Barak Obama or John McCain - Which Candidate will Revive the Electric Car?
Posted 02-03-2009 at 01:39 PM by xrotaryguy
Tags barak obama, biofuels, campaign, candidates, clean, diesel, electric vehicle, energy, hybrid, hydrogen, john mccain, phev, race 2008, range extended, senator, solar, sustainable, wind
Big news! U.S. presidential candidates Barak Obama and John McCain are talking about EVs. Finally, American politicians, corporate executives and grassroots advocates all seem to agree that powering cars from clean, affordable and domestic electricity makes sense. However, politicians have talked about electric vehicles before and in the past, the talk did not translate into government support for practical technologies. Will things be different this time? Are the candidates finally committed to electric vehicles?
In a speech at a gas station in Indianapolis, Indiana, Barak Obama told listeners that he was the only candidate for president to propose a $125 billion plan to aid development of existing clean energies such as solar, wind and biodiesel over a ten year period. That's $12.5 billion per year which is several billion more than GM spends in product development every year. In short, that's a hefty chunk of "change".
Also, Obama told a group of Democrats and governors in Chicago that he would invest that same $150 billion over the next 10 years to create green jobs, particularly in the automotive industry and to improve the electricity grid so that people can drive plug-in hybrid vehicles. CalCars, the company that pioneered the plug-in Prius design, responded by saying "Senator Obama has a history of support for PHEVs that goes back to 2005, including his Obama-Insley "Halth Care for Hybrids" bill introduced in 2006... Today's grid is more that adequate to begin plugging in tens of millions of cars."
Senator Obama has met with plug-in vehicle advocates as well. He met with Dr. Larry Brilliant (above left) to discuss Google's plug-in hybrid program. He also met with GM CEO Rick Wagoner in a forum at Carnegie Mellon University. The Illinois senator asked Wagoner what the next president could do to help the nation's ailing automotive industry. Wagoner's response was that the auto industry needed incentives to aid in the development of battery technology for electric vehicles. Considering GM's questionable history regarding EV development, this response is remarkable. Hopefully Senator Obama was listening.
Senator McCain has also made several statements regarding electric cars.
One aspect of his "Clean Car Challenge" proposes a $300 million X-Prize-style reward to any researcher who can develop a battery that exceeds today's batteries by at least 30%. However, CalCars commented on this battery prize saying, "We hope the call for improved batteries doesn't obscure the reality that today's batteries are good enough for Version 1.0 PHEVs." The suggestion is that McCain's challenge could hold up the type of mass production of EVs needed to, in McCain's words, "break the back of oil dependency." Also, $300 million is a tiny sum compared to the annual amount spent on new product development by large car manufacturers.
Whatever the strengths or weaknesses of McCain's battery prize, the Clean Car Challenge would also provide a $5,000 incentive to U.S. auto manufacturers for every zero-emission-vehicle sold. This would give car makers a great opportunity to innovate and accelerate the development of EV manufacturing facilities.
Much of the credit for McCain's strong stance on EV incentives for manufacturers may be due to President Clinton's former CIA director, James Woolsey. Woolsey (wearing the black jacket in the image to the left) is McCain's chief energy advisor and (are you ready for this?) he owns one of A123's early plug-in Prius conversions. As the former head of the CIA it should come as no surprise that he's not into EVs for their green appeal. Rather, he sees cars like his as part of the solution to the war on terror. "We're paying for both sides in this war, and that's not a good long-term strategy," says Woolsey. "I have a bumper sticker on the back of my Prius that reads, 'Bin Laden hates this car.'" In other words, the McCain campaign has a ringer.
The candidates both look relatively strong in this comparison. Senator Obama has pledged a substantial sum for the development of clean energy sources in general and has a history of supporting plug-in electric vehicles. Senator McCain has laid out a plan to support EV development specifically and has hired the help of an experienced pro-EV expert as his primary energy adviser. Of course, no one has any way of knowing which of these candidates is more likely to keep his promises when the campaign is over. Nor can a person say for certain which of these candidates is more likely to succeed in working with Congress on this type of legislation. In any event, this much is certain: the candidates are taking EVs more seriously in this campaign than in any previous and that's a good thing for EV proponents no matter what.
*Any organization or entity that accepts contributions, makes expenditures, or incurs debts in excess of $750 to advocate for or against a candidate or for or against the passage of a ballot issue is defined as a PAC.
Sources:
Kramer, Felix. "Race for Plug-In Cars Shifts to Presidential Campaign; CalCars Responds." Current EVents July 2008: 40-7
Iowa Ethics and Campaign Disclosure Board. Official State of Iowa Web Site 29 July 2008 <http://www.iowa.gov>
GM CEO Rick Wagoner Tells Obama About the Chevy Volt and Gives Financial Assurances. GM-Volt.com. 26 June 2008 <http://gm-volt.com>
Presidential Candidates in Race on PHEV Policies. CalCars.org. 29 July 2008 <http://www.calcars.org>
Oliver, Ben. Oil Warrior: Former CIA chief James Woolsey says if you want to beat Bin Laden. Motor Trend. 29 July 2008 <http://www.motortrend.com>
Delicious
Digg
StumbleUpon
Reddit
Newsvine
Facebook
Google
Yahoo
Total Comments 223
Comments
-
Big news! U.S. presidential candidates Barak Obama and John McCain are talking about EVs. Finally, American politicians, corporate executives and grassroots advocates all seem to agree that powering cars from clean, affordable and domestic electricity makes sense. However, politicians have talked about electric vehicles before and in the past, the talk did not translate into government support for practical technologies. Will things be different this time? Are the candidates finally committed to electric vehicles? Or are they merely paying lip service to EV advocates?
more...Posted 07-29-2008 at 11:46 PM by xrotaryguy 
-
I like the point about the $300m battery prize. I think it's a very good thing but also don't want to obscure the fact that there are batteries today that will work well for a basic EV.
Also - awesome photos!Posted 07-30-2008 at 07:50 AM by rbgrn
-
Obama (or McCain) can throw out all these huge money proposals for electric vehicles, health care, military acquisitions, what not, but where is the money coming from? A printing press? We shouldn't look at these huge expenditures as something good for the cause, but as a never ending destruction of our economy. The spending needs to stop - and my vote will not be bought by either candidate's promises of funding.Quote:Barak Obama told listeners that he was the only candidate for president to propose a $125 billion plan to aid development of existing clean energies such as solar, wind and biodiesel over a ten year period.
I'm going to be able to convert my car in my carport for under $10,000 with minimal automotive knowledge. No more big-dollar research is needed for a v1.0, just a shift in consumer thinking. It doesn't matter who is elected, Tesla, Aptera, and the Volt will still be built and sell well.
But great article and I love the picture!Posted 07-30-2008 at 08:49 AM by ClintK
-
Thank you for the compliments. I just sat down to my "Current EVents" news letter and saw this
I added this to the article. Sorry for any lack of continuity.Quote:Obama told a group of Democrats and governors in Chicago that he would invest $150 billion over the next 10 years to create green jobs, particularly in the automotive industry and to improve the electricity grid so that people can drive plug-in hybrid vehicles.
CalCars' View
"Senator Obama has a history of support for PHEVs that goes back to 2005, including his Obama-Insley "Halth Care for Hybrids" bill introduced in 2006... Today's grid is more that adequate to begin plugging in tens of millions of cars."Posted 07-30-2008 at 09:03 AM by xrotaryguy
-
Your right clint. Funding for any federal project needs to come at the expense of another federally funded program. Electric vehicles should be important enough to take precedent over a number of other programs. National debt can not continue to grow at its present rate without eventually causing massive problems with the nation's economy. Simultaneously, gasoline-powered vehicles are having a negative effect on the nations economy with gas prices of $4/gallon. Federal support for electric vehicles needs to be redirected from somewhere or the country is in trouble.
Posted 07-30-2008 at 09:09 AM by xrotaryguy
-
Quote:Originally Posted by xrotaryguy
Your right clint. Funding for any federal project needs to come at the expense of another federally funded program. Electric vehicles should be important enough to take precedent over a number of other programs. National debt can not continue to grow at its present rate without eventually causing massive problems with the nation's economy. Simultaneously, gasoline-powered vehicles are having a negative effect on the nations economy with gas prices of $4/gallon. Federal support for electric vehicles needs to be redirected from somewhere or the country is in trouble.
I'd rather the government just remove all taxes and get out of the way (obviously never going to happen... until the US falls into the depths of socialism and kills itself)...
If companies were given free reign and funding projects just ceased entirely with no taxes/tariffs/political pressure BS all of this would have ended in the early 70s.
History is just cyclic, resign yourself to this necessary logical truth. We're going to fall in socialism and more of the horrible treasury decisions that all started with FDR. Neither Obama or McCain will do anything at all to fix it... the only thing that can fix it at this point is a leader who's unwilling to compromise on anything (at all) and simply destroys as much of the government as he could (which will never ever happen). Even if one man removed 90% of the US government controls (mostly the vastly overreaching executive/legislative systems) I'm not certain it'd solve anything but for a generation or so.Posted 07-30-2008 at 08:53 PM by Technologic
-
Clint and Technologic, your posts lead me to believe that you guys don't vote because you think voting is pointless or something. I don't actually know whether you guys vote or not, but that's the sense that I get from your posts. The point I want to make though is that voting is very important. Our nation has many issues facing it such as climate change, the economy, a transportation fuel crisis and others and the electric vehicle is an important part of all of those issues.
The candidates aren't perfect, but we can not expect them to be perfect. I don't know anyone who would make a perfect presidential candidate. I know I wouldn't. Regardless of the candidates' short comings, we all need to vote. As Matt Stone and Trey Parker might say, "You've got to vote, even if the decision is between a giant douche and a turd sandwich."
Both of these candidates have made statements about electric cars and both candidates understand (or have hired someone who understands) the economic and environmental benefits of electric cars. Naturally there are quite a few other issues that the candidates are addressing, and it is our responsibility (and indeed the responsibility of the American people as a whole) to understand the candidates' positions on these issues.
It does make a difference.Posted 07-31-2008 at 12:17 AM by xrotaryguy
-
I'm not sure what socialist government has to do with electric cars. I don't know of any socialist countries that drive electric cars.
(just a little joke there) Honestly though, I am at a loss. What's the rub?
Also, I don't think that the EV had a chance against gasoline-powered cars in the 70's despite high prices and oil embargoes. Battery technology had simply not developed to a point where EVs could compete with gasoline-powered cars at that time.
Times have changed
Posted 07-31-2008 at 12:32 AM by xrotaryguy
-
I do vote, just disappointed (as I'm sure everyone is) at the major 2 choices. I wasn't always like this... the past 3 years working at a federal research lab and how in after the '04 election the Republicans had the chance to slim down government but did the exact opposite have really taken a number on my political views.Quote:Originally Posted by xrotaryguy
Clint and Technologic, your posts lead me to believe that you guys don't vote because you think voting is pointless or something. I don't actually know whether you guys vote or not, but that's the sense that I get from your posts. The point I want to make though is that voting is very important. Our nation has many issues facing it such as climate change, the economy, a transportation fuel crisis and others and the electric vehicle is an important part of all of those issues.
The Libertarian party is my hope now. They won't win this Presidential election, but I'm hoping they get enough votes that in 4 years they can spend time/money campaigning rather than trying to get on all the state ballots all over again.
Did you see the debates with Ron Paul? Now that guy would remove 90% of the government.Quote:Originally Posted by Technologic
History is just cyclic, resign yourself to this necessary logical truth. We're going to fall in socialism and more of the horrible treasury decisions that all started with FDR. Neither Obama or McCain will do anything at all to fix it... the only thing that can fix it at this point is a leader who's unwilling to compromise on anything (at all) and simply destroys as much of the government as he could (which will never ever happen). Even if one man removed 90% of the US government controls (mostly the vastly overreaching executive/legislative systems) I'm not certain it'd solve anything but for a generation or so.
"When the people find they can vote themselves money, that will herald the end of the republic." - Benjamin FranklinPosted 07-31-2008 at 08:42 AM by ClintK
-
Quote:Originally Posted by xrotaryguy
Both of these candidates have made statements about electric cars and both candidates understand (or have hired someone who understands) the economic and environmental benefits of electric cars. Naturally there are quite a few other issues that the candidates are addressing, and it is our responsibility (and indeed the responsibility of the American people as a whole) to understand the candidates' positions on these issues.
It does make a difference.
It doesn't make a difference... people who think so have never deeply studied political and social history. I attended a top 5 school for 7 years (law school as well) and encountered far more people who believed that socialism and capitalism were just "points of view", to be met with open arms and happy faces if someone disagrees.
I'm not sure about you... but if someone came up and stole your money or told you that your neighbor tom needed it more than you, or that HE did... you wouldn't hug him. In fact people who think this way have no idea what economics means... there can only be one right answer and history is the only way to find it out.
Electric cars may not have been practical 30 years ago, but ammonia electrolysis, high efficency designs and green power plants (wind) were definitely.
I'll take my chances and say that Ron Paul wouldn't have done what I think is necessary to rid the US of it's downward spin (inevitable one).Posted 07-31-2008 at 05:46 PM by Technologic
-
If it doesn't matter, then why do the candidates work so hard to win votes?
Hmmm... maybe I should have included Ron Paul's view on electric cars. Oh, and I could have included Ralph Nader's views too. Those guys aren't going to win though. Paul's stance is only important in that he will be involved in EV-related legislation in the congress. Neither one has a chance of becoming commander in chief. Who knows, maybe 8 or 12 or 16 years from now... but I kinda doubt it.
I don't doubt that America will fall at some point. If we are not able to transition to a transportation system that does not rely almost 100% on oil, then the nation will probably fail sooner rather than later. Then again, the rest of the world will be in the trash heap at that point, so maybe we will still look decent by comparison. We shall see.
Then again, if the US can convert to an EV-based transportation system, then I am hopeful that the US will remain relatively strong for a good long time. Whether or not that's a good thing is debatable though isn't it.Posted 07-31-2008 at 11:52 PM by xrotaryguy
-
Our government steals money from us all the time, in several different ways. Firstly, there are taxes. According to the Constitution, the government cannot levy a mandatory income tax on the citizens. It does anyway, and good luck fighting it. The government steals money through the Federal Reserve when they increase the money supply. This devalues the currency, reducing everyone's spending power.Quote:Originally Posted by Technologic
I'm not sure about you... but if someone came up and stole your money or told you that your neighbor tom needed it more than you, or that HE did... you wouldn't hug him.
"The central bank is an institution of the most deadly hostility existing against the Principles and form of our Constitution. I am an Enemy to all banks discounting bills or notes for anything but Coin. If the American People allow private banks to control the issuance of their currency, first by inflation and then by deflation, the banks and corporations that will grow up around them will deprive the People of all their Property until their Children will wake up homeless on the continent their Fathers conquered."
--Thomas Jefferson 1743-1826Posted 08-01-2008 at 11:57 AM by Rolls Kinardly
-
Because just like drug dealers and other peddlers of dreams these people thrive upon it. They seek it out for power and fame, while neither maintaining nor procuring either. They gain wealth through their title and all of the kickbacks that go with it.Quote:Originally Posted by xrotaryguy
If it doesn't matter, then why do the candidates work so hard to win votes?
Do you not think that a leech would fight for a spot on the only body in the world if there were many other leeches already feeding off of it?Posted 08-01-2008 at 07:13 PM by Technologic
-
I'm aware of this... and of the BS precident FDR set up for us to follow.Quote:Originally Posted by Rolls Kinardly
Our government steals money from us all the time, in several different ways. Firstly, there are taxes. According to the Constitution, the government cannot levy a mandatory income tax on the citizens. It does anyway, and good luck fighting it. The government steals money through the Federal Reserve when they increase the money supply. This devalues the currency, reducing everyone's spending power.
I was simply pointing out the glaring hypocrisy between the left/"social guilt" types and reality's existence.Posted 08-01-2008 at 07:16 PM by Technologic
-
heh, I know that politics is inevitably tied up in a discussion like this, but let's try to keep it focused on EVs a little more if possible.
I don't want this to turn into a discussion that would be better suited to the Chitchat forum.Posted 08-02-2008 at 02:43 AM by xrotaryguy
-
Good point. What is it that's holding us back then? Sounds to me like a $300m prize is their way of tricking people into thinking there isn't a practical battery option available. After all, their offering $300m to someone to come up with it, so it couldn't possibally already exist... right?Quote:Originally Posted by rbgrn
I like the point about the $300m battery prize. I think it's a very good thing but also don't want to obscure the fact that there are batteries today that will work well for a basic EV.
Also - awesome photos! (stupid consumers)
How about a $300m investment to educate people of the already existing technologies?Posted 08-02-2008 at 12:46 PM by lazzer408
-
Or $300m to dispose of Debeers and their lying marketing strategy, mafia like distribution network for diamonds, and the fact that diamonds are rare (when in fact they are about as rare as amethyst).Quote:Originally Posted by lazzer408
Good point. What is it that's holding us back then? Sounds to me like a $300m prize is their way of tricking people into thinking there isn't a practical battery option available. After all, their offering $300m to someone to come up with it, so it couldn't possibally already exist... right? (stupid consumers)
How about a $300m investment to educate people of the already existing technologies?
That'd be better... maybe a class for every student on how debeers bought/killed/stole all of the mines in the world to gain full control and monopolize then extort the world's stupidity (ie. women mostly) into thinking that they were rare and "antique".
Diamonds are FOREVER.... except unless you place them in a 500C oven. They will oxidize within minutes to dust.Posted 08-02-2008 at 06:06 PM by Technologic
-
Now that's an oven for a college student. Pizza done in 6 seconds or your room catches fire.Quote:Originally Posted by Technologic
Diamonds are FOREVER.... except unless you place them in a 500C oven. They will oxidize within minutes to dust.
Posted 08-02-2008 at 08:09 PM by ClintK
-
I haven't read this whole discussion, but getting back to the original topic, I have a question for both candidates, along these lines:
The war on terror is so important that it has become the clash of civilisations. Why has the USA not introduced rationing like it did in WW2?
The US stayed out of WW2 for as long as possible but when attacked, made every effort to contribute. This time, in a war the US started (by supporting the Shah of Iran and then Saddam Hussein in the 1970s and 80s), you aren't making anything like the contribution 50 years ago.
Where is the rationing of food, fuel and resources? Why aren't people buying war bonds? I am very curious and maybe someone has an answer for me...Posted 08-03-2008 at 06:11 AM by jlsawell
-
I don't know how short items were in World War 2, but right now we have plenty of those things. There's always stacks of food on Wal-Mart shelves and pricey fuel at gas stations. Besides, I could only imagine public opinion if the government said "you aren't allowed to fill up more than 10 gallons of gas a week". Don't know about the War Bonds though.Quote:Originally Posted by jlsawell
Where is the rationing of food, fuel and resources? Why aren't people buying war bonds? I am very curious and maybe someone has an answer for me...
Posted 08-03-2008 at 08:29 AM by ClintK
