Don't confuse his arrogance for error. He's been a bit off on timing (which is typical of disruptive innovations, they can slip, or even accelerate) but never on the substance. And his data is solid.

Fortunately, I don't believe in hell, so they will eventually go bust if they cannot adapt and adopt.

Yes, they will, but the economics are overwhelming. And since the advent of the industrial era, the numbers always-eventually-win out.

Trouble is, tiny steam engines burn stuff, like coal.

@Petter doubt we will have coal-filled sidecars/trailers & a person to shovel it (heated this house for 20+ years with anthracite, very familiar with it).....there are wood-waste pellet stove fuels fed by worm screws readily available being used right now, very small & could be smaller.

@AnneWimsey ... and still producing Carbon dioxide, which makes a mockery of reducing green-house gas emissions.
Anthracite is a seriously prolific producer of Carbon Dioxide gas.

@Petter ummmm, scrubbers/filters? Like the ones used on giant smokestacks? All this technology is readily available & has been for decades..
I do believe all change must come with cost-benefit analysis, the " lesser of 2 evils" if you will, unless you want people to go cback to only living their lives within a 50-mile radius of their birth.

@AnneWimsey By the time you have installed all the carbon capture technology needed, which itself needs power to drive it remember, the cost is far greater than simply going electric.
The only long-term answer is to go all out on developing nuclear fusion technology.

@Petter ummm, becuz electricity just appears out of the Ether? Since when?

@AnneWimsey Because electricity can be created from water power (waves, tides and waterfalls), wind power, solar power and nuclear fission power. Also, eventually, I hope, from nuclear fusion power.
The current snag is storage, although that is continually being enhanced.

[utilitydive.com]

@Petter nuclear is worse

@whiskywoman Nuclear fission is extremely polluting, but nuclear fusion is inherently "clean". (Barring immediate radiation, which can be shielded.)

For the narrator, yes, but not because he doesn't know it. As much of a goofball as he seems, he's a smart guy who uses data and analysis. If you read one of Mr. Seba's books or view one of his longer YT videos you'll see plenty of what you call nitty-gritty.

Take a mental note: By 2030, people without electric cars will seem like those who refused to use an ATM (remember them?) or buy a cell phone.

@Mitch07102 I know. But my point still stands. The author rambles instead of getting down to the "nitty-gritty".
It's the same gripe that I have against TV producers who assume their audience have the intelligence and intellect of kindergarten pupils.
You end up with a boring, hour long programme, that would have been interesting if condensed into fifteen minutes.
P.S. Internal combustion engines will still be in great demand beyond 2030.
I frequently make thousand mile journeys, broken by a single overnight stop. (Two legs of 700 to 900 kilometres). Until electric vehicles can have an autonomous range of 600 miles and/or a full recharge time of below 15 minutes (ie. the duration of a coffee break), there will be a strong demand for hybrid vehicles.