense.
Golden Boy, you were correct in that McCain has touted electric vehicles in the past. I thank you for citing examples. But look now, he is getting very specific, wouldn't you say?
This is all very exciting stuff, as both Pres. candidates are talking about "real" solutions to our problems with energy security and oil dependancy.
The next six months are going to get very interesting indeed.
-BJD
Reply
Gabe 1:24PM (6/23/2008)
Meme,
I think the killer point on those bills was the additional tax load on the energy companies. The USA taxes its energy companies at an average of 45% (the national average for all businesses is around 35%). We then subsidize back some of that money to keep them competitive and to force their hand on certain environmental and social issues.
You can disagree with that particular decision, but he's been a fairly consistent supporter of environmental protection while still maintaining the traditional pro-business stance of most republicans.
Reply
Wave54 12:41PM (6/23/2008)
Too vague with too many variables to fully interpret just yet. $5000 tax credit for a "zero-carbon" vehicle? Does that include ZAP trucks and ZENN NEVs? A PHEV wouldn't qualify even if the vehicle was always used in EV mode.
How do they define "zero-carbon"? Does it mean no liquid fuels or would algae-based biofuels qualify? Do they call hydrogen "zero-carbon", regardless of how it's created?
Reply
OhmExcited 12:52PM (6/23/2008)
McCain's energy advisor is James Woolsey. James understands the benefits of plug-ins extremely well, from a security and strategic perspective. That's where these ideas are coming from. See http://setamericafree.org
Reply
Mike Z 1:06PM (6/23/2008)
FYI: The NYTimes is running a piece on Obama's support of corn ethanol:
http://www.nytimes.com/2008/06/23/us/politics/23ethanol.html?_r=2&adxnnl=1&oref=slogin&adxnnlx=1214240697-bCTYmc0aDlXE4RSapWVQlw
Reply
Tim 1:13PM (6/23/2008)
I'm all for tax subsidies. God knows we're paying too much as it is, but I don't like it when government extorts taxes from me only to give that money to a for profit corporation for "research". So much for competition choosing the BEST technologies!
When politicians short-circuit the free market by choosing which technologies/corporations get a free taxpayer hand-out, and when politicians REFUSE to break-up monopolies... we all lose!
Welfare (individual or corporate) will not make anyone “well” because it treats a symptom, not the disease and THAT is most certainly NOT fair.
The more something costs, the less we’ll use… PERIOD! A thing will ALWAYS find its TRUE value in a free market with a level playing field. The role of government is to stay OUT of the way and make sure the field is level so market forces can work properly.
McCain is just another NeoCon socialist wolf in conservative clothing.
Reply
Tim 1:44PM (6/23/2008)
I'm all for tax subsidies. God knows we're paying too much as it is, but I don't like it when government extorts taxes from me only to give that money to a for profit corporation for "research". So much for competition choosing the BEST technologies!
When politicians short-circuit the free market by choosing which technologies/corporations get a free taxpayer hand-out, and when politicians REFUSE to break-up monopolies... we all lose!
Welfare (individual or corporate) will not make anyone “well” because it treats a symptom, not the disease and is most certainly NOT fair.
The more something costs, the less we’ll use… PERIOD! A thing will ALWAYS find its TRUE value in a free market with a level playing field. The role of government is to stay OUT of the way and make sure the field is level so market forces can work properly.
McCain is just another NeoCon socialist wolf in conservative clothing.
Reply
meme 1:45PM (6/23/2008)
"You can disagree with that particular decision, but he's been a fairly consistent supporter of environmental protection"
A 24% lifetime rating and 0% last-term rating says otherwise. I can break down his ratings issue-by-issue if you'd like.
"The USA taxes its energy companies at an average of 45% (the national average for all businesses is around 35%)."
Honestly, IMHO, energy companies *should* be taxed higher than non-energy companies, since this country doesn't have the political willpower to impose a relevant gas tax -- and higher taxes on energy companies has the side effect of forcing them to streamline their operations as much as possible to stay competitive. But just ignoring that -- then where is McCain's funding supposed to come from? The aforementioned bills paid for themselves. Either you believe in Pay-As-You-Go or you don't.
Don't get me wrong; Obama's no darling on transportation energy issues, either. He's been way too supportive of biofuels, and while he's been more critical recently, he hasn't gone nearly far enough. But at least he doesn't have a freaking 0% environmental rating and 24% lifetime rating.
Reply
Doug 1:48PM (6/23/2008)
I copy and paste what I said elsewhere:
It's unclear to me what specifications for this "super battery" would be necessary to claim the prize. I'd think that if it were to be developed, making money selling the thing would be it's own prize.
As a scientist, I find this a bit backwards. I'd prefer some of that money get spent to fund the actual research directly.
Reply
Ron Fischer 2:59PM (6/23/2008)
As regards whether consumers or companies receieve the $5000 credit, rest assured: it will be the companies. When I leased the GM EV-1 and later Ford Th!nk City the paperwork specifically transferred all zero emission credits to the automaker (at zero cost to them). There would likely have been be a more vibrant (risky, etc) market for ZEV credits without that.
I agree with the previous comment: given what happened in California the potential for "gaming" these regulations needs to be managed on an ongoing basis. For example: GM simply gave away golf carts to achieve quite a few ZEV credits until the fuel cell loophole was opened.
How can I summarize? No matter what it looks like, this is largely a "dialog" between automakers and politicians. Consumers get to play along but not make the rules. The only grass roots power consumers have been able to exercise to date is halting their purchases of SUVs...
Reply
OhmExcited 1:53PM (6/23/2008)
The Sierra Club is anti-nuclear, and they don't like Republicans or big business. So, it's no surprise that they don't give McCain high marks, even though he's one of few who support carbon emissions regulations.
Instead of talking about McCain, which exposes people's political party prejudices, perhaps it's wiser to discuss whether the ideas he is proposing now are good ones. Perhaps Obama can adopt them, and vice versa.
Reply
Doug 1:57PM (6/23/2008)
I'll say it again, something about this comment system is broken.
meme said, "But at least he [Obama] doesn't have a freaking 0% environmental rating and 24% lifetime rating."
I wouldn't think he's had a political career long enough to have any accurate rating. I do think he means well, however, on environmental issues. But if he has any understanding, this support of corn ethanol is just vote pandering.
Reply
Whopper 2:05PM (6/23/2008)
McCain should wear his Sierra Club rating as a badge of honor - the Sierra Club members are a bunch of nut cases who would have us back to horse and buggy. Corporations pass their tax burden on to their customers; to suggest otherwise is not facing reality. Therefore, additional taxation would only be paid by the public and the government is extremely incapable of spending the money wisely. The free market doesn't bring about change as quickly as you would like but it does it in a more sustainable manner. Changing from an oil based economy is going to be painful and hurt many people but not nearly as bad as it will be with government assistance.
Reply
Stan Peterson 3:30PM (6/23/2008)
Did it ever dawn on you that the ruling clique a top the Sierra Club don't give a ruddy damn about the environment, any longer? They have long since pushed out any that originally did care.
They are politically connected flacks, who are interested in political power; and that is all.
Like most such advocacy organizations, including Green Peace (ask founder Patrick Moore) the Union of Concerned Scientist (ask the UCS founders), they have been captured by the cynical power mongers.
It is easy for the cynical to out-promise any possible realistic environmentalist. No matter what, they can be more intransigent and demand more, irrespective of reality.
So they win with intransigence.
Just like the Bolsheviks were more extreme than the Alex Kerensky democrats in 1917 Russia. Lenin didn't care about reality. He didn't care about improving the lot of the oppressed proletariat.
He cared about Power, for himself.
Being at the head of one of these organizations provides a very lucrative lifestyle, with no real obligation to accomplish anything. The only thing necessary is to keep the contributions flowing. And the more crazy, and more impossible the demands, the more the opportunity to demonize opponents, the more the notoriety, and the more the fundraising keeps going.
Genuine environmentalism is so passe` to these people. Its P-O-W-E-R.
Reply
fnc 2:23PM (6/23/2008)
Politics aside, is there a battery technology on the horizon that could meet that goal? If GM is right and a smaller range can meet most peoples' day to day transport needs, why is he only willing to fund so to speak this "leapfrog" tech instead of accelerating the adoption of what we have now? Is it because he thinks existing tech is already close enough to viability for personal transport? (a point I disagree with, batteries are still a bit too expensive for quick mainstream adoption) If so, is he setting his sights on switching more heavy duty applications to battery stored electrical power? I think the best thing to do would be to get more people into cars with batteries now and let the expanded market drive research and tech instead of some pie in the sky "leapfrog" hope (which has always been the appeal of hydrogen, it's always been far enough off that it doesn't threaten the oil companies for the foreseeable future).
Reply
theemailmang 2:45PM (6/23/2008)
I looks like McCain found the 'new battery technology'!!! Congratation to the one who found this picture.
Reply
meme 3:37PM (6/23/2008)
"The Sierra Club is anti-nuclear, and they don't like Republicans or big business."
Their ratings aren't based on "likes"; they're based on issues votes. And I was mistaken; it was the ratings from the League of Conservation Voters; the Sierra Club just issued a press release on the subject. The issues votes in the last period were:
1. Cloture on H.R. 6, the energy bill (6/21, Vote 225)
2. Passage of H.R. 6, the energy bill (6/21, Vote 226)
3. Maintaining Renewable Electricity Standard (RES) in H.R. 6 (12/7, Vote 416)
4. Taking away giveaways to Big Oil to subsidize clean energy (12/13, Vote 425)
5. Loosening public health and environmental regulations on refineries (6/13, Vote 210)
6. Undermining the RES with coal and nuclear energy (6/14, Vote 211)
7. Offshore drilling in Virginia (6/14, Vote 212)
8. Liquid coal (6/19, Vote 213)
9. Environmental safeguards for biofuels (6/20, 219)
10. Consider global warming for water projects (5/15, Vote 166)
11. Appropriately prioritizing water projects (5/15, Vote 165)
12. International family planning (9/6, Vote 320)
13. Farm Bill subsidy reform (12/11, Vote 417)
14. Farm Bill subsidy caps (12/13, Vote 424)
15. Eminent Domain for public parks (12/3, Vote 429)
Reply
vfx 4:20PM (6/23/2008)
Where is the money going to come from?
Reply
BlackbirdHighway 5:40PM (6/23/2008)
Cindy's beer money.
Reply