Comments by "Matthew Nirenberg" (@matthewnirenberg) on "Do you really want an EV in an emergency...?" video.

  1.  @bcreason  Utter rubbish. The faster a battery charges, the hotter it gets (risking thermal runaway) and the shorter its life gets - this also happens when you get the percentage outside the 'goldilocks' range (generally >32% and < 86%). As for range, that can only happen by having significantly larger batteries (or higher density) but that comes at both cost and increased weight. The so-called 'lightweight batteries' are no where near being viable for EV's (not in the next decade) and given that EV's don't get lighter the lower the battery percentage gets, the weight is working against you. Its literally similar to why rockets need insane amounts of fuel for their relatively short trip to get from the ground into space. ICE vehicles get lighter the more fuel they use, thus retaining more range longer than an EV. Not to mention that the battery loses some percentage if left in the cold or in the heat. ICE vehicles can be left at 50% fuel (assuming a fuel stabilizer is used) and when you come back 6 months later, they're still at 50% fuel, and they still start. Good luck trying that with an EV - the batteries just don't work that way. Oh and EV's can't tow heavy trailers, nor can they tow even light ones long distances as the battery drops rapidly. In Australia they've proved all this, and that the range is significantly worse than the ICE counterparts in multiple like-for-like comparisons, and they had to admit this albeit begrudgingly on national news. Lastly, EV's can NEVER be cheaper than ICE vehicles due to the cost of the battery, the insane hazard regulations that affect creation, use and disposal of the batteries, not to mention the cost to replace batteries that are very difficult to swap (i.e. they don't just drop out) as they have to be key structural components for the chassis to be street legal. Not to mention the taxes that EV's and their batteries will have due to the giant carbon footprint they have from cradle to grave which is NEVER offset over the life of the vehicle - anyone that claims otherwise hasn't looked at the true footprint of modern ICE vehicles that can be 100% recycled (modern vehicles have gone back to lead acid batteries because they are 100% recyclable) unlike EV's. The circuit boards on EV's are all potted (thanks OHS) and can't be recycled, the batteries can't actually be recycled - they shred them and store the pieces. There is no safe or efficient way to recycle them, and if shredded, the mangled bits can't be separated to be recycled so there's another environmental disaster waiting to happen. Oh and regarding cost, I'm intentionally ignoring subsidies as that isn't making them cheaper, its taking your money and returning it to a significantly smaller group than it was taken from, and calling it a subsidy. So no its not making anything cheaper, its stealing from the many to give to the few. You are simply repeating the same EVangelist nonsense that is spewed out every day. Its just like that moron Al Gore who's been claiming that 'the world is ending' for decades and every time he's proven wrong he just pushes the date back another 5 or 10 years. Ironically his BS about seas levels rising has been proven 100% false, and he and Gates are both buying seafront properties. What has happened in some Pacific Islands is that they have experienced erosion by the sea because they can't afford counter-measures and because them being eroded away fits the 'sea levels rising' narrative. Australia could easily fix the erosion issues in the Pacific Islands but instead they offer those countries 'Climate Change Visas' because the narrative is more important than admitting the 'Climate Change' lies are actually 100% lies.
    2