President Obama announces $2.4 Billion for electric vehicles
In the message-appropriate setting of the Southern California Edison Electric Vehicle Technical Center, President Obama announced yesterday the availability of $2.4 billion to aid the development of plug-in cars and the infrastructure required to keep them charged. The money will come from the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009 (ARRA) and is divided into 3 parts.
- $1.5 billion for U.S.-based manufacturers to produce batteries and components
- $500 million to help produce other electric vehicle (EV) components such as electric motors
- $400 million to demonstrate and evaluate plug-in hybrids and other electric infrastructure concepts which could include charging stations, electric rail and training for technicians to build and repair EVs
The announcement was the center piece of a speech that focused on energy and the economy. The President stressed the need for more renewable sources for electricity and less dependence on imported oil, noting that the SUV of today gets worse mileage than the Model T of 100 years ago. While perhaps not the most even of vehicular match-ups, the point was subtextually made that gains in efficiency can be a source of prosperity. Hit the jump for video of the speech (in two parts) as well as the press release from the Department of Energy (DOE) about the announcement.
[Source: White House blog / DOE / YouTube, Photo by MANDEL NGAN/AFP/Getty ]
PRESS RELEASE
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 - Today, 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
Reader Comments (Page 1 of 2)
Mike Z 2:06PM (3/20/2009)
I guess the money will show up as soon as we can find anyone to buy more US debt.
Reply
meme 3:19PM (3/20/2009)
"I guess the money will show up as soon as we can find anyone to buy more US debt. "
That's completely wrong; people are leaping to buy US debt at this point. The US government can currently borrow at about 3%, which is a very good interest rate, even for a large entity. The main problem, however, is that people are leaping to loan money to the US and collect on interest payments because the markets are too risky. Once the economy turns around, the US will really need to get its financial house in order, as those sources will dry up, and consequently, rates will rise. Thankfully, economic recovery means higher tax revenues, so it's not all bad.
texmln 1:06PM (3/21/2009)
Wow, does 'meme' have some bad news coming or what.... The Empire has fallen and it isn't coming back. You'll be lucky to have enough money for food, let alone electric cars. The U.S. will default on its debt before the end of 2010.
Most of you still don't grasp that it was GOVERNMENT intervention in the markets and overspending that got us here. Now you want more of both!
jpm 2:37PM (3/20/2009)
Man, Obama is just sprinkling a couple billion here, a couple billion there... the treasury department must be getting low on ink.
A second point. Lame that he gave the speech a Socal edison... yeah, some big corporate electric utility is really going to be innovate... pffff. They're just testing EVs, which the state probably mandated on them. Should've gave the speech at AC Propulsion, a place of REAL innovation.
Reply
MikeL 3:09PM (3/20/2009)
jpm,
Why wouldn't an electric company want electric cars? This is absolutely in their favor to get an electric infrastructure available to get electric cars to market. This takes money out of big oil and puts it in their hands.
jpm 3:21PM (3/20/2009)
that wasn't the point, please re-read.
Noz 4:37PM (3/20/2009)
At least Obama is more about where he's spending the money...the douche before him spend 100 fold more than Obama and we never ever knew what he was spending it on....other than war.
jpm 5:03PM (3/20/2009)
yes good point. it's way more assuring to see the money being spent on worthwhile stuff. But in either case, the gov't is pulling money out of their ass which causes more debt, more inflation, dollar worth less... I just wonder if there will be a day were can spend what we earned.... doubtful
Noz 6:27PM (3/22/2009)
Oh I think we've past the point of spending more than we have earned...WAY past.
But I don't mind being taxed for stuff that is worthwhile. I'm one of those people who is more than happy to pay in to a system that is doing positive and forward thinking things. Not everything this administration is going to do is right. But I'll pay more for free health care, a good transportation systems, more efficient cars, a new infrastructure for traveling, cleaner air, etc.
Most people don't care and then turn around and complain while they are too cheap to open up their wallets for important things...but have no problem blowing hundreds of dollars a month on crap.
jpm 6:34PM (3/22/2009)
Oh yes i know we're way past that point. I was just wondering if there will be a day when americans as a whole, and the gov't can live within their means.
Trust me, I'm all about spending money on important things. If I had a house and extra money, I'd put up a huge array of solar panels stat. But most people don't think that way. I live in LA and see WAY too many with hummers in the driveway and no solar panels on the roof. Such a shame... all that sunlight being wasted.
Noz 6:39PM (3/22/2009)
Indeed...I live here too...and see the same crap. Problem is the nomenclature we are so used to....conservation of energy is always seen as what we need to do. So we pour billions into conserving energy when we should be concentrating on conserving efficiency.
I don't think people will ever see eye to eye with the government because much of the stuff people claim is important to them really isn't so once they realize it's not free and they actually have to pay for the clean air, etc. Their priorities are wacked. Few people think like you (or me) regarding doing the right thing. Your example is perfect...these douchebags go and spend $60K on a Hummer but won't spend a dime on a solar panel powered water heater.
jpm 6:50PM (3/22/2009)
>>>So we pour billions into conserving energy when we should be concentrating on conserving efficiency.
Aren't both really important? They kind of go hand it hand. If my car is more efficient, I don't use as much energy (conversation).
People with big ol SUVs and hummers in so-cal boggle my mind. I guess they're establishing their manliness? I want to ask my neighbor why in the hell he's got a completely unnecessary gas guzzling hummer but no solar PV or heating. But I could see him being very offended at me questioning his manhood (aka the hummer).
Noz 7:01PM (3/22/2009)
JPM:
I should be clearer for this very reason. Conservation of energy is a law...conservation of efficiency leads to reducing resources...which isn't the same as conservation of energy.
As the Chinese proverb says: "The first step to wisdom is getting things by their right names"
One of the origins of "energy conservation" comes from persistently thinking of energy as material, such as coal or oil. If we believe that we could use all the oil up in the in ground, then using it sparingly - to conserve - would be a good thing. But that idea can simply be expressed better as "use less oil." This isn't the same as energy conservation which is a much broader statement and a fundamental Natural law. In this context, energy conservation actually has nothing to do with any component of the energy system...i.e sources, currencies, technologies, or services.
As for your second part of your post, I couldn't agree with you more. Ego and lack of self-confidence usually drive people's choices into things they don't need. There's a lot of baggage associated with "want."
jpm 7:23PM (3/22/2009)
Ok so you were referring to the literal meaning of conservation of energy (aka 1st law of thermodynamics), as in energy cannot be created or destroyed, but only changed in form?
I disagree with you on the nomenclature.
I don't like the name of the law - conservation of energy - in the physics world. The literal definition of conserve means to keep, or to guard. If you're heating your house, some heat will seep out into the environment. That's energy that we don't get to "keep". But we should try to keep it, that is to say we should conserve it. But in the thermodynamics/physics world, they say that energy lost to the surroundings is conserved because it is not destroyed.
Physicists should just call conservation of energy by it's definition (energy cannot be created or destroyed, but only changed in form), not by it's name.
Noz 1:48AM (3/23/2009)
I agree the terminology is confusing. But we should really blame the business side of the world for warping the true meaning...since it's become more of a marketing tool to say "conserve" energy.
I think we should tell people to conserve resources. It would be more effective since there's a real tangible side to resources than there is to energy. If people feel they are running out of something, they'll probably react differently than someone telling them to conserve "energy." Most people wouldn't even have a real concept of what that is.
Nude Love 4:03PM (3/23/2009)
What the hell does GB have to do with it?
Thats like saying, well the priest int his parish before me molested 120 children.
It wiwll be ok if I only molest 12.
jharlan 3:10PM (3/20/2009)
You notice he is not dumping the money into HFCVs. The government is starting to shove pretty hard. Let's get er done!
Reply
texmln 1:07PM (3/21/2009)
Yes, "dumping money" is the key phrase here. Electric cars are such a spectacular opportunity that they barely attract private capital and have to be foisted on the populace via artificial means through taxes and regulation of more popular alternatives.
I have to admit Tesla has survived far longer than I thought it would... but you eventually run out of people who can pay $100k for a car.
Tim 3:10PM (3/20/2009)
Hey, Chairman Obama, I produce methane and I'll be happy to collect and store it in recycled plastic bottles as a renewable fuel. I only need a $1 million for R&D.
Common, I will feed my friends beans too and this will produce "green jobs" producing renewable fuel. We all know politicians will buy ANYTHING that the market doesn't want especially if it's for Green Jobs in Renewable Fuels!
Methane from beans is good for you, the economy and America's future!
What do you mean that I didn't donate enough to Democrat campaign efforts last year? GREEN JOBS!!! Print me some money too!!!!!
If we can just print our way out of debt, why do any of us actually work for a living?
Reply
gorr 7:38PM (3/20/2009)
There is already electric fuelcell cars that exist and that manufacturers have said they were ready to commercialize them. This guy is interferring with manufacturers and their paying consumers. Obviously car manufacturers have been ruin by high financial circles and now their goverment are buying them, all that at the expence of workers and consumers. Each and everything is finnish and car compagnies managers are lying to us and let politicians eat the rest of society. This is the fault of this site too that is own and operated by high financial cartel.
Reply