I guess this is going to qualify as a brick-bat: although this news is old, why is it not constantly referenced and driven home to the audience as a ridiculously slam-dunk win-win-win-win to demand and expect ASAP globally every time the topic of batteries and/or nano-carbon/graphene is brought up? Then again, Leo can’t even remember the term “gallium nitride” for today’s chargers (he keeps calling it “gallium arsenic”), and it may not be patentable enough to attract private profiteering interests of the type who take out ads on his shows and therefore he doesn’t want to divert attention away from the purview of such enterprises, conditioning the audience to expect solutions only through that pipeline, whether he even realizes that consciously or not (he doesn’t have to intend it for it to be happening).
I think there’s room for TWiT to accept sponsors and chuckle at them condescendingly as merely today’s best solutions and totally unsustainable without pissing them off enough to leave. The responsible perspective is toward sustainability, and as I see it TWiT’s responsible to stake out that position as part of its editorial identity. Easy for me to say, but is it really so hard for them to? I don’t mean to single TWiT out too much versus other media outlets, it’s just that because of its focus TWiT seems like of all the ones who should be harping on it to a relatively broad tech-oriented audience, they’re who.
Not only is it a fraction of the price, it’s from waste product, and supply isn’t constrained to finite geology, plus hemp cultivation is practically a favor to both planet and people.
For those who haven’t kept up: hemp has less THC than poppy seeds have opium, yet its cultivation was legalized in the US only within the past decade.