Perhaps the BEST B1G Forum anywhere, here at College Football Fan Site, CFB51!!!

There is some correlation between EV sales and renewable generation in that locale. On that list alone, the only exceptions to that are Atlanta, Detroit, and DC, while West Coast gets a substantial amount of its electricity from hydro, wind, and solar.

For the record, coal has already fallen below natural gas as the main source of electricity: https://www.eia.gov/tools/faqs/faq.php?id=427&t=3.
Furthermore, the most coal-dependent states are the most rural (where there are few EVs): https://www.eia.gov/todayinenergy/detail.php?id=37034

Nuclear has a lot of problems, which is why there are have been very few nuclear plants built in the past 30 years, with Georgia's being the last one still under construction, and many are retiring along with coal plants.

- Upfront costs, which are very high and often underestimated (Georgia's plant being a prime example). They're also not cost effective if they don't have really high generation capacity, though there is R&D being done to commercialize smaller-scale systems.
- Operation and maintenance costs are also fairly substantial
- Inflexibility in generation output. Nuclear is basically on or off, and it's expensive to turn on and off (usually only done once per year for maintenance as I understand it). Apparently France's plants have some flexibility for some reason, but that isn't the case in the US. Consequently, they can only be used as baseload plants so they have to be cost-effective enough to ensure that they will be cheap enough to dispatch at the lowest-demand hours (ie. middle of the night)..... This becomes increasingly problematic with the growth of renewables (which have no generation costs and their output cannot be controlled without energy storage infrastructure)
- Wholesale electricity markets (PJM, NYISO, ERCOT, ISONE, etc.) have provided competition allowing independent generators to compete to improve the cost-effectiveness and reliability of electricity. These markets only exist in the Northeast, Midwest, Texas, and California, but those states are where most of the nuclear plants are being retired as a result.... Conversely, the Southeast states, including Georgia, still have a traditional system where utilities monopolize generation, in addition to transmission, distribution, and energy sales.... That said, some states (IL and NY primarily) do subsidize nuclear with what they call zero emission credits as part of their renewable (or more accurately in this case, zero-carbon) portfolio standards. Other states are considering similar policies to prevent their nuclear plants from retiring early.

This article explains this and some other issues better: https://theconversation.com/the-demise-of-us-nuclear-power-in-4-charts-98817

Solar is most cost effective in the West, particularly California, where electricity prices are higher and solar generation potential is higher (more sunny days). Ohio has relatively cheap electricity because it is part of PJM and the solar generation potential isn't so great. Regardless of where you live, energy efficiency investments are more cost-effective, too (smart thermostat, LED lighting, EnergyStar appliances).

Furthermore, solar is most cost effective for utility-scale systems due to economies of scale. Commercial-scale systems (those on land fills, roofs of schools / warehouses / etc.) are increasingly cost-effective, as well, especially in community solar programs (where entities can subscribe to the system, even if their building is elsewhere)..... Also, non-residential buildings have more complex electricity bills. Instead of just a flat rate, they have peak demand charges (a charge based on their highest level of energy usage) and often have time-of-use rates, which fluctuate in real-time based on the wholesale cost of electricity. These facilities can actually take advantage of these complexities to lower their overall price per kWh if they utilize their energy management systems and on-site generators appropriately, in which case they can even be compensated by the independent system operator of the wholesale market (eg. PJM) to help keep the grid balanced.

Solar is cost-effective for residential systems in many areas, as well, but a big issue, especially in Southern states, are rules against leasing them (which was SolarCity's model before Tesla took it over) so that the company owns the system and takes a percentage of electricity generated, eliminating the up-front costs. My understanding is that there are similar restrictions against financing (so that the customer owns the system but took a loan to do so). Permitting requirements and regulations are also a big challenge, not to mention many roofs don't get enough solar exposure or don't face sufficiently south or westward.

**(A nice benefit is that these standard recharges are so far 100% free of cost. And Musk has multiply promised to never change that. So, if you go on one of these road trips now, or wait until years from now and believe him, you can travel from NYC to Los Angeles without paying for gas. That's mighty nice.)

I find that if you tally Musk's realized claims in one hand and his bulljive claims in another, you won't be happy about which one fills up first. 
And saying "oh, just schedule it around a lunch stop" or something like that is the equivalent of saying "oh, take Amtrak, it's so romantic to ride the rails!"
Next weekend the wife and I are going to Sonoma. Rather than fight traffic through / out of LA on a Friday [which is hell], have to stop midway and get a hotel, we'd rather just start first thing in the morning. But we want to get there and still have time for wineries. Scheduling an extra 30-60 minutes into our drive time--and hoping the only Supercharger station in the right range to get us there with a single stop [247 miles from home, on a 450 mile journey] isn't busy or have a line on a Saturday morning, kinda makes our journey duration... unpredictable. 
Not much of an issue with a 5 minute gas stop. 
Now, I realize that's not the most common problem. Most people who can afford Tesla vehicles have another vehicle in their household--or enough money to rent cars for those infrequent road trips. So most people have access to a secondary vehicle to use for the journeys that the Tesla isn't well suited for.
BUT, this is one of the key reasons why electrics will have trouble completely replacing combustion engines. The need to change your refueling/recharging stop from 5 minutes to 30-60 minutes (or more if there's a wait) makes the vehicle impractical for a lot of drivers--at least as their only household vehicle. 

I calculated a negative net future value on solar.  I was better off buying T bills.

I'm not going to make it to Barcelona

sure as heck ain't goin to Mars

Getting to Mars is considerably tougher than getting to the Moon, one reason being radiation exposure.  I have not seen a viable solution to that one as yet.  It probably would be a one way trip.  

Anyway, the climate change is a fairly simple calculation (sort of).  We have a pretty good handle on how many gigatons of CO2 are generated each year.  We know roughly how much is "absorbed" by this and that.  We track very accurately the rate of CO2 increase in the atmosphere (station on Mauna Loa has been there a while).  We have various models projecting the increase in global T as a function of said increase.

Then we can eyeball how much realistic steps might reduce the RATE OF INCREASE.  Had we started in earnest in say 1990 we might have a shot.  Today it's too late to do anything more than chisel a few tenths of a degree off the inevitable, if the models are right.

What I've seen of the ITER experiment in France is quite disappointing, a lot of internal strife and overruns.