By Paul Chesser, National Legal & Policy Center
A123 Systems – the taxpayer-funded electric vehicle battery manufacturer that famously shipped duds to Fisker Automotive, which caused one of its luxurious Karma EVs to shut down just before a Consumer Reports test – is now the defendant in an investor class action lawsuit and its stock has tanked to below $1.
Massachusetts-based A123 received more than $279 million in grants from the Department of Energy, most of it used to refurbish two plants in Livonia and Romulus, Mich., for the production of EV batteries.
The company laid off 125 factory workers in November, lost $257.7 million in 2011 (including an $11.6 million write-down of its stake in Fisker), and announced it would spend $55 million to fix the defective batteries it delivered to Fisker and other customers.
Meanwhile A123’s top executives received big raises and inflated parachutes should the company change ownership.
Read the rest here: http://ow.ly/a4y5s
Wonder why nobody is trying to build nickel-iron cells? They use common materials that are mined in North America (or could be taken from ordinary recycling)… and they last 100 years through all sorts of weather, with or without recharging. They never turn into bricks. Basically indestructible.
http://polistrasmill.blogspot.com/2012/02/edisons-revenge-on-tesla.html
There are specialized uses where EVs might make sense. My son Andy worked for the Postal Service one summer, and pointed out that the postal vans, jeeps, and small trucks, which are started to run a couple of blocks and then stopped, over and over again, would make more sense as electric than gas vehicles. Most of them probably don’t go even 40 miles in a day, which is about the range of current all-electric cars. Andy used to run around town in an electric project car the high school had. It used plain old lead-acid batteries.
/Mr Lynn
Yes! Agree with Hotrod! this could keep a single topic feature page going for a while!
Josh could do a green Turkey, too!
While most government spending on green energy usually turns out to be horendous boondoggles, I think there is a role for funding research. Apparently, ARPA-E funding to a company called Envia may have helped produce a major breakthrough in Li-ion car batteries:
http://www.forbes.com/sites/yonicohen/2012/03/21/envias-energy-dense-battery-could-cut-electric-vehicle-costs/
Joe Romm’s Climate Progress blog broke this story on the day that Obama gave a speech about GM. AFAIK Obama never mentioned this in his speech, which seems odd, since it seems like it could be a much needed victory in a long string of failures.
If it wasn’t my kids and grandkids $$$ the greenies are betting on a losing proposition, I could laugh. I must admit, though, that the green agenda imploding under the weight of its lies is priceless. “Karma” is a bitch.
_Jim says:
April 4, 2012 at 7:46 pm
“Do these research guys have ANY idea the size the conductors are going to be to supply this current without substantial I-squared*R (current-squared times R) power loss in a practical implementation? And that includes the lines running to the charging station(s)? ”
At this stage, probably not. I think here of Beacon. Efficient, easily deploy-able, scalable flywheel storage systems held some promise. But don’t get into the economics of it all.
The proverbial 3rd rail of renewable’s is robust storage.
And every penny not spent on fusion research may turn out to be a penny wasted.
Does anyone else get the feeling we are watching the last scenes of War of the Worlds? All the wonderful machines that came from Mars are crashing and burning because they never looked at the fact the Earths atmosphere would not accomodate their species. In juxtoposition the real science is not supporting the Green agenda and they are now facing the same fate. Oh the ironing.
_Jim says:
April 4, 2012 at 7:46 pm
Do these research guys have ANY idea the size the conductors are going to be to supply this current without substantial I-squared*R (current-squared times R) power loss in a practical implementation? And that includes the lines running to the charging station(s)?
———————
Why, they can just use High Tc superconductors. As long as you don’t exceed their critical current you have no losses. I know! Maybe they could use carbon nanotube HTC’s made with sequestered carbon from coal power plants. That would be like getting free energy or something. /sarc off
Here’s the real problem that I have:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Energy_density.svg
Of course I don’t expect a constitutional law professor to understand that graph, but it’s a bit shameful that a Nobel prize winning physicist doesn’t get it either…
Mac the Knife says:
April 4, 2012 at 7:41 pm
How about it, Anthony? Each of us have friends saying “Have ya heard about the Green Weenie Company that just went TU?” A tracking and inventory page could be quite useful
A cache for screenshots would be useful, too. As Larry pointed out, this is an election year, and glowing press releases which turn around later and bite the Dems have a habit of disappearing down the Memory Hole. In 2009, there were a scad of WH and DoE happy chirps about loan guarantees going to various wind-power initiatives and “good-paying green jobs” flooding into Michigan — but the money ‘n’ jobs trail was a one-way street leading to the PRC.
The happy chirps all vanished by 2010.
No doubt the current world-wide economic down-turn is not rebounding very fast, largely due to green greed. The Green Hole of save-the-world-at-all-costs is ironically doing just the opposite. This mind-set continues to suck up enough tax dollars to disincentivize productive ventures.
Now someone please do some research to assign some numerical facts and stats to the above intuition. – e.g. what percent of world GDP is spent on greenery?
A better strategy is to set aside prize money for meeting a specific goal. It costs nothing unless results are obtained. For a battery, maybe the criteria are a battery that holds the energy of 40 liters of gasoline, with an energy density at least half that of gasoline, a charging time of 1 hour, and capable of surviving 3600 charge/discharge cycles, and -50 and 50 C temperatures for 24 hours. The prize is $10B.
polistra says:
April 4, 2012 at 8:23 pm
Wonder why nobody is trying to build nickel-iron cells?
———————————————————————-
I am a big fan of Nickel-iron for stationary applications but they have a very low energy density compared to other storage systems. Instead of going 100 miles on a charge, you might be talking 25 miles. They are a good fit in a stationary application size and weight are not an issue. You can buy Nickel-Iron batteries today but like everything else, they are made in China. The market is not big enough to produce them in the United States.
April 4, 2012 at 8:26 pm Mr Lynn says
———————————————–
When I was a youngster at school, our local dairy delivered milk in the early mornings using electric milk floats …. over 45 years ago.
_Jim says:
April 4, 2012 at 7:46 pm
Do these research guys have ANY idea the size the conductors are going to be to supply this current…
Lab guys are traditionally given a set of specs and told “Build this.” We used to do “end-user” testing for the boffins at CECOM and their usual reaction to seeing where the black box had to be installed in the aircraft was “It’s gotta go in *there*?Geez, I wish we’d known that beforehand…”
Mac, Ally E., Larry, others
In fireworks displays there is one called a Roman Candle – lift off, exploding star, quiet, sinking, death.
Like this:
July 2009:
–World’s largest solar plant may be built in Cle Elum
http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/html/localnews/2009441447_websolar09m.html
April 2011:
–Future of proposed solar-power plant looks dim
http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/html/localnews/2014793500_solarproject17m.html
April 2012:
–Hello. Hello! Hello?
Tom_R says:
April 4, 2012 at 9:27 pm
“A better strategy is to set aside prize money for meeting a specific goal. It costs nothing unless results are obtained. For a battery, maybe the criteria are a battery that holds the energy of 40 liters of gasoline, with an energy density at least half that of gasoline, a charging time of 1 hour, and capable of surviving 3600 charge/discharge cycles, and -50 and 50 C temperatures for 24 hours. The prize is $10B.”
Maybe a little unrealistic.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Energy_density.svg
noaaprogrammer says:
April 4, 2012 at 9:05 pm
“Now someone please do some research to assign some numerical facts and stats to the above intuition. – e.g. what percent of world GDP is spent on greenery?”
Germany: 16 bn Euro per year in subsidies for reneable energy production; 200 EUR per capita; GDP per capita about 31250 EUR, so that’s less than a percent. Total energy sector costs about 10% of GDP I would say, so we pay a tenth of our energy cost for renewables and get about one percent of our energy needs from it, so the money is practically gone (expended for installing largely useless wind turbines and solar panels; same overall effect as building pyramids or digging holes). Our unemployment is 4.9 percent, half of the current Eurozone value. This is of course not due to the renewables subsidation but as usual due to car exports.
I did not include the effects of the EU carbon cap&trade/Kyoto schemes. They start to have an effect – steel mills, copper and aluminum smelters are affected, some of them make losses and are about to close shop.
Basically we’re outsourcing some pollution, profits and employment to China and reduce our disposable income. Electricity prices are skyrocketing; second highest in the World after Denmark, and still rising, by 5% this year – switching off old paid for nukes also has an effect.
Of course, people are waking up to the fact that green do-gooderism comes with a hefty price tag.
another failed CAGW scham…oops i mean scheme in the State of New South Wales, Australia, where the carbon price is presently 85 cents down from $8.50 in 2003, but will now miraculously become $23 in July, with the NSW taxpayers being left to pick up the tab. nice.
5 April: Australian: AAP: NSW to close carbon dioxide trade scheme
THE NSW Government is calling on the Federal Government to provide compensation when the state closes its failed Greenhouse Gas Abatement Scheme (GGAS) after the carbon tax comes into force later this year.
NSW Energy Minister Chris Hartcher today announced the state-based trading scheme would be wound up in July.
“Due to the Federal Government’s desire for a national approach, we will be closing the state scheme to remove duplication and minimise costs to NSW consumers,” Mr Hartcher said in a statement…
The program, which does not put a price on carbon, has been beset by problems since it came into force in 2003.
****The price of certificates has fallen from the initial rate of $8.50 to the current spot price of 85 cents…
Mr Hartcher said the Federal Government promised in 2009 to compensate holders of unused GGAS certificates, of which there are now 16 million.
The Commonwealth later reneged on the commitment…
However, the call for federal compensation has fallen on deaf ears, with a spokesman for federal Climate Change Minister Greg Combet saying “compensation is entirely a matter” for the NSW Government.
http://www.theaustralian.com.au/business/breaking-news/nsw-to-close-carbon-dioxide-trade-scheme/story-e6frg90f-1226319804803
Larry gets my vote. Nice idea.
“Now someone please do some research to assign some numerical facts and stats to the above intuition. – e.g. what percent of world GDP is spent on greenery?”
You need to add in lost ‘opportunity costs’.
Probably the best example is the failure to develop natural gas vehicles and natural gas co-generation schemes for buildings. These are obvious ways to save money and energy, but are only happening on the initiative of individuals and slowly as engineering and capital resources are tied up developing electric cars, etc.
A big cogeneration project (labelled tri-generation) has just been launched here in Australia. While the company behind it and the media hype it as ‘low carbon’. It’s really about saving money the old fashioned way – Doing more with less energy.
http://www.theaustralian.com.au/news/breaking-news/sydney-to-build-low-carbon-energy-network/story-fn3dxity-1226317491286
I contacted a123 back when they were first starting to inquire about buying batteries for my electric car. They never responded and I ended up purchasing the lithium batteries from mainland china instead. Way cheaper and it seems more reliable too – go figure.
Larry Ledwick (hotrod ) says:
I suspect if you added such a feature your readers could provide you with a nearly endless list of smaller local endeavors that have quietly bit the dust as well with out a great deal of media fan fare.
There is Provan who produced small windmills in Scotland. A very successful company until they got large scale investment which thought that the cautious engineering approach was just holding them back until the blades started coming off.
I have been unable to find an inventory of government backed green energy failures. But add this…
4-2-2012 plant mothballed…
http://www.swtimes.com/sections/news/mitsubishi-%E2%80%9Cmothballs%E2%80%9D-fort-smith-wind-turbine-plant.html
http://www.todaysthv.com/news/article/205161/2/Mitsubishi-puts-Fort-Smith-turbine-plant-on-hold-
2010 announcement …
http://www.dailyenergyreport.com/2010/10/mitsubishi-building-new-wind-turbine-facility-in-fort-smith-arkansas/
If someone with time wants to compile a list there is a lot of green energy/spaghettiO & friends slush fund companies here…
http://www.akdart.com/solar.html
See ethanol, wind power, electric cars, mass transit, fluorescent light bulbs, green jobs, etc. Even more money down the drain here…
http://www.akdart.com/abu7.html
Jay Leno’s 1909 Baker Electric is still running on its original 103 year old battery pack. He drives it from his home to the TV studio once in a while.
In other vehicular nuttery, by 2013 in California (you knew it had to be CA) all 53 foot and longer semi trucks will be required to have those skirts under them plus the angled tail panels and either one of those bubble caps on the trailer front or a rooftop fairing on the tractor. The mandate may also include fairings to reduce the gap between the cab and trailer.
Of course they don’t care about the cost to the trucking companies and especially not to owner-operators. It took me about an hour yesterday to find a site that actually had a price on those skirts, during which I found the info on that 2013 California mandate. That article had a picture of a truck driver who after trade in paid $44,000 for a new trailer with all the latest aeromods. The result? He averages a whopping 0.9 MPG increase *with the trailer empty*.
Those skirts *start* at $1,300 plus installation cost. No wonder all those companies just put “Call for prices.” on their websites.
The really crazy thing is today’s trucks often get worse MPG with all their aero tricks than the 1988-1993 Peterbilt 372 cabover, which showed it was possible to get over 10 MPG from a semi truck. I’d like to see the latest aero-aids applied to one of those.
Looks like the price of everything moved by semi truck in CA is set to go up even more, likewise the rest of the country should (as usual) the other States kowtow to California.
What has The Saturday Evening Post got to do with vehicle batteries?