It's basically the "fast to build" thing with fuel also being cheap and available.

While there are some things the same, such as concrete, between coal, nuclear, wind, and even solar, they all require different manufacturing facilities. I remember reading somewhere that at least some of the coal plants China is building are designed to be easy to convert to nuclear if that comes up.

So until those manufacturing capabilities catch up with China's demand, coal will continue to be built. I also remember that at least in part, they're building more efficient coal plants to replace aging inefficient and highly polluting ones. So if a new coal plant gets a 50 year old one shut down, it's still a net positive.

Indeed. That's where I approach it. Our current system is so fragmented and inefficient that we still have homeless people because they can't get on the right programs, while people who are "good" at signing up and applying can be driving later model cars than what I own. There's programs that pay cash, food benefits (at least 3), help pay for housing, help pay for utility bills, pay for child care, and more.
I tend to keep healthcare separate, because it has a wide range, between $0 and $XXX depending on the health of the person. Can't really help that. Personally, I'd start combining Medicare, Medicaid, and the VA. Perhaps even Tricare, all the other government health programs. I try to not call it "insurance" because insurance isn't something you're supposed to be using on the regular, that doesn't have negotiated deals with everything, etc... In order to reduce expenses, in line with VA and military experience, let the new combined medicare agency not only negotiate drug prices, but operate their own health facilities. It's seriously cheaper in the long run. If we could get our costs down to around that of Europe, we could have "single payer" without spending a drop of private money OR increasing government spending.
Anyways, another big factor is what is generally called "the welfare cliff", basically, as one starts to earn money, they start clawing back the benefits. But because they're "needs based" and so fragmented, it is common for a person to LOSE income by making more money between taxes and the clawbacks.
By adjusting the tax system to be the clawback, by unifying most of the welfare programs into the UBI, one can ensure that people are always better off by working and earning money, assuming they aren't being crazy and commuting 2 hours each way by car for a part time minimum wage job. Plus, lose their job? UBI is still there.

Well, of course you can nitpick every plank, but keep in mind that it's a bare bones bullet list typed from memory, specifically looking at funding, not a position paper or even the book I could expand it into. Odds are I can address any given nitpick.
I agree on the budget thing, though right now we can borrow money below inflation, so setting up a fund is actually the correct economic decision, even if I personally would prefer seriously cutting the debt, and recognize that that would require sacrifice. No, I have zero confidence in our politicians doing it.
Back when I first proposed it, $500/month actually hit the poverty line for a family of 4 within a few dollars. I deliberately keep to whole numbers for the UBI because I'm keeping it to single digit accuracy. I'm not quite ready to bump the recommendation to $700, but would be willing to listen to arguments for it.
As you say, a single job, among 4 people, would get them to the poverty line.

I don't count social security as welfare, because it is an earned benefit, not welfare, and didn't include it in my calculations.
As for programs, snap, housing assistance, tanf, eitc, wic, child care, the list is huge and fragmented.

I've actually supported a UBI in the USA for years. That said, my UBI is a lot less generous than most, making it easier to finance.
Anyways:
$500/month (well, $600 now). Get a job if you want to live in an expensive area or not have roommates.
Eliminate most other forms of welfare. This actually funds the lion's share of it. Biggest exemption would be medical, because that's too uneven of an expense.
Flatten the tax brackets to tax most of the UBI back from people actually working or otherwise earning money. IE no 10% or 12% brackets. Remember, everybody is $6-7.2k ahead of the game income wise, before we start adding wage income.
Finally, something like a 1% capital gains tax or similar that goes into a sovereign wealth fund, to build up an income returning investment along the lines of Alaska's Permanent Fund, Norway, etc... to further defray costs.
When it gets big enough to start having representation on boards, require the board member(s) to support long term success of the company, avoid being a negative to the country, that sort of thing.

Care to name a few examples? Time, place, percentages? How the nation in question dealt with it?

Because the one that comes to mind would be France, just before the French revolution, where a lot of the nobility lost their heads. Personally, I'd rather not see people losing their heads.

That said, I support a UBI, but as replacing most other forms of welfare.

My rough US example:
1. $600/month for US citizens, non-us citizen legal immigrants get a tax deduction instead that adds up to the $600 for their earnings. (Used to be $500, but inflation)
2. eliminate most other forms of welfare. Medical care is still provided, as that is too unpredictable, and disability is separate as well.
3. Taxes are flattened. Things like getting rid of exemptions, the lower tax brackets. Remember, everybody is starting $7200 ahead on taxes. Really simplify the tax system.

No, hybrids are a separate candidate under that standard.
What's happening is that the sales of pure ICE vehicles are cratering over in Europe. All forms of electric are becoming more popular, EV, PHEV, and HEV. ICE dropped enough to pass EVs, at around 22% each.
Pure hybrids (HEV) are at around 34%, PHEV around 10%.
It looks like HEV sales are starting to decline a bit, PHEV are increasing slowly, but EVs are growing rapidly.

That's what a PHEV with a range extender motor would be for. Mild hybrids were more to make fleet mileage requirements, and even regular HEVs was more for when charging infrastructure didn't exist and batteries were expensive.
I would absolutely trade my HEV in for an EV today.

Still, if we can get people to go towards an EV in a two step process, it'd still be fine. IE ICE->HEV/PHEV->EV
If some end up going ICE->HEV->PHEV->EV it's still good. Heck, if 10% stop at PHEV. My brother is an electrician, having a dedicated van with a generator in it would not hurt him one bit, because he's explicitly one of the people going places where electricity isn't, to fix it.

I'm reminded of all the solar system boundaries the Voyager probes have crossed over the years. It seems there's actually dozens of ways to define the border of the solar system, the difference between "inside" and interstellar space. But regardless, they're being crossed one by one.
Sure, Pure gasoline vs pure EV is a fairly minor point NOW, but I'm thinking that it wasn't all that long ago that cars were 100% fossil fuel, with that ~7% diesel.
Next step will be for it to catch up with fossil fuel vehicles, including the diesels. Then be over half of all vehicles, etc...

Nothing in the article mentions the kid exiting a vehicle. Just that he or she came out from behind a SUV.

Mom talks about how a few years ago a high school senior was killed in a car accident because he stepped out into the road unexpectedly. While wearing a hoodie with the hood up and headphones.

The odd thing that always got my attention - it was supposedly the very first time he'd ever walked to school.

The Waymo stopped a lot faster than most humans would have.

I didn't get around to it, but since I was picturing the gallon a day being mostly tooling around the farm, as one can fill up on trips into town, I was also thinking that an electric UTV would be a much cheaper and better solution.
Still import diesel for the tractors and such, but for daily running around a UTV would be handy.
75 kWh would be around 30 miles as gasoline, but 225 miles as EV. Even more for a relatively small and slow UTV.

75kWh to make 1 gallon = $7.50@ $0.10/kWh per gallon, just electricity cost.
Even commercial solar is closer to 5-10 cents a kWh.

Only way this really makes sense would be for somebody living in a remote area, like a farm or ranch, where the gallon a day enables them to do farm stuff without needing to import fuel. IE they get diesel for the planting and harvest with the tractors, but keep any gasoline vehicles filled.

Looking, their assumption of $0.02 kWh electricity is extremely optimistic.

It might be 100 times better at concentrating the PFAS, and better at disposing of it, but the critical question is whether or not it's 100 times cheaper than the alternatives to disposing of the PFAS, along with the legislative will to actually force the filtering for cleaning the stuff up.
Well, even 10% cheaper would be enough if the will exists. The cheaper cleaning it up is, the easier that sell is.
Just look at Flint Michigan for how cheap water companies and municipalities can be.

They may make an exception here, it really depends on the definition of "registered" and "vehicle". an e-bike or scooter of some sort might not count, especially if low powered.
Looking, they aren't actually restricted from owning more than one vehicle, it's just that the additional vehicle counts towards the $2k/$3k asset limit, while the primary vehicle doesn't count, even if it's $100k.
Which seems silly and should probably be increased by an order of magnitude.

https://secure.ssa.gov/apps10/...