You’re out of free articles.
Log in
To continue reading, log in to your account.
Create a Free Account
To unlock more free articles, please create a free account.
Sign In or Create an Account.
By continuing, you agree to the Terms of Service and acknowledge our Privacy Policy
Welcome to Heatmap
Thank you for registering with Heatmap. Climate change is one of the greatest challenges of our lives, a force reshaping our economy, our politics, and our culture. We hope to be your trusted, friendly, and insightful guide to that transformation. Please enjoy your free articles. You can check your profile here .
subscribe to get Unlimited access
Offer for a Heatmap News Unlimited Access subscription; please note that your subscription will renew automatically unless you cancel prior to renewal. Cancellation takes effect at the end of your current billing period. We will let you know in advance of any price changes. Taxes may apply. Offer terms are subject to change.
Subscribe to get unlimited Access
Hey, you are out of free articles but you are only a few clicks away from full access. Subscribe below and take advantage of our introductory offer.
subscribe to get Unlimited access
Offer for a Heatmap News Unlimited Access subscription; please note that your subscription will renew automatically unless you cancel prior to renewal. Cancellation takes effect at the end of your current billing period. We will let you know in advance of any price changes. Taxes may apply. Offer terms are subject to change.
Create Your Account
Please Enter Your Password
Forgot your password?
Please enter the email address you use for your account so we can send you a link to reset your password:
Fact-checking a Trump-inspired fear.

As someone on the “will this thing kill me” beat, I was paying close attention when the former president of the United States recently expressed concern about electric-powered boats — apparently, the new aquatic twist on his electric car rant. “Let’s say your boat goes down and I’m sitting on top of this big powerful battery and the boat’s going down,” Donald Trump mused to a group of supporters in the landlocked state of Iowa. “Do I get electrocuted?”
Trump then dramatically upped the stakes by imagining the sinking electric boat was also being circled by a shark. “So I have a choice of electrocution or shark,” he went on. “You know what I’m going to take? Electrocution. I will take electrocution every single time.”
I wanted to find out if it was actually possible for Trump to be electrocuted and/or eaten by a shark (you know, hypothetically). It was a question that inspired many related, obsessive searches: What about if you drive an electric vehicle into a lake — would that electrocute you? Are first responders afraid to help people in submerged EVs? Would they leave you inside to die?!
Like I said, I can be a little morbid.
Below, I attempt to sort electrocution fact from electrocution fiction, with a few detours thrown in.
People have been using electricity to power their boats for over 120 years. In fact, until the high-energy storage density of oil became obvious around the turn of the century, electric boats actually enjoyed a bit of a heyday. (RIP to the electric canoe).
Moreover, if you’ve ever been on a marine vessel with any more sophistication than a rowboat, it probably had a battery and an electrical system on board, even if it wasn’t powered by an electric motor. Standard 12-volt marine batteries are used for everything from starting the main engine to running the lights, radio, or a trolling motor on board.
The modern iteration of the fully electrified boat movement is still in its relative infancy and faces some big challenges. But the short version is, we’ve been using electricity at sea for a long time and have gotten pretty good at not electrocuting ourselves. And the potential electrocution problems that do exist usually aren’t exclusive to high-voltage electric boats, but gas-powered ones as well.
First of all, battery packs on electric boats are designed to be watertight — duh, because they’re
on a boat. Believe it or not, electric boat makers have taken into account the fact that their products could, in a worst-case scenario, end up underwater. A spokesperson for Arc Boat Company, a flashy new player in the electric boat space, pointed me to their FAQ which explains that “our fault table — a list of possible points of failure and what to do about each one — is hundreds of lines long, meaning we’ve thought about, tested, and planned for every scenario you might encounter on and off the water.” (This seems like a job I could be good at.)
In fact, all the electric boat manufacturers I was in touch with said they meet a waterproofing standard that is either at, or just below, what is required for a submarine. The high-voltage batteries are additionally kept in “puncture-resistant shells,” so even if the boat somehow got completely mangled, the battery won’t just be openly exposed to the water.
Still, you definitely don’t want to sit on an exposed “big powerful battery,” as Trump suggests in his scenario, since you could theoretically interrupt the closed loop of a DC battery’s electrical circuit and get shocked. But just being on an electric boat that is sinking does not inherently expose you to electrocution danger.
Electric shock drowning is caused by faulty wiring at a dock or a marina leaking 120-volt alternating current into the water. That electricity can potentially kill a nearby swimmer on its own, or cause them to become incapacitated and drown.
This overwhelmingly happens in lakes and rivers, since human bodies are a better conductor of electricity than fresh water but not saltwater. “In saltwater, the human body only slows electricity down, so most of it will go around a swimmer on its way back to ground unless the swimmer grabs hold of something — like a propeller or a swim ladder — that’s electrified,” BoatUS, a marine insurance company and safety advocacy group, explains in its publication Seaworthy. “In fresh water, the current gets ‘stuck’ trying to return to its source and generates voltage gradients that will take a shortcut through the human body.”
While it’s possible that a poorly maintained electric boat charging station could cause this sort of leak, it’s not a danger exclusive to the electric boat world; gas-powered boats hooked to shore power kill people every year, as well. Regardless, this is why you should never, ever swim around boat docks, especially at lakes.
If you are worried about sea life getting electrocuted by a high-voltage shipwreck, don’t be. When a battery is underwater, its current will flow into the water between its two terminals. This is bad for the battery (it’ll cause it to rapidly discharge) but you don’t have to worry about the entire ocean or lake getting filled with charge and electrocuting everything in it; high-voltage batteries are powerful but not nearly that powerful. If a shark is in the immediate vicinity of the battery — like, trying to eat it — it might potentially get hurt, but this whole premise is also starting to get absurd with this many “what ifs” piled on top of each other. (Really, the environmental hazard of a leaking lithium battery on the seafloor is probably the greater cause for concern.)
You’ll have bigger problems than electrocution!
Like electric boats, EV batteries are obsessively insulated and the cars are designed with a number of fail-safes to isolate the battery in the case of an accident. Again, the people who thought up these things have already considered the worst-case scenarios. (Plus, getting sued for repeatedly electrocuting anyone who drives through a puddle is not good business).
What’s important to understand is that unlike the 12-volt batteries used in gas-powered cars, which are harmlessly grounded to the car’s large chassis, high-voltage systems in EVs use a floating ground, which helps prevent you from being electrocuted if the car becomes submerged. “It’s not grounded chassis — there is no return path for a vehicle that has been submerged to return that charge,” Joe McLaine, a safety engineer with General Motors, told me. “And if there [are] any faults or anomalies with the high voltage system, and it’s operating in normal functioning ranges, it’s going to shut off anyway.”
Yes — and it’s also true of driving in the rain, or washing your car, or charging in a downpour.
Trying to drive an EV through deep water is not a great idea for a number of very good reasons, but fear of electrocution isn’t one of them. The most likely scenario is that the water will cause any less-well-insulated electronic components to short out, causing the car to die — which is what happened when Motor Mythbusters tried to drive a Nissan Leaf through a water-filled trench.
Of course, gas-powered cars don’t love driving in floods, either, and there is some reason to believe that EVs might actually do better in flood conditions than their counterparts.
Back in 2016, Elon Musk tweeted that the “Model S floats well enough to turn it into a boat for short periods of time.” Just searching the words “EV” or “Tesla” and “flood” or “boat mode” will lead you to tons of videos of EVs plowing through deep bodies of water.
Don’t … do this. Most flood-related deaths occur in cars, and this fact doesn’t change just because your vehicle has a plug. Additionally, just because an EV drove through a flood successfully in a short video doesn’t mean there was no lasting damage from the water (which, it should be added, isn’t covered under warranty).
Florida’s State Fire Marshal’s Office reported there were at least 21 EV battery fires in the aftermath of Hurricane Ian in 2022. This is specifically a phenomenon caused by saltwater storm surge: When the car eventually dries out, the salt residue can remain behind on the battery, creating conductive “bridges” that lead to short circuits and fires.
This is still fairly rare: “The odds that your electric battery pack is on fire in Florida are about the same odds of you getting struck by lightning,” Joe Britton, the executive director of the Zero Emission Transportation Association, told Utility Drive. To be safe, FEMA recommends that any EVs flooded by saltwater be moved at least 50 feet away from any structures, other vehicles, or combustibles. And if you are expecting storm surge, move your EV preemptively to higher ground.
Tesla echoes this advice: “As with any electric vehicle, if your Tesla has been exposed to flooding, extreme weather events, or has otherwise been submerged in water (especially in salt water), treat it as if it’s been in an accident and contact your insurance company for support,” the company writes in its user manual.
“That is not true,” McLaine, the safety engineer with General Motors, told me. McLaine is responsible for GM’s Battery Electric Vehicle First Responder Training program, which has educated over 5,000 first- and second-responders in 25 different locations across the U.S. and Canada, and is focused on dispelling some of the rumors and misinformation around electric cars.
In addition to trainings like GM’s, a growing familiarity with the thousands of EVs now on the road has also made first responders more confident when responding to bad accidents. Orange cables are used to easily identify high-voltage components, which are placed “in areas and locations in the vehicle in which first responders typically wouldn’t have access to anyway,” McLaine explained.
First responders are trained to disable the high-voltage systems in an EV just like they would snip the cut loops around a 12-volt battery in a gas-powered vehicle accident. Additionally, most manufacturers make it extremely easy to find individual emergency response guides for their vehicles online, and there are various hotlines available for first- and second-responders when EV-related questions arise.
What First Responders Do in an EV Accidentwww.youtube.com
As for first responders handling cars that have been fully or partially submerged: Pretty much all of the emergency response documents I could find stated some version of “A submerged electric vehicle does not have a high voltage potential on the metal vehicle body, and is safe to touch” (this one specifically comes from the papers for the RAV 4 EV). Though first responders need to be careful with cutting into crushed cars, there are no shocking surprises when it comes to simply handling a submerged EV.
Are you kidding me? Electrocution would at least be quick! Trump got that part right: In this round of “would you rather,” you should take electrocution every time.
Log in
To continue reading, log in to your account.
Create a Free Account
To unlock more free articles, please create a free account.
On China’s H2 breakthrough, vehicle-to-grid charging, and USA Rare Earth goes to Brazil
Current conditions: In the Atlantic, Tropical Storm Fernand is heading northward toward Bermuda • In the Pacific, Tropic Storm Juliette is active about 520 miles southwest of Baja California, with winds of up to 65 miles per hour • Temperatures are surging past 100 degrees Fahrenheit in South Korea.
Nearly two weeks ago, Vineyard Wind sued one of its suppliers, GE Vernova, to keep the industrial giant from exiting the offshore wind project off the coast of Nantucket in Massachusetts. Now a U.S. court has ordered GE Vernova to finish the job, saying it would be “fanciful” to imagine a new contractor could complete the installation. GE Vernova had argued that Vineyard Wind — a 50/50 joint venture between the European power giant Avangrid and Copenhagen Infrastructure Partners — owed it $300 million for work already performed. But Vineyard Wind countered that the manufacturer remains on the hook for about $545 million to make up for a catastrophic turbine blade collapse in 2024, according to WBUR. “The project is at a critical phase and the loss of [Vineyard Wind]’s principal contractor would set the project back immeasurably,” the Suffolk County Superior Court Judge Peter Krupp wrote in his decision, repeatedly using the name of GE Vernova’s renewables subsidiary. “To pretend that [Vineyard Wind] could go out and hire one or more contractors to finish the installation and troubleshoot and modify [GE Renewables’] proprietary design without [GE Renewables’] specialized knowledge is fanciful.”
Charlotte DeWald fears the world is sleepwalking into tipping points beyond which the Earth’s natural carbon cycles will render climate change uncontrollable. By the time we realize what it means for global weather and agricultural systems that there’s no sea ice in the Arctic sometime in the 2030s, for example, it may be too late to try anything drastic to buy us more time. Much of the discourse around what to do concerns a specific kind of geoengineering called stratospheric aerosol injections, essentially spraying reflective particles into the sky to block the sun’s heat from permeating the increasingly thick layer of greenhouse gases that prevent that energy from naturally radiating back into space. That’s something DeWald, a former Pacific Northwest National Laboratory researcher and climate scientist by training who specialized in modeling aerosol-cloud interactions, knows all about. But her approach is different, using a technology known as mixed-phase cloud thinning, a process similar to cloud seeding. “The idea is that you could dissipate clouds over the Arctic to release heat from the surface to, for example, increase sea ice extent or thickness or integrity,” she told me. “There’s some early modeling that suggests that it could yield significant cooling over the Arctic Ocean.”
With all that context, you can now appreciate the exclusive bit of news I have for you this morning: DeWald is launching a new nonprofit called the Arctic Stabilization Initiative to “evaluate whether targeted interventions can slow dangerous” warming near the Earth’s northern pole. So far, ASI has raised $6.5 million in philanthropic funding toward a five-year budget goal of $55 million to study whether MCT, as mixed-phase cloud thinning is known, could help save the Arctic. The nonprofit has an advisory board stacked with veteran Arctic scientists and put together a “stage-gated” research plan with offramps in case early modeling suggests MCT won’t work or could cause undue environmental damage. The project also has an eye toward engaging with Indigenous peoples and “will ground all future work in respect for Indigenous sovereignty, before any field-based research activity is pursued.” The statement harkens to Harvard University’s SCoPEx trial, a would-be outdoor experiment in spraying reflective aerosols into the atmosphere over Sweden that ran aground after researchers initially failed to consult local stakeholders and a body representing the Indigenous Saami people in the northern reaches of Nordic nations came out against the testing. (By repeatedly invoking ASI’s nonprofit status, DeWald also seemed to draw a contrast with for-profit stratospheric aerosol injection startup Stardust Solutions, which last year Heatmap’s Robinson Meyer reported had raised $60 million.) “We are continuing to move toward critical planetary thresholds without a bible plan for things like tipping points,” DeWald said. “That was the inflection point for me.”

China just took yet another step closer to energy independence, despite its relatively tiny domestic reserves of oil and gas, kicking off the world’s largest project to blend hydrogen into the natural gas system. As part of the experiment, roughly 100,000 households in the center of the Weifang, a prefecture-level city in eastern Shandong province between Beijing and Shanghai, will receive a blend of up to 10% hydrogen through existing gas pipes. The pilot’s size alone “smashes” the world record, according to Hydrogen Insight. Whether that’s meaningful from a climate perspective depends on how you look at things. A fraction of 1% of China’s hydrogen fuel comes from electrolyzer plants powered by clean renewables or nuclear electricity. But the People’s Republic still produces more green hydrogen than any other nation. Last year, the central government made cleaning up heavy industry with green hydrogen a higher priority — a goal that’s been supercharged by the war in Iran. Therein lies the real biggest motivator now. While China relies on imports for natural gas, swapping out more of that fuel for domestically generated hydrogen allows Beijing to claim the moral high ground on emissions and air pollution — all while becoming more energy independent.
Meanwhile, China’s container ships are the latest sector to experiment with going electric and forgoing the need for costly, dirty bunker fuel. A 10,000-ton fully electric cargo vessel capable of carrying 742 shipping containers just started up operations in China this week, according to a video posted on X by China’s Xinhua News service.
Sign up to receive Heatmap AM in your inbox every morning:
The ability of electric vehicles to serve as distributed energy resources, charging in times of low demand and discharging back onto the grid when demand peaks, has long been a dream of EV enthusiasts and DER advocates alike. California’s PG&E utility launched a small bi-directional charging program in 2023, allowing owners of Ford F-150 Lightnings to use their trucks as home backup power, and eventually feed energy back onto the grid. The utility added a host of General Motors EVs to the program back in 2025. On Monday, it announced its latest vehicle participant: Tesla’s Cybertruck. The Tesla vehicle will be the first in the program to run on alternating current, which simplifies the equipment necessary and lowers costs for consumers, according to PG&E’s announcement.
In January, I told you about the then-latest company to benefit from President Donald Trump’s dabbling in what you might call state capitalism with American characteristics: USA Rare Earth. The vertically integrated company, which aims to mine rare earths in Texas, took big leaps forward in the past year toward building factories to turn those metals into the magnets needed for modern technologies. For now, however, the company needs ore. On Monday, USA Rare Earth announced plans to buy Brazilian rare earth miner Serra Verde in a deal valued at $2.8 billion in cash and shares. The transaction is expected to be complete by the end of the third quarter of this year. The company pitched the move as a direct challenge to China, which dominates both the processing of rare earths mined at home and abroad. “The world has become too dependent on a single source and it’s high time to break that dependency,” USA Rare Earth CEO Barbara Humpton told CNBC’s “Squawk Box” on Monday.
As if we needed more evidence that the data center backlash is “swallowing American politics,” here’s Heatmap’s Jael Holzman with yet another data point: According to tracking from the Heatmap Pro database, fights against data centers now outnumber fights against wind farms in the U.S. That includes both onshore and offshore wind developments. “Taken together,” Jael wrote, “these numbers describe the tremendous power involved in the data center wars.”
Fights over AI-related developments outnumber those over wind farms in the Heatmap Pro database.
Local data center conflicts in the U.S. now outnumber clashes over wind farms.
More than 270 data centers have faced opposition across the country compared to 258 onshore and offshore wind projects, according to a review of data collected by Heatmap Pro. Data center battles only recently overtook wind turbines, driven by the sudden spike in backlash to data center development over the past year. It’s indicative of how the intensity of the angst over big tech infrastructure is surging past current and historic malaise against wind.
Battles over solar projects have still occurred far more often than fights over data centers — nearly twice as many times, per the data. But in terms of megawatts, the sheer amount of data center demand that has been opposed nearly equals that of solar: more than 51 gigawatts.
Taken together, these numbers describe the tremendous power involved in the data center wars, which is now comparable to the entire national fight over renewable energy. One side of the brawl is demand, the other supply. If this trend continues at this pace, it’s possible the scale of tension over data centers could one day usurp what we’ve been tracking for both solar and wind combined.
The enhanced geothermal darling is spending big on capex, but its shares will be structured more like a software company’s.
Fervo, the enhanced geothermal company that uses hydraulic fracturing techniques to drill thousands of feet into the Earth to find pockets of heat to tap for geothermal power, is going public.
The Houston-based company was founded in 2017 and has been a longtime favorite of investors, government officials, and the media (not to mention Heatmap’s hand-selected group of climate tech insiders) for its promise of producing 24/7 clean power using tools, techniques, and personnel borrowed from the oil and gas industry.
After much speculation as to when it would go public, Fervo filed the registration document for its initial public offering on Friday evening. Here’s what we were able to glean about the company, its business, and the geothermal industry from the filing.
The main theme of the document, known as an S-1, is the immense potential enhanced geothermal — and, thus, Fervo — has.
The company says that its Cape Station site in Utah, where it’s currently developing its flagship power plants, had “4.3 gigawatts of capacity potential” alone. That’s more than the 3.8 gigawatts of conventional geothermal capacity currently on the grid. Enhanced geothermal technology, otherwise known as EGS, “has the potential to make geothermal generation as ubiquitous as solar generation is in the U.S. today,” the company projects. (There’s about 280 gigawatts of installed solar capacity currently in the U.S., according to the Solar Energy Industries Association) “A broader subset of our reviewed leases represents over 40 gigawatts” of capacity, the document goes on.
Like all investor pitches, the S-1 features some eye-popping “total addressable market” figures. Citing analysis by the consulting firm Rystad, the document says that if there’s a sufficient shortfall in capacity due to retiring power plants (98 gigawatts by 2035), the annual market for enhanced geothermal would be approximately $70 billion by 2035, and that this would represent some $2.1 trillion in revenue potential over 30 years.
The company is already producing 3 megawatts at its Nevada Project Red site for the Nevada grid as part of a deal with Google. It also expects to begin generating power from the Cape Station site “by late 2026,” according to the filing, and get up to 100 megawatts “by early 2027.” In total, Fervo has “658 megawatts of binding power purchase agreements,” which it says represents ”approximately $7.2 billion in potential revenue backlog.”
Beyond that, Fervo says it has 2.6 gigawatts “in advanced development,” and “over 38 gigawatts” in “early-stage development,” where it’s still doing feasibility studies to “validate and confirm the path toward commercial development.”
Fervo says that the energy produced from its Cape Station facility will come in at around $7,000 per kilowatt. That’s already cheaper than “traditional and small modular nuclear power,” which the Department of Energy has estimated costs $6,000 to $10,000 per kilowatt, the filing says. Fervo is aiming to get the total project costs down to $3,000 per kilowatt, at which point it says it would outcompete natural gas without any of the price volatility due to fuel costs going up and down.
But Fervo’s upfront spending is still immense. Fervo says that it expects some $1.2 billion in capital expenditure this year, of which only $125 million is going toward the first phase of its Cape Station project, which it has said would deliver 100 megawatts of power. (Meanwhile, the $940 million it expects to spend on the second phase, which is due to be 400 megawatts, is mostly unfunded.) The company says the public offering will fund “project-level capital expenditures,” as well as land holdings and general corporate expenditures.
Google comes up some 36 times in the document, most times in reference to the “Geothermal Framework Agreement” Fervo signed with the hyperscaler this past March. The S-1 describes the deal as a “3-gigawatt framework agreement … to advance and structure potential power offtake opportunities for current and planned data centers in both grid-connected and alternative energy solutions.” This deal, the company says, “establishes a structured process for the development of geothermal projects across specified regions of the United States,” and could involve the offtake by Google of up to 3 gigawatts of Fervo-generated electricity by the end of 2033.
What the framework is not is a power purchase agreement. One of the risk factors Fervo lists in the IPO document says, “The GFA is a non-binding agreement, and does not obligate Google to purchase power from us.” Instead, it is “a binding framework under which we may propose geothermal development projects to Google, but it does not obligate Google to accept any project, execute any power purchase agreement or provide us with any project financing.”
The agreement also places limits on Fervo, including from whom it can accept investment or financing. (The deal outlines a “broad category of entities defined as competitors,” which are all no-nos.) Overall, the company says, the arrangement gives Google “significant priority over our near-term development pipeline and may limit our flexibility to pursue alternative commercial, strategic, or financing arrangements that would otherwise be available to us.”
Upon going public, the company will have two shares of stock: Class A shares available to the public, and Class B shares owned by its founders, chief executive officer Tim Latimer, and chief technology officer Jack Norbeck. These Class B shares will have 40 times the voting rights of the class A shares and will allow Latimer and Norbeck to “collectively continue to control a significant percentage of the combined voting power of our common stock and therefore are able to control all matters submitted to our stockholders for approval.”
These arrangements are familiar with venture-backed, founder-led software companies. Alphabet and Meta are the most prominent examples of large, publicly traded companies that are under the effective control of their founders thanks to dual class share structures. Tesla, rather famously, does not have a dual class share structure, which is why CEO Elon Musk convinced his board to award him more shares so that he would maintain a high degree of influence over the company.
While other technology companies such as Stripe pile up billions in revenue without any near term prospects of going public, Fervo largely has spending to report on its income statement.
In 2025, the company reported just $138,000 in revenues with a $58 million net loss; that’s compared to a $41 million net loss in 2024. The revenues were “ancillary fees associated with rights to geothermal production at Project Red,” the company said. “This type of revenue is not expected to be significant to our long-term revenue generation, as we have not yet commenced large-scale commercial operations.”
And there’s more spending to come.
Fervo expects that the second phase of its Cape Station project will “require approximately $2.2 billion in capital expenditures through 2028,” which it hopes to pay for with project-level financing.
Fervo said it is “continuing to evaluate the effect of the OBBB” — that is, the One Big Beautiful Bill Act, which slashed or curtailed tax credits for clean energy companies — and that it wasn’t able to “reasonably” estimate the effect on its financial statements by the end of last year. The company does say, however, that it “may benefit from ITCs and PTCs (including the energy community and domestic content bonuses available under the ITC and PTC, in certain circumstances) with respect to qualifying renewable energy projects,” referring to the investment and production tax credits, which acquired a strict set of eligibility rules under OBBBA. It cautioned that the current guidance regarding tax credit eligibility is “subject to a number of uncertainties,” and that “there can be no assurance that the IRS will agree with our approach to determining eligibility for ITCs and PTCs in the event of an audit.”
The company also disclosed that earlier this month, it reached a deal with Liberty Mutual, the insurance company “to sell and transfer tax credits generated at Cape Station Phase I,” taking advantage of a provision of the law that allows credits to be sold to other entities with tax liability, and not just harvested by investors in the project.