The investment to build railway tracks is huge, and the time required is also considerable. The Edgewater Alliant Energy Center I mentioned in my message above was decades old, originally fuelled by Eastern hard coals from barges that traversed the Great Lakes via the St. Lawrence Seaway system, before railway tracks were built for Western coals. Then additional decades passed before the natural gas main was constructed, in response to a "Clean Power Plan" from Obama. (Too bad that the totally inept politician Obama mandated the CPP via Executive Order, something that Trump could change with the stroke of a pen.)
Major capital investments such as railways and gas mains often exceed the cost of the power plant itself, which is one reason that the cost of power is complex and not correctly analyzed by relatively simple fuel cost vs. power pricing analysis. The same economics apply to other types of power plants including nuclear and renewables. However, nuclear power generation produces huge amounts of power for small amounts of fuel, which can be easily transported by road vehicles. Renewable plants still suffer from large capital costs to build, even more so if you want to use batteries to match intermittent sources such as wind and solar to baseline power requirements.
The figures are not good. When you compare renewable enegy generation including batteries to FF power generation, the renewable energy costs 12X to 15X as much as FF's.
It absolutely is possible to do, but the expense is prohibitive. Nor are the cost calculations simple to make. Which is why you see silly statements such as "renewable energy generation is cost competitive with FF's". Even if the generating cost is comparable, the total capital investment including batteries is prohibitive for renewable energy.
Hydropower is renewable, but does not suffer from intermittency issues that mandate batteries. In fact when you consider pumped storage, hydropower represents an energy storage battery on a massive scale suitable for a power grid. Which is why that unlike other renewables, hydropower is approaching 100% of the economical buildout - even though the environmental sacrifices for hydropower construction are huge, and the dangers of living below dams are also great.
Here is a simple litmus test for renewable energy in your area. Look at your monthly power bill. WHEN exactly would YOU prefer to see that bill in the range of 1200% to 1500% of the present total, to save the carbon emissions? What would that change do to your budget?
Obviously, with the number of AGW and CC fanboys we have here at peakoil.com, there will be some takers to the question I just asked. Equally obviously, if you believe that we MUST transition to renewable energy generation to save ourselves, the "infrastructure renewal" I have been talking about, where the cost of energy alone incents you to replace your house, replace your vehicles, and make lifestyle changes, makes more sense.
I have decided that it (long term) makes more sense to build a residence and to buy vehicles that do not depend on FF's to function. I am basing my decisions on the simple peak effects which will (eventually) result in very expensive FF's. How many of you AGW and CC fanboys are willing to sacrifice that much of your income even sooner than me because you believe that carbon emissions are that harmful?
The litmus test for that one is also simple. True believers in AGW/CC would have already changed their lifestyles and eliminated their dependance upon FF energy. Certainly we ALREADY HAVE the renewable generation and the lithium batteries to run your vehicles and residences from renewables, the only thing stopping you is the cost plus your willingness to voluntarily roll back on your lifestyle to match your beliefs.