A lot of smart people—Warren Buffett, Andrew Grove, Nissan’s Carlos Ghosn—believe that electric cars will be a big answer to our climate and energy problems. GM and Ford have apparently come around to that view as well, and even Chrysler recently released a cool little neighborhood vehicle called the Peapod. (See below.) I’m impressed by BYD, the Chinese battery and electric car company, and by Better Place, Shai Agassi’s bold electric-car startup aimed at transforming the global automobile industry. Batteries are the key to making electric cars affordable. So why did this Wall Street Journal headline make me cringe?
Obama Administration Sparks Battery Gold Rush
Companies, States Vie for $2.4 Billion in Funding Aimed at Turning U.S. Into Top Maker of Fuel Cells for Electric Cars
The story went on to say that the Department of Energy has received 165 applications from companies seeking some of that $2.4 billion. which is “aimed at turning the U.S. into a battery-manufacturing powerhouse.” The Journal’s William M. Bulkeley reports:
Companies vying for the federal money include General Motors Corp., Dow Chemical Co., Johnson Controls Inc. and A123 Systems, a closely held battery maker backed by General Electric Co. and others. States including Michigan, Kentucky and Massachusetts are also weighing in with applications, usually in alliance with their favored battery makers.
When the winners are decided, as soon as the end of July, the Energy Department may anoint Livonia, Mich., or Indianapolis or Glendale, Ky., as the future U.S. hub of car batteries.
Reading carefully, it’s clear that The Journal (“free people, free markets”) is not happy about this news. Note the use of the word “anoint,” hinting that the government is assuming divine powers. The article characterizes the DOE grants as “one of the government’s biggest efforts at shaping industrial policy”—fighting words in Journal-speak.
They’ve got a point, though, don’t they? One unhappy result of all the bank bailouts of the fall is that $2.4 billion doesn’t seem like much—hey, Citi alone has collected north of $45 billion, last time I checked—but a billion here, a billion there, and you’re starting to talk real money. And if electric cars are going to be as big a business as a lot of people think, then why government investment should be needed at all? Particularly since we have a climate change bill making its way through Congress that will, at long last, if all goes well, put a price on carbon emissions—thereby giving low-carbon energy sources what they desperately need, which is a fighting chance to compete with fossil fuels on something resembling a level playing field. I thought the whole idea behind cap-and-trade (which I strongly favor) is to capture the externalized cost of global warming pollutants, and then let the market figure out how best to reduce greenhouse gas emissions: regulation that would have a light touch but a profound impact.
But no—with Waxman-Markey, CAFE standards, biofuels mandates, subsidies for “green jobs” and the like—the administration is giving us a belt and a couple of pairs of suspenders, too. Much as I admire Steven Chu, the energy secretary, do we really want to entrust him and his staff to decide which battery technologies are likely to succeed and which companies can most wisely spend that $2.4 billion? What’s more, since the states and their legislatures are competing as well, you can be sure that the likes of John Murtha and Robert Byrd will weigh in on these investment decisions. Indeed, the states themselves are already competing to subsidize battery makers, as The Journal notes:
“If you’re the place where the batteries are made, there’s an opportunity to spin it into other things as well,” said D. Gregory Main, president of the Michigan Economic Development Corp., a state agency that has committed up to $400 million in incentives for battery manufacturers.
Kentucky is promising $110 million in aid and a 1,550-acre site, in Glendale, that it assembled in an unsuccessful effort to land a Hyundai plant several years ago.
Some of these batteries, by the way, could well find their way into cars like the Tesla (sticker price:$109,000) and those made by Fisker Automotive, a California firm that plans to sell $88,000 luxury-hybrids next year. So tax dollars collected from working people and the middle class go to subsidize rich boys and their toys.
Please don’t get me wrong. I think electric cars are a great idea. The faster they arrive, the better. But judgments about which battery-makers to finance should best be left to venture capitalists, investors like Buffett (who bought 10% of BYD), big investment banks and the like. They may be no smarter than the people at the DOE but at least they are putting their own (or their investors’) money on the line. If they’re wrong, they’ll be held accountable, or at least they should be. You can be sure that some of them will be wrong, and that’s fine.
This is why I respectfully take issue with Jesse “Watthead” Jenkins of The Breakthrough Collaborative, who with me is a lead blogger at The Energy Collective, a website that aggregates blogs about energy and the environment. Jesse’s a smart guy and a good guy, but he has more faith in government than I do and so he favors substantially more federal investment in clean energy research and development. If we’re talking basic research, that’s fine, I suppose—the private sector can’t be asked to underwritethat, because the potential payoffs are so uncertain and long-term.
But this battery program is explicitly about picking winners and losers in one industry sector, which may or may not turn out to be a real business. It reflects, I’m sorry to say, the Obama administration’s faith that the best and the brightest Ivy-educated government executives can figure out what needs to be done, and just how to do it. I have no doubt that the people around Obama are smart, well-intentioned and hard-working. I dearly hope that they can, in fact, figure out just what needs to be done. But if we learned anything from Bush II, it is to worry about people in Washington who think they have all the answers.

Link to original post



















samm said:
- reply
- 0 points
Wed, 2010-08-25 18:23 — sammJesseJenkins said:
As always, thought-provoking posts. I appreciate the kind words, even if you take issue with my policy position. (FYI, I work for the Breakthrough Institute, not the Breakthrough Collaborative, which I believe is involved in education and sponsors NPR ads, which may be why the name came to mind).
Sorry it's taken me so long to react to this post. I've spent the past two weeks digging deep into the Waxman-Markey ACES climate bill, peering beneath rocks and shining my flashlight into it's dark recess to figure out what it will and will not do. You can find that analysis at the Breakthrough Institute site here, and I highly recommend you take a look so you can get an accurate picture of what this "light touch-high impact" carbon pricing policy will actually accomplish:
http://thebreakthrough.org/blog/waxmanmarkey_climate_bill/
The short answer: not very much at all.
The carbon price the bill will implement is likely to be between $10-20 per ton for the first decade-plus, according to the EPA analysis of the bill. That's about 10 to 20 cents per gallon of gasoline, which on the low end is about as much difference as you can find between different gas stations on two sides side of town, and on the high end is lost in the noise of seasonal variation in gas prices. If you have little faith in the power of government, then I challenge you to explain how that kind of meager price signal is going to shift private investment and dramatically transform the $1.5 trillion combined energy and transportation markets. Please, tell me a convincing story about how that might work, because after spending two weeks reading the Waxman-Markey bill, I could use some more uplifting news.
The reason the CO2 price will remain so low is because the bill allows up to 2 billion tons of offsets (up to 1.5 billion which may be sources from overseas) to be used in lieu of cutting emissions here in supposedly 'capped' sectors. That's enough to allow U.S. emissions to continue to grow at business as usual rates through 2030. So Waxman-Markey gives us no real "cap" on carbon and no real price on carbon. Forgive me for looking for other ways to directly spur the transformative clean energy innovation we need.
Finally, as a kind of proof test: many European nations have had gas taxes for decades that implement an effective carbon price in the hundreds of dollars a ton range ($2-5/gallon tax = $200-500 per ton of CO2 equivalent carbon price!). So with such a powerful signal for private investors to develop alternative fuel vehicles, why haven't firms in Europe invented and commercialized electric cars? Why isn't everyone in Denmark driving EVs?
The answer is because that's not how innovation works. Price signals alone do not spur adequate innovation. There's a multitude of market failures at work, especially in the energy innovation sphere. I have a paper coming out in about two weeks which I'll share with the TEC community that spells out a lot of these market failures. These are the kinds of market failures, which when combined with clear public imperatives for change, simply demand more active government engagement with innovation and industry than we all may find ideal. For now, I'll again challenge the typical assertions that private entrepreneurialism and investment are all that's required to spur transformative innovation by pointing you to my publication, "Case Studies in American Innovation: A New Look at Government Involvement in Technological Innovation" for examples of how active federal government engagement and investment paved the way for so many of the technologies we now take for granted, including microchips, personal computing, the Internet, commerical aviation and jet enginges, gas combustion turbines, nuclear power, wind power, solar power, etc. Please take a look at this and see why I'm not so skeptical of the role of government as you are:
http://www.thebreakthrough.org/blog/Case%20Studies%20in%20American%20Inn...
Finally, as a side note: the reason Tesla is starting with $100k electric luxury cars is because new technologies are routinely more expensive at their launch. If there isn't a market for early adopters, the technology will never reach the economies of scale and spur the learning by doing (and continued innovation) that drops the price and improves the performance of the technology over time. Think flat screen TVs or cell phones: the first ones are far more expensive than most can afford. But now these technologies have reached economies of scale that drove drammatic price reductions and the technologies are affordable and (because of that) ubquitous.
Tesla is looking to use luxury markets - who routinely pay more for the cool new thing - to drive those initial economies of scale. They plan to produce the Roadster on a scale of 1,000s and at a cost of $100k. Their next model will use the same (and now cheaper) components and batteries at a larger scale and will be a luxury sedan selling for around $60k and at a scale of 10s of thousands. They then plan to produce a $35-40k sedan at a scale of 100ks per year, if all goes well. That's just smart. Please don't use that as a reason not to incentivize their technology's development with public investment. If the government were willing to directly purchase batteries and serve as the early adopter themselves -- as we did for microchips, radios, radar, lasers, early computers, and jet engines -- we could bring this emerging technology to scale and down in price much more rapidly and pave the way for the kind of drammatic private sector innovation that occured AFTER the government purchasing (and loss-leading) dropped these technologies in price. We should be seeing far MORE direct public investment in the technologies to enable electrified transportation, not less.
Marc, you are a smart guy, and a good guy as well, and I challenge you to wrestle with the history of innovation in a real honest way, and look for the role of government engagement in these technologies. The energy innovation imperative is simply to critical to leave to well-established (but quite innacurate) myths about the infallability of private sector innovation and the supposed ineptitude of any government engagement in the market. If the financial crisis taught us anything, I'd hope it was that we should revisit those myths with a pretty damned critical eye, eh my friend?
Keep up the great writing. Cheers,
Jesse Jenkins
Founder and Chief Editor - WattHead - Energy News and Commentary
http://watthead.blogspot.com
Director of Energy and Climate Policy
http://thebreakthrough.org
- reply
- 0 points
Sun, 2009-05-31 17:35 — Jesse JenkinsMarkGoldes said:
- reply
- 0 points
Sat, 2009-05-30 17:15 — Mark GoldesGeoffrey Styles said:
- reply
- 0 points
Sat, 2009-05-30 16:36 — Geoffrey StylesMarkGoldes said:
JAMES K. SIMS
Mr. Sims was elected to the (BlackLight) Board of Directors in April 2009.
Mr. Sims is Chairman and Founder of GEN3 Partners, Inc. He founded GEN3 Partners in 1999 with Michael Treacy to focus on the business of corporate innovation. Through his successful prior ventures, Mr. Sims understood the value of innovation and sought to build a company based on science and technical expertise to create a standard for innovation that could be easily deployed and widely adopted by industry.
With his expertise in consulting, intellectual property and extensive background in the venture community, Mr. Sims expanded GEN3 Partners by creating a wholly owned subsidiary, GEN3 Ventures designed to create high value companies based on the innovation discipline of GEN3 Partners - the GEN3: Innovation Discipline (G3:ID). To better serve the demands of growing companies, Mr. Sims also serves as Managing Partner in GEN3 Capital, LP, a fund established to mine for technology rich opportunities for building growth-based businesses.
Before GEN3, Mr. Sims founded Cambridge Technology Partners Inc., Cambridge, MA, in 1991 and led the firm to $625 million in annual revenue, 4,500 employees and international prominence. Mr. Sims and CTP, a consulting and systems-integration company, pioneered the approach of guaranteeing companies and government agencies the development of computer systems on a fixed-price, fixed-time basis. CTP was purchased by Novell, Inc. in 2001. Prior to CTP, Mr. Sims founded Concurrent Computer Corp. and as Chairman, President and CEO built it to $340 million in annual revenue and 3,500 employees. Concurrent Computer Corp. was the market leader in real-time information systems.
Mr. Sims was elected to the EDS Board of Directors in September 2006, and to the Thru, Inc. Board of Directors in January 2008. He has served as Chairman and CEO of Airgain, Inc. since November 2004; Chairman of American E-Pay, Inc. since February 2005; Chairman of Groxis, Inc. since November 2004; Chairman of GenXL, Inc. since September 2006; Chairman of Leveler, LLC since December of 2007; and Chairman of Specialists on Call, Inc. since December of 2007. He was Chairman of the Board of RSA Security Inc., a provider of online identity and digital asset security services, from June 2003 to September 2006 and Vice Chairman from October 2002 to June 2003. Previously he was director of Enterasys Networks, Inc. from June 2004 to March 2005.- reply
- 0 points
Fri, 2009-05-29 12:06 — Mark GoldesMarcGunther said:
- reply
- 0 points
Fri, 2009-05-29 09:57 — Marc GuntherGeoffrey Styles said:
Marc,
Looks like you've been spammed. Wikipedia has this on "hydrinos", a fringe notion that has been floating around for a while. Blacklight may have raised some venture capital to fund its work, but that hardly constitutes proof of concept. Mr. Barnum's venerable insight on human nature offers a likelier explanation.
- reply
- 0 points
Fri, 2009-05-29 09:46 — Geoffrey StylesMarkGoldes said:
- reply
- 0 points
Thu, 2009-05-28 18:12 — Mark GoldesMarcGunther said:
- reply
- 0 points
Thu, 2009-05-28 17:57 — Marc GuntherMarkGoldes said:
Revolutionary breakthroughs will make possible a Self Powered Internal Combustion Engine - SPICE™.
A SPICE can be used to power a hybrid. It needs no fuel and will end the need to plug-in, as the engine can run when parked and wirelessly transmit and sell power to the local utility.
The SPICE is powered by hydrinos. One barrel of hydrinos can equal several hundred barrels of oil. To learn more about SPICE and hydrinos see: www.chavaenergy.com Look under the heading HOW?
A second breakthrough is the MagGen™. These magnetic generators, without moving parts, will replace batteries in electric cars, trucks and buses.
Scientist and engineers will doubt these technologies are possible until they have been validated by Independent Laboratories. That is an important step on the agenda. It will be followed by Demonstration Devices manufactured for schools and universities. This is new science. It will change the way we think about and use energy.
Until now, car ownership has been an expense. A few plug-in hybrids, equipped with a two way plug, can feed power to the local utility while parked. The owner of such a car could earn up to $4,000 every year.
Payments to car owner’s driving a hybrid with a SPICE, or powered by MagGen, are likely to be substantially more.
When a substantial number of vehicles selling power to the grid fill a parking garage, it will have become a multi-megawatt power plant.
The cost of many vehicles might be paid for by utilities, as they purchase power whenever needed. The parked cars each become decentralized power plants - a rapid, cost-effective alternative to the many costly challenges of constructing new nuclear or coal power plants.
- reply
- 0 points
Thu, 2009-05-28 17:45 — Mark GoldesPost new comment