>2: The US government bonds aren't very high interest rate.

Currently US government bonds have a low interest rate. However, we also would be doubling our debt on this plan, and inflation expectations have been ticking up. Furthermore, such desperation for energy independence might be looked down on by international investors who already view the actions of the US government as reckless. What might the US be planning in the Middle East that they need to take such rash actions to get off of oil for?

All these factors could swing interest rates higher.

> 4: The government

Administrative costs by the government will be non-zero.

>8: Because this type of thing requires strong government authoritarianism.

Actually, I just don't think the technology is there yet. If scale production was the only obstacle in the way of the electric car right now, then it would require an investment in the $1 billion magnitude to start up efficient production, something within the reach of modern car companies. Economical, comfortable, useful, and safe electric cars are not available with modern battery technology. As soon as the technology is ready to make an attractive electric car, I expect to see consumers converting to them voluntarily and at-scale in the free market.

Now if we want to force everybody to convert to an inferior and immature product right away, then we do need strong government authoritarianism, yes.

"The coal lobby would be in favor of a plan like this, they are itching to start burning all the extra coal we have in the USA."

I'm surprised the Republicans have not jumped all over this.

This could give them a card to play in the energy independence debate. There's a lot of coal in some so-called swing states, and coal miners and their friends and neighbors are part of the demographic that have been voting Republican on "social" issues but are now swinging Democratic on "Bush is utterly incompetent" issues. Proposing a program to transition the country to coal powered electric cars would go over well with this group.

To the rest of the country, it could be sold as more pragmatic than trying to generate all our energy from solar and wind in the near term, while still offering a path to energy independence. They could play up arguments about how coal generated electricity is already less carbon emitting than the gasoline engines in autos.

This might not be as easy a position to take for Democrats, because the staunch environmentalists on their side may not be happy about increased coal burning.

Apparently the consumers aren't so eager to invest in this. It's a chicken and egg problem on many levels:

- To be able to finance this you need the money you pay for oil. To use those money you already need the solution.

- To have many electric cars on the streets means you need the distribution system (ie gas stations). To finance the new electric stations you need enough cars on the road.

- To get the consumers to buy electric cars they need to have lower prices and better autonomy. To get to lower prices and better autonomy you need economies of scale and a few generations of cars to develop the technology.

This chicken&egg problem it's specific to this. Pretty much any successful entrepreneur just found a way to solve one in his domain. If nobody invested money and time in this it just means there are better ways to invest - i.e. it's time hasn't come yet. When it will, you'll see people coming with the money.

And about forcing the government to invest into a venture private capital doesn't dare enter yet it's ... not a good idea. This rarely works, and only for some special cases. Remember the government is always less efficient then private capital, so there'd better be a good reason to succed where free market failed.