You have commented 339 times on Rantburg.

Your Name
Your e-mail (optional)
Website (optional)
My Original Nic        Pic-a-Nic        Sorry. Comments have been closed on this article.
Bold Italic Underline Strike Bullet Blockquote Small Big Link Squish Foto Photo
-Short Attention Span Theater-
Obamateurism of the Day
2011-10-11
Sometimes President Obama is so brilliant that, er Â… no one knows what heÂ’s talking about, and perhaps he doesnÂ’t either. Take this quote attributed to Obama in a Wall Street Journal profile of Harold Hamm:

When it was Mr. Hamm’s turn to talk briefly with President Obama, “I told him of the revolution in the oil and gas industry and how we have the capacity to produce enough oil to enable America to replace OPEC. I wanted to make sure he knew about this.”

The president’s reaction? “He turned to me and said, ‘Oil and gas will be important for the next few years. But we need to go on to green and alternative energy. [Energy] Secretary [Steven] Chu has assured me that within five years, we can have a battery developed that will make a car with the equivalent of 130 miles per gallon.’”


Mickey Kaus is a bit mystified by the mixing of measures:

What does “130 miles per gallon” even mean in a car that doesn’t use gallons at all? What size and price of car are we talking about? (Mitsubishi already sells a car that is somehow rated at 126 mpg in the city, but it’s tiny.) … If this is the stat Obama throws in the face of a stranger who argues with him, the President probably thinks it’s important. But is it realistic? … Larger implications: Obama is “data-driven,” his observant friends suggest. But how good is the data that’s driving him? The possibilities here are a) he’s well-informed; b) he’s being fed wildly optimistic estimates of the sort he wants to hear; c) he doesn’t really know what he’s talking about at all; or d) he’s BS’ing. … I’m guessing (b), at least when (as here) the issue is ideologically charged, patronage-driven and plays to Obama’s self-image as a transformational figure.


Edward Niedermeyer at The Truth About Cars is even less impressed:

What makes this so strange is that the President expressed his optimism in an MPG format. It’s one thing to say EV battery prices will drop by 70% between 2010 and 2015 (even when the CEO of LG Chem says his firm is targeting 50% improvement), or even to say that US battery manufacturing will go from 2% of the global total in 2010 to 40% in 2015… these, like the “one million plug-ins on the road” pledge are straightforward targets. But 130 MPG based on some mysterious battery? There are so many moving parts in that goal, it’s not even funny. …

Presumably, President Obama was using a number from a briefing that used an average size, weight, range and price and projected the required battery size and power for a typical car, and found that by 2015 a 130 MPG-equivalent, average-sized EV would sell for not much more than an equivalent ICE or hybrid. But given that nearly every estimate about EVs ever given out by the administration looks wildly overoptimistic, it’s tough to take that estimate at face value. So I’m wondering, do we know how Obama came up with this number? Is he referring to price drops on traditional lithium-ion cells, or a new chemistry that is expected to be on the road by 2015? FInally, is the president referring to a battery produced by the “domestic industry” or one of the dominant foreign firms and their transplant factories? This private “130 MPG” revelation seems to underpin so much of the president’s optimism about EVs, I think it’s worth taking a much closer look at.


I actually think Mickey had it right in option D. Anyone who expresses battery strength in miles per gallon isnÂ’t arguing from a position of expertise.

I think he is so committed to his vision of green technology that any other fact or dissenting voice is immediately shoved out, ignored or ridiculed. The day this bum leaves office is the day our economy starts to improve.
Posted by:DarthVader

#6  Through "green" schemes and taxation, the government's endstate is to own or nationalize everything energy. They've been moving in that direction for decades.
Posted by: Besoeker   2011-10-11 13:48  

#5  Don't forget to factor in temperature. A cold batter is a weak battery, as those living in the Frozen North know. I suspect those range estimates fall drastically in winter.

If memory serves (what are the chances!), reaction rates fall by a factor of 2 with every 10 degree C drop in temperature.

Anguper makes a good point about dollars/mile. What does it cost to replace one of those big honkin' batteries when it reaches its end-of-life?

The main advantage of electric vehicles is they are powered by clean, pollution-free electrons, rather than nasty, polluting hydrocarbons. And where do clean, pollution-free electrons come from, you might ask? Hell if I know. We never talked about that in our Deconstruction of Post-colonial Literature classes.
Posted by: SteveS   2011-10-11 13:46  

#4  A commitment to "green" energy is essentially a commitment to no energy. They want us all shivering in the dark, and "green" is just the current label for that goal.
Posted by: Iblis   2011-10-11 13:41  

#3  Dollars/mile is the figure that counts the most. You don't know that until you count what you spent vs. what you get after selling or junking your old ride.
Posted by: Anguper Hupomosing9418   2011-10-11 13:14  

#2  battery developed that will make a car with the equivalent of 130 miles per gallon

Divide that by 4 because of electric generation, transmission and battery charging losses.
Posted by: Eohippus Phater7165   2011-10-11 13:13  

#1  Anyone who expresses battery strength in miles per gallon isn't arguing from a position of expertise.

Sure, if you want to get all sciency and stuff, but can't you just divide the distance traveled in miles by the battery volume in gallons? That should be close enough for political talking points or Obama's Five Year Plan.
Posted by: SteveS   2011-10-11 13:08  

00:00