$300 million incentive to improve battery-powered cars

McCain's offer puts added charge in research

Gargi Chakrabarty

Published July 1, 2008 at 2:30 p.m.

Text size

Photo by Tim Hussin / The Rocky

Matt Keyser, a senior engineer at the National Renewable Energy Laboratory in Golden, lifts a casing off a nickel-metal hydride battery. Keyser and his team are testing various batteries.

Photo by Tim Hussin / The Rocky

Kurt Jensen, principal scientist at Nilar Inc., unhooks a nickel-metal hydride battery from a Toyota Prius outside the company's battery manufacturing facility in Centennial. Jensen said the company wouldn't comment on Sen. John McCain's incentive offer.

More Energy

Comments

July 1, 2008

3:18 p.m.

Suggest removal

FlyfishDude52 writes:

So where does the energy come from to charge these batteries?

Not coal-fired power plants! Or natural gas-fired power plants! We don't have nuclear plants in Colorado, so that isn't the answer.

When is everyone going to realize that battery powered cars are OK except that they need to be charged and that takes electricity. And no matter what source the watt is generated from it is still a watt. Whether at 9 volts or at 115,000 volts!
July 1, 2008

3:34 p.m.

Suggest removal

FlyfishDude52 writes:

There should be a caveat that US technology only can apply for prize.
July 1, 2008

4:23 p.m.

Suggest removal

Newenergycommie writes:

There is actually excess power available from the grid at night. Coal plants (we need more) don't operate well at part load. If we built more and operated them at peak efficiency 24 x 7, the batteries would charge while we sleep.

Believe it or not, solar could also be used as it shines the brightest during the middle of the day. Again cars could be charged while we are at work. Solar is very expensive, except when you compare it to gasoline.

Charging batteries with natural gas fired generation is nuts. You have a 50% efficiency loss converting NG into electicity, the batteires and drive system on the car would have say a 70% effieincy so you conversion ration would be less than 25%. Burn the natural gas directly in the car's engine and save all these losses.

But, you are right, the $300 mil should only be awarded if the battery is designed and more importantly made in the USA.

Drill now, Drill here, and build more Nuke & coal plants while we develop alternatives.
July 1, 2008

4:37 p.m.

Suggest removal

SlowWalker writes:

What's wrong with hydrogen-powered vehicles, like the ones shown by Honda and Toyota?
July 1, 2008

4:39 p.m.

Suggest removal

mark79trans writes:

Trythinking,

"Drill now, Drill here, and build more Nuke & coal plants while we develop alternatives."

That would make sense, which is exactly why we won't do it!
July 1, 2008

8:44 p.m.

Suggest removal

gr8fun4me writes:

I wish our leaders of our country had a foresight to lead our country on a course of energy independence. If we don't invent it here in the US someone else will in another part of the world. Our country is falling apart because of high energy prices.
There are four things that would help tremendously with the energy problem.
1. A better battery. Obviously to run an electric car because we use 68% of 21 million barrels of oil we burn a day for transportation.
2. Invest in solar cell efficiency. Use this to charge the battery while it's sitting in the parking lot and generate electricity for the grid.
3. Superconductivity in wires at room temperature. Canada and Germany governments are investing in this and they are close(silane under extremely high pressure) This would allow the transmission of electricity with low or no resistance. A really tremendous breakthrough.
4. Tax breaks for installing solar panels on our homes. Our government just suspended all new installations on federal land in the desert(huh) for environmental impact studies for two years!(sounds like a payoff again for whatever reason). Power companies are building large solar power plants in the Southern California desert by law.

Nature has been demonstrating the power of electricity (lightning) for millions of years. Mankind needs to take the hint and head in that direction.

I'm glad that someone in government is finally looking toward the future instead of living in the past. If we don't this country won't last another 20 years as all of our money heads overseas.

They do use lithium-ion batteries in cars (6831 of them) and this is a true sports car.
http://www.teslamotors.com/
Check out Jay Leno's link to see him test drive it.

Link for superconductivity research. Our country should be doing this. Instead we've become a country of followers.
http://arstechnica.com/news.ars/post/...
July 1, 2008

9:02 p.m.

Suggest removal

gr8fun4me writes:

We don't need any more coal plants. We need solar plants that are built in the southern part of our country where the sun shines. Scientists have already said that a grid of 10 miles X 10 miles would be enough to power the US. People need to quit thinking in the old ways. They use long solar tubes to focus the suns energy on tubes filled with liquid metal(potassium nitrate or sodium nitrate) that heat to 750 degrees fahrenheit. Obviously this is hot enough to boil water which drives the steam turbine which generates electricity. If they can store the super hot liquid in insulated reservoirs for use at night then this would be a tremendous way to get free energy from a source that isn't going to burn out for billions of years and it's something that won't destroy our planet which we are doing at a faster pace. Do you know where the mercury is coming from that is in tuna? Coal burning has mercury in it and that is why the large predator fish have it in them. Coal burning is not the answer unless you work for the mining companies.
July 2, 2008

8:44 a.m.

Suggest removal

temurlan writes:

The prize is interesting but any company that does this is going to make a mint anyway. Also, why just limit it to a better battery?
July 2, 2008

8:52 a.m.

Suggest removal

greenleaf writes:

Trythinking,

I know this doesn't directly relate to the article at hand, but I wanted to respond to your comment regarding drilling here and drilling now.

In today's Rocky is an article that could easily be missed regarding Algae based biofuels which are potentially a major part of our energy solutions when combined with cellulose based ethanol'

http://www.rockymountainnews.com/news...

As I have mentioned previously, the plants could be built in deserts or beside existing coal plants, soaking up their CO2 while producing glycerol which can be made into liquid fuel.
July 2, 2008

9:36 a.m.

Suggest removal

temurlan writes:

greenleaf, the algae thing is interesting. China just had a huge bloom off its coast:

http://www.iht.com/articles/2008/06/3...

What are the unknowns though. I have a feeling the enviornment folks would like to prevent us from tapping that too.
July 2, 2008

10:03 a.m.

Suggest removal

greenleaf writes:

temurian,

I haven't read any negatives yet, but who knows? This makes a lot more sense than corn ethanol.
July 2, 2008

10:11 a.m.

Suggest removal

temurlan writes:

Couldn't agree more.
July 2, 2008

1:21 p.m.

Suggest removal

Newenergycommie writes:

Greenleaf, I'm all for long term fixes. We also need some short term fixes. I believe that once American commtted to drilling more here the price would drop and we could stop the bleed of capital leaving this country.

I'd like to see more work on kelp. Large mid sea farms. Kelp and algae are high in lipids (sp?) which make great diesel. The farm equipment required for kelp is an anchored chain. They add a foot of growth per day per plant. Mid Ocean doesn't have the environmental impact as would harvesting in Monterey. No land use issues, no otters, no water issues and you remove CO2 from the world's largest CO2 sink. Aren't their large deadzones in the ocean that have some much CO2 that fish can't live? Once perfected, no one country or cartel could control energy.

This is out of my area of expertise, but not interest. See "Algae as an energy source". http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Algaculture
July 2, 2008

2:55 p.m.

Suggest removal

Newenergycommie writes:

Gene,

You could also refine a certain type of rock or mineral in a way that "enriches" it. If you then put a lot of this "enriched rock” , say a critical mass of it, together in a bath of water some type of reaction could take place. This would heat the water and making steam. The steam could then be used to turn a turbine coupled to a generator and it could produce power without emissions. We could eventually build 104 of these magic plants and supply 97,400 MW of power. You may need to figure out what to do with the "spent rock" when the process was complete, but I think it could work. You could bury the waste in a mountain in Nevada, where it would be safe for 10,000 years. I know this is a far-fetched idea, how could a magic rock exists that would allow this type of power production? If it works we could even power ships and submarines. What a wonder this magic rock would be.

I do sarcasm really well, don't you think?
July 2, 2008

3:01 p.m.

Suggest removal

greenleaf writes:

Trythinking,

No doubt we are going to loosen up and allow more drilling. Market pressures are just to great to prevent it. The question is as to how much. Too much, and the price of oil might drop temporarily until demand exceeds supply and we are mostly "drained". To little and the economy free falls and money for Research in this country dries up. We have to strike a balance somewhere.

We're on the same wavelength on alternative fuels. Once we can bury corn ethanol once and for all , switch grass and algae look like good bets for the long run. I like the kelp harvest idea, but I thought you might like the algae biodiesel plants to be next to your coal fired power plants. It could be a win for you, environmentalists and the country as a whole. I know what you are thinking: we need energy now and this is probably 10 years out. You know what I'm thinking? We better use our heads and some off the shelf technology to conserve like crazy. We might need to adjust our driving habits as well (not so fast, no idling, watch tire pressure etc.) Then we can combine that concept with a little "drill here, drill now"! - I bet you never thought you would hear me say that!

As for the rest of you environmentalists: No, I haven't sold out, I'm being realistic!
July 2, 2008

3:11 p.m.

Suggest removal

greenleaf writes:

Trythinking, I just saw your latest post re: sarcasm and nuclear energy.

As far as nukes go, if you can get around "nimby" and the regulation and investor problems, I say go for it! We could use some new nuclear ( maybe not as much as you suggest, but that's negotiable as far as I'm concerned).

Sarcasm? Yes you do it very well as I and others have discovered. I do have to point out my friend as a common and long time user of the practice : the mark of great sarcasm is when it actually fools someone and a third party is required to point out that they have been had. Not too long ago, Gene had a fellow conservative believing he was rabidly liberal. The guy pounced on Gene's post and I had the distinct pleasure of pointing out his error! My part was to supply irony. Sweet!
July 2, 2008

3:15 p.m.

Suggest removal

Newenergycommie writes:

CO2 is a perfect gas. Given time it will disperse more or less evenly in the lower atmosphere. Biological capture, i.e. algae will need high efficiency if it every to compete. As a plant guy, would it grow better 1) at a more temperate climate closer to the equator using just the 380 PPM CO2 in the atmosphere or 2) in a colder region that gets less sunlight but with a higher concentration of CO2 (fuel gas from a coal plant)? I don't know which is preferred. Certainly the PR value of putting it next to a power plant would be great, but which process would provide the most efficient production of biomass (tons)/investment ($)?

My other concern is the water source for a western-based algae farm. The water will evaporate and/or get steadily saltier with time. Algae that use seawater would have an unlimited supply of water. Certainly the best solution would be a coal plant located in Baja. Desert land, lot of sunshine, unlimited useless seawater and the coal plant would be near California’s lucrative power market.
July 2, 2008

3:17 p.m.

Suggest removal

greenleaf writes:

Gene,

Thanks for the link. I for one will be on the sidelines with my aging Prius watching the "Volts" glide by. GM is desperate, they need the right new product and they need it years ago! The Prius and Toyota's own plug-in are going to be tough competition. If they can perfect the battery, they may have a home run. I fear its more likely it will have teething problems that make GM's position weaker to the point they sell their technology to someone else who will make it work and sell it to us. Personally, I wish them well. It would be nice to recapture some of the world's business for the American auto industry.
July 2, 2008

3:24 p.m.

Suggest removal

Newenergycommie writes:

I know Gene; I’ve enjoyed his posts before. It is no fun using sarcasm on someone that is , how do I say this; "dumb". I had a great time composing my little nuke rant for Gene's benefit. A fair intellectual "fight" is always more fun than debating an unarmed opponent, don't you think?

As for the rest of you fossil fuel people: No, I haven't sold out, I'm being realistic!
July 2, 2008

7:10 p.m.

Suggest removal

greenleaf writes:

Trythinking,

I am still undecided as far as the up coming election. My father was of the school of thought that the only serious candidates to consider were Republicans and I'm certain he never voted any other way. This was true of the majority of my farmer relatives as well. My brother is the family maverick and would disown me if he knew that I had voted for some Republicans and independents through the years. As an independent voter, I have to tell you Mc Cain will have to convince me he's dramatically different than "W". I want to hear some environmental sensitivity, mixed with a healthy, pragmatic attitude toward both our environmental and energy problems. I appreciate balance but I hate pandering too dramatically one direction or the other. I also want to hear about fiscal responsibility ( whatever happened to that Republican value?). That is what I appreciated most about the old Republican party. Without that I may assume that Mc Cain is Bush-lite and be one of those people who have "no brain at all" you are referring to who votes for Obama.

With all due respect my friend, Republicans would be ill advised to ignore the independents this cycle, we are likely to decide this election. By the way, I blame Karl Rove for much of the division in American society today.
We need more diplomats and fewer reactionary partisans such as Rove. I appreciate the majority of your posts, you know that I do! Maybe that is why I am disappointed by one as astute as you taking cheap shots and painting political opponents with one, broad brush. There are no longer any "typical" Democrats or Republicans ,either, for that matter. What we need are patriots willing to cross divides. I am trying to be one, hard as that sometimes is. I won't surrender core values and wouldn't expect you to either, but I think it is essential to abandon inflammatory partisan rhetoric or we will never get anywhere with our problems. Do you have a better approach?
July 2, 2008

9:19 p.m.

Suggest removal

Logical writes:

Hmmm, a 10 mile x 10 mile solar farm? Who is going to approve that? NIMBY is the factor so many people forget when suggesting "viable" alternatives.

Nevada won't take nuke waste, even though it will be underground and out of sight. Have you driven past the wind farms in NE Colorado? Or, better yet, sat on a local's porch and tried to enjoy a sunset while looking through all the windmills? Not a pretty sight! We will never have enough windmills to make a significant difference, as they will take up too much space, and have too many negative impacts, just like ethanol.

It still takes minerals to make solar panels and farms. So, we belch smoke from factories to make all the components of solar farms. And, we put the solar farm in someone's backyard. Will you allow it in your back yard?

For the time being, coal is still the best answer. Then, getting more domestic oil. All the while, work on a truly viable alternative, or three. Oh, yes, about algae. It still will take alot of fossil fuel to harvest and ship it to where it can be used. Power lines aren't efficient enough to run hundreds of miles from an algae plant, so it would only service a small area.

Why do we have to pay for the best answer, anyway? People are complaining that other countries may find the answer. So? If they invest their money, and create an answer, we will all gain. It would be a nice feather in our cap to invent a solution, but don't discount the benefits of someone else inventing a solution.
July 3, 2008

6:13 a.m.

Suggest removal

greenleaf writes:

Logical,

I like your"handle" but I fear you aren't totally living up to it.

Solar doesn't have to occupy a series of 100 square mile sites. Concentrating solar plants can produce large amounts of energy on sites of 100 acres or less. Also, don't forget we are coming into a time when flexible solar panel technology will allow panels to be roofing tiles. and be mounted on carports, warehouse and building roofs . Solar can be either dispersed, or in plant form or a combination of both. Personally, I have some solar panels on my roof that supply over 80% of my household needs.

Nuclear waste is an issue that needs to be addressed along with Nimby and regulatory factors.

Your point about wind farms is harder to dispute. They need high windy ridges and large support structures. However, they can produce energy and still permit the grazing of live stock and growth of crops underneath. They provide farmers and ranchers with dependable additional income and put more jobs in rural areas. I contend that they are still a part of the solution.

Algae? My friend, you don't understand the concept. It isn't for electrical plant production. It will produce a type of diesel fuel that presumably will be used in the same trucks that haul it to market. It soaks up CO2, so it could be used to offset CO2 production from coal fired plants.

You make it sound as though we need to dramatically ramp up coal and oil. I believe that some increased production will be necessary and will be demanded by the public. I also believe that conservation technologies as well as techniques (when driving) need to be employed. Algae based biodiesel and switch grass ethanol between them could displace a good percentage of our foreign oil needs.

http://www.rockymountainnews.com/news...

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Algaculture
July 3, 2008

6:31 p.m.

Suggest removal

teko1995 writes:

Interesting comments.. I was wondering if anyone else had any thoughts on the "Solar Roadway" idea? I like the idea, and not sure of all the numbers on the website, but really sounds like an interesting concept at the very least.
http://www.solarroadways.com/
July 3, 2008

7:02 p.m.

Suggest removal

greenleaf writes:

teko,

Thanks, that's great stuff! My dad always used to say if it sounds too good to be true, it probably is, but I want to believe in this concept. Its very elegant. I wish our resident power engineer was hear to comment on this. Why haven't I heard of this concept?

I'm going to pass this around to a few people. Thanks again!
July 3, 2008

7:14 p.m.

Suggest removal

teko1995 writes:

Greenleaf,
I found this site about a month ago, and have looked it over pretty good, I'm very interested in the concept, and would love to hear others opinions on it, especially if they have knowledge in this area to begin with! (Your resident power engineer for one, would be pretty interesting to have their thoughts.) I do not remember where I learned of the site, probably surfing. I like trying to learn about "new green concepts".
July 3, 2008

7:59 p.m.

Suggest removal

greenleaf writes:

Teko,

The power engineer I mentioned goes by the tag: "Trythinking", if you see him post, give him your link. I will when I see him as well. I would really like to get his input!

Home › Business › Energy

$300 million incentive to improve battery-powered cars

McCain's offer puts added charge in research

Gargi Chakrabarty

Published July 1, 2008 at 2:30 p.m.

Related Links

More Energy

Share

Comments

Featured

Columns & Blogs