Will the Audacious Bailouts for Alternative Energy Happen? 40 comments
-
Font Size:
-
Print
- TweetThis
Sub-Prime Lending for Alternative Energy
2008 was a watershed year when global markets taught the Masters of the Universe that loans are more than slick packaging, sophisticated forecasting models and favorable rating agency reports. Unfortunately, we’ve all suffered grave collateral damage from politically popular programs to loan money to people who can’t afford to pay it back. I can only hope that the staff at the DOE has been paying close attention because they’re the ones who’ll have to decide the fate of dozens of applications that have already been filed in connection with the auto industry bailout. If the publicly announced Stone Soup loan requests I’ve seen from companies that want to manufacture electric vehicles and EV battery systems are any indication, it will be a difficult and politically charged process. Four of the more audacious if not downright piggish loan requests include:
The Energy Independence and Security Act of 2007, which is affectionately referred to as the auto industry bailout in the common tongue, authorizes $25 billion in DOE grants and low interest loans for projects that reequip, expand or establish domestic facilities to manufacture qualified advanced technology vehicles and components. The program generally requires the applicant to pay 20% of the project costs and allows DOE funds to cover the balance. A total of $2.5 billion has been set-aside for companies with fewer than 500 employees. Before making a loan, the DOE is required by law to determine whether the applicant is “financially viable without the receipt of additional Federal funding associated with the proposed project.”
In a recently released Interim Final Rule, the DOE said it interpreted the viability standard to mean that
the applicant must demonstrate a reasonable prospect that [it] will be able to make payments of principal and interest on the loan as and when such payments become due under the terms of the loan documents, and that [it] has a net present value which is positive, taking all costs, existing and future, into account.
In making decisions, the DOE said it plans to consider the applicant’s:
- Debt-to-equity ratio as of the date of the loan application;
- Historical earnings before interest, taxes, depreciation, and amortization (EBITDA);
- Debt to EBITDA ratio as of the date of the loan application;
- Historical interest coverage ratio (EBITDA ÷ interest expenses);
- Historical fixed charge coverage ratio (EBITDA + fixed charges ÷ fixed charges + interest expense);
- Liquidity as of the date of the loan application;
- Statements from lenders that it is current with all payments due under loans made by those lenders; and
- Financial projections demonstrating its solvency through the term of the loan.
It doesn’t take much time with Google (GOOG) and an Internet connection to ascertain that none of these companies has:
- Historical product sales that represent more than about 5% of the requested loan amount;
- An earnings history that would make EBITDA calculations possible or comparisons meaningful;
- Enough liquidity to finance their substantial recurring losses during the construction period;
- Enough liquidity to finance inventory and start up expenses on their proposed plants; or
- The 20% down payment required by statute.
While I’m sure they’ve all provided letters from investment bankers that say, “If you approve the loan we’re highly confident we can raise the equity;” the DOE is not Hollywood and even if the applicants get Federal money to build their dream facilities, there can be no confidence that “if you build it they will come” because the proposed products are simply too expensive for anyone other than the emotionally entangled or the mathematically challenged.
I’ve carefully studied a May 2004 EPRI Report that concluded HEVs, PHEVs and EVs would attain cost parity with internal combustion engines if Ni-MH battery prices fell to $350 to $400 per kWh at medium volume production of 100,000 units per year. The same report speculated that Li-ion batteries might be an even better solution if cycle-life and safety improved significantly and economies of scale slashed battery costs to the $350 to $400 per kWh range. While we have seen impressive growth in HEV sales from 84,000 units in 2004 to 296,000 units in the first eleven months of 2008, none of the assumed battery cost savings have materialized. Ni-MH battery prices have not fallen in response to increased demand. Moreover, all of the enhanced performance Li-ion technologies are more expensive than their predecessors. Since I see no reason to believe that Ni-MH and Li-ion battery prices will plummet anytime soon, I think it’s high time that we revise outdated economic assumptions to reflect unpleasant current realities.
I’ve used a battery cost table prepared by Sandia National Laboratories in a couple of recent articles. The Sandia report shows that Li-ion batteries are roughly 2/3 more expensive than comparable Ni-MH batteries. It also shows that Ni-MH batteries are roughly 2/3 more expensive than a new asymmetric lead-carbon capacitor that has already been successfully demonstrated in a 100,000-mile HEV road test. While one commenter has called me a captain buzz-kill for having the temerity to discuss real-world economics, I can’t justify using Federal funds to subsidize a “best available technology” that’s almost three times more expensive than a “best affordable technology.”
A couple days before Christmas, I published a Seeking Alpha article that put pencil to paper in an effort to calculate whether the PHEV and EV proposals that are the current darlings of scientists, economists, politicians and reporters make sense at current battery prices. Since I failed to include maintenance cost savings in my original tables and was reasonably criticized for the oversight, I’ve re-run the numbers. They’re still ugly!
The average American drives 40 miles a day, or about 12,000 miles per year. Assuming an average fuel efficiency of 25 mpg, the average driver will use about 480 gallons of gas per year. A comparably sized plug-in electric vehicle would need about 10 kWh of battery storage to get a 40-mile range. The following table calculates the 10-year costs of a pure EV based on the principal battery chemistries that could be used in transportation. The table assumes a 40-mile range and a 40-mile average daily use, straight-line depreciation of 10% per year, imputed interest of 6% per year on the unamortized battery cost, an average electricity price of $0.06 per kWh and annual maintenance savings of $180. It then divides the total cost of ownership by 4,800 to determine a breakeven gasoline price.
Valve regulated lead acid batteries cannot offer a 10-year useful life, but I’ve included them in the table to serve as a baseline for end-user cost comparisons. I’ve also included asymmetric lead-carbon capacitors, which are still too bulky for subcompact EVs. Once you eliminate these two technologies from the mix, it becomes painfully clear that a pure EV using Ni-MH and Zebra batteries can’t break even until average gas prices exceed $2.22 per gallon and a pure EV using Li-ion batteries can’t break even until average gas prices exceed $3.69 per gallon
While the price performance figures for a pure EV with a 40-mile range are disappointing, they deteriorate rapidly when you try to manufacture a pure EV with a 100-mile range. To illustrate the point, the next table goes through the same calculations using a 100-mile potential range and a 40-mile average daily use.
These two tables starkly illustrate an inconvenient truth about prevailing PHEV and EV proposals:
- Pure EVs cannot pay for themselves unless you buy the cheapest batteries possible;
- Pure EVs cannot pay for themselves unless you consistently use the maximum range; and
- HEVs and PHEVs will be less cost-effective than pure EVs because of additional maintenance costs.
Senator Robert Kennedy is fondly remembered for saying, “There are those that look at things the way they are, and ask why? I dream things that never were, and ask why not?” The sentiment is stirring, full of hope and incredibly inspirational. It also meshes well with my personal conviction that in America, we get up in the morning, we go to work and we solve our problems. But no problem can be solved until we accept the facts as they are with all of their inherent complexity.
Scientists, economists, politicians and reporters are supposed to make assumptions; it’s part of their job description. Companies, on the other hand, are expected to deliver tangible results in mass quantities at a reasonable price. Investors do not prosper unless their companies can make a product that meets or exceeds market expectations.
Over the last five years, Ni-MH and Li-ion battery manufacturers have achieved remarkable product performance gains but failed miserably when it comes to controlling costs. Unless they can find a way to slash manufacturing costs, HEVs PHEVs and EVs cannot compete with internal combustion engines until oil prices stabilize over $100 per barrel. Until Ni-MH and Li-ion battery manufacturers can show a concrete and achievable short-term plan to slash battery costs through specific actions, spending billions of dollars building new factories makes no more sense than giving a $200,000 adjustable rate mortgage to a busboy.
The time for optimistic battery price assumptions and happy talk about future economies of scale is past and we all have to play the cards we’ve been dealt. Under current economic conditions, the only battery technology that has a reasonable shot at being cheap enough to do the job is advanced lead-acid; and even that won’t be certain until asymmetric lead-carbon capacitor technology advances from pre-commercial prototype to finished product.
A journey of a thousand miles may begin with a single step, but I’ve never seen a successful plan that didn’t involve taking every step along the path. There simply are no short cuts.
Disclosure: Author holds a large long position in Axion Power International (AXPW.OB), a leading domestic developer of asymmetric lead-carbon capacitors. He also holds small long positions in Exide (XIDE) and Enersys (ENS) and may make other energy storage investments in the future.
Related Articles
|
Find People on SA
-
The Seeking Alpha 100
See allThe top 100 stock
market authors
selected for publication
Seeking Alpha 100 » -
Fastest Climbers
Authors with the largest
increase in followers
in the last 7 days-
1
David Fry
-
2
Bill Gross
-
3
Philip Davis
-
4
Tyler Durden
-
5
TraderMark
Fastest Climbers » -
1
-
Top Commenters
Top commenters,See all
as ranked by their peers
Top Commenters » -
Top Instabloggers
The 100 most activeSee all
Instabloggers.
Top Instabloggers » -
Top StockTalkers
TopSee all
StockTalkers.
Top StockTalkers »
This article has 40 comments:
Another very interesting article, thanks! I'm curious to know; have you followed the development of the Aptera 2e auotomobile or, Nanosolar (both privately held companies, both California based)?
Aptera has been quite guarded about the type(s) of battery employed in their vehicle (ostensibly due to concerns regarding their business model, costs, etc,) but, it appears that they are working toward 2 models:1) all electric & 2) a hybrid. Their stated goal is 100,000 vehicles on the road by 2015.
Nanosolar is producing a photovoltaic thin film, based upon their propietary "ink" & high speed printing process. Said to be lowest in cost & highly efficient, they are currently operating plants in California & Germany.
While a bit far afield from storage media proper, I'm sure you would agree that these types of application are of importance. Thanks again for your articles!
One last note, the quote so often attributed to Robert F. Kennedy is from George Bernard Shaw. Kennedy was one who often read & quoted a number of poets but, he also gave G.B. Shaw credit on this one!
Isn't it reasonable to think that might happen by 2010 when the first PHEVS hit the market? or not long after? I realize this is anybody's guess.
When discussing the economy of scale of PHEVS, EVs, HEVS, you are understandably focusing on the cost of batteries, which represent a sizable chunk of the cost, but isn't that only part of the picture? What about the improving economy of scale of building the car itself? After all, EVs and PHEVs represent new power train designs etc, which I would think would have their own economy of scale ramp up. There must be a learning curve for workers, unfamiliar with the new designs for one thing. Doesn't worker productivity go up as new skills and methods are learned?
As far as PHEVS verses EVs, it would seem that PHEVs would win out in the market place as long as the cost premium over EVs wasn't too high. The reasoning is that people will be much more inclined to buy a PHEV that doesn't have the range limitation of EVs.
In comparing the costs with that of internal combustion cars, it would make sense to include the cost of externalities of fossil fuels in the equation. Reducing the trade imbalance from oil and other costs associated with being dependent on foreign oil should also be considered, includiing impacts on national security. I'm looking more at the big picture obviously. Won't a cap and trade, or carbon tax, or whatever trading system gets ironed out, change the equation in regard to gasoline?
"Valve regulated lead acid batteries cannot offer a 10-year useful life, but I’ve included them in the table to serve as a baseline for end-user cost comparisons"
Is there a reason why the battery must last 10 years? Why couldn't the battery just be changed out sooner, like after 5 years say?
proclaimer, I personally think the $.06 per kWh number is too low just like I think 10 years is too long. But I would rather have people criticize me for being too gentle on PHEVs and EVs than for being harsher than necessary to exaggerate a point. The economics don't work with gentle assumptions, but they look even worse as the assumptions get closer to the real world.
The "nano" tag is one of the most misused terms in the world because it accurately applies to nano-milled materials, which basically means very finely ground, to nano-structured materials like fullerenes, graphene and nano-tubes, all of which are terribly expensive today but will get cheaper as time passes. A number of battery companies including Altair and Axion are already using nano-milled materials because they possess some unique physical properties. But the real pay-off will come when nano-structured materials are cheap enough to use in every day items.
frflyer, I personally look for oil to stabilize over $100 very quickly and wrote an article on the subject in early December. See:
seekingalpha.com/artic...
But regardless of what the oil price is, the lead-carbon will always enjoy better economics than either Ni-MH or Li-ion because the battery itself is cheaper. So ultimately it will be a trade off between a bigger empty trunk and the ability to fill a smaller trunk with groceries. I think the groceries will win.
I couldn't even begin to talk about possible economies in car design and manufacture, but the PHEV's will always be the highest price option because they have both complex electric power trains and complex IC power trains. The cheaper alternatives will be HEV or pure EV.
There are a number of people who are already doing straight lead-acid conversions on small trucks, vans and SUVs. The economics seem to work pretty well even with more frequent battery replacements. My goal was to keep my calculation methodology as close to the EPRI model as possible.
Thankyou again! My reference to G.B. Shaw relates to his play " Back to Methusaleh" (1921) and, the Serpent's comments to Eve. RFK's paraphrasing of Shaw was in a 1966 speech, immortalized by Teddy Kennedy in his eulogy to his slain brother. Shaw would scarcely be remembered, I'm sure, were it not for RFK's tragic loss and, as well, Teddy's very poignant eulogy.
Whoever made the quote it is inspirational and was well used in your comments above.
In Texas we pay from $0.12 - $0.18 per Kwh (yes, ouch!). So from my perspective you were indeed much too gentle on the economics of EV's.
As to HEV's, there is some merit as the Prius has demonstrated. There is an interesting after market manufacturer, Poulsen Hybrids at www.poulsenhybrid.com/ who would be an excellent niche market for Axion batteries. I sent an email to Axion suggesting Axion sales rep's might want to contact Ulrik Poulsen but received no response. Maybe he is too small a potential player for their interest. But he has ambitious plans and they are a good fit.
If it is true that genius is not recognized in its own times, you are a genius. I can't make heads or tails out of your comment. But then, maybe I'm the one who is not a genius?
battman - - -
You said: " I don't think oil goes up anywhere near $ 100.00 for many years to come."
You will be correct only if we have a depression (a recession that lasts more than 3 years). If there is a recovery starting in 2010 or early 2011, oil will quickly rise to the cost of new production plus some profit margin. Many oil fields in production over the past decade are now in decline and the current average cost for new production is in the area of $70 to $80. Only if consumption continues to decline will we not need new production and new production will not occur unless the market price exceeds the cost. That formula is very close to $100.
While you may hope that your prediction is accurate, I hope it is not, because it can only happen if we have shrinking GDP for years to come.
On Jan 11 01:09 PM The Proclaimer wrote:
> Ok Nick I'm interested, tell me more. Do you know of a process or
> patent/ patent pending to cite? Cheaper than coal, oil, gas, any
> hydrocarbon or even tires & land fill garbage???? Can your
> system produce power OR does the source cost have less than zero
> overall cost? Does this system have benefit the Enviroment in any
> way? Does this unknown, but developed, system produce any valuable
> by-products? Its is going to be tough to compete with a process
> that does. Especially one that complements the existing infrastructure.
> The only possibility that comes close is "Zero Point " energy. Is
> that what you are talking about?
I am just the kid at the ball park with the favorite "knot hole" to view the game. BUT that kid does know the score way before the rest of the world. I can at least put anyone in touch with the real brains. Just make your contact info known along with your request for info. Sorry I cannot broadcast anymore than I have already. You can, however, hang tight until the process is announced. I can tell you that I have, as well as the Discoverer, been very open when in person and publically spreading the Good News. Here is a quote from the original handout/statement made about this process by the company:
" A power plant equipped to use our process could burn hydrocarbons without significant release of CO2 to the environment (for 'carbon neutrality') and the carbon and industrial gas produced would likely result in a cost-below-zero for the electricity." Note: this was made before they discovered that the process works with hydrocarbons as well as with post combustion to destroy CO2.
The original also contained a picture of the Discoverer and his home address as well as his phone number. Now I ask you, Would you make a statement like this AND include your picture, home address & phone number. While you are thinking, ask yourself " if this process is not for real." Why, after almost two years of procliaming and attracting Qualified Investors, is this Proclaimer being alowd to continue proclaiming?????
OHH Yeah, In answer to your question John, No the bailouts will NOT happen. The Alternatives will BAILOUT the WORLD!
On Jan 12 01:37 AM John Petersen wrote:
> speculari, those were the days. Gas at 24.9 per gallon and a certainty
> that we could and would change the world. The times we have lived
> through are astounding but I have a sneaking suspicion that the change
> we have already seen is nothing compared to the change we will see.
> The world has turned again and our future will be very different
> from our past. Let's try to make it a good one.
In ten years, oil will be WAY over $100 a barrel (if even available to the increased masses), thus it would be wise to invest in battery mass manufacturing AFTER an initial advanced cost and development plan is completed. In other words, DON'T give that money to failed banks unless they invest in this tech also!
Eventually, carbon laws will also add to the costs of this fossil economy. The way out of that is concentrated solar thermal energy which use lots of mirrors in the deserts to reflect light and heat a reservoir for night time power generation (needed for the charging of e cars).
You seem to be missing the fine point between HEV, PHEV, and EREV technologies when you say HEVs are superior. They are actually the worst of the group because they require a heavy ICE transmission and can not charge their batteries with CHEAP power from the electric grid! All three have ICE engines which could be diesel, gasoline, jet, etc.
The PHEV and EREV technologies could enable a smartGRID to charge their batteries with electric power that is constantly being wasted by our electric distribution grids. Using computer technology to monitor and control electric grids could safely minimize the difference between generated power and power usage by charging batteries 24/7. The electric motor is over 3 times as efficient as any ICE engine. We now waste enough electric power 24/7 to charge the batteries for PHEVs and EREVs to replace ICE only vehicles. We could do this without burning any more coal by using computers to manage the electric grids.
The EREV has 2 advantages over the PHEV. It has no transmission and its ICE runs at a constant optimized speed to generate electricity using the minimum of fuel. SO a gasoline EREV engine will use less and cheaper fuel than a diesel HEV or PHEV because of the energy loss through the transmission. You could use a diesel, inexpensive turbine, Stirling, etc engine in an EREV because of constant speed and torque application as a generator. The H in HEV and PHEV is the problem because it requires a transmission to allow the variable torque ICE to function by itself.
The EREV idea has proven itself in diesel electric locomotives and early Porsche vehicles, www.theautochannel.com... . The Porsche was not a hybrid because the ICE engine did not power the wheels of the vehicle. It was an EREV like the GM Volt.
The carbon nanotechnology can be used with Pb, Li, Ni, etc batteries and it will eventually provide the technology for advanced batteries, www.technologyreview.c... . Production costs will rapidly decrease and new batteries will work just fine in old EVs of any variety.
Even with insanely favorable assumptions including a 10 year service life a plug-in solution that does not fully discharge the batteries on a daily basis can never break even. We've previously had comment exchanges about using a scaled down version of the diesel-electric technology used in locomotives and I'm all for it because it makes economic sense, but not when you try to build in battery power for 20 or 40 miles of daily travel. Buying enough batteries to store energy from the grid (smart or stupid) and power 3,000 pounds of American steel at highway speeds is and always will be a suckers game that's emotionally appealing but economic suicide.
Take another look at the numbers, vehicles with plugs simply do not work and will not work for the foreseeable future.
Nano-milled carbon is already being used by Axion in its PbC products. You will be freezing in the dark long before nano-structured carbons like buckyballs, nanotubes and graphene are cheap enough for use as battery components.
These are your words:
<<We've previously had comment exchanges about using a scaled down version of the diesel-electric technology used in locomotives and I'm all for it because it makes economic sense, but not when you try to build in battery power for 20 or 40 miles of daily travel.>>
The diesel-electric technology used in locomotives is EREV not HEV. Many of the trains in Europe are totally electric, EV technology, and they get their power from overhead electric lines not diesel generators. EV trains make sense when they get electric power from clean inexpensive French Nuclear Power. The French are not complete idiots. My family comes from Alsace.
The most advanced HEV automobile uses only electric power from 0 to about 35, when the battery still has power, then the ICE is used to accelerate from there. They still have heavy transmissions that weigh as much or more than the electric motor used by the Volt EREV and Tesla EV.
Plug-ins do work but they are expensive. The cost of small electric power storage devices will decrease rapidly with the prospect of "Peak Oil" obvious to even our very average IQ Politicians. Energy technology is very complex.
Butanol only makes more sense than ethanol after we learned to genetically modify organisms eating cellulose sugars, and or use nano-technology to produce catalysts for BTL Fischer-tropsch to produce it. This is the 21st century and the pace of technology advances will continue to accelerate. However, we do need a few leaders smart enough to connect the dots.
Excellent comment about EREV. Dean Kamen, inventor of the Segway, hydroflex irrigation pump, water filtration devices, homechoice dialysis , and many other world changing devices has chosen to use a stirling engine in combination with an electric motor for an EREV he built for himself. Mr. Kamen is one of the smartest inventors in the world so his decision to use a constant output stirling engine and EREV design versus any other design puts you in good company.
Rick
What do you think the chances are that John Petersen is correct:
<<Small electric power storage devices, aka batteries, are too expensive for use in transportation and likely to remain that way, particularly if people keep focusing on the glamor girl technologies that cost 2 to 3 times as much as the cheapest alternative.>>
I doubt that everyone will continue to the 'cheapest alternative' he mentions. He may be referring to Firefly's Microcell technology, www.fireflyenergy.com/... . I have a feeling that Firefly is thinking too big. They need Nanocell technology instead.
Of course it is possible that battery technology will not advance as fast as Computer and thin film Photo-voltaic technology but nano carbon technology seems to be crucial in all three technologies and even Politicians are starting to realize that Energy Technology and its components are key in solving our problems. Twenty years ago computer RAM cost hundreds of times more than it does now.
In times of rapid technology advances there will be a few big winners and lots of losers. Our leaders need to look at the Big Picture and encourage scientists to focus on the fine points of technology.
Furthermore, I question the price savings associated with maintenance of an electric motor versus a combustion motor. Electric motors, provided they are properly protected electronically require virtually no maintenance since the only moving parts are the rotor and the brushes (depending on the motor type, maybe not even brushes). Electric motors are far superior technology to combustion motors and can outlast a combustion motor by multiples which means the vehicle life is only limited by the battery and frame of the vehicle. Batteries are the limiting factor, the timing is right and the technology is falling into place to allow electric motors to become dominant. Its only a matter of time before a brilliant chemist figures out how to turn spodumene into usable lithium for batteries even though lithium supply won't be a factor for many years to come. No matter what technology wins out, combustion will be a thing of the past before long.
The maintenance cost savings came from the original EPRI analysis that's linked in the article.
It seems to me that the fabrication machines you're talking about will help pare manufacturing costs by some amount, but won't do anything for the 75% of battery cost that's taken up by raw materials.
I would encourage you to look further into the technologies and chemistries employed by HEV, A123 or Valence. The unsafe graphite cathode batteries you're referring to are nothing like the materials used in todays "safe" packs. The fires and explosions are typically associated with the over-charging of graphite cathodes. While some chemistries of the companies listed above are certainly better than others, even the unsafe batteries can be made safe with proper closed loop control, for example, Ener1 employs controls systems with their packs that protects for over-charging, monitors, numerous thermal and voltage characteristics at hudreds of locations within the pack etc. Not to mention, the chemistries they employ actually cool the pack during charging and there is only a modest exothermic reaction during discharge and I would challenge you to find a single piece of information on Ener1 packs that would question their safety.
As for your pack pricing argument, I have no information on Sandia's estimates, however, manufacturers of electric vehicles such as Ener1's main client, Think Norway, are selling their entire vehicles for 10k less than the Sandia estimate for a 25kW hour pack. This is consistent across the board, see for yourself. None of the chemistries employed in vehicles will be the unsafe chemistries you thought I was referring to but will be as cheap them.
You're also wrong about what chemistries will be used in the cars. One of the greatest switches of all time involved Ener1 publicizing the safety of their safe Li-titanate chemistry and then cutting a deal to deliver a me-too Li-polymer made by the Korean company they bought last fall under the Th!nk contract. The safety record of Li-polymer is spotty at best.
I feel far more comfortable with facts coming from sources like Sandia than I do from company PR or idle chat room speculation. That's why I use them. The problem with Government numbers is they have a nasty habit of telling it like it is instead of how people think it should be.
I make it a policy to avoid comment on Toronto pennies.
Here's a supplier that offers Li-Ion batteries at $620/kWh retail, not including shipping from China:
www.everspring.net/txt...
And even that is not the limit.
Tesla projects that they will be able to replace their 53 kWh battery packs for $20,000 or $380/kWh.
Naturally, if you use $620/kwh instead of $1333/kwh, your break even gas price will be drastically different.
While I hate to state the obvious, all classes of Li-ion batteries are not equal; all products that you can buy from China over the Internet are not necessarily the same quality; and companies that haven't manufactured a product yet frequently have unreasonable expectations that fail to materialize, which is why such a huge proportion of new companies fail.
I've seen the happy talk about future cost reductions. Believing that a newcomer with no manufacturing experience will be able to accomplish what Sony, Toshiba, LG and a host of others could not is unreasonable.
Lofty market valuations are only justified by superior earnings power that comes from selling a good product at a good price. Cutting prices squeezes margins and reduces profits. Telling stories about how you can cut prices and make piles of money is sophistry.
It is ridiculous to even consider offering any of these companies any money from the government without having any track record. I haven't seen any articles at all that suggest that perhaps if we want battery production in the United States, that we go to our world leaders in the business like Duracell, Energizer, and Spectrum/Rayovac. A decade or two ago, all of these companies had lithium ion programs but they didn't pursue this route because it wasn't financially viable. Even though companies like Valence or Ultralife or Yardney all had their own lithium programs, haven't asked for handouts from the government, but have more experience than all three of these greedy new guys and have at least some track record. I believe Yardney produced the batteries that lasted 6 years on Mars so far.
I also suggest that GM is not the one either. It is already obviously apparent that their ability to run their business is extremely flawed. Also, they had a lithium program that failed miserably through Delphi which suggests that can’t engineer their way through this problem.
I say either engage our US experienced battery companies or let the Asian lithium ion producers install their plants here like Toyota has with vehicles. It will have the same job effect without the risk. If one of these private companies can compete, all the more power to them, but no handouts.
"The cost for electricity to power plug-in hybrids for all-electric operation has been estimated at less than one quarter of the cost of gasoline. Compared to conventional vehicles, PHEVs can reduce air pollution, dependence on petroleum, and greenhouse gas emissions that contribute to global warming. Plug-in hybrids use no fossil fuel during their all-electric range if their batteries are charged from nuclear or renewable energy sources. Other benefits include improved national energy security, fewer fill-ups at the filling station, the convenience of home recharging, opportunities to provide emergency backup power in the home, and vehicle to grid applications."