electric catamaran boat to set world record

[CUDA]

Forbes has been owned by Hong Kong Whale Media since 2014; I don't trust them anymore.

Washington, D.C.—U.S. Senator Sheldon Whitehouse (D-RI), Chairman of the U.S. Senate Budget Committee, delivered the following opening statement at today’s hearing entitled, “Who Pays the Price: The Real Cost of Fossil Fuels.”

Chairman Whitehouse’s remarks, as prepared for delivery:

Ranking Member Grassley, colleagues, welcome to our seventh Committee hearing on the economic and budgetary perils of dependence on fossil fuels. We have heard testimony from non-partisan, knowledgeable industry leaders about the threat climate change poses to entire sectors of our economy: healthcare, insurance, coastal economies, wildfire areas, the carbon bubble leaving fossil fuel assets stranded.

So, what are we, the federal government, doing to protect against these threats? Actually, we are subsidizing the danger.

As we’ll hear today, the United States subsidizes the fossil fuel industry with taxpayer dollars. It’s not just the US: according to the International Energy Agency, fossil fuel handouts hit a global high of $1 trillion in 2022 – the same year Big Oil pulled in a record $4 trillion of income.

In the United States, by some estimates taxpayers pay about $20 billion dollars every year to the fossil fuel industry. What do we get for that? Economists generally agree: not much. To quote conservative economist Gib Metcalf: these subsidies offer “little if any benefit in the form of oil patch jobs, lower prices at the pump, or increased energy security for the country.” The cash subsidy is both big and wrong.

But the really big subsidy is the license to pollute for free. The IMF calls this global free pass an “implicit” fossil fuel subsidy. Economists call it an “unpriced externality.” Behind these benign-sounding phrases is a lot of harm.

Start with harmful effects of local air pollution. Researchers from Harvard found pollutants from oil and gas combustion were responsible for 8.7 million premature deaths annually – the increased mortality rates from heat and air pollution we heard about at last week’s hearing.

Then, growing costs from intensifying disasters: wildfires, floods, droughts, which according to OMB could cost the federal budget $2 trillion annually and reduce US GDP 3 to 10 percent by the end of the century.

You tally up the harms, and the IMF estimates it at a $5.4 trillion annual subsidy worldwide. In the United States, it’s $646 billion – every single year.

Worse, this is almost certainly undercounting the true costs. The London School of Economics reports that studies often underestimate the harm of climate dangers by failing to account for how hazards can cascade across ecological and economic systems. These cascades can cause irreparable damage to human well-being, to ecosystems, and to the US economy. These are the systemic risks we’ve heard about from previous witnesses.

And as we will hear from one of our witnesses today, the very act of extracting these dirty fuels has terrible consequences for human health – especially for children. From higher rates of birth defects to childhood leukemia, there’s ample evidence that communities around oil and gas extraction sites pay an especially high price.

It's textbook economics that the price of a good should reflect its true cost. The fossil fuel industry violates this rule of market economies. It does so by spending billions of dollars on disinformation, false doubts, climate obstruction, and political dark money. And why not, to protect one of the most lucrative subsidies in human history? This, ladies and gentlemen, is why we can’t have nice things like clean air, safe coral reefs, secure coast lines, and affordable clean energy.

Over in the House, MAGA extremists are doubling down on polluter handouts to their big donors, with their Default on America Act that puts the American taxpayer on the hook for climate disaster.

It is not about debts or deficits. It’s dirty work for an industry that controls one of the main political parties in this country. Oil and gas extraction represents only about 5 percent of GDP. Farming, manufacturing, food and beverage, insurance, finance, restaurants, retail, housing, healthcare – all represent a larger share of GDP. Clean energy now accounts for more employment than the fossil fuel industry. But for political influence, to protect those massive subsidies, nothing compares to fossil fuel.

[pcrussell50]

Forbes has been owned by Hong Kong Whale Media since 2014; I don't trust them anymore.

The article I shared is the only one that brings the tech by listing chapter and verse, what actual subsidies are available for a driller to apply to the government for, if he wants to drill. And it isn’t much.

BTW, Forbes also has plenty of articles that support your position too. Only… As with this entire post of yours, they fail to list any actual subsidies, while claiming huge, vague backdoor subsidies. Or discussing how wind and solar can’t even exist without subsidy or without backup from reliable sources that always work when the sun goes down and the wind stops blowing. And without discussing the health, food, and economic disaster (think total societal collapse, where the only currency is ammunition and fresh water), that would prevail without widespread affordable energy, from the only source that is widespread and affordable… Affordable even despite global efforts to choke it off.

And even for societies rich enough to dally with expensive part time, boutique energy sources like wind and solar, Part time energy sources still need full-time energy sources for backup… Or else you do without. Period.

-Peter

[CUDA]

The industry is in its infancy,

megaPacks

https://electrek.co/2023/05/31/tesla...orage-project/


Boutique, I guess your not paying attention, the world is going solar,

[pcrussell50]

The industry is in its infancy,

megaPacks

https://electrek.co/2023/05/31/tesla...orage-project/


Boutique, I guess your not paying attention, the world is going solar,

you keep leaving out key details…

Lithium batteries are most certainly NOT in their infancy. Nor is the struggle to overcome the issues associated with them: cost, danger, weight, slave labor, etc… If you are the sort that considers lithium batteries as high tech, then at 30+ years old, they are probably the single oldest things that still exist in high tech. They were powering high end laptops in 1992, where no other part of the computer except the lithium battery is still in use today.

Mega packs = mega bucks (frivolous dalliances of rich countries), and mega fires

the rich world is going solar (with full backup from fossil and nuke, of course). Solar is the most subsidized and backed up (by fossil and nuke) energy source in human history, as a percentage of the value of the energy produced. Ethiopia and Chad, to name a couple out of 120+, are not going solar without a rich country paying for it. Too expensive even after all the extra costs added artificially to petro fuels. And rich countries will not stay rich if they spend too much on boutique part-time energy.

-Peter

[CUDA]

You have 20-year-old thinking, they have so many different variations of batteries, and ALL you talk about is Lithium.

You need to leave your Cave once in a while

Researchers in NASA’s Solid-state Architecture Batteries for Enhanced Rechargeability and Safety, or SABERS program, have made significant progress on solid-state batteries since the program’s inception in 2019. Focusing on innovative battery technologies for aircraft, researchers at NASA’s Glenn Research Center have increased their prototype battery’s discharge rate by over 10 times, reduced weight by 30-40%, doubled-to-tripled its energy density when compared to conventional lithium technology, and significantly improved their safety in harsh conditions.

The SABER program is now collaborating with institutions like Georgia Tech, Argonne National Laboratory, and Pacific Northwest National Laboratory to capitalize on their initial successes and drive research toward practical, manufacturing-based designs.

In an entirely different sector, Toyota Motor Corp. currently owns more than 1,000 patents on solid-state technology and is on track to roll out solid-state EVs by 2025. The company reports that its technology can achieve full-charge distances of up to 700 km and a full charge in less than 20 minutes, all with an increased safety profile. EVs with solid-state batteries would, in theory, give drivers even more reasons to make the switch from traditional fossil-fuel engine technology and propel the industry beyond its lithium-based constraints that are currently causing low EV adoption rates.



https://www.thomasnet.com/insights/7...-alternatives/

[David - WI]

Ford's EV sales revenues were down 84% versus last year???

The EV unit, which Ford calls Model e, sold 10,000 vehicles in the quarter, down 20% from the number it sold a year earlier. And its revenue plunged 84% to about $100 million, which Ford attributed mostly to price cuts for EVs across the industry. That resulted in the $1.3 billion loss before interest and taxes (EBIT), and the massive per-vehicle loss in the Model e unit.

https://www.cnn.com/2024/04/24/busin...ses/index.html

[NICE PAIR]

How much of fords loss is subsidized with our tax $$, asking for a friend.

[CUDA]

If Ford had come out with a pickup with a real battery, things would be very different,

GM has only released the standard 4 door long bed work truck because they want to get things right from the start, just the opposite with Ford,

All read that ALL GM pickup trucks will have twice the range as the Lightning mistake,

TWICE the range and the non-commercial version are all new and will soon be available with twice the range

Since my brother has had EV for over 7 years I remember him having to plan his route and make sure we had a place to charge when we would need it, well they have a lot more charging stations today but still I don't ever want to worry about range,

The GM truck is the only thuck with over 400 miles.

That If you hot rod that Ford you won't get 200

[NICE PAIR]

If Ford had come out with a pickup with a real battery, things would be very different,

GM has only released the standard 4 door long bed work truck because they want to get things right from the start, just the opposite with Ford,

All read that ALL GM pickup trucks will have twice the range as the Lightning mistake,

TWICE the range and the non-commercial version are all new and will soon be available with twice the range

Since my brother has had EV for over 7 years I remember him having to plan his route and make sure we had a place to charge when we would need it, well they have a lot more charging stations today but still I don't ever want to worry about range,

The GM truck is the only thuck with over 400 miles.

That If you hot rod that Ford you won't get 200

If a frog had wings, he wouldn't bump his ass.

[fixer68]

Ford's EV sales revenues were down 84% versus last year???



https://www.cnn.com/2024/04/24/busin...ses/index.html

Nice spin on the numbers. Of course revenue is down. They stopped selling the F150 lightning. No revenue comes in if you don't sell the cars. In 2023, according to Ford, Fords electric vehicles posted record Q4 sales to cap off a record EV year. Ford sold 25,937 EVs in Q4,

up 24% over Q3 sales.

Plus, you don't mention how Ford gas car sales are also down 11% also.


GM is still on track to show profit from EV's later this year. Stellantis said its European EV business was already profitable last year.

It says tis all in the article you posted if you bother to read the whole article

Here are some bullet points from your article.


The losses go far beyond the cost of building and selling those 10,000 cars, according to Ford. Instead

the losses include hundreds of millions being spent on research and development of the next generation of EVs for Ford. Those investments are years away from paying off

.

Ford Blue, which handles sales of gasoline-powered cars to consumers, reported that sales fell 11% to 626,000, and revenue dropped 13% to $21 billion. That resulted in EBIT in those traditional sales

falling by nearly two-thirds to $905 million

.

Model e doesn’t handle all of the company’s electric vehicle sales. Some are also sold in its Ford Pro unit, which handles fleet sales to businesses and government buyers. And Ford said it had strong demands for electric vehicle sales in that unit, including an order for 9,250 E-Transit vans from the US Postal Service, which are to be delivered through the end of this year, and an order for more than 1,000 of its F-150 Lightning pickups and Mustang Mach-E SUVs from Ecolab, a global sustainability company.

Ford rival General Motors reported earlier this week that it remains on track to have its North American EV business turn profitable in the second half of this year, while Stellantis, which makes cars and trucks in North America under the Jeep, Ram, Dodge and Chrysler brands, said its European EV business was already profitable last year.

[fixer68]

How much of fords loss is subsidized with our tax $$, asking for a friend.

No. Not an actual subsidy. But in 2009 Ford got a government loan from the DOE's Advanced Technology Vehicles Manufacturing (ATVM) program set up by George W. Bush (R) for 5.9 billion dollars to renovate factories to make more efficient compact cars instead of gas guzzlers. That loan has since been paid back. But now they are getting another loan from the same program for 9.2 billion dollars to construct 3 huge EV battery factories. The loan will have to be paid back so it's not a subsidy.

[Chaz]

Broken 68 ,

The job of village idiot is owned by CRAP

How ironic you joined this site but a mere few months ago .. yet you are vying for his title. I don't blame you for not using your real handle .. cuz after all , who would want to really hold that title.???

For those that still have a battery fetish ... the boat in question is still gasoline powered , with no hope of ever going back to "the green new scam" ...

Get over it .. there are still more red blooded Americans .. than you POS commies .. at least for the time being ..

[JPEROG]

Until new battery technology is released into the market "the Japs and Korens will own this technology" there is no way that the majority of people can switch over. The whole Biden push is premature and will not survive without tax payers funding it "anything can survive if you throw enough money at it-but its unrealistic". If you pay attention, Honda is just now coming out with models that they are going to push on the U.S. market. They will be one of the first that meet consumer demands, they will get into the market with truly viable options, and outsell U.S. produced vehicles as per the norm. Biden needs to stay out of car business and concentrate on the world trade business. The U.S. is a medium duty truck producing leader for the time being and trucks are what consume fuel on our roads. I spend 3 times what it takes to travel the same distance in my trucks Vs. my cars because its what I prefer to drive and pull with. We (U.S. manufactures) need to come up with industry leading technology that will support consumer needs and create a major demand without forced government influence. Give us a five or six hundred horsepower diesel hybrid that gets 35 mpg, makes 1200 lb. ft. of torque, and people will flock to buy it at an outrageous price tag that will allow true profitability. The Mercury V-8 outboard platform is a perfect example of this theory.

Joe

[Instigator]

Ford just announced they lost $123k in every ev sold.

Tessla has 50% of the market and just laid off 10% of their work force.

Seen the video of the guy w/the Geiger counter around the charging stations ????

But, the aoc’s of the world will continue to tell the lies and wsve the flag like they always due.

[6Killer]

Six thinks Chaz is Galen incarnate.