Filed under: Hybrids/Alternative, Government/Legal, Green, Chrysler, LLC., Ford, GM, Earnings/Financials
Ask and you shall receive (a little): DOE giving automakers $30mil for PHEV development
Click above for more shots of the Ford Escape PHEV
In what seems like a convenient answer to Mark Fields' request just yesterday for government assistance for the development of plug-in hybrids, the Department of Energy has just announced that it will be granting up to $30 million for just this type of vehicle. Not that thirty-mill is a small sum or anything, but that amount of money will be spread rather thin, being divided across three separate projects from three different manufacturers. Ford is one of them, while General Motors will receive funding for battery development and Chrysler, in partnership with General Electric, will also get some love.
The end-goal of this funding is a plug-in hybrid vehicle that is capable of traveling 40 miles on electric power alone. The DOE hopes that these specifications can be cost-effective by the year 2014 with vehicles on the road around 2016. We're a little puzzled, however, by the relatively small amount of money being handed out to reach these goals. Hydrogen fuel cell technology has received over four times as much funding and is nowhere near as close to production as PHEVs. Regardless, we look forward to seeing some of these investments bear fruit as soon as possible.
[Source: DOE via Green Car Congress]
Reader Comments (Page 1 of 3)
TJ 5:32PM (6/12/2008)
"in partnership with General Electric"
...just lost any possible sales from this die hard mopar fan.
Reply
Purifoy 6:03PM (6/12/2008)
You lost me. What's wrong with Chrysler and General Electric teaming up to develop plug-in technology and powerplants?
LOs 7:29PM (6/12/2008)
GE not GM... ugh RTFA dipwad.
TJ 9:42AM (6/13/2008)
I will not support GE in any way shape or form for political and moral purposes.
Yes, I know GE and not GM. I am well aware of what I said.
Pacman 11:46AM (6/13/2008)
GE was just chosen as the most ethical company in th world.
http://ethisphere.com/expert-corner-alex-dimitrief-general-electric/
TJ 12:28PM (6/13/2008)
Still doing business with Iran, despite US sanctions.
Surpressing news, guiding commentary, and dictating interviews through its subsidiary NBC and MSNBC
And many, many more reasons. GE an ethical company? that is the biggest laugh I have had all day.
tankd0g 5:34PM (6/12/2008)
Your tax dollars at work to help corporations create new ways to get the rest of your dollars. Brilliant.
Reply
paulrandfan 5:52PM (6/12/2008)
Agreed!
Lithous 9:37PM (6/12/2008)
"During the Pacific War (World War II) the company was dedicated to truck production for the Imperial Japanese Army. Because of severe shortages in Japan, military trucks were kept as simple as possible. For example, the trucks had only one headlight on the center of the hood. The war ended shortly before a scheduled Allied bombing run on the Toyota factories in Aichi." http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Toyota_Motor_Corporation
"However, on December 7, 1941, Japan rushed headlong into the Pacific War. Tokai Seiki was placed under the control of the Ministry of Munitions. In 1942, Toyota took over 40% of the company’s equity and Honda was “downgraded” from president to senior managing director. The male employees gradually disappeared as they were called up for military service, and both adult women and female students began to work in the factory as members of the “volunteer corps.” Mr. Honda would calibrate the machines himself and took pains to ensure that the manufacturing process was made as safe and simple as possible for these inexperienced female workers. It was at this time that he devised ways of automating the production of piston rings."
http://world.honda.com/history/limitlessdreams/joyofmanufacturing/text/04.html
Toyota making machines that Honda was calibrating all to destroy the United States of America.
So, not only did Toyoda/Toyota and Honda not help the U.S. to not fall under enemy control but those two were responsible for actions against the U.S. If it wasn't for GM, Ford and others we would have been defeated (without those very important war machines.)
My point is that unlike Honda and Toyota, GM and Ford and others were there for us. Therefore, I have no problem being there for them what-so-ever. Any American that sees otherwise has something wrong with them.
Only Chrysler has asked to be bailed out by the gov't in the past and they paid it back early with interest.
tankd0g 11:02PM (6/12/2008)
It is a very odd trait of Americans to feel the need to honor their war profiteers. I hope I'm around in 40 years when people will start telling me to buy Haliburton because they where there for us, proving $25 rolls of toilet paper in Iraq when we really needed them.
Lithous 1:30AM (6/13/2008)
LMAO.
"war profiteers"? The American companies built more war machines faster than any other in the history of the world. They deserve their profits. Matter of a fact, if they had been as inefficient as the Japanese and Germans at making things then we know what the Germans would have done to all the people that weren't perfect in their eyes.
But I think you lost all credibility when you compare a 100% necessary war (WWII) and what was accomplished then to Haliburton and wars against people that have no chance of taking over the country. Yes, 100% certain that there was a chance that if Japan didn't attack the U.S. and we stayed out and let Germany and Japan win and then regroup against us, no, WWII was necessary. Haliburton not.
Are you really that dumb? Seriously?
tankd0g 1:40AM (6/13/2008)
You're not quite right in the head are you boy? Necessary war? Are you joking?
Lithous 9:10AM (6/13/2008)
Sorry, I have to spell it out for you. I think my description conveyed my intentions but since you need it spelled out and complete the sentence for you...
A necessary war TO JOIN once it was already started by others, not us.
There are wars (most the U.S. has been in) that if we did not join in we would still be a sovereign country after the war. Then there are wars like WWII where it was necessary to participate or else the outcome could be that you are taken over by the other country. A direct attack by a legit military with the potential (given a few years more or less bad choices on the German's part and their technology would be able to hit us much more effectively.) You knew what I meant but you had no decent reply so you thought you'd try and make it sound like I was stating something like it was necessary to start the war or something. But you knew what I meant (or else you are brain dead.)
But you spin as much as Toyota (and as easy to see right through it, BTW.)
tankd0g 9:34AM (6/13/2008)
Perhaps if Americans like Prescott Bush weren't proping up Hitler in the first place with money and help keeping the US government off his back.... Ah forget it, you're obviously clueless on history.
The Luigiian 5:35PM (6/12/2008)
Hydrogen technology shouldn't get any funding whatsoever. Electric with solar power is the wave of the future, not hydrogen.
Reply
Red 5:43PM (6/12/2008)
And what about parts of the world that see less than 5 hours of daylight often times or areas in the US where snowfall is extremely heavy? There are other alternatives that would work better in those situations.
The Luigiian 5:45PM (6/12/2008)
Ok then, Red, you've got a point.
So electric with solar, geothermal, hydroelectric, nuclear, and let's not forget wind turbines.
Red 6:01PM (6/12/2008)
My point was, it works in situations where large capacitors (or however, you plan to store the energy) are needed, energy is still needed to make energy in large quantities, and I'm not all that confident that in certain areas, the surface of the solar panel would trap enough energy to make whatever was needed to power an entire home, depending on its size. I never said solar was a bad thing. I just don't think it should be the ONLY thing.
Feel free to disagree, but sarcasm is unnecessary.
The Luigiian 6:08PM (6/12/2008)
Not being sarcastic, Red. You're right. For example, in Iceland I'm pretty sure they've got geothermal, which would also be a good way to charge an electric vehicle. Nuclear would be good in nations that don't even have that luxury. Wind power would be good in many places.
I'm trying to say hydrogen isn't viable as an energy source. Solar isn't always viable but it with many other technologies (i.e. new batteries and other green technologies) will greatly reduce energy consumption and eliminate the need for hydrogen, which requires energy to be made.
tankd0g 10:54PM (6/12/2008)
The two are not mutually exclusive. Solar and wind, those are power generators. Hydrogen is a method of storage.