4 ms·

Treating alternative energy and PHEVs/EVs as a core national security concern should have started in the early 2000s. Yes, the PV revolution hadn't happened yet

Treating alternative energy and PHEVs/EVs as a core national security concern should have started in the early 2000s. Yes, the PV revolution hadn't happened yet, but the hybrid auto was released in 1998 or so, and a PHEV is a natural extension to that. I'm weak on recollection as to when PV and wind started their big price plummet, but it was certainly in the 2010s. It's still not too late for ... everyone. In particular, I think PHEVs should be an regulated requirement for all consumer (and probably semis, why aren't they hybrids yet just so they can have better acceleration/torque and regen braking) vehicles in ten years, with a 10-year decreasing subsidy for PHEV and a 10-year increasing penalty for car registration and new car purchases of pure ICE. PHEVs will maximize available battery supply to the most electrification of transport. I also think home solar+storage should be heavily subsidized, because you don't need to do nearly as much grid adaptation and, keeping with national security, it makes communities much more disaster resilient if homes are somewhat power independent and they can charge a vehicle for trips.

mindslight 5mo ago
"Support our Troops!" (for the young'uns this is a reference to the also-senseless Iraq War, which had a follow on effect of distracting from this issue in favor of solipsistic entitlement and the adoption of SUVs. but looking back wistfully, at least the government and media didn't insult us by not even manufacturing a casus belli)
cyberax 5mo ago
> In particular, I think PHEVs should be an regulated requirement for all consumer (and probably semis, why aren't they hybrids yet just so they can have better acceleration/torque and regen braking) vehicles in ten years, with a 10-year decreasing subsidy for PHEV and a 10-year increasing penalty for car registration and new car purchases of pure ICE. That's the actual plan for Europe. They are planning to start ICE phase-out by 2035, with only limited exceptions where it's impractical (like long-haul cargo or specialized machinery). I actually don't think that the hybrid timeline could have been accelerated significantly. A lot of foundational technology, such as compact power electronics became accessible only by the early 2000s. Lithium batteries also became commercially viable by then.
- AtlasBarfed 5mo ago
  I think if Bush had not won the 2000 election, we would be in a fundamentally different electrification of transportation situation. Of course that's speculation, and crying overspilled milk
leonidasrup 5mo ago
China is currently implementing this national security strategy. Each addition EV car driving in China a car running on domestic solar+coal electricity and not running on imported oil. China is also turning coal to synthetic fuels. " The sector last year turned 276 million tons of coal - equivalent to almost a year of European coal use - into chemicals, oil and gas, according to the China National Petroleum and Chemical Planning Institute" https://www.reuters.com/sustainability/climate-energy/chinese-alchemy-cheap-fuel-powers-coal-to-gas-chemicals-boom-2025-09-04/ https://www.reuters.com/sustainability/climate-energy/chines... You can imagine the CO2 result of this strategy.
tardedmeme 5mo ago
The PV revolution has happened. Most countries with significant energy grids get most of their energy from PV during the daytime. Some even get 50% of their yearly energy from PV.
- AtlasBarfed 5mo ago
  Do I see every single building covered in residential solar? Can I install grid independent solar in a typical house for under $5,000 or maybe $2,000? Because I think that's what's on the horizon still. Solar has yet to incorporate likely a fundamental cost drop from perovskites, silicon perovskite multi junction, and fundamental advances in sodium ion battery storage. And every time you bring up solar wind taking over the majority of a grid, you get the pro-nuclear people ringing their hands over grid stability and the like. I do think of a little bit is that overblown but there's definitely a large structural cost to grid adaptation and issues with industrial power using current battery storage and PV wind economics, especially when you start talking about everybody having a phev or an EV charging.
  - leonidasrup 5mo ago
    Utility scale ground mounted solar is cheaper than residential solar (often 50% less per watt). Residential PV for $5,000 is too expensive for many people in many countries, Pakistan is doing it for much less. Large scale battery storage is too expensive for most countries. https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2026/mar/17/pakistan-people-led-solar-boom-middle-east-energy-crisis https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2026/mar/17/pakistan... Realistically we can expect 2-3x improvement in solar cell efficiency in coming decades, not much more. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Solar-cell_efficiency https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Solar-cell_efficiency Pro-solar people like to point out that LCOE of solar is lowest of all forms of electricity generation. At the same time they ignore the increased costs for grid upgrades and grid stabilization (short term stabilization - grid inertia, voltage stabilization, frequency stabilization) (long term stabilization - backup gas/coal power plants). If don't invest enough in grid stabilization and your country has grid that is not connected to other countries, you can get a blackout like in Spain. On the other hand, blackouts or load shedding are much more common in developing countries and have large economic impact. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2015_Pakistan_blackout https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2015_Pakistan_blackout https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2021_Pakistan_blackout https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2021_Pakistan_blackout https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2023_Pakistan_blackout https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2023_Pakistan_blackout https://www.bbc.com/news/business-58733193 https://www.bbc.com/news/business-58733193 "The costs associated with load shedding have led to an annual GDP reduction of 1 to 1.3% since 2007, with daily economic losses estimated between $85 million and $230 million for the country." https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/South_African_energy_crisis https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/South_African_energy_crisis Just like pro-solar people have their favorite future solar improvements: perovskites, multi junction, battery storage, long term energy storage, etc. Pro-nuclear people have their favorite future nuclear improvements: small modular reactors, ship mounted reactor, generation 4 reactors, breeder reactors recycling nuclear waste. I say put a carbon tax on all countries (including China, India, US) on all forms of emissions (including mining, refining, manufacturing, transportation, shipping) and let the cheapest technology win. I would love to see how the industry of China would evolve if China had the same carbon tax as Europe. The same applies to India, US. https://www.scmp.com/opinion/china-opinion/article/3307482/china-must-resist-greenwashing-its-dirty-coal-habit-green-bonds https://www.scmp.com/opinion/china-opinion/article/3307482/c...
ars 5mo ago
Cars are a very unimportant part of changing to clean energy. The most important part is the generation. Making specific types of cars required right now is VERY premature, and will just cause backlash. Let's focus on just one (main) thing: Clean generation of electricity. The rest will come in due course.
- akkrumel 5mo ago
  EVs are 3 to 4 times more efficient than ICE vehicles. So just converting to EVs is a huge efficiency gain. In fact, if we electrified industrial and transportation using existing technology we could reduce energy demand by up to 40%. And as you recommended, power generation from solar (where/when feasible) removes the need for ongoing fossil fuel purchases.
  - ars 5mo ago
    That 40% number is impossible. First of all transportation is 30% of energy, which already makes 40% impossible, second if it's 4 times more efficient then it would still use 8% to 10% of energy, making your actual savings 20% of energy at the MOST. But your 3 to 4 times number is also not real, because the actual number is 2 to 3 - and that's measured at the outlet, if you measure starting from primary power generation they are about 2 times as efficient, not 4. So I stand by what I said: Electric vehicles are not what matters for clean energy, what matters is power generation.

mindslight 5mo ago

"Support our Troops!" (for the young'uns this is a reference to the also-senseless Iraq War, which had a follow on effect of distracting from this issue in favor of solipsistic entitlement and the adoption of SUVs. but looking back wistfully, at least the government and media didn't insult us by not even manufacturing a casus belli)

cyberax 5mo ago

> In particular, I think PHEVs should be an regulated requirement for all consumer (and probably semis, why aren't they hybrids yet just so they can have better acceleration/torque and regen braking) vehicles in ten years, with a 10-year decreasing subsidy for PHEV and a 10-year increasing penalty for car registration and new car purchases of pure ICE. That's the actual plan for Europe. They are planning to start ICE phase-out by 2035, with only limited exceptions where it's impractical (like long-haul cargo or specialized machinery). I actually don't think that the hybrid timeline could have been accelerated significantly. A lot of foundational technology, such as compact power electronics became accessible only by the early 2000s. Lithium batteries also became commercially viable by then.

AtlasBarfed 5mo ago
I think if Bush had not won the 2000 election, we would be in a fundamentally different electrification of transportation situation. Of course that's speculation, and crying overspilled milk

leonidasrup 5mo ago

China is currently implementing this national security strategy. Each addition EV car driving in China a car running on domestic solar+coal electricity and not running on imported oil. China is also turning coal to synthetic fuels. " The sector last year turned 276 million tons of coal - equivalent to almost a year of European coal use - into chemicals, oil and gas, according to the China National Petroleum and Chemical Planning Institute" https://www.reuters.com/sustainability/climate-energy/chinese-alchemy-cheap-fuel-powers-coal-to-gas-chemicals-boom-2025-09-04/ https://www.reuters.com/sustainability/climate-energy/chines... You can imagine the CO2 result of this strategy.

tardedmeme 5mo ago

The PV revolution has happened. Most countries with significant energy grids get most of their energy from PV during the daytime. Some even get 50% of their yearly energy from PV.

AtlasBarfed 5mo ago
Do I see every single building covered in residential solar? Can I install grid independent solar in a typical house for under $5,000 or maybe $2,000? Because I think that's what's on the horizon still. Solar has yet to incorporate likely a fundamental cost drop from perovskites, silicon perovskite multi junction, and fundamental advances in sodium ion battery storage. And every time you bring up solar wind taking over the majority of a grid, you get the pro-nuclear people ringing their hands over grid stability and the like. I do think of a little bit is that overblown but there's definitely a large structural cost to grid adaptation and issues with industrial power using current battery storage and PV wind economics, especially when you start talking about everybody having a phev or an EV charging.
- leonidasrup 5mo ago
  Utility scale ground mounted solar is cheaper than residential solar (often 50% less per watt). Residential PV for $5,000 is too expensive for many people in many countries, Pakistan is doing it for much less. Large scale battery storage is too expensive for most countries. https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2026/mar/17/pakistan-people-led-solar-boom-middle-east-energy-crisis https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2026/mar/17/pakistan... Realistically we can expect 2-3x improvement in solar cell efficiency in coming decades, not much more. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Solar-cell_efficiency https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Solar-cell_efficiency Pro-solar people like to point out that LCOE of solar is lowest of all forms of electricity generation. At the same time they ignore the increased costs for grid upgrades and grid stabilization (short term stabilization - grid inertia, voltage stabilization, frequency stabilization) (long term stabilization - backup gas/coal power plants). If don't invest enough in grid stabilization and your country has grid that is not connected to other countries, you can get a blackout like in Spain. On the other hand, blackouts or load shedding are much more common in developing countries and have large economic impact. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2015_Pakistan_blackout https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2015_Pakistan_blackout https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2021_Pakistan_blackout https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2021_Pakistan_blackout https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2023_Pakistan_blackout https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2023_Pakistan_blackout https://www.bbc.com/news/business-58733193 https://www.bbc.com/news/business-58733193 "The costs associated with load shedding have led to an annual GDP reduction of 1 to 1.3% since 2007, with daily economic losses estimated between $85 million and $230 million for the country." https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/South_African_energy_crisis https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/South_African_energy_crisis Just like pro-solar people have their favorite future solar improvements: perovskites, multi junction, battery storage, long term energy storage, etc. Pro-nuclear people have their favorite future nuclear improvements: small modular reactors, ship mounted reactor, generation 4 reactors, breeder reactors recycling nuclear waste. I say put a carbon tax on all countries (including China, India, US) on all forms of emissions (including mining, refining, manufacturing, transportation, shipping) and let the cheapest technology win. I would love to see how the industry of China would evolve if China had the same carbon tax as Europe. The same applies to India, US. https://www.scmp.com/opinion/china-opinion/article/3307482/china-must-resist-greenwashing-its-dirty-coal-habit-green-bonds https://www.scmp.com/opinion/china-opinion/article/3307482/c...

ars 5mo ago

Cars are a very unimportant part of changing to clean energy. The most important part is the generation. Making specific types of cars required right now is VERY premature, and will just cause backlash. Let's focus on just one (main) thing: Clean generation of electricity. The rest will come in due course.

akkrumel 5mo ago
EVs are 3 to 4 times more efficient than ICE vehicles. So just converting to EVs is a huge efficiency gain. In fact, if we electrified industrial and transportation using existing technology we could reduce energy demand by up to 40%. And as you recommended, power generation from solar (where/when feasible) removes the need for ongoing fossil fuel purchases.
- ars 5mo ago
  That 40% number is impossible. First of all transportation is 30% of energy, which already makes 40% impossible, second if it's 4 times more efficient then it would still use 8% to 10% of energy, making your actual savings 20% of energy at the MOST. But your 3 to 4 times number is also not real, because the actual number is 2 to 3 - and that's measured at the outlet, if you measure starting from primary power generation they are about 2 times as efficient, not 4. So I stand by what I said: Electric vehicles are not what matters for clean energy, what matters is power generation.