Solar is intermittent power. It is not the same type of power as coal gas or fuel oil, which generate persistent power.
We are spending trillions to subsidize electric while our grid lacks capacity and resilience. This is poorly conceived. Accordingly we have major brownout risk right now in most of the west.
The cars are fine for a sliver of the market. But the headlong rush while ignoring warnings is dangerous.
I agree the grid badly needs to be modernized; much of it is 30-50 years old. Why my Okie rural grandfather told me about the "concerns" people had about electrification in the 30's, when the US electrified the whole country. This is not an insolvable problem, folks, and in fact it is not particularly the fault of EVs or renewables. We neglected the electrical infrastructure for 40 years. It's amazing to me that EVs are now the bugaboo. Everything is electric now. Everything is going to be electric.
And---I know this is a huge surprise to you-- the grid will need to be modernized. Period. Whoopee! Yes, we might actually have to do something that we did 90 years ago. But I no longer think the US is up to it, because, frankly, the US doesn't believe in modernizing or in infrastructure.
Now, I lived in Houston, watched the I-10 West of Houston go from 4 lanes each way to 12 lanes each way, and that was not enough. How much did we spend on "infrastructure" to do that? Please tell me. But to keep Texas from going dark, due to population gains, climate chains, and electricification, we can't do that anymore?
If we can't modernize the grid, we are a failed state. Period. It's not that we can't; we just don't want to. I understand that people don't want to modernize the grid, just like my grandfather told me the old Okies didn't want to get electricity. But I don't agree. Solar and wind are cheaper than the alternatives; what is lacking now are a) local tie-ins and b) modern inter-grid connections. Period. You can complain, moan, and say it can't be done, but it will get done over the next 20 years. Sheer economics of energy will drive it. Upgrading the transmission is actually the big problem. I think the Feds should fund the interconnects between the grids, but thats just me. The utilities don't want that, obviously, because they make money off the transmission and if they don't fund it, well, who needs them in the size that they play?
But transmission is the devil in the playhouse, and I'm no God on that question. The US and the rest of the 1st world will electrify and electrify rapidly, as we have been doing. You can shake your finger and plug it in the dike but pure economics of solar and wind will drive this and have been driving it for the last 15 years. My wife worked for Unocal (in Cali), then for Tenneco and for Dynegy, then finally worked for a big wind company after Dynegy went bankrupt, pulled down by Enron. I've been interested in this for 20 years now. Even Texas has gone wind and solar, simply because.... they are cheap. My brother-in-law worked for ERCOT as an econometrician and he largely agrees with me, for what it's worth. So I'm not just blowing smoke.
By the way, the new rate profile Nevada Energy offered me is dirt cheap if I charge the Bolt after 11 pm, when demand is low (It is about 1/6th of what peak demand period would be. Curious, isn't it?) Since I have solar and no battery, I've ignored it. But EVs are not going to "bring the grid down" anytime soon. They want me to charge in the dead of night. 2way EVs that can supply energy to the grid would in fact be a huge solution, but we won't be there for a long time, since that would require a smart grid. But the 66 kilowatt hour battery in the Bolt could run my house for 3-5 days. EVs are not "the problem." I know Exxon wants you to believe this and want you to shake in fear. But why would you live in fear? EVs are about as dangerous as a booger.
