Matthew Yglesias (June 24, 2008) - Prize Patrol (Domestic Policy)

Except that power plants are far, far, far more efficient at converting fuel to energy than internal combustion engines. And why make nuclear waste disappear? Nuclear waste has a lot of energy and future generations will learn how to tap it.

Posted by Mo | June 24, 2008 2:27 PM

For a prize to make sense, the scale of the prize needs to be large relative to the potential profitability of the invention.

I'm not sure that's at all true. I think there has been some research about the effectiveness of prizes recently. Cowen probably has the goods.

Posted by SomeCallMeTim | June 24, 2008 2:28 PM

I think the idea of using prizes to try to spur innovation is a promising idea, but I'm not quite sure why John McCain's decided that a better battery for an electric car is the thing to offer the prize for. Electric vehicles would be good from an environmental perspective, but insofar as so much of our electricity comes from fossil fuels car electrification also has a large element of just pushing the problem around.

If dramatically increasing the efficiency of fossil fuels as a transportation energy source, and therefore dramatically reducing the quantity of fossil fuels needed for a given amount of travel, constitutes "pushing the problem around," then yes, exactly right.

Posted by Mixner | June 24, 2008 2:29 PM

The thing about electric cars is that, until we have them, we have no choice but to burn CO2-emitting fuel when we drive. While most of our power plants use greenhouse fuels (coal and the far less bad natural gas primarily), at least we have the ability to build non-greenhouse emiting power plants, and are doing so all the time. But it won't help us all that much if we build millions of solar/wind/tidal/geothermal/whatever plants if we're still driving around in our gasoline/ethanol powered cars.

Posted by RWB | June 24, 2008 2:32 PM

Mo and Mixner are absolutely right.

In addition, I think the carbon scrubbing is easy to do. Its the sequestration that is difficult.

Posted by Jim W | June 24, 2008 2:34 PM

Sorry Matt, but the article states plug in hybrids and electric cars. So having a more efficient battery for plug in hybrids is actually a good idea. I don't like McCain as president, but this isn't a terrible idea.

Posted by freddiemac | June 24, 2008 2:40 PM

More proof that McCain is as dumb on economics as Bush.

Also, his answer as to how he would pay for this prize...by cutting more earmarks...is also dumb.

For McCain, his answer to everything about how to pay for it is to cut earmarks...except he doesn't tell you or doesn't understand that there is not enough money in earmarks to pay for all of what he wants to spend in terms of war, tax cuts for the wealthy, etc.

Here's a guarantee: if McCain were ever president, the deficit would skyrocket and make Bush look like a responsible fiscal spender.

Posted by cm | June 24, 2008 2:40 PM

The idea of a prize is silly and just a public relations gimmick. The reward for developing new technological breakthroughs will come from the market place itself.

What McCain should have said is that he will invest three hundred million, which I think is a pretty good sum although Matt thinks it is chump change, into those entities trying to come up with the new ideas.

Posted by Llyonnoc | June 24, 2008 2:41 PM

The other thing about electric cars is this: if you today invented some breakthrough clean technology to generate electricity, this wouldn't help reduce the emissions from our cars. If we drove electric cars, then we would instantly benefit from any future clean technologies to generate the electricity.

Also there is something to be said for the efficient use of already built electricity generation capacity: there is currently more capacity than needed at night, when we should be plugging in our cars to recharge.

And, Matt, can you look into the battery technology thing more in a future post? I was under the impression that current battery technology works very well for 100 mile on a charge range, e.g. in the discontinued Toyota RAV4-EV, but that Chevron managed to take control of the patents for that existing technology and will not allow it to be used?

Posted by anon | June 24, 2008 2:41 PM

The thing about electric cars is that, until we have them, we have no choice but to burn CO2-emitting fuel when we drive. While most of our power plants use greenhouse fuels (coal and the far less bad natural gas primarily), at least we have the ability to build non-greenhouse emiting power plants, and are doing so all the time. But it won't help us all that much if we build millions of solar/wind/tidal/geothermal/whatever plants if we're still driving around in our gasoline/ethanol powered cars.

Posted by RWB | June 24, 2008 2:42 PM

The other thing about electric cars is this: if you today invented some breakthrough clean technology to generate electricity, this wouldn't help reduce the emissions from our cars. If we drove electric cars, then we would instantly benefit from any future clean technologies to generate the electricity.

Also there is something to be said for the efficient use of already built electricity generation capacity: there is currently more capacity than needed at night, when we should be plugging in our cars to recharge.

And, Matt, can you look into the battery technology thing more in a future post? I was under the impression that current battery technology works very well for 100 mile on a charge range, e.g. in the discontinued Toyota RAV4-EV, but that Chevron managed to take control of the patents for that existing technology and will not allow it to be used?

Posted by anon | June 24, 2008 2:44 PM

Not that I really have much information about these things, but I think it stands to reason that a plug-in hybrid, like the Volt, would be a huge improvement over gas powered vehicles, including the Prius.

This is because (I would think) it's much more efficient to generate power at a (relative) handful of individual power plants, and then distribute the power to tens of thousands of vehicles than it is to have tens of thousands of individual vehicles.

It is also good for national security, as it takes away our dependence on foreign countries for our energy security.

The big problem that I have yet to see discussed is "what if Chevy's Volt is an unparalleled success? What if it rapidly becomes the best selling car in America?"

What are we going to do? If there are millions of Volts on the road by 2020, what are we going to do? That's going to suck a lot of extra power out of the grid, which is already heavily taxed in some places. Fuel prices could drop precipitiously (due to the Volt reducing oil consumption) at the same time electric rates surge (due to the Volt).

Also, are we going to develop expectations of being able to recharge our Volts at various locations (work or shopping, or what not)? What about road trips? Are hotels going to have to provide recharges? Are there going to be recharging stations?

Posted by jerry 101 | June 24, 2008 2:45 PM

More proof that McCain is as dumb on economics as Bush.

Also, his answer as to how he would pay for this prize...by cutting more earmarks...is also dumb.

For McCain, his answer to everything about how to pay for it is to cut earmarks...except he doesn't tell you or doesn't understand that there is not enough money in earmarks to pay for all of what he wants to spend in terms of war, tax cuts for the wealthy, etc.

Here's a guarantee: if McCain were ever president, the deficit would skyrocket and make Bush look like a responsible fiscal spender.

Posted by cm | June 24, 2008 2:45 PM

You could read Jonathan Rauch's article in the current Atlantic on Chevrolet's current struggle to develop a suitable battery for their plug-in hybrid, the Volt, for why this isn't such a bad idea.

Posted by James F. Elliott | June 24, 2008 2:47 PM

You could read Jonathan Rauch's article in the current Atlantic on Chevrolet's current struggle to develop a suitable battery for their plug-in hybrid, the Volt, for why this isn't such a bad idea.

Posted by James F. Elliott | June 24, 2008 2:49 PM

What McCain should have said is that he will invest three hundred million, which I think is a pretty good sum although Matt thinks it is chump change, into those entities trying to come up with the new ideas.

I agree with this--the money would probably be better spent stimulating real high-risk research via peer-reviewed grants than rewarding for-profit entities for developing products which will make them rich anyway.

But I would like to quibble on your assessment of the amount. $300 million is not nothing, but federal investments in R&D are counted in billions. The Dept of Energy Office of Science, which is moderately sized as research agencies go, is a $4 billion agency. An infusion of $300 million extra to tackle these types of problems is not "chump change" exactly, but it also wouldn't represent a grand strategic initiative the likes of which you would expect to be discussed in a Presidential election.

Posted by Jake H. | June 24, 2008 3:02 PM

The big problem that I have yet to see discussed is "what if Chevy's Volt is an unparalleled success? What if it rapidly becomes the best selling car in America?"

What are we going to do? If there are millions of Volts on the road by 2020, what are we going to do? That's going to suck a lot of extra power out of the grid, which is already heavily taxed in some places. Fuel prices could drop precipitiously (due to the Volt reducing oil consumption) at the same time electric rates surge (due to the Volt).

First off higher energy density storage is key to an easy transition to a post fossil fuel economy so McCain schtick or not who ever comes up with a better "battery" will change how things get done in this and other countries.

From what I am aware of the Volt uses a combustion engine "behind" the battery and keeps it topped of, so to speak, and the battery powers the electric motors that power the car. If they are relatively agnostic about what engine they are using ( bio-diesel, gas-turbine, Mr. Fusion ) then I think the Volt could be a great success ( GM will probably mess it up somehow ) I think the problem wouldn't be a drain on the grid but more of an issue peak demand. When people get home and plug the car in, turn the lights on, AC, computer etc. etc. then you would see the electrical grid weep and moan.

Posted by blank_stare | June 24, 2008 3:04 PM

I'd think that electric cars will be charged at night, when electricity demand is relatively low.

Posted by stm177 | June 24, 2008 3:05 PM

I saw the Flaming Lips for the first time two years ago. This is the song they opened with. It was mind-blowingly sweet.

Posted by Sally | June 24, 2008 3:11 PM

I was under the impression that current battery technology works very well for 100 mile on a charge range, e.g. in the discontinued Toyota RAV4-EV

The problem is that most people need more than a 100 mile range. That range works fine for a commute, but any sort of trip longer than a commute becomes one where you need top wait a day between 100 mile portions. People like having the option of driving more than 100 miles between recharges/refuels.

Posted by Mo | June 24, 2008 3:13 PM

Sorry Matt, but the article states plug in hybrids and electric cars. So having a more efficient battery for plug in hybrids is actually a good idea.

And it's not just plug-in hybrids and all-electric vehicles that would benefit from better batteries, but regular hybrids too. That's why Toyota is working on better batteries for the Prius.

Posted by Mixner | June 24, 2008 3:14 PM

For a super battery, why would you need a prize to make it worth your while? You would think that sort of thing would more than pay for itself.

Posted by socctty | June 24, 2008 3:15 PM

I don't see why a "winner take all" approach to economic or technology development is a good idea. Usable new technology often emerges from the synthesis of a lot of incremental steps. So under McCain's idea would the large company with the capital to deliver a final product be the only entity eligible or likely to win the payoff?

Similarly, what criteria would the government commission use to select the "winner"? We all know examples of government contract awards that went to products or systems that didn't perform. Imagine the lobbying that would occur during the selection process when the payoff is very large - the process could resemble defense contract awards.

In short, it seems a better approach would be for the government to change the underlying tax incentives affecting fossil fuel use versus electric or other energy, and let the market (i.e., consumer demand) spread the rewards of technology development across a range of solutions.

Posted by SJ | June 24, 2008 3:16 PM

$300 million seems preposterously low.

Hey, I'd be motivated by $300 million.

You could instantly retire and not have to worry about money for the rest of your life. Isn't that good enough?

Posted by jaltcoh.blogspot.com | June 24, 2008 3:20 PM

Since all major automobile and battery manufacturers are currently devoting enormous effort into designing such batteries as a way to deal with the dying off of gas guzzlers isn't this just a form of delayed corporate wellfare? It's not as if some guys going to come up with the winner in his basement before the corporations R&D divisions do. It's a way for a politician to claim doing something while doing nothing. The increased taxes paid by the winner on the royalties from the winning design would be more than the prize, so it's really just development tax credit.

Posted by Roger Tompkins | June 24, 2008 3:27 PM

"You could instantly retire and not have to worry about money for the rest of your life. Isn't that good enough?"

You could instantly retire, and your great-grandchildren would never have to worry about money the rest of their life. But its kind of moot because we won't be around long enough. Oh, not because of the end of the world, I'm simply taking out my family with me whenever I go. I'm not going to allow them to allow my "electric car" money. Please.

Posted by Sam | June 24, 2008 3:28 PM

Toshiba is shipping a battery that will recharge 90% in 5 minutes, or so they claim.

Posted by sunsin | June 24, 2008 3:30 PM

Hopefully the ultimate "better battery" will be a hydrogen fuel cell. In essence, this is what a fuel cell is. Batteries, especially the huge ones needed to power cars, contain lots of hazardous chemicals and manufacture and disposable are pretty dirty propositions.

Honda is introducing a hydrogen powered car in California this year so perhaps a workable fuel cell isn't as far away as was once feared.

Posted by Rob Mac | June 24, 2008 3:30 PM

I get that every campaign resorts to gimmicks, and this gimmick is better than most. But it really feels like the gimmickry-to-policy ratio from McCain is shockingly high.

On emergy policy alone, we've got 3 gimmicks in a row--gas tax, battery prize, offshore drilling. And no real substantive policy (The cap and trade that isn't? Maybe you could say his nuclear energy subsidies are real policy...but where's the subsidy money come from?)

Not to mention he just went against actual bills that would give subsidies to alternative energy. Seriously, what is he going to do?

And he's gonna pay for this with earmarks? Every time we ask him about an earmark, he says "oh, I didn't mean that one. You know, my problem here is really with the process, not the spending..." Until 2 minutes later he promises to pay for something else with earmarks.

For McCain, earmarks and government waste are like bullets in an Arnold Schwarzenegger movie--no matter how many times you fire the gun, you still have them to fire some more!

Posted by anon | June 24, 2008 3:31 PM

Toshiba is shipping a battery that will recharge 90% in 5 minutes, or so they claim.

Posted by sunsin | June 24, 2008 3:33 PM

The problem is that most people need more than a 100 mile range.

If you could plug your hybrid into the wall good for a hundred mile charge, then that would take care of the majority of driving for many people. Then if you're headed on a long car trip you have a tank of gas and can drive as normal by filling up at gas stations.

Toyota and Honda didn't initially release plug-in hybrids because they thought people would get confused and think that you had to plug them in. I think with a decent advertising campaign they could solve any confusion fairly easily.

Posted by JordanT | June 24, 2008 3:34 PM

jaltcoh: A project like this might require more than 1 person.

Posted by jmo | June 24, 2008 3:35 PM

Toshiba is shipping a battery that will recharge 90% in 5 minutes, or so they claim.

Posted by sunsin | June 24, 2008 3:36 PM

Prizes are fine for what they do. They enable a smaller inventor to come up with an idea and secure a large enough PR hit (and maybe a bit of capital) to commercialize their idea. The SpaceX prize actually got competitors to spend more on development than the prize was worth. The prestige of winning the prize let the winning entrant get recognition from Virgin who then agreed to hire them to deliver spacecraft for Virgin Galactic. That's where they're making the money now.

The problem is, it won't work at all like that for batteries. Hybrids need different batteries from Plug-ins, which need different batteries from electrics. Plus, manufacturers have different needs to serve different segments. GM wants a 40 mile all electric range, Toyota's okay with 15 miles, and Mitsubishi wants 100 miles. So, where do you get the standards for who wins the prize? Do you care about power/weight ratio, Power/cost, cycle life? The answer depends completely on the application. Plus, how many do you have be able to produce? Do you get to keep the IP?

There's already a competition to produce a car that gets better than 100 mpg and that makes a ton more sense than focusing on one particular technology. Even then, it's not clear how much interest will be generated because the margins in the car industry are so low.

Finally, the battery chemistries are pretty well known, this isn't something you can cook up in your basement. It's materials science, which is a very expensive area of research. Lots of people are working on this problem but the intensity of their search will be driven by market demand, not some prize, no matter how large.

For an example of a prize that currently exists and that could have a real impact on energy demand see the L prize at DOE (http://www.lightingprize.org/) to develop a super-efficient lightbulb. Even there, it's not so much the money but the federal procurement commitment that will drive the competition.

Posted by Mike | June 24, 2008 3:37 PM

Prizes are fine for what they do. They enable a smaller inventor to come up with an idea and secure a large enough PR hit (and maybe a bit of capital) to commercialize their idea. The SpaceX prize actually got competitors to spend more on development than the prize was worth. The prestige of winning the prize let the winning entrant get recognition from Virgin who then agreed to hire them to deliver spacecraft for Virgin Galactic. That's where they're making the money now.

The problem is, it won't work at all like that for batteries. Hybrids need different batteries from Plug-ins, which need different batteries from electrics. Plus, manufacturers have different needs to serve different segments. GM wants a 40 mile all electric range, Toyota's okay with 15 miles, and Mitsubishi wants 100 miles. So, where do you get the standards for who wins the prize? Do you care about power/weight ratio, Power/cost, cycle life? The answer depends completely on the application. Plus, how many do you have be able to produce? Do you get to keep the IP?

There's already a competition to produce a car that gets better than 100 mpg and that makes a ton more sense than focusing on one particular technology. Even then, it's not clear how much interest will be generated because the margins in the car industry are so low.

Finally, the battery chemistries are pretty well known, this isn't something you can cook up in your basement. It's materials science, which is a very expensive area of research. Lots of people are working on this problem but the intensity of their search will be driven by market demand, not some prize, no matter how large.

For an example of a prize that currently exists and that could have a real impact on energy demand see the L prize at DOE (http://www.lightingprize.org/) to develop a super-efficient lightbulb. Even there, it's not so much the money but the federal procurement commitment that will drive the competition.

Posted by Mike | June 24, 2008 3:43 PM

"maybe something to make nuclear waste disappear."

Imagine if we could recycle the waste... yeah that's it.

Oh what do you mean we already can, but its illegal in the US. Sheesh, you trying to tell me the problem with Nuclear waste is simply policy and not science?

Posted by Evinfuilt | June 24, 2008 3:43 PM

Prizes are fine for what they do. They enable a smaller inventor to come up with an idea and secure a large enough PR hit (and maybe a bit of capital) to commercialize their idea. The SpaceX prize actually got competitors to spend more on development than the prize was worth. The prestige of winning the prize let the winning entrant get recognition from Virgin who then agreed to hire them to deliver spacecraft for Virgin Galactic. That's where they're making the money now.

The problem is, it won't work at all like that for batteries. Hybrids need different batteries from Plug-ins, which need different batteries from electrics. Plus, manufacturers have different needs to serve different segments. GM wants a 40 mile all electric range, Toyota's okay with 15 miles, and Mitsubishi wants 100 miles. So, where do you get the standards for who wins the prize? Do you care about power/weight ratio, Power/cost, cycle life? The answer depends completely on the application. Plus, how many do you have be able to produce? Do you get to keep the IP?

There's already a competition to produce a car that gets better than 100 mpg and that makes a ton more sense than focusing on one particular technology. Even then, it's not clear how much interest will be generated because the margins in the car industry are so low.

Finally, the battery chemistries are pretty well known, this isn't something you can cook up in your basement. It's materials science, which is a very expensive area of research. Lots of people are working on this problem but the intensity of their search will be driven by market demand, not some prize, no matter how large.

For an example of a prize that currently exists and that could have a real impact on energy demand see the L prize at DOE (http://www.lightingprize.org/) to develop a super-efficient lightbulb. Even there, it's not so much the money but the federal procurement commitment that will drive the competition.

Posted by Mike | June 24, 2008 3:46 PM

Now for me to be less sarcastic.

More than likely, batteries won't be the solution we're looking for. Yes, there are huge leaps being made in Silicon Nanotubes that lead to very large amounts of energy storage.

I personally feel (sorry, not real scientific) that Ultra-capacitors, which lack all the battery drawbacks will be in our future. Mind you any engine that works off a battery will work off of an Ultra-capacitor, so its mute there. The key right now is to begin moving to both, and possibly Hydrogen/Hybrid systems for long haulers (yes, that means we need to build a system to convert electricity into Hydrogen, losing efficiency, but till batteries/capacitors reach a state for long haul, it maybe necessary.)

Sorry, I ramble. I just feel Matthew could spend a little time and read up on new Battery breakthroughs, ultra-capacitors and of course Nuclear Waste recycling.

Posted by Evinfuilt | June 24, 2008 3:50 PM

Ugh. Sorry about the multi-post.

One other thing to note about the difference between the lighting prize and batteries. Everyone knows exactly what we want out of a lightbulb, not so much a battery.

Posted by Mike | June 24, 2008 3:51 PM

One main difference is that marginal electricity is generated from natural gas, which while still a fossil fuel, is much, much cleaner than gasoline (roughly half the emissions, IIRC). Cutting our emissions from passenger cars in half would do a world of good for emissions, global warming, etc.

And gas also is about half as expensive as gasoline on a $/mmbtu basis, too (although obviously that wouldn't still be the case if we massively substituted from gasoline to power...but nonetheless we could expect the equilibrium to be somewhere in the middle).

I'm not one who cares about where fuels come from, but for those who do, gas comes out much better in this respect, too (we're finding new gas in North America pretty much every day now).

What we actually should do is put natural gas in our cars and make power with nuclear, but that'd make too much sense.

Posted by bottomofthe9th | June 24, 2008 3:54 PM

What to do with nuclear waste:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuclear_reprocessing#Pyroprocessing

The waste that cannot be reprocessed must be safely stored, but it is a lot easier to store and curtail the environmental effects of grams of a solid substance than tonnes of a greenhouse gas.

The anti-nuclear movement needs to wake up and smell the carbon dioxide. It will kill, displace, impoverish, and harm more untold millions of people this century than nuclear waste ever will.

Posted by Chuck | June 24, 2008 3:56 PM

It's a dumb idea. Firstly, because there's already billions of dollars going into researching battery technology for laptops and vehicles. Secondly, because a prize doesn't help anyone new to get into this game (whereas $300M in grants to academic researchers and/or small companies might achieve that).

Anyhow, the big news on the energy front this week is that with currently planned investments in solar cell manufacturing, it's now predicted that local solar electricity (cells on your roof) will be as cheap as electricity from the grid by 2012 (in sunny areas). That's awesome. And any moves towards a carbon tax (or the equivalent cap-and-trade) would presumably make that happen even sooner. It's the beginning of the end of the fossil-fuel era.

As for cars, the combination of technologies such lean-burn, all-electric camless valvetrain,
continuously variable transmission, Atkinson
cycle, etc could get us pretty significant improvements in efficiency without any great revolution. Gasoline is great stuff: current automobile engines don't make the most of it.

Posted by Richard Cownie | June 24, 2008 4:19 PM

Hey, I'd be motivated by $300 million.
You could instantly retire and not have to worry about money for the rest of your life. Isn't that good enough?

I'd be motivated, too. Unfortunately, the odds of my being able to invent new battery technology within the next 10 years is probably only about 1 in 100 million, and I actually need to eat and pay a mortgage over that time. . . These prizes remind me of something-for-nothing, get-rich-quick schemes.

Posted by RSA | June 24, 2008 4:27 PM

Richard Cownie,

Any links for this solar update? Are these efficiencies cost reduction to manufacturing or increased output per cell? I am of the opinion that if the price per cell came down a lot more, it would be a more attractive option for individuals and businesses. But the high investment makes a ROI ten years out or more, and just isn't in the books for most places. But a ROI of 5 years would seal the deal for so many more.

Posted by freddiemac | June 24, 2008 4:44 PM

In addition to the benefits of having a flexible power supply with scale efficiencies on the generation side, electric cars also need less energy to move a given amount of mass a given distance. So, electric cars really are quite helpful in both reducing carbon emissions and converting to domestic energy supplies. And the batteries are the major holdup to marketability right now (meaning if you fix the current battery problems their market shares will skyrocket).

Which is why the prize is indeed stupid--the market is giving all the necessary incentives for R&D leading to better batteries.

Posted by DTM | June 24, 2008 4:57 PM

See my post on Bob Cringely's column on SwiftFuel in the previous thread today on energy.

There should be a prize for that sort of thing - producing a synthetic gasoline that doesn't use oil or any non-renewable resource and doesn't require any changes to the way cars and trucks are built.

SwiftFuel allegedly does this. Here's the Cringely column again:

It's the Platform, Stupid: Baby steps are the way to energy independence.
http://www.pbs.org/cringely/pulpit/2008/pulpit_20080606_005036.html

Posted by Richard Steven Hack | June 24, 2008 6:23 PM

For a prize to make sense, the scale of the prize needs to be large relative to the potential profitability of the invention.

Not even close. Roughly speaking the prize amount needs to be large relative to the probable cost of development divided by the probability of winning. If I figure there's a 1/10 chance I can win the prize for a $10 million R&D effort, $300 million is plenty to attract investors. Any profit after that is just gravy.

A more sophisticated analysis would take potential profit into account so that the probability of winning could be less or the R&D effort more costly. The offer of a prize serves two functions: it reduces the anticipated profit required to convince investors to back a project, and it focuses effort on a particular project by providing an endorsement of the worthiness of the project.

Prizes as a spur to technology development are an excellent idea. They've been around for centuries, helping to spur development of high accuracy timepieces, aircraft, and other cool stuff.

Posted by togolosh | June 24, 2008 6:36 PM

For those of us working in the developing world:

"This video is not available in your country."

Matt! Think of your international readership! Give some kind of hint as to what your YouTubes are.

Posted by Allan | June 24, 2008 7:07 PM

The main problem I have with this is focusing on a specific technology rather than the end product-- a fuel-efficient car. We don't need a battery per se, we need a car that can carry 4-6 people a certain distance with a reasonable maximum speed within certain emissions parameters. Maybe that means battery, but maybe it means a plug-in hybrid with solar panels run on bio-butanol. Why should the government decide? I wrote an op-ed to the NYT proposing something similar back in Feb 06. Of course I was young and foolish and didn't know about Tesla Motors or the Volt or many other things back then; plus sustained $100+ oil and $4 gas seemed a bit far-fetched-- at these prices market responses come much faster. So maybe a higher gas tax would have been the right answer from the beginning.

I also didn't propose the size of the prize. Though if Ansari X Prize was only $10mm to create a near-orbit space industry, I wouldn't sneer at $300mm.

Link's here:
http://amitavmisra.blogspot.com/2008/06/mccain-cops-my-style.html

Posted by Amitav | June 24, 2008 7:23 PM

The fundamental problem with Matthew's position on transportation/infrastructure/density issues that he still fails to confront is that cheaper/better cars (which he says he wants) work against a shift to higher densities and more public transportation (which he also says he wants). If you want people to shift from sprawling suburbs to "walkable communities," and to shift from driving to using mass transit, you have to make cars more costly than they are now, not less. Since hybrid and electric auto technology will tend to have the opposite effect over the long term, this defeats the goal of higher densities and a shift to transit.

Posted by Mixner | June 24, 2008 7:55 PM

I'm no McCain fan, but this is a good idea. Better, cheaper battery technology isn't just for cars: combined with better, cheaper solar technology it gives people the ability to produce their own power at home. If you have cheap, high-capacity batteries in your car, an array of batteries in your basement, and a house covered in solar shingles, your need to use fossil fuels is just massively, radically reduced. I've long thought that as complicated as energy debates are, if we keep it simple and just concentrate on advances in two areas - batteries and solar - we'll be okay.

Now, whether it's better to use the 300mil as a prize, or to directly fund research, I'm not sure. But from a technology perspective, I do think big battery improvements gets us halfway there.

Posted by bonk | June 24, 2008 8:12 PM

Is $300 million going to come anywhere close to covering the cost of R&D on anything that could qualify as a prize winner? This is dumber than the gas tax holiday.

Posted by Angry Sam | June 24, 2008 8:59 PM

Link to story about solar cell manufacturing investment and grid parity:

http://earth2tech.com/2008/06/24/solar-manufacturing-investment-to-catch-up-to-chips-in-just-2-years/

Posted by Richard Cownie | June 24, 2008 9:42 PM

The fundamental research behind the development of these technologies is primarily funded by NSF and DOE. This spring I had the immense non-pleasure of sitting on a panel for NSF's Division of Materials Research. We were able to fund 1 out of 16 proposals. That's right 1 out of 16. The average 3 year grant from NSF-DMR is $500,000. For $300 million NSF-DMR could fund 600 proposals and I would not have to sit on panels where we turn excellent proposals away because there is no money (and cause assistant professor to be denied tenure because they couldn't manage to be that 1 out of 16, that of course was a full professor).

$500,000 grants is where science is done. $300 million just promotes shabby research and grandiose claims, with no foundation to back it up. 600 $500,000 grants on the other hand would build a hell of a foundation.

Posted by Frustrated Scientist | June 24, 2008 10:08 PM

"A more sophisticated analysis would take potential profit into account so that the probability of winning could be less or the R&D effort more costly."

This is indeed precisely the problem. If the likely profits of the invention are large, then people will already be competing to get those profits, which means the odds of some new project winning the prize are low. Again, in this case it is basically a question of whether a new project is likely to beat all the existing projects being funded by major car companies and other research groups, and I think the answer is that it is pretty unlikely that will happen, and instead the $300 million would just go to some entity who had already been engaged in this project anyway.

Where invention prizes make sense is cases in which there are large positive externalities but limited likely profits, meaning that the inventor would be unlikely to be able to convert enough of benefits of the invention to profits to make competing for the invention worthwhile. In such cases, it may make sense for the public to provide a subsidy in order to encourage the necessary investment in the relevant projects. But again, this is not really an example of such a case, because the inventors of better batteries are indeed likely to reap sufficient benefits for themselves.

Posted by DTM | June 25, 2008 9:06 AM

Prize Patrol

Comments (55)

Search

Books by Matthew Yglesias

Recent Comments

Recent Posts

Weekly Archives

Categories