Those sound like credible numbers. And since they are, something clearly needs to be done. Something like what this very article discusses.

No kidding. They'll tax the hell out of electricity to make up for lost gasoline taxes...nothing is free...

So, a little thought experiment, because this is about solar.

I buy some solar panels, or they're built into my car. From there, I never use your electricity, I use my electricity. And, if I own the solar infrastructure, the energy is free, give or take my investment and maintenance costs.

So either you're going to heavily tax the solar panels under the guise that it denies you the opportunity to tax me later. Or you're going to tax me on the basis that I have solar power, which denies you the opportunity to tax me.

If you start taxing people on the basis of things they're not doing, or for failure to consume those things from a company which charges you ... then the MPAA is going to insist on taxing me based on the movies I don't see, because after all, I'm clearly the reason your movie didn't make any money, because I didn't pay to see it. And McDonald's will want to tax me for all their crappy food I don't eat. The Saudi's will insist I be taxed because I'm not using oil, so I'm depriving them of revenue.

I just don't see your system working. If I have a stand-alone solar array, and I charge my car with it using none of your resources -- on what basis do you think you can tax me? Because you feel entitled to it?

If we reach a point where people can charge their own cars with their own solar panels, suddenly there is free energy, and nothing on which to tax people, and no revenue for companies.

Which is why many people believe the energy companies will actively prevent this from happening.

or standing too close to it.

This sounds like crap. What we need to do is reduce the need for energy. We need to look at the times in which we are running out of power and figure out how we can reduce consumption of power during these times. This might be as simple are upgrading air conditioning units to newer more efficient models in more places, shutting off air conditioning in largely unoccupied buildings (such as office buildings during the night and houses during the day), not utilising washers, dryers, and other energy demanding appliances, etc.

My 'perfect' carbon neutral electricity source is 40% nuclear, 20% solar, 20% wind, and 20% hydro/geo/other.

20% solar is a 'perfect' fit for the average 50% increase in power demand during the day. 1.5(day) + 1(night) = 2.5 * 20% = .5. 40% nuclear gives you a good amount of stability, while the 20% wind doesn't make you strain too much if power demand happens to increase when the wind isn't blowing ideally. The remaining 20% is for peaking capability(which hydro is good at), and niche electrical providers where they're just the best answer for that spot.

Best yet, since you have a variety of sources, you're nicely diversified and not likely to be as screwed by unusual situations.

I suppose the other 50% will be petrol or diesel powered. Will these fuels be affordable in 2032?

Am I the only one whose first thought after reading the summary was - "man, that's a ton of greenhouse gas emissions and wasted fossil fuel for a joyride"?