John Stossel is WRONG about EVs

🔺Join this channel to get access to perks:
🐥 Follow me on Twitter: @AlexanderrSam
🌎 Aptera preorder referral link 🎉:

Sources:
Original video from John Stossel:

US Oil Consumption:

Global Oil consumption:

US Energy production:

Global car amount:

Renewables cheaper than fossil fuels:

C02 break even point:

[grazz]

Until they can make a battery that can FULLY charge in under 10 minutes without destroying it, I’m not sold. My biggest fear is that I arrive at a charging station and there are cars already plugged in that plan to sit there for 8 hours before I get my turn.

[patrick_plaid]

Speaking of cobalt: Due to its properties, cobalt is also found in fossil vehicles, as it is used in catalytic converters and for the hardened crankshaft in every car. Furthermore, cobalt is used as a catalyst in the desulfurization of gasoline

[dlowe]

Stossil is spot on about EV’s . Don’t let the truth fuck you up

[paulblade]

No he isn't. California limiting the charging of your EV could be a slight problem Don't you think? Ridiculous!

[russellkeeling]

Some friends of mine just had an encounter with an ev owner on Wolf Creek Pass in Colorado the other day. They saw a car stopped along side the road and since it is winter here they stopped to see if they could give them a hand. It is winter here and dangerous to be out. The owner of the car wanted them to help him get a container of gasoline even though the car was an ev. It turns out that because of the cold his car would only go 35 miles, according to the owner, on a full battery charge. In an attempt to leave the San Luis Valley he had to buy a generator and stop often to charge the car battery in order to go a little further. He needed gasoline for the generator.

[AlejandroBaldoni]

I sat through this "fact check". In order for EV tech to work, it requires everyone onboard. In order to bring everyone onboard, the tech needs to work better than the internal combustion competitor. Forcing everyone onboard is already causing a huge bottleneck in California, taxing our grid, slowing down commerce, transportation, and people's livelihood. The reality is that neither oil or EV is clean or the best for the environment. Battery tech is not efficient compared with gas at producing power by weight. The reality is how does the tech affect your day to day. It took me 10 hours non-stop driving down from Oregon to LA using a gas powered car. Stopping three times to refuel. On an EV, that I could afford, this trip would have required 2 days. In the end people care more about their time and $$, than status symbols and pretending to save planet earth.

[ronb]

Renewable energy?? Ask Germany how that’s working out. Remember how California was asking people not to charge their cars during certain times or did you forget that already?? What about people that don’t have homes to install a charger in?? I’m all for cool EV’s but we’re decades and decades away from having a competent infrastructure for that.

[privatepilot]

EVs are great. However, you can’t put the cart before the horse. It doesn’t take someone with a degree to figure out that you’re going to need the infrastructure to support all these vehicles. Right now, ahead of the influx of EVs. And with an already inadequate, unreliable electricity grid it’s nothing more than the typical recipe for disaster. How about focusing on the infrastructure first and creating a capability and capacity for supporting an all electric society before creating the things we’d be using in that environment? And creating an electric grid that is immune to natural calamities such as the Carrington Event of the 1800s. The elephant in the room. It’s just plain logic.

[skykingt]

To get an EV to go - 250000 miles would require a couple of battery changes that would cost more than the car would be worth. Good stuff but you left out a lot of factors like range anxiety. Electric SEMIs can not go coast to coast in a reasonable amount of time. These things are going to require major lifestyle changes that the public may not be willing to accept.

[k.whiking]

For Australia where I live personally, I think you're both wrong. 13500 miles as a break even point yeah na! Here my peak/off peak electricity prices are around 56c / 30c aud per kw hr, other states cities are much much less. Also here Ev prices are currently 50 to 100 % more expensive ( leaving out the pos vehicles) And yes many buses are already electric and, they're perfect because of there known planned routes. I also think that expecting 100 percent of vehicles to be electric is day dreaming, there will always be developing and emerging technologies, let alone counties and/or regions, where it's either not yet developed or just not practical.

[OldBoatDriver]

Electric buses and trucks have VERY limited range so I agree with Stossel here. Trucks will only work for short-range missions, which is a tiny subset of what most trucks do, which is long-haul transport. Electric buses only work in cities and often can't get through a full day on a charge. In my suburban county, the electric school buses can't do the morning AND afternoon runs on one charge, especially if it's cold. So they have to buy more electric buses or supplement them with the reliable diesel buses. Obviously, buying more buses is a ridiculous way to fix a problem and defeats the overall purpose of buying an EV (reduce emissions) but my county--and I presume most every government, only cares about perception not cost or practicality. And in rural areas, especially where it's cold, electric buses will not work for the mission. We're just not there yet. The U.S. is a massive country and overwhelmingly rural. EVs simply won't work for us like it would in comparatively tiny European nations. (Why is Norway always mentioned? Apples to oranges comparison!) We also don't have the grid capacity to charge so many EVs. Again, we're just not there yet. If we retrieved our own oil from our own shores, we would not be reliant on Middle East countries. But you said you didn't want to get political, so I'll stop.

[derekcolman]

500 million is not an artificially low number. I am thinking he means the number of EVs it is possible to build. There are not unlimited resources of metals to build the number that governments talk about. The CEO of the world's largest copper mining company has recently warned here will not be anywhere near enough copper to convert to EVs in the governments time scales. People always talk about lithium or cobalt, but very few seem to understand the large amount of copper needed for an EV compared to a conventional car. It's not just the extra in the motors, battery busbars and charging cables, and chargers. The electricity grid will also need to be upgraded to carry the additional current.

[timhowell]

Sam, you have well argued all the points, I also saw the stossel report and questioned those points myself. Thanks for the clarification. I expected better from him.

[alexlindekugel]

as one who works in power generation. the biggest point renewables are currently missing is reliability. If that can be fix good to go till then got a huge looming problem.

[colingoodwin]

Stossels guest is Mark P Mills who is very active in the energy sector and has a long history with oil and gas. Mills co-founded Cottonwood Venture Partners with a focus on the “digital oilfield.” The firm’s portfolio includes holdings of technology companies that provide tools and services to oil and gas extractors. As of 2018, CVP was invested in Ambyint, MineralSoft, Novi Labs, SitePro, and Well Data Labs. Cottonwood Venture is now known as Montrose Lane LP. Montrose Lane, LP operates as a venture capital firm. The Firm invests in software and energy technology companies of early oil and gas industry adoption and growth capital requirement. Montrose Lane serves investors in the United States.

[ryanvannice]

Part of Stossel's reason for these videos is to counter some government's bans on combustion cars. This is very consistent with his libertarian view. Part of what he is countering is that banning gas cars hurts the consumer without providing the massive benefits some EV proponents claim.

[nickcruz]

"HI, I'm John Stossel, has-been news media personality and current full-on oil shill."

Incredible video, Sam. One of your best. Here's hoping for 1M views+.

[franklinave]

"We have to start somewhere" is not a convincing argument.

Further, taking California as an example, EV"s amount to a redistribution of pollution.
California can NOT produce enough electricity for itself, so the electricity generation for EV's (coal / oil) will take place somewhere else, where Governor Newsom doesn't have to breathe.

If an oil pipeline has too much environmental impact, how do we justify acres and acres of land for solar.

A solar array taking up 13 square miles produces the same electricity as a gas powered plant taking up a city block (and retired solar panels are a pollutant).

[ACMichler]

We see this in the building industry as well. The builders often say we cannot get off gas or heating oil for instance. In the mean time the entire industry is adopting heat pumps, induction stoves, and deep efficiency at exponential rates.

[OweEyeSea]

The chart you have that shows renewables at 12% is for *all* energy consumption. EIA has another breakdown on a page titled "What is U.S. electricity generation by energy source?" It shows: Renewables 20.1%, Nuclear 18.9%, Natural Gas 38.3%, Coal 21.8%. Nuclear is also clean, which he doesn't account for. And EVs getting their electricity from Natural gas have a total efficiency that's twice that of ICE. So coal at 21.8% is the only problematic source. And electricity production from coal is shrinking for economic reasons.