Comments by "EebstertheGreat" (@EebstertheGreat) on "The Electric Vehicle Charging Problem" video.

9:50 Forget charging, I want to know how that person can drive from Topeka to Springfield in 31 minutes.
48
@JackSparrow-re4ql "You can delude yourself with all sort of statistics and be in denial all you like; energy comes from coal, gas, oil and other fossil fuels. We have not invented alternative energy that works to supply us with anything significant." Dude, what? Renewable energy is a myth? You want to supply me with some statistics on that? Australia is around 25% renewables, which is admittedly much less than many places in Europe, but still a lot more than zero. In places like France, a large majority of energy might be produced by nuclear or renewable power stations. In a place like Arizona, which has excess solar production, your car might not require any new production of energy at all to charge.
5
@EEVblog I assume you mean the most isolated major city. There are some extremely isolated cities in the world, such as Hanga Roa, Easter Island; Iqaluit, Nunavut; and Ittoqqortoormiit, Greenland. These blow Perth out of the water, but they are also comparatively tiny. Even among "major" cities (depending on the cutoff), there is a lot of competition from Yakutsk, Russia, which is extraordinarily isolated in Siberia. Note that most of these are also capital cities, like Perth. As an honorable mention, Barrow, AK is inaccessible to virtually everyone by land, but it is another tiny city, it is not a capital, and it is not as inaccessible as Easter Island or Iqaluit.
2
@miraclemax6241 It's not the same thing. There are very few stops between Perth and Adelaide, since it is almost continuous desert. Besides, 28 hours is a tremendous distance to drive. It's roughly Chicago to L.A. Very few people drive that far unless they want to make stops along the way, because it is actually cheaper just to fly, and certainly much more convenient.
2
@samk2266 Instead of reflexively barraging me with conservative talking points, you should do some research from neutral sources. The idea that solar and wind will "never create more than 5% of the power" is so preposterous, they already create far more than that. In the U.S., wind produced 7.3% of our energy in 2019, solar produced 1.9%, and total renewables were 17%. And worldwide, renewables now account for over 25% of energy production. This is all in spite of the lack of funding and heavy resistance to change, as well as substantial subsidies for existing fossil fuel plants. Coal plants are precisely 0% "cleaner" than they used to be with respect to carbon emissions, which are the problem we are discussing here. Yes, the fly ash and smog are cleaner, but the warming effects are the same. The claim that hydro power is more environmentally harmful than coal is equally silly and shows you are trying as hard as you can to maintain a specific orientation here rather than evaluating the evidence on its own merits. Dams do harm the environment by interrupting fish migrations, but coal blows pollutants directly into the water, and into the air, and the soil, and warms the entire planet, and comes from massive mining operations that strip the ground or remove whole mountain tops. Which do you think destroys more habitats? Or more human lives? Yes, solar panels require the mining of rare earth elements, and battery storage requires the mining of lithium. But these are not fuels, just components in the finished product that can operate for decades. Are you really going to tell me that over its lifetime, a solar panel will require more mining per kwh than a coal plant? Just think it through.
1