John McCain's initial proposal to alleviate pain at the pump: a summer gas tax holiday. With "option A" laughed off the table, the Wall Street Journal reports that McNasty wants a buck from every [documented] American to fund a $300m prize for a killa battery. The money would go to anyone who develops battery technology that can deliver power at 30 percent of current costs. Oh, and it has to have "the size, capacity, cost and power to leapfrog the commercially available plug-in hybrids or electric cars." Apparently, "from now on, we will encourage heroic efforts in engineering, and we will reward the greatest success." Meanwhile, the Arizona senator suggests toughening fines for CAFE violators, increasing ethanol "incentives" and offering U.S. automakers a $5k tax credit for every zero-carbon emissions car they sell. McCain called current incentives "the handiwork of lobbyists, with all the inconsistency and irrationality that involves." As all of his proposed incentives are offered to automakers (American automakers, at that) rather than consumers, should we expect them to exhibit the same inefficiencies that McCain is railing against? Yes, we should.
Find Reviews by Make:
Read all comments
Will any politician have the balls to call out ethanol incentives for what they are?
McCain called current incentives “the handiwork of lobbyists, with all the inconsistency and irrationality that involves.”
And, his aren’t?! What exactly is a zero carbon emissions car? How will it be defined?
Anyone? It would be truly funny if Toyota claims the prize.
Neither Barack or John will talk negatively about ethanol, especially in an election year. There are a lot of voters that grow corn.
Jon Paul-Ouch! But yagottapoint.
Actually this “B-prize” idea may not be that bad.
Might see several billion invested, 10m at a time, hoping to cash in.
Just because a politician says it does mean it’s always a bad idea. Even Maxibob is right occassionally.
Bunter
Why not just let someone else (Japan) develop it and license the technology ? Isn’t that the new ‘Merican corporate way ?
“McNasty”? Boy, we’re hitting new heights of journalistic professionalism today, aren’t we…
I thought our “free market” was supposed to provide all the incentive needed to develop new technology.
“Power at 30% of current costs” may be possible at some point far into the future, but how about in the next few years? What does that even mean? Who defines “leapfrog”? How long does the offer stand? Who decides what qualifies as a winner?
This smacks of meaningless political twaddle. I think our $300M is safe. Oops, what I mean is that we won’t have to borrow another $300m.
“McNasty” was a nickname he earned from peers years ago…it’s just resurfaced because he is running for President.
That said, he’s playing with the lobbyists he knocks in the same breath.
The free market would normally advance the technology on its own, but with statements like this why should they speed it up when they can sit on it for a while and get hand outs from the government?
I’m sure someone has this super-battery in their basement, just waiting for a prize like this to be announced…. I mean you look at the x-prize or darpa contests and they kind of make sense, maybe. Throwing a prize out for a better battery is just silly, there’s already a huge prize to whoever pulls this off. Also, someone needs to remind John he’s running as a Republican.
As all of his proposed incentives are offered to automakers (American automakers, at that) rather than consumers,
You misread that. The WSJ article clearly states the 5K tax credit is to be offered to consumers, not automakers. There is a transcript on the net backing that up — though admittedly the way McCain verbalized that was a little confusing if you’re not reading it carefully.
I’m sure if Obama came up with this idea, 75% of the posters to this site would be hailing it as “brilliant’.
Huh…
This isn’t a half-bad idea. Instead of funding a porkbarrel exemption or tarrif that furthers consumption, it’s a useful grant to develop a technology that would reduce energy usage.
Surprising that I find myself supporting a McCain initiative and slamming Obama in the same day. I guess this is what’s called “flexible politics”.
The American left and right wings really need to divest themselves of the baggage of history: the Republicans could really do without the social conservatives, and the Democrats could do without the Old Left me-me-me special-interests. Viable “Green” and “Christian Heritage” parties would really go a long way.
What a crock. I thought that the patent system was already in place to put big bucks into the pockets of those who come up with stunning innovations.
The chances of legislation passing which actually puts McCain pandering into action is pretty much zero.
How would the award be given out? Would it be based on demonstration of concept or after the thing is proven in the marketplace? Who would decide when the goal has been met? Commercializing an incremental improvement in technology does not have a clear goal-line. What is the baseline technology against which this magic winning battery is to be measured?
The whole thing is just a bunch of BS.
If McCain wants to carry Iowa, he better come out for ethanol.
That is one reason Obama had his first big win. Hillary has waffled on ethanol just like she did on the Iraq war. And she paid the price.
If McCain keeps waffling on ethanol he will pay the price just like Hillary.
Neither McCain nor Obama seem be able to talk about the gorilla in the room: Peak Oil.
It has major implications for the 21st century and no politician dares speak the words. Cowards all.
The WSJ link didn’t work for me, but the AP story says: “McCain said he could envision foreign automakers such as Honda and Toyota being eligible for the prize, since the Japanese companies have large manufacturing plants in the United States.
As for how he would come up with the prize money, the senator said: ‘I could pay for it by canceling three pork-barrel projects that are unnecessary and unwanted.\'” [Amen, I say.]
I didn’t see any reference to patents, but if the prize requires open licensing, $300 million would be a very cheap price for such a marvelous battery.
Much as I hate some of his other energy policies (offshore oil drilling, pushing specifically nuclear), this stuff is at least in the right direction. The prize is a reasonable idea.
I do have a problem with the tax credit for the carbon neutral car, in that if consumers have extra money to buy such cars courtesy of Uncle Sugar, the car companies will be able to raise prices commensurately on “carbon neutral” cars.
A carbon tax on all fossil fuel would be a better incentive if it’s really carbon emissions we’re trying to reduce. If it’s petroleum use, then we need a tax on all uses of petroleum. It’s inefficient to single out cars for special treatment.
How would the award be given out? Would it be based on demonstration of concept or after the thing is proven in the marketplace? Who would decide when the goal has been met? Commercializing an incremental improvement in technology does not have a clear goal-line. What is the baseline technology against which this magic winning battery is to be measured?
While a nice attempt at the Loki’s Wager fallacy, there is precedent for prizes. The X-Prize worked. The Orteig Prize worked.
It’s not really hard to imagine what the requirements should be. Here’s a starting line: “Less than $1000 in raw materials. Less than 1000 pounds in weight. Capable of supplying 40 kWh. Recharge in 8 hours, consuming an input of at most twice the output. Able to achieve those specs after 1000 cycles.” I’m sure you can come up with a better proposal than that, but, really, unless you’re just trying to be difficult, it’s not hard to define what “success” should be.
If the government is going to spend money at all, this is the way to do it. Private enterprises will take their own risks. Most will fail. Only if any succeed does the government pay.
“The money would go to anyone who develops battery technology that can deliver power at 30 percent of current costs”
If I owned a Chinese lithium company; I’d say “you want 30% off? Fine, take it.”
And get 300 million as a result?
The $300 mil is chump change compared to what a John “We’ll stay in Iraq until we can get out with honor” McCain will spend in Iraq. We’re running around $500 million a day right now. The long term and indirect costs are higher than that.
I’d much rather spend the $$ on R&D that could promote economic growth than on useless wars that are damaging the economy.
An incentive for battery research is a waste because right now there is a huge economic motivation for battery development. The free market will work well here. There will be a large payout for anyone who radically improves battery technology, and firms all over the world are working hard on the problem. Spending the money ten or twenty years ago might have made sense.
The government would be better off spending the money in areas where private industry cannot or is unlikely to research or build, like nuclear fuel reprocessing, public transporation, fusion research, fourth generation nuclear reactor design and construction, thorium reactors, etc. Build the infrastructure that the country will need when gas goes past $10/gal and we are all driving lightweight electric cars made from composite materials.
It’s idiotic. if you come out with a new better battery 300 million is a drop in the bucket. Like nobody is trying to invent a better battery and make the billions in profits.
This year the choice is vote for the Democrat or the Democrat. The Democrat will win.
…further proof that Alzheimer’s Disease doesn’t just “happen” one day, but rather, develops over a period of many years.