"I think it was Felmy who said that even if we make a large scale move to hybrids or electric vehicles, 50% of the world's lithium reserves are in Bolivia. So we may end up trading Chavez for Evo Morales. I don't know; I think I would make that trade."

Since transportation in the US requires nearly 75% of the petroleum products consumed by the economy, the need for reduced gasoline use is imperative. The problem for electric or PHEV is not just that Bolivia (and Chile) have such a huge amount of the "economically recoverable" lithium reserves. A similar problem will be to get enough Cobalt or Manganese for making the Lithium salts used in Lithium-ion batteries. At any rate I cannot see more than 10% of the world's soon to be 10 billion cars and light trucks using electric or hybrid powered if L-I batteries are used.

Better solution is to go with electric trains running on wind, solar, hydro and using pumped storage. These are likely energy resources in US west where sun shines and wind blows so much near mountainous areas. Travel across New Mexico, Colorado, Arizona, southern Utah, and west Texas and you can see great locations for such renewable energy and storage of the same.

Another problem with Li-ion cars is that, apart from being very heavy, the batteries spectacularly explode in the event of a fire (such as a car-crash). That's what I heard on the bbc yesterday at least. Some people in Japan are working on some other battery that supposedly will be a lot less heavy and explosive. Sorry I can't remember details but the UK health authorities still work to the "scientific consensus" that I'm not really being poisoned by the mercury in my mouth.

Another problem with Li-ion cars is that, apart from being very heavy, the batteries spectacularly explode in the event of a fire (such as a car-crash).

Keep in mind that gasoline cars have a well-documented history of explosion risk. It's not all that clear why batteries would be more dangerous than gallons of gasoline. The amount of energy involved is far lower (a fully-charged EV battery has 50kWh, which is the energy equivalent of just 1.5 gallons of gasoline), and it should be much simpler to engineer safety systems around non-moving solid objects than around a constantly-circulating fluid.

You're making a claim that you don't have nearly enough evidence to back up. You're stating as fact something that has never actually happened. Moreover, you're thinking of thermal runaway, which has caused some laptop batteries to burst into flames. That's got nothing to do with external shock (like a car crash), and is generally a problem with faulty manufacturing rather than external heat.

EDIT: it seems like the battery chemistries which are being considered for the Volt are intrinsically safer, and material properties (such as cells that tear rather than exploding under pressure) are being used to lower risk.

I think the informal law of unintended consequences always remains a consideration. Someone has to point out potential risks otherwise they might not get considered. A designer might add something to the the electro-chemistry to make it more safe but then it might not be as efficient. These are all things that go into optimization trade-offs.