McCain offers US$300M prize for new? battery

[Phi for All]

http://www.9news.com/news/world/article.aspx?storyid=94341&catid=347

 

McCain is offering a lot of $ for something the documentary Who Killed The Electric Car tells us already exists and is owned by Cobasys, a subsidiary of Chevron. Cobasys is selling a version to only hybrid carmakers now, but the documentary tells us the technology Chevron is suppressing could make a fully electric car with a range of well-over 100 miles.

 

What concerns me is that Chevron could easily take this $ by arguing that mass production would easily bring the price down by the required 30%. Is this the new way for taxpayers to subsidize oil companies?

 

I'm working right now and can't dig deeper atm, but my wife emailed me this link so I thought I'd toss this out there for anyone concerned who has more time than me to investigate.

[bascule]

I think the proposed "Chevron claims the prize for an existent technology they previously kept suppressed " would royally suck. However, I would like to see better, more efficient batteries for plug-in hybrids developed, and in that regard this seems like a reasonable idea.

[ParanoiA]

Well, I can't support using the people's money as prizes for the private sector. No more than I can support using the people's money as R&D funding for profiteers.

 

That said, this is certainly a far better idea than these never ending subsidy pits. Here, we're still utilizing competition, inspiring innovation, dynamic participation - all of which requires investment and results using private funding in order to get the prize. I do like that much better than essential unconditional funding.

[john5746]

http://www.usnews.com/usnews/politics/bulletin/bulletin_080625.htm

 

This is a slight change of subject, but I didn't want to make a thread just on this remark. The McCain camp called Obama "Dr. No" on energy. I think this is a good one liner - look for McCain to use it in any debates.

 

Obama is going to have to detail what he is for as far as energy solutions, not just being anti-McCain. Having the government on the backs of oil companies and mandating technology is not going to do it.

 

It mentions in the article that Obama is against this 300 million proposal as well as extensive nuclear plant building.

[Phi for All]

Well, I can't support using the people's money as prizes for the private sector. No more than I can support using the people's money as R&D funding for profiteers.

 

That said, this is certainly a far better idea than these never ending subsidy pits. Here, we're still utilizing competition, inspiring innovation, dynamic participation - all of which requires investment and results using private funding in order to get the prize. I do like that much better than essential unconditional funding.

If this WAS a competition, I would agree. Since Chevron seems to be practically there already, I don't see this as any different than a subsidy. In fact, it's worse because it gives the impression that there was a fair chance for others.

 

http://www.usnews.com/usnews/politics/bulletin/bulletin_080625.htm

 

This is a slight change of subject, but I didn't want to make a thread just on this remark. The McCain camp called Obama "Dr. No" on energy. I think this is a good one liner - look for McCain to use it in any debates.

 

Obama is going to have to detail what he is for as far as energy solutions, not just being anti-McCain. Having the government on the backs of oil companies and mandating technology is not going to do it.

 

It mentions in the article that Obama is against this 300 million proposal as well as extensive nuclear plant building.

The nuclear stance really bugs me about Obama. I'm really hoping he doesn't discount building *some* nuclear plants, showing the public that the technology doesn't have to be feared, and hopefully leading to more extensive use of nuclear. We're going to need that electricity to power the electric cars I really hope to see.

[bascule]

http://www.usnews.com/usnews/politics/bulletin/bulletin_080625.htm

 

I find Obama's stance on nuclear power disheartening...

[iNow]

Ditto. He seems to be working from old data, and he needs someone to smarten him up on the topic.

[Pangloss]

Yes, he should have raised the bar, perhaps proposing improvements and more funding for advanced technology disposal facilities, for example.

 

He can still do that, pledging something along the lines of building more plants once the disposal issue "is fully resolved", etc.

[bascule]

He can still do that, pledging something along the lines of building more plants once the disposal issue "is fully resolved", etc.

 

I'm not sure what he's waiting for... construction of Yucca Mountain to be completed? If that's the case, we won't see any new nuclear reactors during an Obama administration as Yucca Mountain won't be finished until after 2016.

[Phi for All]

I'm not sure what he's waiting for... construction of Yucca Mountain to be completed? If that's the case, we won't see any new nuclear reactors during an Obama administration as Yucca Mountain won't be finished until after 2016.

Shoot, I'll have my Space Trebuchet built before that. It uses solar wind to crank a bucket of spent fuel up from the earth's surface and then hurls it at the sun.

[Pangloss]

I'm not sure what he's waiting for... construction of Yucca Mountain to be completed? If that's the case, we won't see any new nuclear reactors during an Obama administration as Yucca Mountain won't be finished until after 2016.

 

That was actually something I wondered about, whether new plants would contribute to the waste problem before Yucca was ready. I take it that new plants (built today) would start spitting out spent rods well before 2016, eh? I don't know much about this stuff.

[Sisyphus]

It did always seem odd to me that something dangerous enough to bury in a mountain for thousands of years can't be put to work somehow.

[Pangloss]

I thought the plan was to recycle the waste like the French do?

 

(Am I really out of touch on this?)

[Phi for All]

I thought the plan was to recycle the waste like the French do?

You mean export it to the US in wine and cosmetics?

[bascule]

I thought the plan was to recycle the waste like the French do?

 

To the best of my knowledge, nuclear reprocessing emits all sorts of nasty radioactive isotopes into the water. England's Sellafield-II (a rebranding of the infamous Windscale) was criticized for years for its emissions of Technetium-99 and Krypton-85. They're now decommissioning the entire site.