+1 -- this is what frustrates me most about the faux-greenies (and the complete pass they get from the MSM and acadamia). They call us "deniers" and say that we are to stupid to understand the science when, in fact, it's their proposed uber-costly non-solutions that are truly stupid and should be denied!
Agree with your "exit strategy" angle as a possible hidden agenda for Musky McMuskface, but not the rest. Solar panels don't grow on trees, nor do they install and maintain themselves. They are totally dependent on mine-and-burn, and actually (needlessly) increase our mine-and-burn activity.
“to help expedite the move from a mine-and-burn hydrocarbon economy towards a solar electric economy"
And he's actually done the exact opposite of that because crony-crapitalism only forces others to do even more mine-and-burn to generate the $s to prop up the more inefficient solar electric economy. When something IS truly more efficient, our civilization adopts it immediately. Crony-crapitalism is NOT progress!
No argument at all - Tesla is still the tallest midget crony-crapitalist in the room!
More importantly, the article completely ignores price. The real conclusion is that if taxpayers get hosed for a bunch of $s, and the original owner is willing to take a huge $ depreciation (i.e., sell cheap), there is a reasonable demand for very inexpensive EVs -- which has always been true. The trick is making a profit when manufacturing/selling inexpensive EVs without getting a boatload of other people's money for free -- i.e., doing it without crony-crapitalism.
Don't completely disagree with your post (and got a chuckle out of it ;)), but the Google approach is no practical solution either -- having a bunch of Googlemobiles slowly creeping along and clogging up my commute won't be a plus.
I wouldn't use the term "dumb", but it requires such a uniform and predictable environment that the cost/complexity to provide that on all roads and under all conditions everywhere far, far outweighs the benefit. It works for airplanes because those do operate in a uniform and predictable environment that doesn't cost a huge amount of $s to provide (i.e., no other airplanes around, no hard objects nearby to hit, etc.).
The truly nutty thing is that even if we do that thru forced gov't mandates, it does absolutely nothing for reducing our civilization's fossil fuel use -- in fact, it increases our overall fossil fuel use (just shifts it to different parts of the overall process). There is no such thing a "renewable" energy.
Maybe more (if ever). It's a bit like the flying car - we can do that now, but the cost vs complexity vs real world usefulness is just out of whack. Maybe for long-haul trucking (in uncomplicated traffic situations) it could make sense some day, but for a ten minute car trip = no worth the cost hassle.