Replies

I'll give you off-peak energy availability (and I hope the new Chevy is a good design & well executed) but the rest of the study you cite is supposition and naivete based on a lot of “what if” and “because we say so” futurism.(Remember what Popular Science said America would look like fifty years in the future back in the fifties? The forties? We ain't nearly there yet and the direction of progress has shifted greatly since then.)

Given the misdirection of funds, condition of infrastructure, and potential for redirection, we won't have the solar, wind, natural gas based and adequately broadcast grid by the time today's gods of EPA expect it to be needed.

If natural gas is one of the legs of clean electricity, why not use it for that purpose and for vehicles as well while using electricity itself for the purposes it is already serving?
If coal is today's vilan, why not actually help clean it up instead of regulating it out of business? (I know there has been work on clean coal going on for years now and government could subsidize that as well as dwind farms.
How will you placate the tree huggers over toasted or eviscerated birds, destroyed turtle habitat, lost squirrels and lizards?

Please understand that I think electric powered vehicles are extremely good a putting power to the ground, they'd be a hoot to drive. But, there are too many "what ifs" and "thou shalts" involved in your projections.

“...the rest of the study you cite is supposition and naivete based on a lot of ‘what if’ and ‘because we say so’ futurism.”

I feel like we must have read two different things. Are you referring to the Green Car Reports article that I linked you to or the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences study that it is based on?

I don't think the study is using the fluffy numbers that you seem to be suggesting.