[Solecismic]

My concern with the MIT source is that it's a group dedicated to net zero. Just because there's a prestigious university behind an analysis piece doesn't make it unbiased. In fact, the university climate these days... no one who isn't dedicated to the cause would be allowed to enter the field. Only existing tenured faculty may not agree, and they are under a lot of pressure.

The 250 million... never heard even close to that elsewhere. The goal, I thought, was 20 million by 2030. But that would require an investment of about $5,000 per EV in new technology just to upgrade the grid. Who pays? The taxpayers - again to support the wealthy.

However, plans to upgrade the grid often add instability. The grid needs to work even on its worst day. As this takes place, the number of power outages increases and the cost of electricity skyrockets.

I'll also note that the MIT plan, and others that get to 20 million (all I've found is from groups that in their mission statement indicate that bias - I'm not OK with that - they're the ones demanding this expensive transformation) talk about ideal charging situations. You will not be able to charge whenever you need a charge.

In addition, many of these plans refer to off-loading, when your EV battery is essentially added to the grid when that power is needed elsewhere. Again, you will not be able to use your EV whenever you want. And if it's being off-loaded, that can decrease the life of the battery considerably. People will not want to do that, and they may not have a choice.

Ultimately, this is going to be very expensive - personal transportation may no longer be an option for poor people - which might make upward mobility very difficult in many areas. And it's going to involve a lot more government control over our daily lives. Most of all, it's going to put billions of people into energy poverty, when reliable energy is what has fueled the incredible increase in our quality of life over the last 100 years.

Ask yourself if it's worth it.