No, because prices are set by supply and demand, not the total social cost/benefit that obtains when all effects, direct and indirect, are taken into account.
It is the discrepancy between market equilibria and total social cost/benefit that creates the theory of externalities. But my point is that actually determining social cost/benefit requires very extensive knowledge of all the social benefits and costs provided by something. For example, if you were to ask me what the positive externalities of clean drinking water are, I'd say they are enormous. But I couldn't really give you a number, and if anyone tries to give you a number, they are lying. But that is why I support subsidizing access to clean drinking water, rather than letting the market sort it out. It's just too valuable.
When we are talking about things like energy or transportation, they generally have enormous positive externalities, which is why they are historically subsidized. For example, even if you never use a road, you benefit from the stores you buy from having access to roads so that goods can be delivered to them more cheaply. But it's even more subtle, because cheaper transportation means bigger markets. One of the reasons why local businesses historically opposed the construction of roads is that it would force them to compete with other businesses along the same road. If most people had to walk, then they get a captive market. As soon as you introduce roads, prices come down, and quality increases because lots of little monopolies are destroyed.
So even if you never leave your house and only shop locally, you are getting huge financial benefits from cheap transportation. Thus there is a positive externality. This is why we don't mind that trucks cause most of the damage to roads but don't "pay their fair share" of road maintenance costs. It's because those trucks create enormous positive externalities by making all the goods we buy much cheaper, even if we ourselves never hire a truck. This is also why many nations subsidize railroads, bridges, roads, etc. The internet also has this aspect of enormous positive externalities. And when you are talking about energy -- it's the basis of modern civilization. Again, if you never use any energy yourself except wood that you chop down, you benefit from all the others who provide you with services having access to energy.
Now I'm not saying that natural gas only has positive externalities and that there are no negative externalities. What I'm saying is that no one can tell you what the net is, because these are things foundational to our economy and have profound effects on everything else.
So I would not try to use the logic of externalities when talking about these foundational technologies. Externalities makes sense if you are using a lawnmower and it annoys your neighbors, so you let them bid on how much you need to pay them in order to keep using the lawnmower. In very simple models, it makes sense. In the real world, it almost never makes sense, and ends up being a type of economic smokescreen for what is basically politics choosing winners and losers based on arbitrary or cherry picked criteria.
So my recommendation is to not try to use "externalities" as a justification. Here's what I would argue, for example, when I am dictator. We want to transition to nuclear power and away from natural gas. So let's tax natural gas and use the money to pay for nuclear power so that it becomes cost competitive with natural gas, and then let's reserve natural gas for things nuclear can't do for us -- such as creating fertilizers. See what I did there? I made my actual motivation the main cause and didn't invoke any economic theory of externalities. Because overall goals should not be slaves to economic models, but rather the economic models should be servants of the overall social goals. The economic model can tell you how much to tax natural gas so that nuclear becomes cost competitive. But whether to decide to switch away from one source to another requires wisdom rather than brute force calculation of all outcomes -- there is no economic model that can spit out the answer. We should not give economists that type of power.