Those are nice local wins, but: "Buses, 2- and 3-wheel vehicles, and rail accounted for 6% of total world transportation energy use." Nonetheless, even if everything in transport switched to electricity powered the fundamental problem still remains: how are we going to get all the batteries for that, as well as everything else we'd require batteries for too? How are these countries going to be more energy independent with renewables exactly? - it all boils down to money, unless we're talking infinite timespan. So whether they spend money on oil & gas & coal, or on other resources required to switch to renewables, it's all about the green either way. And why would the switch to renewables (I'm assuming you're proposing) drive massive economic growth, when economic growth and development is so intrinsically linked to energy density & price, in which case renewables flat out lose in every single case, with the exception of hydro/geoth which I'm ignoring because those are all already tapped out & geographically limited anyway. Google's project solar is just wishful thinking, falling prey to the old "in theory, theory and practice are the same, in practice, they aren't", meaning they're using numbers to help them make their case but if adjusted to reality and the issues that naturally arise in the real world, the whole calculation gets thrown off. Hence it's still much cheaper to stay connected to the grid and buy your energy that way than invest in solar for your home. A big problem with having this wide-scale adoption of solar, even if just for residential, is you still have major issues with base load. Here demonstrated for brevity with a picture: The gripes against Solar come from contact with reality. At wide scale it's not possible (not economically, but simply) to adopt it - issues with base load, storage, variability etc. To say auto OEMs are lazy is to underestimate how cutthroat that business is, it's simply not possible to be lazy & still alive, and since you mentioned Telsa hear it from the man himself. And no, solar power today isn't "cheaper", nor cleaner than Nuclear. And if not for nuclear & others propping it up, since it's at such low deployment levels, the costs would be much, much higher (5x at best), and in fact progress mostly stalled now for both Wind & Solar, so anyone expecting huge drops in prices or gains in efficiency is going to be waiting for Godot. But a very common sense test would be to look at Germany. No one has pushed Solar harder than this country and yet, what do they have to show for $222 BILLION of investment? Barely 6% of its energy comes from solar. Now let's think about this for a second, how many countries in the world are on the level of Germany and can afford to pay $222 Billion to have 6% of its energy come from solar too (adjust for proportion accordingly)? Think also of the opportunity cost, because $222B would buy you a LOT of nuclear power (and not only) & could've helped bring fusion to reality (or much closer to). Now THAT's something worth looking at, and truly revolutionary. Solar is not that.