Obama to Announce $2.4 billion for Batteries and Electric Vehicles
EmailABC News’ Sarah Tobianski reports:
Ahead of President Obama’s visit to Indianan RV plant today, administration officials provided a peek into $2.4 billion in recovery act grants for advanced battery and electric vehicles manufacturing, designed to invest in domestic technology for the future and spur job growth.
“It’s about recapturing the spirit of innovation that has always moved America forward,” said Diana Farrell, Deputy Director of the National Economic Council. “We all know the initial objective of the recovery act was to provide immediate relief to rescue the economy and the financial system but it always intended to make critical investments that would spur innovation and bring us back to what makes America strong and to rebuild the foundation for lasting prosperity.”
According to officials, President Obama will announce 48 grant recipients and the amount of each award Wednesday morning in one of the states receiving the most grants – Indiana – followed by Michigan with seven and 11 winners, respectively. Indiana also had a set of teams that bid for different award pieces – some of those ended up being from multiple locations throughout the state.
The grants will support three main areas: producing and recycling of batteries and their components, producing electric components for vehicles, and purchasing thousands of hybrids and electric vehicles for testing and training to support the transition to better fuel efficiency and advancement.
“If you look at the recipient groups, these range from [original equipment manufacturers] down to the small companies,” said Matt Rogers, Senior Advisor for the Department of Energy. “They include universities and community colleges. You know, we are working all the way across the value chain from folks who produce vehicle to folks who produce components for batteries.”
The $2.4 billion will be coupled with another $2.4 billion in cost share from the recipients, though officials say the average is slightly more than a 50 percent cost share from recipient. By and large, 70 percent of the funding must be spent by Sept. 30 next year and 100 percent by September 2001.
These grants are separate from the Advanced Technology Vehicle Manufacturing Loan Program, which was created by Congress in 2007 and reauthorized last fall and most recently doled out a round of funds this June.
“These are complementary applications in the sense that if an award recipient is building one factory with the proceeds from this grant, they may build another factory with proceeds with a loan program,” Rogers said. “But the same company may show up in both lists from time to time.”
Officials said the selection process was rigorous and started the day after the recovery act was passed. Each application was reviewed by three to five experts – including university professors and professional society members – followed by a panel that selected the top 20 percent of applicants.
–Sarah Tobianski
Mitt Romney's Full Speech at CPAC 2012 
Romney Makes His Case to Conservatives at CPAC
Can this man do anything that doesn’t cost us billions of dollars. The taxpayer’s checkbook – Obama should leave it at home. We are broke – stop spending money we don’t have. Obama is doing nothing more than buying votes with our tax dollars.
Posted by: ubu1991 | August 5, 2009, 8:08 am 8:08 am
“buying votes with our tax dollars.”
to label a president as such is cheap political trash – every politician does it!! I designed an electrical vehicle some 20 years ago for the sake of clean air & got lots of jeers. Former boss of Chrysler displayed his (PBS “Visiting” Houser) some years ago. The problem lies in our mentality (race cars, SUV),hence I commend all who try to help unemployed.
Posted by: ralph montview | August 5, 2009, 9:04 am 9:04 am
How are we going to recharge all these electric vehicles?? Harry Reid just shut down Yucca Mountain, so increasing nuclear power generation is off the table. And Henry Waxman is getting ready to tax energy use back into the Stone Age with Cap and Trade, while crippling the coal industry. Plus, we are cutting domestic oil and gas production in order to be more “green.” Solar and Wind power are decades away from providing any serious amount of power–probably NEVER.
Posted by: Libs' Faith-Based Economics | August 5, 2009, 9:11 am 9:11 am
“President-elect Barack Obama on Saturday again raised the estimate of how many jobs would result from his economic recovery plan, saying it would create or save three million to four million, nearly 90 percent of them in the private sector.”
August 9, 2009 – U.S. companies shed 371,000 jobs in July, compared with a revised 463,000 drop in June, a report by a private employment service said on Wednesday.
Posted by: Tick Tock, Barack | August 5, 2009, 10:11 am 10:11 am
“How are we going to recharge all these electric vehicles?? Harry Reid just shut down Yucca Mountain, so increasing nuclear power generation is off the table.”
Funny, liberals are always telling us how awesome Europe is, France especially. They use lots of nuclear power (which is awesome). Lord knows why we can’t. Guess we’ll just keep that carbon footprint growing.
Posted by: U235 | August 5, 2009, 10:22 am 10:22 am
What a great program. This has immense security implications. We can generate electricity many ways. Better batteries will enable less dependence on foreign oil. It is a much better use of funds than military action.
Posted by: Amy | August 5, 2009, 10:44 am 10:44 am
“How are we going to recharge all these electric vehicles??”
Don’t worry: the White House has an inexhaustible supply of hot air.
Posted by: Bet Noir | August 5, 2009, 10:52 am 10:52 am
“How are we going to recharge all these electric vehicles??”
We take all the oil that we use energy to refine into gasoline, use more fuel to drive that gas all over the country in trucks to gas stations, and just burn it in the power plants instead. There will be huge savings since the electric cars will be far more efficient.
Posted by: Skip | August 5, 2009, 10:58 am 10:58 am
There are 2 types of people:
First Teamers and Bench Warmers
Those who comes up with innovative ideas are First Teamers
Those who critisize but offers no solutions are Bench Warmers
Bench Warmers likes the good old days. You know what kind of boys those are.
Posted by: party1999 | August 5, 2009, 11:18 am 11:18 am
Does this have anything to do with the wahtis230 advertisement ?
Posted by: Gan | August 5, 2009, 11:23 am 11:23 am
“We take all the oil that we use energy to refine into gasoline, use more fuel to drive that gas all over the country in trucks to gas stations, and just burn it in the power plants instead. There will be huge savings since the electric cars will be far more efficient.”
Um.. skip… Oil/Gas powerplants are woefully innefficient compared to coal and nuke. They are a tiny percentage of our power production. More electric cars will mean more coal burning plants, or “clean coal”, whatever that is. Truely the cleanest and most efficient power production is nuclear and we have made no committments to make more of those.
Plus, batteries create a ton of toxic waste. Metric tons of waste compared to even Nuclear plants. Electric vehicles carrying acid batteries and are extremely heavy, requiring more energy to move than efficient gasoline cars. These batteries, even government subsidized are extremely expensive and wear out in just a few years, creating a heavy burden of investment to get the car to be useable for another 3 years.
Nothing about this screams energy savings or good for the environment. Anyone who investigates this would know this.
Posted by: KR | August 5, 2009, 11:37 am 11:37 am
Yikes! For a concrete example of the “spirit of innovation that has always moved America forward”, search up “Stylish Prez, Hideous Birthday Cake” (on another network), for a gander at the “tacky monstrosity”, complete with a “44″ — He was 48 — and a presidential seal, with which The One celebrated the latest anniversary of His er birth.
LAST year, jpt did a feature on His birthday . . .
Posted by: Bet Noir | August 5, 2009, 11:42 am 11:42 am
“According to officials, President Obama will announce 48 grant recipients and the amount of each award”
–> Hmm: 48 government favours, the day after His 48th birthday??
Who does He think He is — Queen Elizabeth?
Posted by: Bet Noir | August 5, 2009, 12:03 pm 12:03 pm
Party1999, there are not only two types of people.
You may not know this, but Michael Jordan was once cut from his high school team and Tracy McGrady spent his first two years in the NBA on the bench. You have forgotten “strivers” who are motivated by achievement and “lazy butts” who never even go out for the team but want someone else to pay for the uniform and give it to them for free.
Now, how are we going to produce enough electricity to keep these cars going? I suggest we continue to use coal, drill for domestic oil (Chavez and the Arab Emirates are still drilling for oil) and build new nuclear power plants.
Obama channeled Illinois Senator Everett Dirksen, “A billion here, a billion there — pretty soon, you’re talking real money.”
Though Obama modestly used “One Hundred Million” to suit his purposes, the original quote still stands as a more than accurate way Congress looks at spending the money we are forced to pay them through taxes.
Posted by: Skipppy Gates | August 5, 2009, 12:11 pm 12:11 pm
KR | Aug 5, 2009 11:37:41 AM
Regardless of how efficient oil plants are compared to coal they are still more efficient than refining oil into gas and burning it in the cars. We’re going to have to rely on coal either way so we better start investing in getting coal as clean as we can. Instead of arguing my own opinions about nuclear I’ll say that I think you are old enough to remember the huge grassroots “No Nukes” movements of the late 70′s early 80′s. Nuclear power is only clean as long as nothing goes wrong. People don’t trust them and don’t want them anywhere near their house. If we try to make a move toward more nuclear what makes you think things would be different this time?
As for all the problems with electric car technology many of those will probably be worked out when billions of dollars are applied to them if electric cars become big in the marketplace.
Posted by: Skip | August 5, 2009, 12:22 pm 12:22 pm
We can take Billions of taxpayer dollars and build batteries. Then we can impose taxes on the utilities when the batteriest are recharged and then tax the taxpayer again at the end of the batteries life. I am sure the government can think of a few more ways they can tax us for this vote buying venture. We are out of money, STOP SPENDING.
Posted by: ubu1991 | August 5, 2009, 12:27 pm 12:27 pm
Posted by: Skip | Aug 5, 2009 12:22:41 PM
The Europeans use nuclear power. Pretty safe. It is actually used in submarines and ships, has been for years. And having lots and lots of batteries around isn’t. before people get all hot for electric cars, they need to realize how nasty batteries and battery manufacture is. There is no free lunch. We need electricity. I’d rather have a nuclear power plant that a coal or oil fired one near me.
Posted by: 9 Volt | August 5, 2009, 1:15 pm 1:15 pm
“People don’t trust them and don’t want them anywhere near their house. If we try to make a move toward more nuclear what makes you think things would be different this time?”
Oh yes, the “grass roots movement” of the 70′s and 80′s, portions of it funded by the Soviet Union to keep us on our growing dependence on foreign oil. Yeah I know, to every lefty its crazy talk. Gotcha. Even if the Russians, ex Russian KGB tell us it was going on, some will still bury their heads in denial. Even though it made perfect Strategic sense to promote within our own people to be more dependent on foreign sources of energy outside our control. I just know what your response to this would be so I’m putting my reply up front.
“As for all the problems with electric car technology many of those will probably be worked out when billions of dollars are applied to them if electric cars become big in the marketplace.”
We have spent billions upon billions for alternate sources of energy since 1979-80 timeframe. But you can’t overcome physics. Electricity degrades over distance. The amount of energy that reaches your home is something like 40% of what was produced at the plant. An electrical engineer here at our offices bent my ear over this, and though half the time I didn’t understand what he was saying, one thing was clear, that because of physics, this approach to save energy would actually create more energy waste.
Posted by: KR | August 5, 2009, 1:18 pm 1:18 pm
SEVENTY-ONE percent! (71%) of U.S. voters say President Obama’s policies have increased the size of the federal deficit, according to a new Rasmussen Reports national telephone survey.
Remember that the nxt time you hear Obama say “We inherited this problem.”
Posted by: Community Agitator | August 5, 2009, 1:24 pm 1:24 pm
Hummers are eligible purchases under C4C??
Yes, seriously.
2009 HUMMER H3T 3.7L 5cyl 5M 4WD Category 2 Truck
Posted by: Cash for Clunkers | August 5, 2009, 1:35 pm 1:35 pm
Also Skip, tiny little Japan has 52 nuke power plants, France has even more, and every country wants one or more. We are the only nation stupid enough to not invest in a resource that we can so easily create. And it remains the most efficient energy production on the planet, period.
Posted by: KR | August 5, 2009, 1:36 pm 1:36 pm
“Remember that the nxt time you hear Obama say “We inherited this problem.”
______________________________________
Obama inherited a national debt doubled during the Bush from $5 trillion to $10 trillion, and an economy in virtual free fall when Bush left office.
Everybody knows that.
Posted by: danita | August 5, 2009, 2:02 pm 2:02 pm
Two cents,
Actually you should look at alternative view points as well. Electric cars sound great on paper, but the logistics trail to support them is actually very inneficient and economically costly. If in a perfect world we could magically convert all of our power plants to nuke power plants would greatly reduce to charging innefficiencies, thats not going to happen. Add in the metric tons of toxic waste that the batteries produce and it doesn’t help out the environment all that well either. It’s still a problematic technology for individual transportation.
Posted by: KR | August 5, 2009, 2:12 pm 2:12 pm
“Obama inherited a national debt doubled during the Bush from $5 trillion to $10 trillion, and an economy in virtual free fall when Bush left office.
Everybody knows that.”
Every conservative I know faults Bush and the Republicans for running up the debt, from the prescription drug plan (written by Kennedy). So your comment just slides right off most conservatives. Economic “free fall” is a little overboard. The economy still hasn’t stabilized after promises that it would from Obama. Most people know that this was a pipe dream. Economies are not run by governments, they are run by consumers. If consumer confidence is down, and consumer spending is down, the government spending money isn’t going to impact that, or even come close to supplimenting it. Consumers are the only ones who can save this economy, and they aren’t getting much encouragement from this administration. And since many claim that this administration is brilliant, then they obviously know this about economics. And if they know this, but are doing all of these other government power grabs instead of encouraging consumer spending, then they must want the economy in crisis so they can continue the power grab.
Posted by: KR | August 5, 2009, 2:35 pm 2:35 pm
“Consumers are the only ones who can save this economy, and they aren’t getting much encouragement from this administration.”
_______________________________________
Hogwash . .. . a very large portion of the Recovery and Reinvestment plan was in tax relief. These benefits extended to 95% of the American tax payers.
Another large portion of the plan was funding to States to shore up insurance plans and health care for ‘consumer’s losing their jobs and their income. Also, to shore up funding to reduce as much as possible the layoff of police, fire fighters, teachers and health care workers.
There is more but you can read it at the White House web site.
Posted by: danita | August 5, 2009, 2:47 pm 2:47 pm
“Also Skip, tiny little Japan has 52 nuke power plants, France has even more, and every country wants one or more.”
Japan and France did so by using the power of the state to push the nuke plants where they wanted them regardless of local concerns.
Somehow I doubt you would be fine with the Obama admin doing that.
The Bush admin probably another story.
Posted by: Ryan C | August 5, 2009, 2:52 pm 2:52 pm
“Every conservative I know faults Bush and the Republicans for running up the debt, from the prescription drug plan (written by Kennedy). So your comment just slides right off most conservatives.”
Conservatives were calling for the elimination of the tax cuts toi fund the Iraq war they wanted so dearly?
Conservatives seem good at two things, denying reality in the present and rewriting the past to cover up that cowardice.
Posted by: Ryan C | August 5, 2009, 2:55 pm 2:55 pm
“Conservatives were calling for the elimination of the tax cuts toi fund the Iraq war they wanted so dearly?
Conservatives seem good at two things, denying reality in the present and rewriting the past to cover up that cowardice.”
See this is where you totally have no understanding Ryan. National security, agree with the war or not, is the Federal Governments responsibility. Last I looked (around 2006), defense spending made up 13% of total government expenditures. You mean to tell me that if the government is bloated and spending too much, the first and only place to look and cut is the one thing that the government is actually responsible for, and makes up a meager 13% of spending? Give me a break.
Posted by: KR | August 5, 2009, 3:05 pm 3:05 pm
“Japan and France did so by using the power of the state to push the nuke plants where they wanted them regardless of local concerns.
Somehow I doubt you would be fine with the Obama admin doing that.
The Bush admin probably another story.”
Oh come on now. I thought you were a big fan of government totalitarianism?
And you are an expert and totally shedding the point and throwing in a totally different case scenario. So there is no room or space in America to build a nuke plant? Is that what your saying in a broad unjustified generalization?
Posted by: KR | August 5, 2009, 3:07 pm 3:07 pm
“Add in the metric tons of toxic waste that the batteries produce and it doesn’t help”
If find it difficult to understand how you can be so concerned with the supposed huge quantities of toxic waste you say batteries will produce yet not be concerned over the tons of super-toxic radioactive waste that nuclear plants produce.
Posted by: Skip | August 5, 2009, 3:10 pm 3:10 pm
“If find it difficult to understand how you can be so concerned with the supposed huge quantities of toxic waste you say batteries will produce yet not be concerned over the tons of super-toxic radioactive waste that nuclear plants produce.”
By comparison, and amount of energy saved, there is no contest in that debate. If every American drove a battery powered car, it would dwarf by a long shot the waste produced by power plants. Not even in the same ballpark. And theres no such thing as super-toxic. Thats like saying your super-dead instead of dead.
Posted by: KR | August 5, 2009, 3:13 pm 3:13 pm
“Last I looked (around 2006), defense spending made up 13% of total government expenditures. You mean to tell me that if the government is bloated and spending too much, the first and only place to look and cut is the one thing that the government is actually responsible for, and makes up a meager 13% of spending?”
Considering that “meager” 13% is half a trillion dollars let’s not play games.
Our allies in the EU spend about $300B.
China spends $70B.
Posted by: Ryan C | August 5, 2009, 3:14 pm 3:14 pm
Posted by: Skip | Aug 5, 2009 3:10:06 PM
No free lunches, Skip. Look into breeder reactors.
Posted by: 9 Volt | August 5, 2009, 3:15 pm 3:15 pm
“So there is no room or space in America to build a nuke plant”
We can’t even find a place for our nuclear waste.
Posted by: Ryan C | August 5, 2009, 3:17 pm 3:17 pm
Posted by: Ryan C | Aug 5, 2009 3:14:34 PM
Obama, end the wars!
Posted by: Peace Now | August 5, 2009, 3:17 pm 3:17 pm
“Considering that “meager” 13% is half a trillion dollars let’s not play games.
Our allies in the EU spend about $300B.
China spends $70B.”
Dollar amounts is irrelevant. % of GDP and total government expenditures is how it is compared because this indicates strain to government and economy, not just dollar amounts. So lets list it that way…
1. Oman
2. Qatar
3. Saudi Arabia
4. Iraq
5. Jordan
6. Israel
7. Yemen
8. Armenia…..
…26. Chad
27. United States
28. Lybia
29. Russia
…. and in last place…
175. European Union
Posted by: KR | August 5, 2009, 3:26 pm 3:26 pm
We can’t even find a place for our nuclear waste.
Where does France put theirs? Japan?
Posted by: 9 Volt | August 5, 2009, 3:26 pm 3:26 pm
“…. and in last place…
175. European Union”
Actually misread. They range between 28ish and 145ish in rank. They lumped em all together and just put it at the bottom and wasn’t broken up for ranking.
Posted by: KR | August 5, 2009, 3:31 pm 3:31 pm
We can’t even find a place for our nuclear waste.
Posted by: Ryan C | Aug 5, 2009 3:17:00 PM
Yucca Mountain was the perfect site. Then Dirty Harry Reid shut it down.
Posted by: Seriously?? | August 5, 2009, 4:01 pm 4:01 pm
“If every American drove a battery powered car, it would dwarf by a long shot the waste produced by power plants”
You’re neglecting to take into account that if everybody drove an electric car there would be huge incentives to develop systems to recycle much of the heavy metals and other ingredients in the batteries. We’re just stuck with nuclear waste, and it is much more toxic btw.
Posted by: Skip | August 5, 2009, 4:03 pm 4:03 pm
This is a great idea, but they should really be using the power of government spending to help develop some kind of standard for the batteries.
If there were a true standard for removable car batteries, I could set up a changing station, like a gas station.
Put up a windmill to charge the batteries, and people would come in and swap out their low battery for a full one in less time than it takes to fill a tank with gas.
Like with Bush’s inititive on fuel cells, its a good idea, but if we’re going to charge them from coal or nuclear plants it really doesn’t do enough to solve the problem.
Posted by: Flash Override | August 5, 2009, 4:11 pm 4:11 pm
“Yucca Mountain was the perfect site. Then Dirty Harry Reid shut it down.”
Actually Obama shut it down.
People of Neveada unsurprisingly did not want nuclear waste dumped into their state.
Posted by: Ryan C | August 5, 2009, 4:38 pm 4:38 pm
Your posts are lagging indicators.
Posted by: JV | August 5, 2009, 6:01 pm 6:01 pm
So, where are we going to get the lithium most likely needed for lithium-based batteries? Given Bolivia has ~50% of global lithium reserves, it appears we are trading one dictator (Hugo Chavez) for another (Evo Morales).
BTW – Where is the electricity going to come from for this vast electric car fleet? Solar panels and wind mills?
Posted by: tjp612 | August 5, 2009, 7:21 pm 7:21 pm
BTW – Where is the electricity going to come from for this vast electric car fleet? Solar panels and wind mills?
Posted by: tjp612 | Aug 5, 2009 7:21:25 PM
NOWHERE, now that people like Ryan C, Barack Obama, and Harry Reid got their way and closed Yucca Mountain–seriously restricting nuclear power. And Cap and Trade will restrict fossil fuels.
Posted by: Scare Force One | August 5, 2009, 10:33 pm 10:33 pm
This will not work. This can not work. No matter how many billions or trillions the government spends they are forgetting one simple thing – the market. If there was a demand for these things someone would be making them. No matter how much the governemt spends (wastes) it will not generate demand.
Posted by: James Goodfellow | August 6, 2009, 1:22 am 1:22 am
For many years, as windmills were rising over our countrysides and solar panels covered our roofs in suburban areas, these transformations gave way to great expectations as well as unenlighted critisism. Jeremy Rifkin, in his book “The hydrogen Economy” is, to my knowledge, the only man who had a broad and realistic vision of our future. After I had read his book, my lukewarm interest in hydrogen turned into an unabated anthousiasm. Hence my despair to read and hear so much nonsense, not only from ordinary citizens but from supposedly well-informed politics.
First, the widespread arguments against windmills, then Ethanol (the most unethical idea since the nazies made lampshades from human skin).
A few facts seem to evade the understanding of the many.
1/ Hydrogen is not a fuel in itself but a formidable means for storing energy, later on to be used in fuel-cells.
2/ Yes, hydrogen has been so far produced from dirty hydrocarbons, but there are some instances when it is necessary to put the horse before the cart. In the future, hydrogen will be produced by the only sensible way to do it: electrolysis of water; and here comes what should be the only purpose of windmills.
The potential of wind-energy to be harnessed on the western shores of europe are boundless and unlimited.
Posted by: Jean-Bernard Brisset | August 6, 2009, 11:13 am 11:13 am
This is wonderful news, and about time. Joe Biden was also in Detroit with the same message. Rather than plowing money into old technology, ARRA funding will be geared toward clean energy. New jobs…different jobs. Cleaner planet. Beautiful. Thank you Obama-Biden. I just love these guys!
Posted by: Principia | August 6, 2009, 3:27 pm 3:27 pm