Voltage is key

The Speculist has an interesting take on a request from Detroit for federal funding into battery research, batteries being "the weakest link in the tech chain leading to electric cars."  First, the background argument from FuturePundit:

$25 million a year [what our government currently spends on battery research] is chump change. Even $100 million per year [what the automakers want] isn't much. The article reports a claim by a spokesman for GM that Japan and other East Asian countries are spending a few hundred million dollars to subsidize the development of battery technologies in order to give their automakers a competitive advantage.

Given the current $3 billion per week burn rate for US forces in Iraq (which understates total costs since deaths and disabilities will cost us far into the future) the $100 million per year proposed above would pay for 6 hours of the US expenditures in Iraq. 6 hours. We could defund Muslim fundamentalists if we developed cleaner and cheaper replacements for oil and we'd raise our living standards in the process.

Fossil fuels usage brings big external costs in the form of pollution. We are better off accelerating the development of technologies that'll reduce and eventually eliminate the need for fossil fuels.

The Speculist's take:

There's a historical precedent for this. As the Middle Ages came to an end, the Western World had given up on the Crusades. It poured its energies into the Renaissance, the Age of Discovery, and The Enlightenment.

That worked out pretty good.

At first I was inclined to poo poo the cost comparison to the war in Iraq.  I'm generally against federal funding of anything.  And besides, everything is cheaper than war -- that's one reason war is a last resort.  And besides, what does that have to do with the price of cheese in Afghanistan?  But then I got it.  Gaining energy independence from the despots sitting on giant pools of oil would cut the legs out from under them.  The drive toward energy indepence should be seen as one front in the war on terror and, hence, worthy of federal funding.  If all we need to drive is electricity, then we can get that electricity from nuclear power, something we could have in abundance if we just kicked the BANANAs to the curb.  And, oh yeah by the way, it would lead to a huge leap in productivity and wealth for all of us.

A two fer.

Comments

[brandy]

OMG!!! I agree with you. Well mostly.

The breakthroughs they have had in solar energy the last 5 years are mind blowing. Actually, beyond mind blowing. All that’s really left to do is price and this same battery technology.

So, I would also make a huge commitment to solar power. I really don’t have much against nuclear power; except that by any rational ranking, it has to rank below solar, if solar can supply the demand.

[Frank Borger]

There is one "breakthrough" insolar power that isn't going to happen soon. The energy per sq foot won't go up, and the sun won't conveniently stop overhead so you don't have cosine losses.

Similarly we have basic chemical limitations in batteries. Newer technologies have made significant strides in battery weight, but little else.

The bottom line is that good technology doesn't need government money to do the research. Anytime someone wants Uncle Sam to pour money into reasearch, it's because sensible investors recognize a dog when they see it.

[brandy]

Ahhh. Proft. Yes, nothing is worth doing if it doesn't generate profit.

http://www.newscientist.com/article/dn10971-cheap-safe-drug-kills-most-cancers.html

[pedro]

Well, so what if it takes lots of square feet? We've got lots of square feet, especially in the desert where it's sunny all the time. Yeah, the nuttier greens will resist even solar power because of the shade cast by the collectors bothers the endangered quasilizards of the Mojave just like the BANANAs of Nantucket (no names, please) opposed wind power.

Nothing wrong with the profit motive, and Frank is right to a point. However, that point stops short of trumping the need to undercut the Arabs.

[MikeInSeattle]

So an unrestricted profit margin is fine until it has side-effects that damage society?

Welcome to the left...