You talk about charging your car during off-peak hours. Most of the generating capacity in this country is coal fueled, and those plants take time to make any changes in output based on demand. Peak demand generation is typically done by other types of energy generation plants that are relatively quick to start up or ramp up output in a matter of minutes and not hours, natural gas and nuclear are two that are common. The trouble is “peak” power costs more to produce. Most of the time the energy companies and traders don’t make you pay more for electricity based on peak usage but simply a flat rate that is supposed to take into account the overall cost of providing the energy. If so-called peak usage changes, or we eliminate peak usage because we are running our air conditioning all day and charging our cars all night, then it would require more long term investment in energy production and delivery as demand has simply increased during off-peak hours to where now it’s more of a flat usage band across the day, just for different reasons at difference times.

And you are right about the tax structure changing along with it. So essentially what will happen is we will all pay some form of energy tax that covers the cost of developing new sources of generating capacity, as well as road-use or milage or wheel taxes or simply much of the nations roadways being converted to toll roads to cover the cost of maintaining the road infrastructure. This idea had already been put on the table two years ago in Seattle where officials worried about the sudden influx of high-milage hybrids and other compact cars was going to cause a reduction in fuel taxes and could ultimately impact the governments ability to maintain the roads. Ideas such as a mileage meter that would transmit you usage data to receivers either along or under the roadway and you would get a monthly bill to pay for the amount of miles you used. I found this whole thing ironic because one branch of the government was going to subsidize green cars and another was going to penalize you for them. Another unintended consequense will be a rise in the cost of paying your residential energy bill. This could have dire consequences for many families living at or below the poverty level, or require yet another government subsidy so that those so effected can keep the lights and heat on in the winter.

No one has yet mentioned that because the hybrid or electric cars generally are smaller and weigh less, they would actually cause less wear and tear on the roadways than existing gas-guzzlers. Also on that note, an over the road semi causes 200 times more damage to the road than a typical family car. The logic would be to further up the taxes on large trucks, but that won’t happen because the trucking companies, teamsters unions and all retailers would scream from every mountaintop about putting people out of work and pricing consumer goods out of reach.

There is no such thing as a free lunch. Everything has to be paid for, and everything has it’s negative consquences.

So the problems are not just technical, They are political and economic as well. As I said, electric cars may be the future, but I wouldn’t count on it anytime soon. If they really are a better idea, the market economy free from government meddling should prove that out.

I agree with you that the market, not the government should decide what light bulbs we use and what cars we drive, and what source is used to provide electricity to our homes. But the Chevy volt is clearly NOT an example of that happening. It’s the worst kind of government meddling in that it is entirely agenda driven and has nothing to do with whats fair, right, or smart.