Here's something nobody talks about (probably because this is a rule I came-up with after analyzing relevant factors): Our ability to rapidly expand renewa

Here's something nobody talks about (probably because this is a rule I came-up with after analyzing relevant factors): Our ability to rapidly expand renewable and nuclear energy generation is inversely proportional to the cost of oil. For the mathematically-challenged this mean: If oil is expensive we cannot afford to expand renewable or nuclear energy production fast enough to meet stated goals. Why? Because everything related to the manufacturing, transportation, construction, operation and maintenance of these power plant has the cost of oil as one of the important cost-driving variables. Normally people think "fuel" when they read "oil". Making this assumption would be very wrong. Yes, of course, the millions of trucks and cars needed to engage in construction projects at a national scale are all powered by gasoline or diesel. That is a major cost-driver, no doubt about that. However, there are untold numbers of oil derivative products --from lubricants to plastics-- that also come into the equation. This is where things turn weird and a second rule is necessary: In order to be able to support rapid transition to renewable energy sources and electric vehicles we have to support and demand ultra-low oil prices. At current oil prices, the US and Europe simply do not have enough money to fully electrify their entire transportation infrastructure. It is hard to run the numbers on something like this due to the element of time and complex geopolitical forces. My ROM (Rough Order of Magnitude) estimate is that the US would have to at least double it's foreign debt in order to be able to build the infrastructure required to be able to support 300 million electric cars (full electrification). We have to double our power generation capacity and also more than double our ability to transport it (the "grid"). That isn't trivial. We can barely get a high speed train built in California after a hundred billion dollars and now we are talking about doubling the entire power-generation infrastructure for the entire country. This is what is lost in conversations and politics that are ideologically-driven to such extremes that we end-up not being able to move forward. The third rule would be: We have to have a plan and solid execution. The above makes no sense unless we have a solid plan and execute better than our dismal record for the last several decades. I refer, one more time, to the ridiculous high speed train project in California. Such performance should result in people losing their jobs and maybe even some suffering legal consequences. Yet, that never seems to happen. If that's the best we can to, forget about it. We can't build anything at scale any more. Just look at how many problems Tesla is having just to build battery factories in the US and Germany as an example. Now multiply that by, I don't know, a million, to get a sense of how much better we have to be about these things. To simplify: We need a solid 25-year plan to migrate to renewables and nuclear at scale. Specific project with specific timelines and realistic objectives. During that time, we need super-cheap fuel and derivative products in order to be able to pay for the migration. More importantly, we need to develop and enforce a culture of solid execution, without which we might as well give up. In my opinion, without this the dream of migration to a clean electric-powered future within our lifetimes is a fantasy. Oh yeah, last rule: No, solar alone can't do it. We need nuclear. Lots of it.