the strategy you outline here, mainly based on Wind, seems to me to have serious problems.

I'm saying wind alone can go a long way towards fulfilling that goal. I underlined that other items would be part of the solution, starting with solar.

But I disagree with your "serious problems":

Transport will become a much more pressing issue than Electricity generation in the US (well at least as long as a serious shortage of Natural Gas doesn't unfold). And will inevitably impose an increasing demand on the electric grid, that will not only represent a generation challenge but will also exacerbate the load balancing issue (people travel at the same time).

Yes, but how is this a problem for changing how electricity is generated? This is a "we can't walk and chew gum at the same time" argument.

Of course we're going to need to do somethign about transport, and yes, electricity will be part fo the solution. But who says we can't do more? I just said that 800GW of wind is possible. If it needs to be 1500GW, then we'll do that.

And note that electric cars will go a loooooooooong way towards solving intermittency issues given the distributed storage capacity they will provide.

You underplay the load balancing issues with the observation that the large extent of the US mainland is subject to different wind regimes, which is indeed backed up the reports you provide. But  these reports were written with Wind having a small margin of the generation market, what will happen when Wind reaches, or even goes beyond 50% of the installed capacity? Will it work the same way?

Well, I think I tried to asnwer that above. Current studies show that the problem is manageable. And, if, as you say, we don't know how to go above 50%, isn't that a sign that we can - and thus should - go to 50% pronto?

In the long run, we're all dead. John Maynard Keynes