This is a rough-cut proposal.

I'm rather surprised you would say this. The article is much more detailed that any of your positions on wind power, so let's not attempt to 'poison the well'.

Is there any chance North America would have funds (and resources of other types) to pay for something like this?

I seen no evidence that there is no chance NA would have the funds to pay for something like this. Different mixes of solar, geothermal, etc. would be more likely than just the "50% from wind" hypothetical thesis (which the author acknowledged). Shades of likelihood would require deeper analysis.

If one is doing this, one would also need to develop electric cars, electric trucks, and electric equipment of all kinds. The cost of developing all of the technology for all of these vehicles, and then producing them, is likely to be very large as well.

The technology exists now, and many electric cars models will be coming off of assembly lines in the next couple of years. Of course, electric buses, subways, and trains (noting ammonia is another fuel alternative from renewable electricity sources) would be a better way to move large numbers of people.

Once all of the lines are in place, they would need to be maintained. They are subject to various kinds of problems. For example, wild fires underneath them can cause outages. Avalanches in areas subject to snow can also be problem.

Gail, you are quibbling by focusing on the outliers. Also, what is the basis for your knowledge of grid maintenance? On the other side of the coin, you have suggested that we would be firing coal power plants with coal miners with picks and mule-drawn carts, which I cannot bring myself to consider as a feasible scenario.

There are huge hurdles just to expanding the grid just in the USA.

There will be huge hurdles to doing anything to mitigate PO, but that doesn't mean we cast it in a purely negative light, waiting only for a perfect solution that will never arrive. As WWII started to unfold, the United States, Roosevelt said, was planning to produce 45,000 tanks, 60,000 planes, 20,000 anti-aircraft guns, and 6 million tons of merchant shipping.A number of industry leaders were shocked by this. Roosevelt said, "Let no man say 'it can't be done'". And guess what? The United States far exceeded the initial goal of 60,000 planes, turning out 229,600 aircraft, a fleet so vast it is hard even today to visualize it. Equally impressive, by the end of the war more than 5,000 ships were added to the 1,000 or so that made up the American Merchant Fleet in 1939.

You seem to have an attitude against renewable energy that is reflected in continual negative postings on the matter. I'm puzzled about how you acquired the basis for the perceptions you hold.

"There are huge hurdles just to expanding the grid just in the USA."

Why, is there a constant "drumbeat" on this blog for more, more, more? There is NO need to expand the grid. None at all. Why not work with what we have? Make it more reliable, make it more local. Make it less?

Wrong direction in building more. More waste, more carbon, more pollution, more dead people.

Is there any chance North America would have funds (and resources of other types) to pay for something like this?

$126B/yr is less than 1% of GDP. Why do you suggest that this will be unaffordable?

Moreover, it isn't even all "new" costs, as the USA already spends $40B/yr on coal and $50B/yr on natural gas as fuel for power plants, plus another $20-40B/yr on new generating capacity. Simply by subtracting out fuel costs (which average out to 50% of the final savings per year, assuming a linear buildout) and new generating capacity (to avoid double-counting), the projected price is down to $50B/yr, or about one-third of one percent of North American GDP.

In terms of other resources, the steel required is roughly 0.5% of world production, or about 2% of North American consumption.

It does not appear that cost is as large of an issue as you're suggesting.

Let us hear what you think.

Honestly? That you were unfairly dismissive - without any evidence to back up your opinion - and got unfairly personal and hostile when someone remarked on that. As the reader guidelines say:

3) When presenting an argument, cite supporting evidence and use logical reasoning.
4) Treat members of the community with civility and respect. If you see disrespectful behavior, report it to the staff rather than further inflaming the situation.
5) Ad hominem attacks are not acceptable. If you disagree with someone, refute their statements rather than insulting them.

Please, let's address the proposal and arguments regarding it, rather than our feelings about other posters.

"Clearly, if one were going this route, one would first have to put together a plan."

But, ramping up wind doesn't really have to wait for such a plan. The long-distance transmission won't be needed up front.

"Then one would have to get the buy-in of Canada and Mexico. "

Not really. The US accounts for 450 of the 550GW in North America. The US can forge ahead, and add Mexico and Canada as it goes.

"One would really need to know the routes of all of the transmission lines to do a reasonable cost estimate, I would guess. "

That would be desirable, but most of the cost here is the wind capacity.

"If one is doing this, one would also need to develop electric cars, electric trucks, and electric equipment of all kinds."

They're mostly here, especially the Chevy Volt. Don't forget, about 75% of transportation oil consumption is light vehicles.

"The cost of developing all of the technology for all of these vehicles, and then producing them, is likely to be very large as well."

Nah. The technology of electric motors and vehicles has been around for 100 years. GM made and sold thousands of multi-ton electric trucks from 1912-1918: they were displaced by dirt-cheap gasoline/diesel, but they can compete against $2.50 gallon fuel just fine.

The only thing that's new is better batteries, and batteries that are good enough are here already.

"One would need to change the regulatory framework, to make it easier to get transmission lines installed, for any chance of a transmission plan like this going through. "

That's already been done. The FERC has the authority to override local objections.

Existing electric transport technology:

Passenger:
(1) Electric Express HSR
(2) Electric Regional and Emerging HSR
(3) Electric conventional intercity rail
(4) Electric regional rail
(5) Electric mass transit rail
(6) Electric conventional light rail
(7) Electric Rapid Streetcars
(8) 30mph local electric cars
(9) Electric bikes

Freight:
(1) Electric Rapid Freight Rail
(2) Electric Conventional Freight Rail

That is existing technology spans all passenger transport needs to 600 miles, and most ground freight needs over 50 miles, so the claim that new technology is required in order to replace the majority of oil-fired transport would seem to first require ignoring existing technology. But if you ignore existing technology that can do something, you would always find that new technology is required.

The question on funding seems to assume that what is required to accomplish things is not actual resources, but rather a sufficient supply of permission slips.

So the answer to that question would be simply, "funding is not a serious concern", if we were able to rely entirely on domestic resources. However, there is a chicken and an egg question here, where there will be energy resources required to start the build out and it will take two or three years into the build out before it is self sufficient and then the following year when it is a surplus.

So the answer to the funding question is, funding is not a problem, provided we get started soon enough. If we wait too long, our structural dependence on oil will lead to an external account crisis, and once the US$ is no longer a hard currency, substantially more political will would be required to ration real energy resources available in order to get the system launched. OTOH, it would be a sacrifice for a well defined period, similar in length to the WWII period and with a far better defined end point, so it would still be feasible, if harder.