McCain's $300m Battery Challenge

Arkaign

Lifer
Oct 27, 2006
20,736
1,379
126
I'm more of an Obama supporter by a long shot, but I must admit, this proposal, combined with his earlier call for new Nuclear Power plants have me wondering if he might actually have the edge on moving us along the road towards less dependence on oil.

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/200...on_el_pr/mccain_energy

I think this is a novel idea, and actually mirrors some of what I've proposed over the years, including new tax breaks for companies who produce these kinds of vehicles.

Anyone have some info on Obama's proposals, if any, along these lines?
 

StageLeft

No Lifer
Sep 29, 2000
70,150
5
0
Not bad, but if a VC firm hasn't come up with it, who knows how effective it is. Also, it is so trivial a thing in the grand scheme. Also, without any real qualification of what he is looking for, this is nothing more than a flash in the pan idea at the moment. What is "leap frog"ing?
 

RightIsWrong

Diamond Member
Apr 29, 2005
5,649
0
0
I like the idea of it. I hope that others will take it seriously and work on it and I hope that whomever is judging the claims of the "winner" is qualified to do so.
 

Lemon law

Lifer
Nov 6, 2005
20,984
3
0
I very much doubt that a prize is going to all that big of an incentive in the case of battery technology. Garage inventors all the way up to huge international corporations with huge R&D labs have been working on the problem for many decades. And who is going to invest 100's of millions of dollars in R&D in the hopes they can win the prize when its more likely any new breakthroughs will come in an entirely different direction than the R&D going on now.

Other areas of energy research probably offer more potential. Solar cells, microbes able to directly convert waste to oil, and the like are probably more neglected research areas.

Nor do I trust McCain who seems to pick one part of what makes up a label and then claims to be that entire label. A classic case is on the environment, where McCain championed just one good idea, and then claimed to be green. But lifetime, conservations groups rate McCain at 26%, while Obama and Hillary have an 83% rating.

This nation has put off doing the proper things on energy efficiency for 40 years and decisions made on short term panic are not likely to be long term wise or prudent.
 

Xavier434

Lifer
Oct 14, 2002
10,373
1
0
Originally posted by: Arkaign

Anyone have some info on Obama's proposals, if any, along these lines?

What we know is that Obama supports Nuclear Power too. The main difference between him and McCain is that Obama is more strict when it comes to improving safety in addition to environmental hazards before we start doing mass construction on more plants. McCain doesn't seem to have any kind of line drawn when it comes to that part which I think is a bad idea. I am all for going Nuclear, but if we are going to do it then let's not be cheap about it and do it right for the sake of the long term effects. The last thing we want to do is act too quickly only to turn around 10-20 years later and say..."Oh shit". Kinda like how we did with our oil dependency.
 

Robor

Elite Member
Oct 9, 1999
16,979
0
76
Also supporting Obama here but definitely like hearing this out of McCain. I'm all for alternative energy sources and I hope the next president - whoever it is - puts it up near the top of their agenda.
 

frostedflakes

Diamond Member
Mar 1, 2005
7,925
1
81
Originally posted by: Arkaign
I'm more of an Obama supporter by a long shot, but I must admit, this proposal, combined with his earlier call for new Nuclear Power plants have me wondering if he might actually have the edge on moving us along the road towards less dependence on oil.

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/200...on_el_pr/mccain_energy

I think this is a novel idea, and actually mirrors some of what I've proposed over the years, including new tax breaks for companies who produce these kinds of vehicles.

Anyone have some info on Obama's proposals, if any, along these lines?
Already been developed. :)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eestor
 

CADsortaGUY

Lifer
Oct 19, 2001
25,162
1
76
www.ShawCAD.com
IMO 300mil is a pocket change reward but atleast it creates a buzz. Think about it. IF someone can "leapfrog" the technology they will make 10X the "reward" money McCain is talking about just by licensing/building/selling the product.
 

Moonbeam

Elite Member
Nov 24, 1999
73,809
6,518
126
Originally posted by: CADsortaGUY
IMO 300mil is a pocket change reward but atleast it creates a buzz. Think about it. IF someone can "leapfrog" the technology they will make 10X the "reward" money McCain is talking about just by licensing/building/selling the product.

This is a joke in my opinion. What is needed is billions in research grants to universities etc, to do basic materials research. MIT also has a nanotech capacitance battery.

Link
 

ElFenix

Elite Member
Super Moderator
Mar 20, 2000
102,380
8,509
126
obama will raise him to $500 million, propose more ethanol subsidies for his friends at ADM, and then claim that one of mccain's big supporters is against the battery challenge, thereby implicating mccain as being against the battery challenge to anyone dumb enough to not look up the facts.
 

bsobel

Moderator Emeritus<br>Elite Member
Dec 9, 2001
13,346
0
0
We discussed reward programs like this at Future in Review, the math on them is good often providing 10-100x investment than the reward amount by investors seeking to win it (e.g. this 300m prize could easily generate 3b+ in investment by different groups attempting to win the prize).

The X-Prize was a great example of this, the amount of money spent chasing that prize was north of 100m (the prize was 10m as I recall)
 

dullard

Elite Member
May 21, 2001
25,655
4,172
126
He is solving the wrong problem. New batteries aren't the solution to the energy crisis. Batteries just store energy, they do not create it nor do they help us use less of it.

I'm not saying that new batteries aren't useful. In fact, I think they are one of the key things that are needed to move many different forms of technology forward. However, McCain wants to help remove are dependence on oil, and batteries really don't do it.

Sure, you can plug in your car and have it be run off of electricity. But where does that electricity come from? Yep, from using our limited energy supplies. All you do is shift the problem from the average Joe to the power company. Your power company either:
1) Burns oil for power (ie even more oil is used since the oil->electricity->vehicle conversion is less efficient than the oil->gasolinie->vehicle route).

or

2) Burns something else (such as coal) which drives up the price of coal, thereby making the power companies that use both coal and oil switch to oil. You still in the end power your car by oil.

Either way, we aren't significantly less dependent on oil.

What we really need is alternative energy sources and more energy efficient applications. Batteries do neither.
 

Jaskalas

Lifer
Jun 23, 2004
34,579
8,641
136
Originally posted by: Arkaign
I'm more of an Obama supporter by a long shot, but I must admit, this proposal, combined with his earlier call for new Nuclear Power plants have me wondering if he might actually have the edge on moving us along the road towards less dependence on oil.

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/200...on_el_pr/mccain_energy

I think this is a novel idea, and actually mirrors some of what I've proposed over the years, including new tax breaks for companies who produce these kinds of vehicles.

Anyone have some info on Obama's proposals, if any, along these lines?

Well, Obama's chief consern these days appears to be government take over of the oil industry. Reminds me of other things the government gets its hands on. If they get their wish we?ll pay a terrible price.

Of course the price of oil is getting desperate in this nation ? and desperate people do stupid things, like digging themselves deeper in a hole.
 

Hayabusa Rider

Admin Emeritus & Elite Member
Jan 26, 2000
50,879
4,267
126
Originally posted by: dullard
He is solving the wrong problem. New batteries aren't the solution to the energy crisis. Batteries just store energy, they do not create it nor do they help us use less of it.

I'm not saying that new batteries aren't useful. In fact, I think they are one of the key things that are needed to move many different forms of technology forward. However, McCain wants to help remove are dependence on oil, and batteries really don't do it.

Sure, you can plug in your car and have it be run off of electricity. But where does that electricity come from? Yep, from using our limited energy supplies. All you do is shift the problem from the average Joe to the power company. Your power company either:
1) Burns oil for power (ie even more oil is used since the oil->electricity->vehicle conversion is less efficient than the oil->gasolinie->vehicle route).

or

2) Burns something else (such as coal) which drives up the price of coal, thereby making the power companies that use both coal and oil switch to oil. You still in the end power your car by oil.

Either way, we aren't significantly less dependent on oil.

What we really need is alternative energy sources and more energy efficient applications. Batteries do neither.

McCain isn't a scientist and for that matter neither is Obama. McCain has the right idea in offering a prize, however I agree that he's defined what America needs in almost complete ignorance.

BTW there is precedence for this sort of thing. Britain offered a prize for an accurate clock that could be carried on a ship. The importance of this was for navigation. It was a major reason why "Britain ruled the waves". The government reneged on the inventor, which is another matter, but the prize was of incalculable worth.
 

BoberFett

Lifer
Oct 9, 1999
37,562
9
81
Does anybody think the whole "inventor's prize" craze that's been happening lately is kind of odd? Spaceships, fuel efficient cars, batteries.

Do politicians and businessmen think that intelligent people would have all the world's problems solved, but for the lack of a carrot dangling from a stick?

These problems are not unknown. It's common knowledge that we need to improve battery tech. There are already people working on it. There's also already a huge market available to anyone that can increase battery density to the level we need and a corresponding huge payday. What purpose do these prizes serve?

Edit: I see bsobel began to address this above. What I don't understand is how anybody would invest in something like this just for the prize. The real prize is being first to market and making a fortune off of a brand new [patented] invention. The prize just seems extraneous. As the price of oil moves higher and higher, the free market investments into new technology will happen naturally. Had this prize been offered 20 or even 10 years ago it might have meant something. At this point it just seems like an afterthought.
 

Fern

Elite Member
Sep 30, 2003
26,907
173
106
Originally posted by: dullard
-snip-
Sure, you can plug in your car and have it be run off of electricity. But where does that electricity come from?

We've got a ton of coal; the most in the world (est. at 250 year supply). Unlike oil.

Just plug the cars in overnight when demand is down.

If we're gonna get off oil, cars need to be converted to something else.

Fern
 

m1ldslide1

Platinum Member
Feb 20, 2006
2,321
0
0
Originally posted by: BoberFett
Does anybody think the whole "inventor's prize" craze that's been happening lately is kind of odd? Spaceships, fuel efficient cars, batteries.

Do politicians and businessmen think that intelligent people would have all the world's problems solved, but for the lack of a carrot dangling from a stick?

These problems are not unknown. It's common knowledge that we need to improve battery tech. There are already people working on it. There's also already a huge market available to anyone that can increase battery density to the level we need and a corresponding huge payday. What purpose do these prizes serve?

Edit: I see bsobel began to address this above. What I don't understand is how anybody would invest in something like this just for the prize. The real prize is being first to market and making a fortune off of a brand new [patented] invention. The prize just seems extraneous. As the price of oil moves higher and higher, the free market investments into new technology will happen naturally. Had this prize been offered 20 or even 10 years ago it might have meant something. At this point it just seems like an afterthought.

Exactly. But like someone else said, it sure creates a buzz in the media. :roll:
 

Tab

Lifer
Sep 15, 2002
12,145
0
76
So, McCain is throwing out a bunch of money and is also for off-shore drilling and stay in Iraq.

Looks like someone just wants or needs free press...
 

Genx87

Lifer
Apr 8, 2002
41,091
513
126
Originally posted by: BoberFett
Does anybody think the whole "inventor's prize" craze that's been happening lately is kind of odd? Spaceships, fuel efficient cars, batteries.

Do politicians and businessmen think that intelligent people would have all the world's problems solved, but for the lack of a carrot dangling from a stick?

These problems are not unknown. It's common knowledge that we need to improve battery tech. There are already people working on it. There's also already a huge market available to anyone that can increase battery density to the level we need and a corresponding huge payday. What purpose do these prizes serve?

Edit: I see bsobel began to address this above. What I don't understand is how anybody would invest in something like this just for the prize. The real prize is being first to market and making a fortune off of a brand new [patented] invention. The prize just seems extraneous. As the price of oil moves higher and higher, the free market investments into new technology will happen naturally. Had this prize been offered 20 or even 10 years ago it might have meant something. At this point it just seems like an afterthought.

You are hitting th enail on the head. If there was magical energy source the private sector would have found it by now or working on it in great vigor. What we have are possible alternative energy sources that cost more than the oil we are pumping. This is why I scoff at these candidates promising the invest in alternative energy sources using govt funds. If there was something worth investing the private sector would be on it. What we end up is something like E85 where we subsidize the costs on the backend to make it competitive with gasoline on the front end. An alternative that costs 33% more at the pump after true costs are calculated and provides 70-80% the mileage. Going in the wrong direction.

Another reason i dislike Obama's tax the windfall profits and invest in alternative energy. Why not just state what you are really doing? Taxing Oil to pay big AG.
 

conehead433

Diamond Member
Dec 4, 2002
5,569
901
126
A dollar for every citizen of the US. Sorry I want to keep my dollar. Obviously it would take a vast amount of resources and money to achieve this dream. They're introducing cars that run on compressed air in India even as we speak, and McCain is trying to convince voters that more drilling will really help things out.
 
Oct 27, 2007
17,009
1
0
Originally posted by: conehead433
A dollar for every citizen of the US. Sorry I want to keep my dollar. Obviously it would take a vast amount of resources and money to achieve this dream. They're introducing cars that run on compressed air in India even as we speak, and McCain is trying to convince voters that more drilling will really help things out.

How do you think that air gets compressed? Do you think engineers smooth talk the air molecules into cramming themselves into a talk?
 

badkarma1399

Senior member
Feb 21, 2007
688
2
0
Meh, I'd like to see the money better spent as tax breaks for companies researching new energy technologies. To me it seems too focused, like the corn ethanol debacle. Washington should let science and technology decide what receives the investments. No one can predict where the future will be, let alone a pandering politician.
 

Hayabusa Rider

Admin Emeritus & Elite Member
Jan 26, 2000
50,879
4,267
126
Originally posted by: Genx87
Originally posted by: BoberFett
Does anybody think the whole "inventor's prize" craze that's been happening lately is kind of odd? Spaceships, fuel efficient cars, batteries.

Do politicians and businessmen think that intelligent people would have all the world's problems solved, but for the lack of a carrot dangling from a stick?

These problems are not unknown. It's common knowledge that we need to improve battery tech. There are already people working on it. There's also already a huge market available to anyone that can increase battery density to the level we need and a corresponding huge payday. What purpose do these prizes serve?

Edit: I see bsobel began to address this above. What I don't understand is how anybody would invest in something like this just for the prize. The real prize is being first to market and making a fortune off of a brand new [patented] invention. The prize just seems extraneous. As the price of oil moves higher and higher, the free market investments into new technology will happen naturally. Had this prize been offered 20 or even 10 years ago it might have meant something. At this point it just seems like an afterthought.

You are hitting th enail on the head. If there was magical energy source the private sector would have found it by now or working on it in great vigor. What we have are possible alternative energy sources that cost more than the oil we are pumping. This is why I scoff at these candidates promising the invest in alternative energy sources using govt funds. If there was something worth investing the private sector would be on it. What we end up is something like E85 where we subsidize the costs on the backend to make it competitive with gasoline on the front end. An alternative that costs 33% more at the pump after true costs are calculated and provides 70-80% the mileage. Going in the wrong direction.

Another reason i dislike Obama's tax the windfall profits and invest in alternative energy. Why not just state what you are really doing? Taxing Oil to pay big AG.

The private sector works to make the most money while spending the least. Apollo was not something the private sector created, yet the spin offs are worth a great deal more than what the government invested. Likewise there was a great need for that clock. It wasn't trivial. Yet the private sector (which existed in England at that time) didn't come up with it.
Sometimes the best results are from government funding and at other times not. A business may come up with a solution, but when it's to the shareholders advantage, not the nations.
 

LostUte

Member
Oct 13, 2005
98
0
0
Originally posted by: dullard
He is solving the wrong problem. New batteries aren't the solution to the energy crisis. Batteries just store energy, they do not create it nor do they help us use less of it.

I'm not saying that new batteries aren't useful. In fact, I think they are one of the key things that are needed to move many different forms of technology forward. However, McCain wants to help remove are dependence on oil, and batteries really don't do it.

Sure, you can plug in your car and have it be run off of electricity. But where does that electricity come from? Yep, from using our limited energy supplies. All you do is shift the problem from the average Joe to the power company. Your power company either:
1) Burns oil for power (ie even more oil is used since the oil->electricity->vehicle conversion is less efficient than the oil->gasolinie->vehicle route).

or

2) Burns something else (such as coal) which drives up the price of coal, thereby making the power companies that use both coal and oil switch to oil. You still in the end power your car by oil.

Either way, we aren't significantly less dependent on oil.

What we really need is alternative energy sources and more energy efficient applications. Batteries do neither.

dullard, some of your criticisms are greatly misplaced. First, efficiency is generally considered to be higher through the conversion to electricity because the internal combustion engine is so inefficient compared to the combination of a large power plant/transmission/electric motor.

Second, the most important issue for energy security is energy diversity. Currently, we can only run our cars off of oil. Coal, natural gas, wind, solar, hydro, nukes, and oil are all viable once transport is electrified.

Third, petroleum accounts for a trivial amount of electricity in the US (on the order of 1-2%). You are implying that it will not benefit us to migrate to the lowest cost sources of power. Instead you propose we use oil for transportation no matter the cost.

Edit: As a side note, this $300 million dollar prize is essentially worthless. A battery that meets the specifications for the prize is going to be worth tens of billions of dollars (at a minimum).