A lot of your cost analysis is dependent on subsidies — your car was subsidized by my taxes as is your solar system. If you are on net metering, your electricity is subsidized by your neighbors. So as long as the subsidy unicorn keeps stealing money from the taxpayers to pay for your electric lifestyle, you are just fine.

But, your 11 cents per kWh will go up a lot if the grid shifts to more renewable, and even if it shifts to nuclear unless we do something about the huge capital cost of nuclear.

And, as for batteries getting less expensive — we are not talking about a Moore’s Law sort of technology here. There are no fundamental physics saying that batteries should continue to get better at a rapid rate, and in fact, the rate of improvement in batteries is far less than for many other technologies. But… still… it may be that the high cost of batteries in electric vehicles may be offset by the low cost of the power train, and the lower costs of maintenance. Citing subsidized prices is hardly a way to show that.

As far as reducing emissions — if the US went to net zero, the total impact on world temperatures by 2001, using the (flawed, of course) models of the IPCC, is only .1C. It is hardly worth beggaring our economy, mostly at the expense of the working class and poor, for that level of hypothesized savings.

I have also read Lomborg. He may not be perfect, but he does a good job of demolishing a lot of the nonsense that is being spread. And of course his institute takes money from companies — governments these days refuse to fund any research that goes against their rosy “alternative energy” narrative. So again, you attack him by implying that he is lying due to his funding, which I find to be a low tactic.