Discussion

Energy fallout from Iran war signals a global wake-up call for renewable energy

stavros: I don't understand how we're still using fossil fuels. I thought the only thing that would save us from the scourge is if renewables were cheaper, but even with solar being cheaper than everything else, we're still deploying fossil fuels.Is it because of the interests of fossil fuel companies and their lobbying, or am I missing some economic factor?

amelius: More a decentralized energy wake-up call. Though in practice that's probably the same thing.

oldnetguy: I would argue a nuclear one as well. Energy independence and abundance should rely on a number of sources of energy.

boxed: Ukraine was too...

Joker_vD: Yeah, remember how the energy crises in the 70s served as a wake-up call and made us switch to renewable energy? Me neither. In fact, AIUI, the main consequence was the significant increase of the global oil extraction.

cjbgkagh: My hope is that it’s bureaucratic inertia. There really is little excuse. Especially with super high voltage power lines becoming more affordable.

solid_fuel: I mean, the US was deploying significantly more renewable energy projects during the last administration than ever before, but the corrupt trump administration stopped many of them immediately after reentering office.The bureaucracy was moving the right direction - towards renewables - until the conservatives in this country deliberately changed strategy to emphasize fossil fuels again.You can draw your own conclusions about motive, but this isn’t an accident.

RRRA: It's 100% economic corruption and populist/fascists forcing it down everyone's throat through extreme manipulation. yes...We might always need some for various materials and industrial process, but wasting it on ground transportation is beyond absurd at this point.

cpursley: It’s not just about energy, but also industrial (think neon, helium) and agricultural inputs (nitrogen, urea). Even if energy was solved, there’s not really replacements for these. Well, regenerative agriculture but not sure that will feed as many people.

gpm: The nitrogen comes from the air - we're perfectly capable of capturing it using renewables.It's probably one of the last things to be created that way because it's one of the places where methane is used more efficiently than burning it... But fundamentally there's no issue here except energy availability and a short term supply shock.

luxurytent: I keep thinking this war will both be written down as one of the Trump administration worst mistakes while also being the catalyst for a clean(er) energy revolution. We can.. do it all, but there has been a lack of will and incentive. These incentives are strong.

cjbgkagh: On the up side, perhaps this disaster will make it clear that WWIII won’t be a cakewalk and we can avoid an even more disastrous war with China.

paganel: Also, you can't make plastics out of wind power or out of solar, you still need the "petro-" that's part of the petrochemical industry.

null_ptr1: Ultimately, the answer is fuel density. So, for long distance untethered travel, like planes. Beyond that, it's plastics production and chemical manufacturing.We can switch to hydrogen for lots of stuff that requires carrying your fuel on your back, but some things get tougher because the density is just not the same as a hydrocarbon.These are all surmountable (biodiesel, carbon capture->fuel cycles, bioreactors, etc), but they take time and money.In the end, what will push us to get there are economic shocks. We're getting there, it's just painful.

kelseyfrog: Fuel density wouldn't be such an impactful attribute if the US military and geopolitical situation and strategy were different.Fuel density is logistically important and the US geographical position means that density is more important to the US than other nations. In other words, if we forecast that we'll be fighting foreign wars, fuel transport is an logistical problem that optimises for density.

kayodelycaon: [delayed]

jmyeet: This war will likely go down as the dumbest geopolitical move in US history (so far, at least). And I don't think it's even close. I cannot overstate the significance of it. I think historians will mark this as at least the symbolic end of American Empire. And I don't say that lightly. It will redefine the geopolitical landscape for the rest of the century.If we're talking about renewables, one has to talk about China [1]:> In 2024 alone, China installed 360 gigawatts (GW) of wind and solar capacity. That’s more than half of global additions that year, and it brings total installed capacity to 1.4 terawatts (TW) – that’s roughly a third of the entire world’s 4.5 TWAnd in 2025 [2]:> Clean-energy sectors contributed a record 15.4tn yuan ($2.1tn) in 2025, some 11.4% of China’s gross domestic product (GDP) – comparable to the economies of Brazil or Canada.and> In 2025, China achieved another new record of wind and solar capacity additions. The country installed a total of 315GW solar and 119GW wind capacity, adding more solar and two times as much wind as the rest of the world combined.China has decided long ago that this was of national security interest and it has become a national project to move to renewable energy in a way that I don't think any other country is capable of and on a scale that's hard to conceptualize.Europe and the US have shown themselves to be completely incapable of planning long term and acting in national interest with regards for fossil fuels. There's no poliitical will. Both are captured by the interests of enriching the billionaire class in the short term. When it all goes to shit, which it will, they'll all leave and/or the rest of us will pay for this lack of foresight.[1]: https://www.weforum.org/stories/2025/12/china-adding-more-re...[2]: https://www.carbonbrief.org/analysis-clean-energy-drove-more...

TheOtherHobbes: At some point we're going to have to have a conversation about the destructive toxicity of conservatism. There's been no bigger brake on progress of all kinds, and the ends have always been corrupt, self-serving, and small-minded.

TheOtherHobbes: You can make plastics out of cellulose, which is available from plant sources or organic (algae) bioreactors.It would take a while to retool the plastics industry to use organic sources, but it's not at all impossible.

christophilus: If there is ever a war with China, that will be a fossil fuel wake-up call, at least she it comes to solar panels and batteries.

cluckindan: You can use solar to convert CO2 into syngas and do a Fischer-Tropsch synthesis followed by polymerization to get plastics.

kayodelycaon: Renewables require power storage. Batteries are large, heavy, expensive, and the power dense ones have absolutely horrendous failure modes.There are other storage options, but they require even more space than batteries.Oil and gasoline require very little space, have easy to handle failure modes, and aren’t that expensive to operate. Not expensive enough to justify changing nationwide logistics and support.It’s also far cheaper to keep using fossil fuels for a year than build out entirely new infrastructure.

cdrnsf: Demand from data centers isn’t helping anything.

stavros: Demand for electricity is irrelevant, it's the supply we have to solve.

chaostheory: [delayed]

idontwantthis: They are growing all over the world at a phenomenal rate, but I think it just takes some amount of time. They have only been the cheapest option for a few years now.And in the U.S., Republicans have done everything they can to hamstring the transition and destroy the billions of dollars invested by automakers into EVs prior to 2025. But even that can only postpone the transition.

simonh: Also they’re only the cheapest at the point of generation, you then need to transfer that energy where it’s needed, and when it’s needed (storage). Also manufacturing capacity for renewables infrastructure, vehicles, batteries, etc, etc, is constrained. And then there are products that can’t be substituted by renewables such as plastics, fertiliser, etc. So many factors. It can’t happen too soon, but it will take many decades.

gnarlouse: The Iran War crisis is a billionaire alignment problem wakeup call, too.

jmyeet: So the problem is that we have a bunch of people making pronouncements about things they don't understand.I would encourage anyone to look into what fossil fuels are actually used for because energy is only part of it. Some energy is for fuel (eg ships, planes) for which we currently have no substitute. A big chunk is electricity generation but there are so many other non-energy uses of fossil fuels eg fertilizers, construction, roads, plastics and other industrial uses.China has undergone a decades long project to get to the point where they are the world leader (and almost sole supplier) of renewable energy tech. The plunging cost of solar happened because of China. This is a national project for them and no other country that I can think of has the willpower, organization and commitment for the deacdes-long quest to wean oneself off of fossil fuels.Just between the rollout of EVs and power generation, you need a massive amount of infrastructure associated with it. Upgraded power lines, chargers, etc. Plus all the vehicles. Plus all the materials for solar panels, wind turbines, batteries, etc. Those supply chains are completely dominated by China.Just look at the LA to SF HSR project. This will likely take 20+ years and cost $100-200B, if it ever even happens. 20 years ago, China had a single HSR line in Shanghai to the airport. Now it has a 30,000+ mile network that carries 4M+ passengers a day and I've seen estimates that the entire network cost less than $1T. California HSR is 10-20% of that budget. For one line.They reformed every level of government for this project. There is no expensive and corrupt procurement process for every city, every region, every line. They use the same rolling stock everywhere. Permitting for building the tracks and stations is streamlined. They make their own trains.My point with this example is twofold:1. EVs and electricity are only a fraction of the fossil fuel picture; and2. Weaning ourselves off of that is a decades-long project in countries that have no track record or political will to pull that off.

zihotki: This is false, you can make many plastics without fossil sources (pla, bio-pet, bio-abs, etc). The only challenge is cost and scale - it's cheaper and easier to use existing processes.

instagib: Time, production capacity, and materials. I’ve seen 1yr lead times on electric equipment to install charging stations. Copper supply issues with a huge rollout.$150/barrel, much higher prices everywhere, less fertilizer, and less oil available could spur a faster turnover.

stavros: Fingers crossed.

neogodless: Related:https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=47437516 Iran war energy shock sparks global push to reduce fossil fuel dependence (reuters.com)~3 days prior, 447+ commments

convolvatron: during the beginning of the last Iraq war, I was at a social event and somehow ended up saying that 'at least this is been so obviously foolish that it should cause to really think twice about doing anything like it again', and someone 20 years my senior turned to me from another conversation and said 'we said the same thing about Vietnam'

dalyons: Cars and electriciy are the overwhelming majority of all fossil fuel use. Let’s just focusing on tranistioning them first, and we’ll be in so much of a better place. The rest can wait

georgemcbay: > I don't understand how we're still using fossil fuels.Global politics.Switching to renewables is seen as capitulation to China because of their lead in tech in this area, especially when you consider that renewables generally introduce battery dependence.They don't even try to hide this anymore. Watch Howard Lutnick at the WEF:https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JY0t0h1gXzkExplicitly stated: Don't be subservient to China.Not vocalized, but the obvious alternative: Instead be subservient to the USA and various allied Persian Gulf (and hijacked Latin American) countries.

jmyeet: Just looking at the US, one can certainly point fingers at conservatism (rightly so) but I think that's missing the forest for the trees. Why? Because the so-called opposition party, the Democratic Party, is complicit is everything that's happened to get us to this point.The problem isn't conservatism per se. It's neoliberalism (IMHO). Even more broadly, it's capitalism. There's a meme in this space that basically goes something like "when you learn about capitalism, you become either a communist or a liar".I read something recently about how people fetishize the 1950s, particularly on the political right. A big part of what made that possible was exploitation. Obviously we had a permanent underclass since segregation was still alive and well. A lot of these "middle class" families had "help" or "a girl". But another form of exploitation was oil. We were basically stealing oil from the Middle East for pennies on the dollar.And then Iran came out and said "maybe we don't want you to steal our oil", we couped their government, we installed our own puppet government, we continued stealing oil and this all ultimately lead to the 1970s oil crisis and the Iranian Revolution. And here we are.Back to the US political landscape, just look at the "opposition" to this war. It's either nonexistent or it's process-based ("Congress should've approved it"), not substantive. No mainstream political force is saying what we should be saying, which is that our Middle East policy is a crime, the sanctions on Iran were and are a crime and that continued exploitation of this region is unsustainable.

newyankee: Because the upside (with barely single digit margins if it exists) is mostly China and no one else being able to compete at that scale.Something like skin in the game. US (low), EU(moderate), China (high), Global South (high with caveats to leapfrog but financing crunch always there)Renewables need front loaded funding compared to Oil & Gas which are the incumbents that make them sticky.Otherwise is a lot of US consumers were rational and only price minded they would've run TCO calculators on EV vs ICE for day to day use even without subsidies

nradov: What up call for whom? The USA is a net fossil fuel exporter. China is still heavily dependent on fossil fuel imports (as well as fertilizer produced from natural gas) and those imports would be interdicted in any major conflict. Of course the Chinese leadership is well aware of that vulnerability and taking steps to mitigate it.

simonh: The nitrogen in generated fertiliser comes from the air, it’s the hydrogen in the process that comes from natural gas.You can theoretically get it from water instead, but the energy cost is something like 3-4 times as high. It may be feasible at some point.

dyauspitr: Honestly the tech wasn’t there yet then. It sure is now.

nradov: Perhaps so. And yet a couple decades ago when the war against Iraq turned into a quagmire, many political pundits also marked that as the end of the American Empire. And yet today the USA remains the sole globally dominant superpower. Our time will end eventually but we should be skeptical of any predictions on timing.

SchemaLoad: You seem to have missed since then the massive transformation of China.

kelseyfrog: Me searching for the electric tanks. ¯ \ _ ༼ •́ ͜ ʖ •̀ ༽ _ / ¯

kayodelycaon: [delayed]

Zigurd: Plastic packaging can be substituted. Engineered plastics are a tiny fraction of petroleum.

sb057: I am speaking from a position of total ignorance, so this is probably a dumb take, but I don't see why rich nations[1] don't simply subsidize mass nuclear energy production as state policy. The two main issues with nuclear are unit cost (solvable if you build dozens/hundreds in serial production) and financing (a reactor with a 30 year payback period is much more viable with 3.5% sovereign financing compared to 8% private bonds). France did it 50 years ago with more primitive reactor designs. China is currently doing it somewhat halfheartedly. I bet if the U.S. committed to $2 trillion to one standardized design and heavily used eminent domain, America would have knocked electricity costs down by half within a decade.[1] Honestly probably only really viable in China and the U.S. plus maybe South Korea; nuclear is unpopular in Japan after Fukushima, and I doubt the E.U. would be able to coordinate everything. Everyone else is probably too poor outside of petrostates, which have the whole petro thing going on.

ThatMedicIsASpy: and I wonder which blown up tank would pollute the environment more

kelseyfrog: I don't really think that's really high up on military priorities list. But happy to be proven wrong on that.

SchemaLoad: People get complacent thinking the system just keeps working no matter what, and not that a lot of effort from talented people goes in to to keeping it working. So they vote in a total moron and discover the good times aren't innate.

Zigurd: Also solar and wind are much more often on time and on budget.

simonh: The Chinese system is hyper conservative, essentially fascist, it’s not actually socialist in any way, shape or form. It’s also hyper capitalist, with minimal regulation or consumer rights. The top levels of the ‘communist’ party is now packed with billionaires. What regulation there is, is mostly aimed at maintaining party control and prestige.Both unchecked conservatism and unchecked socialism are toxic. Unchecked anything is toxic. That’s human nature, yet (to simplify massively) we still need both conservative and socialist elements in a balanced society.

AnotherGoodName: I like to give Australia as the better example. Way ahead of everyone else on a per capita basis (50% more GW of solar installed per capita than China).If the big powers of the world had any competence a country with 0.5% of the worlds population would not be 3rd in total of grid connected battery storage and 8th in solar (note in total, not per capita). https://elements.visualcapitalist.com/top-20-countries-by-ba... and https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Solar_power_by_country for links.Because of what Australia has done consumer power prices keep falling, even with the Iran war and datacenter build outs https://www.abc.net.au/news/2026-03-19/power-prices-fall-but...It's all based on governance led by research (in particular the CSIRO, the Australian government's politically isolated research department) where the CSIRO wrote a peer reviewed report mathematically demonstrating the cheapest way to improve grid reliability and lower prices. This indicated various ways to encourage solar and battery build outs. The Australian senate (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Australian_Senate) which is made up of many many parties due to preferential voting passed laws enabling this and here we are.I think that it's true that China's beating the USA in government competence but they are far far from the ideal. In fact China looks really bad compared to any competant government of the world. It just looks good compared to the USA.

alephnerd: > I don't see why rich nations[1] don't simply subsidize mass nuclear energy production as state policyDepends on the country> Honestly probably only really viable in China and the U.S. plus maybe South KoreaIndia quietly (by HN and Reddit standards) passed a nuclear energy megabill in December which has a TAM of $214 Billion [0]. French (EDF), American (Westinghouse), and Russian (Rosatom) JVs will now be able to build and distribute nuclear energy and subsidize the buildout [1] using Green Bonds, which gives them access to around $56 Billion in capital [2].These players will also be eligible for India's $2.5 Billion SMR subsidy [3][0] - https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2025-12-08/india-see...[1] - https://powermin.gov.in/sites/default/files/Seeking_comments...[2] - https://www.climatebonds.net/news-events/press-room/press-re...[3] - https://www.trade.gov/market-intelligence/india-energy-small...

jjk166: We're not really adding much more fossil fuel capacity. 88% of new capacity under construction in the US is renewable. Of the fossil fuel capacity that is being added, it's overwhelmingly coal-to-gas conversions and peaker plants that help to deal with the variability in renewable generation.It will take a long time before the fossil fuel capacity we've already built gets phased out, and of course certain developing nations are still adding dirtier fuel sources, but renewables getting cheap is working.

stavros: Ahh, interesting, I didn't realize the current mix is because of legacy plants, but I guess it makes sense that it wouldn't all be phased out immediately.

stavros: No, that's fine, I get it that fossil fuels have incomparable density, but we're using them massively for stuff where density isn't that important. Anything inside a city, from transportation to homes to factories are already powered by electricity (or can be, e.g. cars), we're just inexplicably still using fossil fuels to create that electricity.The US grid is still 57% coal and gas.

BLKNSLVR: Slightly tangential, we bought a 2014 Nissan Leaf about 18 months ago, against howls of protest from parents-in-laws and brother- and sister-in-laws with all the regular electric car FUD you hear (can't drive interstate on a single tank, can't tow a trailer, will explode and burn your house down).For our use-case, 95% of our trips are to the shops, to various kids sports, to school, to the bus/train station, visiting (local) family, and all are very short trips easily within the relatively short range of the Leaf: ~100km. We still have our existing cars, they just get used less in favour of the cheapest option for the job at hand.Even with our son being newly able to drive independently (so essentially needing to have three cars, rather than two, on the go at any one time), over the 18 months of owning the Leaf we've saved about 25% of the purchase price of the Leaf in spending less on petrol (including the electricity cost to charge the Leaf - which gets charged using the solar panels during the day, but more commonly using cheaper grid electricity non-peak overnight - yes, likely primarily off fossil fuels but from what I've read is more energy efficient than using petrol to power the car).My point being, analogous to the "right answer" being to only using energy-dense fuels when necessary, we use the cheaper electric vehicle option when applicable, and only burn the expensive stuff when the better option is unavailable.P.S. Looking at buying a newer EV with longer range, so there are additional and more flexible "better options", plus coming up to having a daughter who is also able to drive unaccompanied (four cars? :grimacing face:)

chrysoprace: In Australia the answer is political lobbying, without a doubt.We had an emissions trading scheme[0] in 2012 meant to help in a transition to clean energy sources that was aggressively lobbied against by Australia's largest polluters and lasted only 2 years before being repealed by the incoming government by labeling it a "tax" that citizens would pay for. This led to a decade of policy stagnation[1] where we could've been transitioning away from fossil fuels.So while energy density is definitely a factor, political lobbying is absolutely a factor.[0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carbon_Pollution_Reduction_Sch...[1] https://www.ft.com/content/0a453f5c-e859-4300-9355-46822c451...

make3: tanks must represent like 0.001% of fuel consumption lol

jmyeet: Empires don't die overnight, generally. Empires die slowly, violently.We spent an estimated $8 trillion on so-called "War on Terror". The Taliban were in charge of Afghanistan before we started. They're in charge now. For $8T. 1% of that would end homelessness. 1% of that annually would be free college. I would mention universal healthcare but that would actually save money vs what we now spend so I'm not sure how you count that.The kind of transformation China has seen in recent decades is what you're talking about with $8 trillion.A despite the 20 year quagmire that was Iraq and Afghanistan, IMHO this war on Iran is an even bigger geopolitical clown show and will be more consequential to the end of American Empire.

le-mark: > First they’ll take our gasoline cars then our guns!!!Courtesy of Fox News.

nswango: But making plastics using renewable energy and fossil hydrocarbons for feedstock does not exacerbate the greenhouse effect, unless you burn them when you've finished with them.Arguably plastics are a stable, cheap and useful carbon sink and if climate is the overriding ecological priority we should be making as many as we can and recycling as few as possible.

blackjack_: Nuclear is near dead if the new geothermal tech from fracking works out.

stared: See a wider perspective on how energy sources shape geopolitics: "The pivot" by Charlie Stross https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=45621074.And yes, solar energy is not only greener (less CO2, less PM2.5), but also frees us from dependency on other countries. The future can be less centralized.Some countries (Russia included) will lose their bargaining chip. Other countries (USA included) will lose the incentive to 'democratize' the Middle East.

OneDonOne: And how will renewables like solar and wind wirk with Class 8 trucks, shipping, aviation or process heat or as feedstock? How have they worked in Germany, which has shut down her nuclear plants and Russian hydrocarbons?Please - tell us.

vmsp: As a Portuguese I have a more nuanced view of these type of takes.We invested _heavily_ and prematurely in renewable energies -- see my comment from a couple of years ago [0]. Since then, our energy prices were high for a while and now they're not much lower than the EU's average because all that investment needs to be amortized [1]. Two years ago, we ran a whole month on renewables [2]. Despite this, our increase in energy prices since the Iran war started has been dramatic and the price of everything has been going up significantly. I can't help but think about the ROI on all those renewables if they can't help make our lives easier at a time like this. I'd much rather we go nuclear.[0]: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=37719568[1]: https://eco.sapo.pt/2026/03/11/precos-da-eletricidade-e-gas-...[2]: https://www.portugalglobal.pt/en/news/2024/april/renewable-e...

gnabgib: > I'd much rather we go nuclear.I think/hope you mean "I'd rather we adopt/use nuclear energy."

api: Aviation is a few percent of global emissions. All aviation.It’s probably the hardest thing to replace but if we can’t we will be okay.Long haul trucking and shipping and remote site power are probably the next hardest things, and maybe coal for metallurgy, but these are also small compared to emissions from electricity generation and routine car transit. The big sources can be completely converted.

BLKNSLVR: I'm not sure the failure modes are too significantly different. I think it's likely you may consider them 'easy to handle' is because there's been years to learn how to handle these failure modes (which is a positive, but for reasons not inherent to the power source itself).It's always far cheaper to keep status quo X than move to new thing Y. Until it isn't. Especially if you don't take into account externalities. Increased instances of flooding, cyclones, and wildfires gets pretty expensive pretty quickly. Losing ground to competitors can be fatally expensive in the long term.Such things require the ability and will to think and prepare long-term, and it feels as if humanity has been migrating in the opposite direction since the 70's.

throwaway27448: > I don't understand how we're still using fossil fuels.These fit an energy niche that can't be replaced with any one thing. China is just now investing in an electric military, for instance. Shipping will remain difficult to electrify entirely (which is surmountable, but certainly not in production). Coal and natural gas plants provide on-demand power that is not straightforward to guarantee with renewable sources. And there are many (likely almost all) grids that are simply not up to the task of transmitting energy that used to be transmitted by physically moving fossil fuels. Air flight has no renewable alternative as of today—though, I suppose we technically do have renewable forms of jet fuel, it's extremely expensive.& of course we will need byproducts for the forseeable future for fertilizer, materials, chip production, etc etc.It'll take a couple generations. Of course we should be paying poor countries to not use fossil fuels, but instead we're trying to force switching back to fossil fuels ourselves for no explicable reason (as an american obv).

nswango: Non-energy uses of fossil fuels are not problematic from the point of greenhouse emissions.If we stop burning fossil fuels and get energy from renewable sources, the remaining hydrocarbons will probably be used for plastics, chemicals and so on. If they aren't burnt this is fine.It also probably makes more sense to use fossil fuels for applications where density is critical such as aviation, offset with carbon capture, rather than to leave oil in the ground and synthesize jet fuel using renewable energy.

Zigurd: 20 years from now and billions of dollars over budget? Or by variety do you mean wind, solar, geothermal, and hydro?

OneDonOne: In the West you mean? The Asians seemto have this particular industrial aspect somewhat under control.

jjk166: Using renewables means you're burning up less of your plastic feedstocks.

adrian_b: Actually a few other HN threads have just discussed the latest Chinese electric cars that refuel in 5 minutes for a 250 miles range and which have a 500 miles range when fully charged.That makes fast, long-range travel quite practical in an electric vehicle.While this model greatly improves the charging speed, other electric cars introduced this year use sodium-ion batteries, which are heavier than lithium-ion batteries, but they have the advantage that in cold climates they do not lose either capacity or charging speed down to temperatures as low as minus 40 Celsius degrees, removing other limitation of electric cars.So hydrocarbon fuels are likely to remain non-replaceable only in aircraft and spacecraft, where weight really matters.

OneDonOne: The Chinese already have a 125e Small Modular PWR that would be excellent for small islands like those of the Caribbean. It is the Linglong-1 [0]. I believe the first one cost 800 million dollars. It will be interesting to see the price reductions as it goes into serial ptoduction.[0] https://www.reuters.com/business/energy/china-start-commerci...

stavros: I really don't understand how people offer "but that ten-hour trip I take once a year will be 40 minutes longer!" as criticism and completely ignore "my EV TCO will be half of an ICE".Humans really do not like change, the problems you have now are swept under the rug but tiny new problems are made into massive, insurmountable ones.

BLKNSLVR: > Humans really do not like changeThis is definitely part of it. My personal opinion is that 'mechanical intelligence' is so intertwined with, cough, masculinity that EVs are a threat to these kinds of men at the very core of their being. There's so much 'identity' that people associate with the car they drive, the noise it makes, that they can take it apart and put it back together again despite its complexity.The simplicity of the electric motor and the minimal servicing required of an electric car is potentially anathema to (toxic) masculinity. As is enforcing 'stopping driving for a rest and (literal) recharge'.It's a super old school way of thinking, but aren't we in the midst of seeing exactly that bubbling up to the surface as far more entrenched in society than we thought it could be?(May be overthinking this a bit, but the illogic from otherwise logical family members around EVs really twisted my mind into knots that I had to spend the time undoing)> tiny new problems are made into massive, insurmountable onesThis is just cope. Clutching to the thinnest branches because that's the only thing on offer. It's the rationalisation of all of what I've mentioned above.

adrian_b: I do not know if any such tanks are in production, but there where experimental electric tanks, just not with batteries, but with turbogenerators.

stared: > Please - tell us.No need of sarcasm here. Or going the route of a false dichotomy.Again, not all dependencies can be eliminated. But it is better to have less dependencies.Closing nuclear plants in Germany was a disaster, and here we agree.

mrsilencedogood: I don't think anyone was at risk of misunderstanding their intent...

OneDonOne: Modern civilization requires semiconductors, concrete, asphalt, fertilizer, and plastics to function. Never mind aviation and marine fuel to function. All of these require hydrocarbons. As long as that is the case, renewable power will continue to be a niche.

cjbgkagh: I wasn’t even thinking about the US but consider this administration an interlude. I’m hearing other countries they’re putting the breaks on Chinese solar in an effort to build indigenous production capacity which is incredibly stupid. At least solar scales down so individuals can circumvent and get their own.

DoctorOetker: I am curious what the drawbacks are for building indigenous photovoltaic production?