So, what will be the criteria for a "better battery" that will get the cash award, I wonder? A company in Canada has already developed a more efficient way of getting power from conventional batteries, and a Texas company has developed an energy storage device that completely outperforms standard batteries. See article.

Bad idea John.
What if the technology comes in from China?
or some other country. Why in the hell would
we pay a foreign county for this?
This makes my angry. A hand out for some cheap
battery that will just spend money...taxpayers money...McCain is an idiot

McCain wouldn't have to look much further than the next generation solid-state chemistry designed by the same inventor as the a123 li-ion battery, Donald Sadoway at MIT, still looking for investors. McCain wants to charge his electric cars with electricity from 300 new nuclear power plants. It's a political trade off few in the EV industry are willing to make, since such a battery would also be able to provide base load storage for wind, solar, and other intermittent sources, making the need for costly nukes obsolete.

About time we get away from the typical government model of grants and subsides. This is a brilliant example of X-Prize thinking.

Of course ideology precludes a far share of the population acknowledging a good idea due to the D or R that follows their name.

RemyC, regardless of the debate of nuclear power, plently of EV proponents are advocates of nuclear power as well. Please keep that in mind.

Also, from the numbers that I've played with, used batteries for energy storage (aka bi-directional V2G) makes little sense until battery technology advances several fold over what is required for an EV. There simply is not enough margin from buying off-demand power and selling it during peak demand to justify the cost of the batteries. (Even if the they were as cheap as lead-acid and had the life expectancy of A123)

Again... McCain is "confused". Seriously, he's clueless. Why offer a reward for something that already exists?

I appreciate the effort, really, I do, but his advisers and the people feeding him these ideas are completely lost.

Even with the new battery... he still can't have baby Alex!

The best thing that can come out of this is Obama coming back with an incentive that makes since for our economy and environment. McCain is just trying to justify his other ideas such as the nuclear power plants.

@Brother:

First, not all products that are made overseas, yes, even China, are "cheaply made" as you suggest! When was the last time you turned down a low priced item at a store because you checked the country of origin, and opted for the more expensive alternative that was made in the United States? Part of the problem with China, aside from just low labour costs, is a manipulated currency - something that neither McCain, Bush, nor any candidate on the Democratic side has even begun to discuss. If this solution cuts down on oil consumption, then, while the initial outlay is high, it does actually keep less money from flowing overseas, as hopefully (!!) we can also move towards self-suffiency for replenishment. In any case, there's no indication what kind of trade policy will be attached to this particular strategy of McCain.

It seems to me that you have more of a concern about trade policy rather than McCain's energy statement. Your comment should have ben a little better thought out. While McCain's statement may not be a solution, it at least brings the topic into greater public debate, as the author points out, wihch in itself is a step forward.

Costly nukes? Yet you say 30% cheaper batteries would let wind and solar provide baseload power. It costs $2.5-$3 billion anywhere else in the world right now to build a 1 GW nuclear plant, and the cost of fuel is 2.3 cents/kWh or so. If the plant operates for 40 years, that means a total cost of $11 per sustained watt over the life of the plant, plus the cost of waste management.

Can you build a wind farm or solar farm with massive banks of batteries for that much? I think not. Cost for the turbines or panels + installation alone is likely to be higher than that, before you add even one battery. We must accept that it will be years before solar and wind and batteries are cheap enough to use them for baseload generation on an industrial; scale. For homes and buildings of those able and willing to do their part, battery banks to store energy from renewables are a great thing.
But nuclear plants are a good idea for the next few decades, and as little as you might like it they are one hell of a lot cleaner than any fossil fuel plant. Maybe you need to keep your enemies in a bit more numerical perspective. The enemy of renewable energy sources isn't nuclear. It is fossil fuels.
The danger of fossil fuels is well known and well documented, whereas danger from nuclear plants is mostly perceived, not real, and due to scaremongering and widely spouted half truths.
We should be trying to eliminate the need to use fossil fuels using every available method; by the time we do it will be much, much easier to start replacing nuclear with renewables. One crisis at a time. Not too much politicization. Even patrick moore agrees that nuclear is and would have been a better energy source than fossil fuels.
Plus, do some research: In Japan they are building reactors on a to 4 year timeline. So we can do this now.
Here is one idea. The government can help without having to spend a dime: just insure the loans used to create any non-polluting power plant, whether renewable or nuclear. Then banks would be willing to extend credit to these projects at lower interest due to less perceived risks, and investment will rapidly increase. Since these projects are in fact financially viable, the total actual cost to the government will be almost 0.

As far as getting rid of subsidies for corn-based ethanol - the sooner the better.

Our current President will likely go down as one of the worst Presidents in U.S. history. Either Barack Obama, or John McCain will do better, warts and all.

Considering the $300 million prize for a battery at a cost of $1 per U.S. citizen - it is a step in the right direction, but relying on such projects as stand-alone solutions reveals a myth that monumental changes - such as the need to alter our energy future - can be done on the cheap.

There are intriguing battery technologies such as advanced lithium-ion batteries and "capatteries", combinations of batteries and ultra-capacitors. Entrepreneurs have unleashed exciting products like the Tesla Roadster and Vectrix electric motorcycle. I salute them for it.

However, entrepreneurs aren't enough. Our country and planet face the most serious crises we have ever faced and it will require a sea change in the way we use energy. We don't have much time. It isn't just about changing the way we propel cars, but as environmental leaders such as Lester Brown point out, our entire consumer-driven, automobile-centered culture will soon be totally impractical in a post peak-oil, climate-ravaged world.

We will need to build neighborhoods that are compact and don't gobble up valuable farmland and make us dependent on huge energy outlays. We will need to build a national high-speed rail network. We must have more public transit in cities, not just light rail and busses, but conveyances like jitneys that can reach people at convenient locations. We need a network of bike paths and to make cities bicycle-friendly. We will fly less, but will still need to efficiently make renewable jet fuel. We will need to heat and cool our houses and buildings and operate industry using renewable energy. I am never one to cheer on war, but our military is the most fossil fuel dependent military in history. If we faced an adversary that is less dependent or is not dependent on fossil fuel, we could be in deep trouble.

So there will need to be massive public and non-profit-based private investment as well as inventions by entrepreneurs, even as desirable as that is.

Utterly pointless gimmick. If you develop a battery today that is lighter, smaller, more powerful, and is cheaper (all requirements to win the prize), you will be rich, because you will sell them as fast as you can make them. There is plenty of incentive to develop better batteries (and plenty of people trying) without government handouts.

Is this the equivalent of Sheryl Crow's 1 square of toilet paper?

Even if it all goes and someone wins the prize, we'll have more brainpower attacking the problem.

Regardless of if you think the prize idea is silly, it can still have good effects. Some advances in aviation were due to prize competitions in the 20s and 30s.

vsk

If the senator is indeed interested in such a battery, then look no futher and myself and our research team have done just that and we will prove it with clinical data and basically show you.
Our battery: 1. no sulfuric acid and is biodegradable 2.recover much faster and will last longer. 3. takes half the lead which weigh less. 4. Is non caustic, therefore will not corrode and digest the lead to say the least safe for handling.
5. Technology in the good ole U.S.A. and yes we're Republicrats, ha ha. If your serious look us up because we are...................

Anthony -

Your costs for new nuclear are very far off from current reality.

Latest cost estimates run 6 to 9 billion (Florida Power and Light, 2007).

Wind is already cheaper than new nuclear and solar is rapidly becoming so.

In addition, multiple studies show that by linking multiple wind farms together over a marginally wide area greatly eliminate the need for lots of backup or storage.

PV solar and thermal solar are going to take away the peak price profit that nuclear needs to simply break even.

If McCain gets elected, I don't suspect we'll ever hear anything about this again.

He's a senator, for that matter. Why hasn't he proposed it in Congress?

If you don't care for quasi-political rants please skip to the next post.

The "Battery Prize" is just another pathetic assault by McSame on the intelligence of traditionally liberal environmentalists. All this nonsense about gas tax holiday gimmicks and off shore drilling will only serve to line the pockets of the soon to be private citizens Bush, (Jr. as well as Sr. who's advising the oil companies.) and Haliburton's own "Deadeye" Dick Cheney come January.

We, as a nation, have needed to transition away from fossil fuels for some time now. If we were as smart as we believe ourselves to be we would have followed the lead of Brazil who started the transition to biofuels during the OPEC embargo, but we didn't.
We've looked upon solar power as a means to power our calculators, but not to light our homes.
We've looked at wind power as a quaint Quixotic throwback to centuries past forgetting that it's driven industries for millennia.
Somehow after 9/11 it became patriotic to drive a SUV - a concept that I have to say was completely lost on me.
Khrushchev was wrong, they wouldn't bury us, they didn't have to. We've buried ourselves in debt, high fructose corn syrup, disposable technology, and cheap foreign / overseas labor to the point where now only we can dig ourselves out. The question I ask is will we? Or must we continue in our blind arrogance as we beg for more foreign oil production and set about plans to spoil the few remaining pristine landscapes and taint our coastal communities with a band-aid that will take decades to have a real effect on the price at the pump?

Change can't come overnight and compromises must be made in the transition, but only we the people can drive our future and only if we believe we can. It's time for the US to be leaders again

I'm Raiyn, and I approve this message.

All pretty solid ideas, much better than the resent love affair with ethanol. I think that the prize of $300 million is a little high for my tastes, but it would solve a big need. People point to articles that say that the next great battery is already invented, but then why are they not all-ready out? It takes lots of capital to get projects like a quantum leap in battery tech to reach production ready, and who cares if its the chinese that invents it? Isn't the whole point that the whole world benefits? While I like both candidates, I think McCain has Obama beat so far in green energy policies... Isn't great when the Republician's candidate isn't 20 years in the past?

Strange twists to a presidential race.

McCain who is tied to the Republican party with the worst environmental record is pushing batteries for electric cars, the greenest technology for tomorrow.

Obama, with the better Democrat record on environmental issues is still strong on a technology (corn ethanol) that was yesterdays answer to a problem of energy shortage but needs phased out now for newer better plans.

The race is Obama's to loose. Lets hope he gets an education fast.

Merely more grandstanding by McBush as he did with removing the taxes on gasoline. McSame has ran on the platform of no earmarks in order to balance the budget (it's Republican math so it won't work) and this is just an example of a large earmark.

He's looking to work his green cred of which he has none. By taking an idea from the X Prize and expanding it he tries to look innovative and green. Although the $300 million is a drop in the bucket compared to the billions in taxpayer money he wants to spend on his "nuclear reactor in every pot" plan.

Whoever manages to invent the battery to beat those criteria will make so much cash right out of the gate that the $300 million prize money might barely be enough to cover their corporate tax burden.

heh. I agree with Sam. Nice thought, but what kind of a metric is "30% cheaper." What If I wanted to sell them at cost, just to get the 300 million, then shut down my company. Seems like you could win today if that was the case. The thing of it is, congressmen and other political people are, for the most part, not in the least bit economists, so they have no understanding of incentives and what it takes to properly design policy. Next.

Why not put the batteries, powerlines, and solar panels in the roads and transfer line power to the cars with tuned Tesla coils? That way electrics wouldn't need to carry batteries, increasing efficiency more than the transfer losses.

The exorbitant price of fuel has driven up the price of everything from the increased production and shipping costs. I have yet to hear more than a sugar coated one liner from either candidates as to their plans to bring Americans relief. Does either candidate even have a plan other than to support new off shore drilling. It is easy to say we need to decrease our dependence of foreign oil and seek out alternative fuel sources, but where's the beef...where's the plan?

a site to share if you should be interested...

www.themanhattanprojectof2009.com

If you had a concept that would make electric cars capable of traveling over a 1000+ miles, where could you sell this information?