That's an absolutely absurd characterization of both YouTube and actual teaching.
YouTube is dominantly entertainment/personality based "edutainment" at best, based on what seems to percolate to the top and be promoted. There's zero feedback outside comments (standard warnings about comment sections apply here).
The right way to teach complex subjects is a more interactive process with hands on material/learning/actually solving the problems yourself. In the case of solar and energy systems, you can do this, but if you don't have some basic EE background, it would be wise to go get that first before listening to some slick talking huckster selling their wares. WHY do we size wires the way we do (either for temperature limits or for voltage drop, depending on the application)? What's wrong with a 5000W 12V inverter (500A or so, and the I^2 components of resistive losses, paired with the voltage drop from those)?
I don't think a human lecturing blindly into the void optimizing for "engagement" (whatever metrics those are based on this week) can competently teach any real detailed material, no. That doesn't mean that people can't teach complex material. It just means YouTube is not the place or medium for it.
A lot of educational content on YouTube is made by people who have no idea (or interest in) how to optimize for engagement. I'd be willing to bet there is fairly competent basic EE instruction on YouTube that includes lab instructions, working with simulations, problems, and pulling in other exogenous resources to aid in understanding. Its not just a wasteland of pop science like Veritasium, et al.
1. A theoretical space for someone with good ideas and good intentions to share those with the world.
2. The actual experience that viewers will have on YouTube if they were to open it today.
1. and 2. would be almost diametrically opposed these days. If YouTube provided ways for viewers to honestly and fairly discover, rate, filter, and share videos and channels, then the people in case 2 would be able to reliably find the people in case 1. And if YouTube didn't force video makers to pervert their personality and format into algorithm-pleasing parodies, then people in case 1. could continue to produce the content they actually want to produce as long as they were able to. But it's not possible today.
YouTube encourages generating content that rates well, i.e. is entertaining. I agree that learning should be fun, but I don't want to learn about life threating topics from videos that are designed foremost to be entertaining.
There is plenty of non-entertaining yet informative and detailed educational content on YouTube. The "entertaining" videos are usually just a gateway to more dry and traditional lectures and courses that are provided by universities and other content generators that see YouTube as a general resource and not an income stream.
YouTube is literally just humans talking, so you are basically saying you don't think humans can teach complicated subjects?