Westerman Slams Sec. Buttigieg Over EV Subsidies: 'You Need To Go Back And Look At The Physics’
ฝัง
- เผยแพร่เมื่อ 2 ต.ค. 2024
- On Thursday, Rep. Bruce Westerman (R-AR) questioned Department of Transportation Secretary Pete Buttigieg on Electric Vehicle rollouts during a House Transportation and Infrastructure Committee hearing.
Fuel your success with Forbes. Gain unlimited access to premium journalism, including breaking news, groundbreaking in-depth reported stories, daily digests and more. Plus, members get a front-row seat at members-only events with leading thinkers and doers, access to premium video that can help you get ahead, an ad-light experience, early access to select products including NFT drops and more:
account.forbes...
Stay Connected
Forbes on Facebook: forbes
Forbes Video on Twitter: / forbes
Forbes Video on Instagram: / forbes
More From Forbes: forbes.com
![ผัวเถื่อน - ยูริ โตเกียวมิวสิค [ OFFICIAL MUSIC VIDEO ]](http://i.ytimg.com/vi/P08ORRVDGl8/mqdefault.jpg)
must have missed the part where he “slammed” him.
He "slammed" him by asking an incendiary question, interrupted the answer to that question, and ended his speaking time before the question could actually be answered
@@fungeneernice
4:45
This is deceptive and edited. Shame on Forbes. Every time I think I can trust such a well known brand, I'm reminded of your duplicity.
Agree 👍
Welp Forbes Family has pushing their staff produce clips they simply can't deliver.
You got a pointer to the unedited?
Forbes has become one of the most biased sources of news out there.
Oh, very convenient, Westerman: decry the emissions and efficiency of electric power plants, but skip over completely the emissions and efficiency of oil refineries. Derp!
But we all know and understand how efficient/inefficient and how harmful fossil fuel usage is going into the (far) future. This is out in the open. Literally, we as humans smell and see our gas lawnmowers, vehicles, and boats spew this "efficiency" out into the air we breathe.
It is the EV argument that is trying to mask over it's "efficiency".
@@chex4214 Nope. For 13 years now I've driven much more efficiently using clean, green, free sunshine from my roof.
@@Yanquetino Not quite all duckies and bunnies.
If the argument is carbon neutrality... there is a period of a few years to offset emission generated during construction of the panel. A trivial detail, but when things go to scale stuff like that matters. Beyond that though, the are a huge number of logistical concerns with overnighting the EV thing. Biggest of which? Our grid simply can't handle it right now. People deal with brownouts when it gets hot in most of the country. If you burden the grid with a few hundred million motors on top of that? If you look at energy demands of human society (fed from all sources, chemical/renewable, etc) motors are the lions share of the pie chart. So the reckless expedition of that? Not good. Not everyone can just install solar panels on the house they don't own. Buying the EV itself? They're really expensive if you want a car that has range or utility (this is especially important when we start talking about commercial use). My personal concern with them? The battery science isn't there yet for me. Thermal runaway. VCEs. Their discharge cycles are pretty well quantified in about how many you'll get out of them and they're incredibly expensive to replace.
I'd like see more of them on the road, but I'm an Electrical Engineer so I consider all the angles when it comes to stuff like this.
@@joshualinker5800 Nobody says it's all "duckies and bunnies." Still, we cannot keep burning fossil fuels. What EV has you taken for a nice, long test drive? What DID you like about it?
@@Yanquetino I like their acceleration, but I am nothing if not practical and it has to be asked. Are EVs ready for the average consumer? The short answer is no. Cost. Reliability. Grid. Safety.
I agree alternative solutions need to happen, but rushing 'innovation' often results in catastrophic results. If it isn't done properly it will fail and people could get hurt in many ways.
I hardly think he slammed the transportation secretary got slammed. It’s obvious what side of the aisle Forbes is on.
I am percent sure that Joe doesn't drive... well I hope so
this reads strangely, correction it does not read at all
Where the hell is Massie he is the only one in that room full of fools that can put Pete into his place
@@leweezo33 You do realize that trump doesn't drive either?
@@brianbarefoot6574 Well yeah. I doubt he has driven in decades. The best analogy I can come up for these 2 guys is. You have 1 guy who drivethrough a outdoor mall and not realize it and you have the other guy who would drive through a outdoor mall on purpose
Banning internal combustion engines? Really? I've got four. I see dealers parking lots with scads of vehicles with internal combustion engines. Where is this ban?
Yeah let's pretend that ever changing regulations are not turning the screws on people that currently prefer ICE,
@@bartwilliams4478 because they aren’t. Where is the regulation making it harder to buy an ICE? Show me exactly how less oil is being produced? Hint we are producing more oil than ever and export the excess. If Keystone were built, first of all it would transport Canadian oil for export, it would do nothing for energy in this country. In fact the line that travels from Superior Wisconsin to the gulf carries more oil thanks to upgrades than a fully operational Keystone XL.
@@derekpopp7546 purposely creating costly fuel , seeking all ev manufacturing 2035
@@redrustler1 The ban so far has been overseas, primarily in the Scandinavian countries. Several European countries already have terminal dates for ICEs, starting with public transportation.
@@derekpopp7546 Some states have future cut-offs of *new* ICE sales (like 2035). We export some grades of crude that we're not set up to refine, but we import grades we like, and have been a net importer of crude every year since 1945.
This is extremely concerning!
It's ok to give subsidies to Oil and Gas companies making record profit but let's not help an industry that can help with energy independence and also contribute to helping combat climate change. Another great job by the Republican party
What climate change?
its not helping
I hope you are referring to the Thorium MSR nuclear programs. Nuclear is the only path to energy independence. The USA has one of the largest thorium deposits in the world.
Energy independence? by using American Lithium 😂😂😂
Really? I saw that and Pete wiped the floor with the fool
The old guy is closer to reality. #1 there is no such thing as an EV engine, its just an electric motor. The pollution happens before. Moving towards Nuclear is the only way to make Pete right. ( I am a renewables expert)
@@rob8224-x4h Thank you. There is no such thing as an EV engine. Funny how the libs like to mock people for being unintelligent, and yet they don't actually know what they are talking about. Such a simple thing, and yet, impossible to ignore due to their arrogance and ignorance.
You're blind
@@olbricky6824 And you are brainwashed. What's your point?
@@rob8224-x4h Not you are not lmao
He doesn’t know the word logistics
So here are the calculation they talked about
For EV
average engine efficiency 70%
average power plant efficiency 38%
total efficiency = 26.6%
for gas engine its 35% with the most fuel efficient is 40%
thats just to show how the narrative is being distorted
Why is efficiency a primary concern?
The whole point is that EVs can be powered by electricity that can be produced via non-carbon-emitting methods, which is already 40% of all energy production and growing rapidly.
Fuel efficiency is irrelevant once you stop using fuel as a source of energy.
Nevertheless, I'd say that just a 10%-15% difference in overall efficiency is very promising considering that the combustion engine has had over 120 years of optimization and EV tech has just started to be usable this decade. It is very likely it will end up being a lot more efficient.
@@Oersted4 do you know why we still use hydrocarbon as our primary source of energy?
@@Oersted4 renewable is only 9%, 9% for nuclear and the rest is carbon. charcoal, gas and petroleum are all carbon
@@KINGCOBRA304 Westerman says it is 40% (6:06), I'm not sure if that's correct, but he is motivated to understate it, so it's probably not less.
@@Oersted4 www.eia.gov/energyexplained/us-energy-facts/
he made a mistakes but that was easy to know
I agree with Buttigieg with his "why vote" counter argument. Being carbon neutral is a process that will have to overhaul a lot of our current energy landscape, EVs are not a single answer to the energy problem. That said, Westerman makes a great point about efficiency. The battery itself, yes, is 90% efficient (10 kWh of charging will get you 9 kWh of output), but when you charge your car midday when the energy mix is dipping into inefficient sources (natty gas, petroleum, etc.), you are using some super dirty electricity. You're actually emitting more than gas engines in some cases. If you like EVs and really care about sustainability, you need to charge at times when the energy mix is clean (when system demand is low and renewable generation is high).
So he wants the EV to take into consideration the efficiency of production at the power plant as well as the efficiency loss due to transmission.
Ok, but is HE taking into consideration the efficiency of production at the oil refinery for the ICE? Or, the fact that there is no possible way it is more efficient to load gasoline into a bunch of trucks and hand deliver it to gas stations for people to utilize, than the transmission of electricity across the power grid.
Do people actually think for themselves in Republican led places? Or just spout the stupid claims the anger-tainment media gives them?
2 things.
First, the US subsidizes the EV market to the tune of about $13.8B per year, where we subsidize the fossil fuel market to over $20B ($7T worldwide) and automobile manufacturers are subsidized by an additional ~$9.5B per year. Kind of dumb to make the subsidy argument about a new technology when there is an established technology that is getting subsidized substantially more... and this does not include bail-outs.
Second, Westerman wants to make a point about total CO2 footprint of EVs, but ignores the production contribution for fossil fuels. Tons and tons of greenhouse gasses are released just in the drilling, refining, and transportation of the fuels for ICE cars. If you look at the entire lifecycle, ICEVs have about a 20x greater carbon footprint than EVs and a large percentage of that EV carbon footprint is in the battery production and that is in the process of changing dramatically over the next five years.
Say NO to subsidies. And "congress" sending our $$$$$$$$$$$ overseas. DEFUND congress.
@@rahkinrah1963 Subsidies are not uniformly bad. Sometimes they are useful to get new types of industry off the ground, which can be good for the long term economic growth of the country. However, if we're still subsidizing industries 150 years after their inception, then it is no longer about growth, it's about graft.
Also, sending money and aid to Ukraine is all about the economic future of the US. Ukraine is known as the breadbasket of Europe and they have a huge economic impact on Europe. If Russia takes Ukraine, Europe could easily be plunged into a recession and if Europe goes, the US could be dragged along with it.
Subsidizing fossil fuels, insured every taxpayer gets a break on energy Cost to include reducing inflation on harvesting production delivery, and assists in the production of thousands of derivatives from the processed fuels, you can't say that for EV Subsidizing
@@bartwilliams4478 The point is, they have had more than 100 years to figure out how to male a clear (unsubsidized) profit.
I will concede that as the government changes regulations and standards, that there is new development required and I think it is fair for that to be subsidized. Probably not billions, though.
I think the US government makes excuses to subsidize any industry where we compete against other countries that subsidize that industry. However, if you think that is OK for fossil fuels and ICEVs, then it surely is ok for EVs, where China has more than twice the global marketshare than the US due to government subsidization.
Within the next ten years (probably sooner) EVs will be cheaper, more reliable, more environmentally friendly, and have ranges of 1200 miles or more. If given a choice between that and a ICEV... on the other hand, I have a friend who still uses an old Motorola flip phone...
And you're ignorant of the cost benefit ratio of fuel subsidies, no comparison. Fossil fuel wipes the floor to EV Bullshit!
The US gives big oil 20 to 30B a year in subsidies but EV subsidies are too costly. Wow
Leave EV tecnology to developed countries in Europe, Asia and Africa. The US has a third world country infrastucture and mindset.
The chair is asking to leave regulation in place for engineers, but isn’t he part of the no regulation party? He’s an engineer and doesn’t get the physics. Making electricity is far more efficient than a car engine, unless you’re generating from coal and even then it might beat ICE. He said that an ICE was only 20%, maybe for his 1 ton pickup, but in reality it is 35%+. Coal is 37%, so using his numbers EV is more efficient assuming 100% coal generated power and no regenerative braking. And that is just math. The line loss is also negligible.
He's a former consultant.....nuff said
an internal combustion engine loses around 80% of the energy that goes into it. A coal-burning power plant loses around 68% of its energy. Thus, an EV powered purely by coal still uses less energy than a car powered by gasoline… and then there’s the oil refineries.
Support the fossil fuel industry they support the members in congress.They need your campaign dollars.
By Westerman's logic, one could just ignore items in a budget that were small. The fact is that most budgets, including carbon budgets, are usually composed of many small items. The fact is that transportation is a major source of carbon emissions, and if the problem with EVs is emissions from power plants, we should make them green as soon as possible, as well. Finally, the first EVs were put on the market around 2010, so we have had 14 years to get off of ICE vehicles. If we move any slower, China will truly dominate the EV market.
question, storing those energy causes more emission than directly using fossil fuel
Just go back to horse and buggy. But then again the Climate Activists will just claim that horse farts are producing too much greenhouse gases.
@@KINGCOBRA304 citations please.
@@convinceme6676 you need citation on wether converting electricity to other form then back looses energy? are you lost?
@@KINGCOBRA304you didn’t say there were energy losses; you said they cause more emissions.
There are no emissions to store energy. There’s very little energy losses storing DC power in DC batteries. In other forms of energy storage there will be losses; but no more than the loses in heat by internal combustion engines.
That’s quite an arrogant statement to make. Plenty of people want EV’s and Gas powered vehicles. You remind me of the Horse and Buggy crowd when cars were first being made. “We Don’t want Cars”, lol! We saw that how worked out. I have an BMW X5, 4.0i and a Tesla Model S Plaid, that’s scary fast. I’m looking to get a used F150 for my son. We can and should lead on EV’s. You know who’s going to take over the market if we don’t? China, that’s who, and we can’t and shouldn’t allow that to happen. Gas powered vehicles aren’t going anywhere, so don’t worry about it, despite what politicians like Gavin Newsom may say (he’s apparently already backing down from his new vehicle EV only sales in 2030something mandate campaign promise which was/is never going to happen).
THE INEFFICIENCY EITHER HAPPENS AT THE ENGINE OR AT THE PLANT TO GIVE YOU ENERGY. WHY PEOPLE CAN’t stop arguing about who is right??
He's missing a key concept: so goes the US, so goes the world. Tesla showed the world that, back in the late 2ks, early 2010s it was possible to make an EV with mass market appeal profitably. That changed everything, not only here, but around the world. China's EV boom was seeded by Tesla's initial success here, and eventual success there. Had legacy auto woken up early enough, the US, outside of Tesla, could have been the world leaders in EVs and production tech... instead, they sat on their haunches and handed that to China.
Another piece he's missing is that electrification in cars goes hand in hand with electrification of everything. Where I live, electricity is the most expensive in the country, but having an EV was STILL cheaper to own/operate. But to tip the scale further, I shopped for solar panels. Once I was shopping solar panels, I thought, "Well, if I'm investing in these, they may as well power my whole home!" So I oversized the system and replaced my gas appliances with electric to cut off the gas entirely.
With preexisting bias or blinders on, Westerman's argument sounds decent... however, again, the US influences the world, so now you can expand that 13.5% to 100% to include the world who will inevitably be influenced. Passenger and light duty is 57%, sure... but now electric semis and farm equipment are being produced, THANKS TO THE TECH AND ADVANCEMENTS THAT CAME FROM THE LIGHT DUTY SECTOR. Militaries are looking to move to EVs, and so on and so forth. The world and its sectors/industries do not develop in silos. When bidirectional charging becomes common, not just at home, but at places of work and commercial activity, the momentum to electrification will pick up massively.
www.technologyreview.com/2023/02/21/1068880/how-did-china-dominate-electric-cars-policy/#:~:text=The%20development%20of%20China's%20EV,as%20the%20biggest%20EV%20company.
Where will all the millions of tons of plastic and rubber used everyday all over the world for everything come from? The world cant function without it. Recycling isn't going to keep up with the demand.
More like Pete mopped the floor with his faulty logic and pathetic attempts at arguments.
Let's see... what's a bigger problem... EV Subsidies, or doors falling off airplaines, C'mon GOP, drain the swamp already!
wtf are either of them the federal government's responsibility?
Republicans don’t like govt getting involved in private companies affairs and they hate regulation. In capitalism, companies should be handling their own quality issues
@@branchingoutnurseries4403 now that the Supremes invalidated rules and regulations of agencies not approved by congress the government has no responsibility. However, they are subsidizing the purchase of EVs through a tax deduction that cost $1 billion dollars, balance that against $22 billion that went to oil and gas. Again, Republicans are not good at math, 22 is much bigger than 1. Maybe get rid of the oil subsidy, they seem to be making lots of money.
@derekpopp7546 not sure where you got your information, but it's complete garbage and your understanding of the oil and gas "subsidies" is the same.
The GQP is the swamp.
The servant of fossil fuels ignores the brutal fact that governments all over the world have joined the EV movement, even to the extent of cruise ship construction focusing on battery power rather than diesel power and ports are already working on the necessary infrastructure adjustments. And more and more of them are requiring EV manufacture to replace ICE engines. This is a bigger issue than the US. Besides, our lack of encouragement of EVs yields market share to foreign manufacturers of EVs. Those so eager to stop development and adoption of the EV are just defending the buggy whip for selfish reasons.😮
How much is the mining for the materials for the batteries going to increase when cruise ships and cargo ships and all other types of equipment start using them? We are trading fossil fuels,which we will NEVER stop relying on because nearly everything made today has plastic and rubber in it and the world at present can't function without it, for stripping the earth of materials for the batteries and using millions of gallons of diesel every year to do it. Why are there still remote EV charging stations that are powered by diesel or propane generators if solar and other energy is so much more efficient?
@@troyjanise9051 You assume, like most anti-EV people, that battery technology is done and will not advance in efficiency under increased demand. I, for one, reject that assumption. On the other hand, what new efficiencies of fossil fuel have been demonstrated???
@@mikecuthbert2505 well, every year, ICE engines get more efficient with different technologies. Toyota has shown their R&D on ICE engines including ones that burn alternative fuels like hydrogen. You know Hydrogen...the most abundant element in the known universe? The energy source of the Sun? Of which the only byproduct of burning it is water.
Why do we have ethanol mandates and why do we subsidize oil billionaires?
Westerman was schooled by Buttigieg in this video. Forbes spins through the video title.
Ya subsidize oil companies, bad argument. Also 'private' healthcare, and SCOTUS. At least EV's will cost the taxpayers less over time.
You are sure about that. I guess the making of the batteries in the places where the materials is not a big deal because it is NIMBY.
@@pyreneesfarm7818 very sure. Look up tax breaks for oil companies. And hopefully technology will take us away from the exploitation of kids for battery raw materials. But then again, we all wear clothes made by them.
@@stevewilliams3087 child labor wasn't the point he was making. It was the extremely toxic, pollution producing mining of Cobalt and Lithium among other minerals needed for battery production. "Besides the deleterious impact cobalt exposure has to human health, cobalt mining's toxic byproducts devastate landscapes, pollute water, and contaminate agriculture."
Haven't these guys figured out yet that the national highway and transportation system is one ENOURMOUS subsidy to the automotive and so many other industries?! Good ole' backslappin' pork. And where would we be without it?
Shame on forbes for misinformation. Who owns it?
So unqualified. Checkbox hire diaster.
To the science illiterate sure. lol.
Mr. Butt-Egg was an EEOC hire.
The secretary is way smarter and knows what he is talking about these republican Congressman is fishing in a dry pond.
As usual we have well-trained but feral conservatives barking bogus narratives andf under the delusion they are "competent" to determine if someone is qualified when he needs a recipe to boil water.
just like fake news play the whole video Pete chewed him up and spit him out
Pete does spit, not a swallower
I've owned my EV for 4+ years. It compliments my gas SUV so if I need to take long trips, I'll take the gas SUV. Out of 15+ cars I've owned in my life, the EV has been the most comfortable and most reliable vehicle I've owned. It has required very little maintenance. However, I wish my particular EV had more than it's 200 mile range. (Many other EVs have 400+ mile range). The EV has it's place in the automotive lineup and has certainly served me far better than what opponents would have you believe.
You've only owned it for 4 years. How can you possibly say it's the most reliable car you've ever owned unless you only hold on to Cars for 4 years. That's nothing and the ev unless you're about to hit 80k hasn't even reached the offset point for production yet
I owned an EV 125 yrs ago, didn’t work out
Between me and my wife, we’ve owned 4 Teslas for several years - a Model 3, two Model Ys, and a Model X. We’ve road tripped them across the entire United States with absolutely no issues. We most recently drove the Y Performance and X Performance from the East Coast, to Las Vegas in about 5 days. No rush, just stopping to visit family and tourist sites. A gas vehicle is not needed and we will never go backwards to gas.
@@johndailey2323 and how's it going to be for the next owner who had to replace the batteries? Look at the acres ov EV taxis in France? that are just setting because it's too expensive to replace the battery.
@@QuintanBrassfieldmind if I asked what you what those four cars cost when you bought them?
This guy couldn't fix potholes in his hometown as mayor and here he is arguing engineering capabilities and efficiencies with an actual engineer.
And running circles around him.
If he’s an engineer, then he needs to give his degree back. I’m an engineer and it’s simple to calculate the efficiency of ICE vehicles vs EV’s. Even with the current grid sources EV’s are 51% efficient, while ice vehicles are 30% efficient.
@@dc14522 These efficiencies in the vehicle degrade dramatically in a short time span. Increasing the grids capacity will not change any vehicles efficiency...EVER. The grids capacity has nothing whatsoever to do the efficiencies in any vehicle be it EV or ICE. As an engineer, you should know that and might want to consider turning in your degree. Also, the conversion math from electric to gasoline or diesel if you want to make that argument can take into account many factors depending on the one doing the math and what they choose to include in that calculation. As it has been said in the past, math can make it possible for an elephant to hang from a cliff with its tail wrapped around a daisy. Moving further, new battery cell modules cost 1/4 to 1/2 the cost of the entire vehicle and begin failing in 8 years and usually need completely replaced in 12 years. In many cases this happens far earlier. The repair costs on anything on any EV are insane. The resources needed to produce them are dirty heavy metals and mined in large part through slavery. Their reliability and range in cold temperatures is horrible. Hills and mountainous terrain are a very big problem for range as well. Mix that with cold and you're better off walking. The re-energize time is ridiculous compared to ICE refuel time and the battery stations are always broke down. The real kicker is less fortunate peoples' tax dollars are used as subsidies for the much wealthier people to own these abominations at discount. The blind, ignorant, egotistical sanctimony it takes to overlook that alone is disgusting. Take from the poor to alleviate some rich yuppie from having to fully pay for their annoyingly priced social status statement. Real nice. If they were all they were cracked up to be, no gimmicks in the form of rebates or subsidies would be needed. They would simply sell themselves but that just simply isn't the case.
Couldn't fix potholes....but got re-elected. Derp
Nobody cares.. EV’s been around since 1900, big deal, I got a golf cart, same thing
These weak people will do anything except tackle and issue head on
It’s always we’ll get back to you. It’s always will be happy to provide that information at a later date, blah blah blah BS
Someone should tell him the executive branches duty is to go enforce things like fair contract negotiations
Buttigieg answers questions without having to look at notes. Congressmen asking questions have to read their question from a pre-written text. Shows where the knowledge and intellect is.
Coal plants are 33% efficiency. ICE engines are 40% I am seeing 7% difference.
@@Npc733T ICE engines aren't 40% efficient. The best ICE engines can't get to 40%, and most of them are much lower, as the Congressman acknowledged. The whole debate is bizarro though, because it seemed to presume that the carbon footprint of getting the gas into an ICE engine is 0.
@ChristopherSmithGPlus lol yupp whats the carbon footprint of building an electric car vs a gas car?
Once the first fleet of elecric cars are done. Should they then ban making new electric cars.
As to be beneficial to the environment you should only maintain and never replace.
Carbon is the agent of life in this world
The oil industry has been subsidized by government for years to the tune of trillions of dollars. The subsidy to the EV's is minimal.
Westerman's case is ignorant. He is also ignoring the fuel production prior to entering the vehicle. And not to ignore the fact that we are simultaneously working to improve the source of energy as well as the use of energy. You can't only invest in one side like almost all "smart businessmen" try to do.
Truth over science, eh?
I'm thinking many of you are missing something... he wasn't only talking about the power generation plants that charge the ev.... but rather the terribly horrific emissions that come from just manufacturing the batteries.... here's a FACT: you would have to drive your EV approximately 80000 to 100000 miles before it would break even with an ICE vehicle. Only then will the EV be making a beneficial difference....
A U.S oil refinery is about 43% efficient and most of the crude oil isn't Petrol !
Bruce Westerman is a joke, like the state he represents😊
So sick and tired
of the gaslighting from
Pete Bootygay.
Over $7 billion dollars for EV charging stations and in almost 4 years there have only been 7 built.
7 EV charging stations in 4 years...with a $7 billion budget...you do the math.
VOTE TRUMP...2024 🇺🇸🇺🇸
If all internal combustion vehicles are GONE, the pollution will come from the generating plants, which is much better, because they are much cleaner polluters, aren't they? Will the short range of charge for EV's mean that a cross country drive will need to be done in 250 mile per day steps, at current technologies, assuming you have charging stations in convenient places. that means if you live in Florida, it is a 6ix day one way trip to California, then an additional 6 days to get back home. a minimum of 12 days in a motel, not counting charging time. Or is it a plot to either push people onto public transportation and make personal automobiles unavailable to the masses.
Actually, Mercedes have made an EV with 745 miles of range which means you could do Florida to California in less than four charges. Maybe even three charges, given than it has solar panels along the roof of the car. Even going at a consistent 70mph it would take you 38.5 hours, which realistically means you'd need about three overnight stays, which is plenty of time to recharge. With fast charging and a smaller range car, you'd still be back on the road in roughly the right amount of time it takes to have a recommended length break when driving long distances
Where's the mention of the 30 BILLION the oil & gas industry gets in subsidies and credits EVERY YEAR?? OH, wait - they donate. They lobby. But when it comes to tax credits ---that have income and price limits - for individual tax payers....'nope, can't do that, God forbid'!! What oil & gas gets is far greater than what EV subsidies for buyers gets...by a lot!
I'm not in love with the billions of dollars we fork over to the most profitable industry in human history but I'm really sick of paying well over $3 a gallon for almost all of Sleepy Joe's reign of error. We are a long way from full electric transportation and shoving it down our throats is no way to convince American citizens to get on board with the coming transition.
Ill get a ev if biden pays off my car loan like the student debt. Oh wait thats my debt not the taxpayers responsibility
Please donate your brain to science so we can figure out what went wrong.
@@ultrastoat3298 WHAT BRAIN??....THE WORM ATE IT
Not going to whine about all of the forgiven corporate "loans" the last president gave out to business owners for covid? Of course not. Marjorie Taylor Greene alone got over 183,000.00 in PPP loans forgiven by the last president.
Conservatives will pretend to be fiscally conservative when they don't have power, but have no issues with the fact that 1/3rd of our national debt was accrued during Trump's presidency. It rose by 7.8 trillion, which is enough to pay every American around 23,500.00.
You obviously didn't go to college
@@Michelle-bn1fu college is a acam
I'll buy an EV 7 days after Biden trades his vetted for one.
I won't.
I thought this was a good discussion. Just as in recycling, the big movers are not the individual, but the industrial base which could be motivated to clean up with regulations. Every bit helps, and even if you can drop emissions by 2%, that has a cumulative effect year over year.
Get the big polluters down first, and that means working with China and India.
How is it possible that all the senators questioning mr bootyfudge, arn’t asking the right question?
500 tons of carbon is produced in the mfg of each ev produced, which is more carbon omitted from fossil fuel vehicles with a few hundred thousand miles on them.
I am going to assume that we are talking about _environmental_ costs here, as the price to the consumer is a pretty straightforward calculation of how much they're paying per mile.
In order to know which solution is better environmentally, we would need to know the comparative cost of producing an equivalent amount of energy via gasoline or electricity. Then we can apply the relative efficiencies of the vehicles to see which solution is better.
If we go by the values asserted here (90% efficiencies for EVs, 40%(?) for combustion engines) then the cost (from digging energy out of the ground to pouring it into the pump) than the break-point would be 2.25x: That is to say, if the cost of producing electricity is less than 2.25x the cost of producing an energetically equivalent amount of gasoline, then EVs would be a better solution. If the cost of producing electricity is greater than 2.25x the cost of producing an energetically equivalent amount of gasoline, than combustion engines would be a better solution.
I do not know the actual numbers, but the results of a quick web-search *_(I HAVE NOT VETTED THESE SITES; I'M JUST SHOWING YOU WHAT A SIMPLE SEARCH GAVE ME; PLEASE DON'T YELL AT ME!)_* leads me to doubt that combustion engines are a better solution. It should be acknowledged that electricity _is_ often produced using fossil fuels (coal & natural gas, mostly), as Westerman pointed out...
www.eia.gov/energyexplained/electricity/electricity-in-the-us.php
ourworldindata.org/safest-sources-of-energy
th-cam.com/video/cu9OnPo5IIE/w-d-xo.html ..... for those who prefer facts.
Millions of dollars in only 7 or 8 chargers for electric cars. And at one point they wanted mayor Pete to be a possible presidential contender. Do you want this guy running the country?
Yep, I do. Smarter in every way.
You do know, the budget is there for the chargers, it’s doesn’t mean the whole budget was spent on 7 chargers.
@@stevewilliams3087 I feel sad for you. If you can't run the department of transportation you can't run the country! He is a DEI hire. He didn't earn it.
@@alanfairbrother890 how do you know that for sure? The Face Nation hosts was practically laughing at him! 😂
@@michellewilson6249 laughing at the rate of implementation,l. 🤦♂️🤦♂️
But if you’re fighting with states and districts with officials opposed to EVs , it’s certainly going to take longer, while you wait for them to catch up with the rest of the world.
The US has poured huge resources into maintaining cheap and secure access to oil, far more than any subsidies it also includes massive spending on the military on supporting this access. Moving away from oil is to move away from dependence on the middle east, and the necessity of bending a knee to Saudi rulers. China has been turning to EVs, as well as hydroelectricity and solar power to specifically unchain itself from relying on external energy sources. China doesn't give a shit about the environment, only on its own resource security.
When the US earnestly moves towards renewable energy sources it will move towards energy security. It can finally tell to the middle east to sort out their own shit, and turn to more important domestic matters.
But yet republicants aren’t afraid to give subsidies to big oil
neither are democrats
Listen to the beginning discussion. A port strike will cause a huge supply chain shortage this September into 2025.
Only 5% of EVs are recycled now and 90% of gas powered cars are recycled now. Which is environmentally friendly?
But he worked so hard on his percentages to have been destroyed so effortlessly by Secretary Buttigieg. Poor guy.
Congressman Westrman was a biological and forestry engineering not an environmental engineer, nor is he a petroleum engineer. He doesn't know what he's talking about. I'm not surprised. His BS in engineering was from Rkansas school of engineering. Not an engineering powerhouse.
Congress can't beat Pete, they might as well give up, but it's hilarious and provides some great entertainment. Keep making us laugh, right wingers, but get better for the sake of your oil donors.
At this point i believe that forbes is doing a Replican Honey trap with the titles just to Pull the UNO reverse card with the content hahah Either that or they don't know what a slam is... Because Pete destroyed this guy
EV suck in cold climates, Ev stations fare and few plus our electricity grid can't handle It. Were not dumb !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
I'm driving an EV in New Hampshire and I had no problem last winter with temps around zero for several days. Sure the range is less in the winter with a cold battery, but it was still around 170 mi. which is fine for my driving habits. I have solar panels and charge at home so no strain on the grid. Charging stations and a more robust grid are on the way and will catch up. We as a society have to wake up to the problems with the pollution and diminishing supply of fossil fuels.
Yeah from my experience with my 2 EV’s it’s about 20% less range in winter. Worth remembering gas cars also lose range in winter! At 20 degrees F a gas car gets 15% less mileage than it would at 77 degrees F.
Our grid is so aged it is going to fail as heat spikes in summer are doing in Texas. The whole thing needs a revamp yet they want to add more to that old grid. 😂
@@nancykraus5127 Two things that are really stressing the grid are AI computing and Bitcoin processing. Huge server farms are being built in rural areas. I suspect they are using a lot more power than EVs and not doing anything to help the environment.
@@bobswitzer4384 that is hilarious. The US Gov estimates for bitcoin mining operations, the total power requirement of all US based mining operations: "0.6% to 2.3% of all United States electricity demand in 2023". "Total electricity consumption by EVs in 2023 was 7.6 million MWh" or ~1.94%.
Always comforting to know an elected congress member cant do basic math.
Love to both Congressman Westerman and Secretary Buttigieg 🙏🍀❤️👏
Can you imagine what his breath smells like !! Ack!!😮😮😊
What a what a waste of tax payers money. Ev are more non environmentally friendly than standard vehicles. This is a joke he needs the boot ..
Explain...
How so?
4:37 "by that logic, Congressman, none of us should ever vote"
Buttigeg should know all these figures by heart
It was the other way around! Pete slammed him!!
The reason cars are at 30 persent is the oil companys will not let them go better .car can get 60 to 100 miles per gallon 😂thy sell fuel not milage and you dont think their mony enfluance the auto lndustry hell it dose our goverment.thy buy pattens and shelf them thy are CARTELLS thy will kill your ass if you do not obay them .woud it not be better to let cars get better milage than ban gas thy shure are makeing mony know boy are we stuped?
Slams. He was no match for pete
pete was gay l
Was?
Westerman was out of his league.
Fake news
👏
We dont want no EV cars
OK, you have my permission not to have one.
I don't want an EV today, but I suspect 5 years from now, I might change my mind.
There is a new battery technology that is going into production this year that more than doubles the range of most EVs and there are other technologies that are promising 4x the range in the next few years.
When there is a car that I can plug into my garage and then drive 1200 miles and it has fewer moving parts so it is more reliable and it makes driving safer because it's smarter than me... I will probably be ready to have one.
I was not an early adopter for cell phones either, but eventually there was an inflection point where my lifestyle demanded that I adopt.
No problem, but I do. Under some circumstances they make sense.
Well you’ll get what manufacturers , make. As the rest of the world is moving to electric, why do you think they’ll have special models just for America. ?Refining oil to gasoline will also get expensive for just one market.
The iPhone 15 now has a USB-C cable, because the 27 EU countries decided they had enough of different types of cables, for electronic devices. So apple decided it was best to have just one cable worldwide, than one for European countries and one for elsewhere.
Too bad because EVs will be the majority of sales by 2030
Fine. Don't buy one.
EVs have made remarkable advances in the last 10 years and are economically viable alternative to ICE. ICE has a host of known drawbacks that we have grown accustomed to like air/noise pollution and singular reliance on fossil fuels as the only power source. It is a valid argument as to the role of the government in subsidizing new technology through tax credits, but the US has been directly and indirectly subsidizing the fossil fuel industry for a long, long time. The world is transitioning to EVs, and the US can't sit on its hands to protect the fossil fuel status quo--like it did with solar panel manfacturing. All electrical grids have inefficiencies due to the need to be designed for peak surge requirements, so there is a big potential to take advantage of off-peak charging--significantly increasing grid utilization and efficiency.
EV’s been around since 1900, nobody wanted them
I never voted for this shit...
You did vote but you voted for the losing side. That's how it works.
I’m absolutely shocked -no pun intended. This guy has a forestry and engineering degree. I’m pretty sure he violates engineering ethics when he misrepresented the fact that power plants emit sub-90% efficiency. They do emit over 90%. Perhaps physics still being fresh on my mind, I can recall how charge works, it is far more efficient.
With Wessermans logic we don’t need to include the screws in our combustion engine. With Wessermans logic we don’t need buckles on our seatbelts and with Wessermans logic my taxes aren’t necessary
Pete Butthead is clueless
whole admin is
Pete Buttigieg is one of the most knowledgeable secretaries I've ever seen.
Sure....
@@cosmiclightning4723 And takes " maternity "leave .
@@waldoparsnip1025taking maternity leave is important additionally his babies were having serious health issues. Pete was still handling his job responsibilities.
Overall Americans do not want complete EV cars right now…the technology is not there yet
Technology is not there or mindset is not there?
Lol, yes they do
My family has 4 Teslas… I got my first 6 years ago. The tech is way ahead of anything with a gas engine. We’re never going back. And btw, EV sales keep going up.
Hahaha! Americans don’t want these noisy contraptions that are scaring the horses, the technology is not there yet! Americans don’t want these expensive toys, all they’re good for is play pong, and doing easy arithmetic problems! The technology not there yet! Vietnam is building an EV automobile plant in Raleigh, NC! The technology not there yet! Sorry, to wake you up, but the future is happening! By 2035, that smart phone in your hand, will be in your skull! Hands free! Just “think” a phone call or Google search! The Technology not there yet!💥👍😂
Yet millions are sold each year with increasing sales. Facts are stubborn things.
He painted a very clear picture with good statistics in a professional way, and he didn't back down.
Who the congressman? Because his were wrong and based on wrong assumptions.
Get money out of politics. Congress works for the people not corporations.
Wrong.
Is he still nursing his son ? Probably other normal things too.
Other normal things like PREGNANT MEN and MAN BREAST FEEDING**
@@stilleatn4969 His partner loudly protested,"Don't flush it, it has my eyes "
It's okay you two, no need to be scared. I'm sure you'll have a safe place to hide.
Conservative males sure are obsessed with Pete and his husband. That's totally not gay at all. 😂😂
Fossil fuels subsidies needs to go. Throw in a carbon tax as well!
Peter's part time buddies didn't give him enough blanket parties.
Never a wise idea to argue numbers with an engineer
Just like an engineer-brief, concise, and to the point.
He’s a bad engineer because his numbers are wrong. If he is a CE they should revoke his PE. And there was no physics in his statement.
But Pete Buddy thinks Biden is one of the best presidents ever. Even with Pete's deep manly voice - who could doubt it when spoken so persuasively?
😂 go Pete go!! Forbes panders to status quo bros of all stripes while Pete delivers.
The senator barely can read English. 😏
he said..we are mpnitoring closely....means...its out the door just like everything else that he doesnt have a clue about...just like joe
Should government really be dictating terms of a labor agreement between an employer and employees? Talk about big government, socialism. If there is a strike, the President could invoke Taft Hartley and force them back to work.
Looks like another conservative confusing his "feelwings" for facts. LOL
buttajug did not answer this guys question about exactly how he is going to stop = the contract negotiations from failing = MONITORING CLOSELY, AND HIS MESSAGE TO THE PARTIES THAT IT IS VITAL THAT THEY COME TOGETHER, AND ARRIVE TO A DEAL THAT DOES RIGHT BY PROT WORKERS, AND ALLOWS PORT OPERATIONS TO FLOW = HE DID NOT TELL THEM HOW HE WAS GOING TO DO IT, BUT HE GAVE THEM AN EXAMPLE OF IT HAPPENING ON THE WEST COAST! HE HOPES THAT THE SAME CONSCLUSION WILL COME TOGETHER ON THE EAST COAST. NOW HOW THE PHUCK IS HE GOING TO ENSURE THAT THIS DOES NOT HAPPEN TO EAST COAST PORTS?????? QUESTION!
IS buttajug GOING TO HANDLE THIS LIKE HE HANDLED THE TOXIC TRAIN WRECK UP IN East Palestine Settlement, OHIO??
Because he can’t.
STOP YELLING! So you want Buttigieg just totally control the port workers and port authority! Isn’t that Socialism? Maybe just fire all the longshoremen, like Reagan did to the Air Traffic Controllers in the ‘80s! I thought Republicans were for small, non-regulating government!😂
You got all that from a 6 minute clip?? You say he bungled the train wreck?? No mention of how regs were relaxed under Trump?? You don't say HOW Pete bungled it, or is that just your go-to, easy response? If the Repubs don't like how it's being handled, can you tell me their way to change what to do going forward---or just complain without answers of their own---except, of course to 'slash regulations'. THAT's the Republican answer to everything, then when things go south they go to the blame game.
Turn off the caps lock, gramps. You look unhinged.
So, you want a big government solution for a labor problem between a workforce and a private corporation. You must be a socialist. Funny how the anti government crowd wants government to step in when they might be inconvenienced but yet the rest of the time scream about government overreach. You know what the Republican solution is to labor disputes is? Fire them, and then the entire port shuts down until they can hire and train new workers. All the while the ships are lining up.
Uhh, pretty sure Pete made minced meat out of this dude.
whatadoosh
I don't understand why people fight EVs so much. Don't buy one if you hate them so much. But just stfu about it arleady.
then don't force EV talking points down their throats. People are less receptive when you force feed them.
We fight because fools in high office are trying to ban diesels to promote these c&ap EVs. When you stop coercing people to buy evs we'll stop hating them.
Bootyjizz is a walking reamer 😂
The engineer vs the politician! Hmmm, I’ll side with the engineer on the subject of science/physics!
@@shawnsb7583 That’s why the “engineer “ was so lost. The EV has clear environmental impacts, but the fact is that my Tesla is the most FUN TO DRIVE car I have ever owned. The EV challenge now is one of marketing rather than engineering. Pete understands that!
@@mikecuthbert2505 why should tax payers fund your fun?
makes no sense.
@@Juventinos What?? You think the government should continue to subsidize oil and gas production to fund YOUR fun?😟
@@mikecuthbert2505 how's subsidizing gas cars?
are you on drugs?
@@Juventinos if you subsidize the fuel, you’re subsidizing what it fuels!
"... only 0.9% of global carbon emissions"
Wth, 0.9% of all global carbon emissions would be HUGE.
9% would be HUGE. 0.9% is still less than 1%.
Why would I want something that stops me from going anywhere for how long to get a full charge?
When a stop at the gas station stop including a whizz is fifteen minutes.
You don’t seem to know how EVs work, with your 15min whizz you get a fill for 100s of miles then another top up at the next whizz or food stop.
But for most people extreme long drives are once twice a year
@@alanfairbrother890 ev's are toxic and unsafe
I own an EV and put it on to charge every time I get home; I don't have a problem with insufficient charge for the next day. I drive past gas stations and smile at how much time and money I'm saving not lining up for expensive gas.
The last time I stopped to charge on a roadtrip this month, it took 15 minutes and 51 seconds -just right to take a whiz.
@@Yanquetino those opposed to EVs are the ones who don’t own one and believe all the negative stories about them. Or those who did buy one and had a negative experience, usually the ones who bought the wrong car for their needs, and probably didn’t have access to home charging.
Finally someone wasn’t putting up with Buttholes double talk-
Says the conservative 🤡🤡
@@tnate6004hmm, have to laugh at your comment because it shows you really have no justifiable response- by the way not against EV’s but against the government subsidies for them and their peripherals
Correct!
NO, WE ARE NOT DOING THAT ELECTRIC CAR'S. THIS IS THE MOST INSANE IDEA EVER.