It really was very achievable, the main reason we didn't was we had a bunch of people spreading lies about it for 100 years or so.
We could have traditioned our grids off of fossil fuels but we also depend on them for fertilizer to feed the world and for transportation which, until very recently, didn't have a viable alternative.
The fertilizer thing is a perfect example. We don't need to extract, refine, and burn nearly as much fuel as we do to get the fertilizer we need. People make the same empty argument about the cheap plastic shit that dominates the economy as if the world didn't exist before cheap plastic shit and couldn't exist after.
To be fair to past humans the deliberate lies and misinformation didn't really start until the 1970s, the oil crisis of that decade, the coming together of the UN to recognise the issue following the geophysics papers of the 1960s that nailed the CO2 problem against oil consumption, etc.
That's the period in which Koch money started flowing to think tanks and agencies that spun hard against smaller cars, public transport, integrated rail in cities, etc. The push for bigger cars as freedom.
Arrhenius' 1896 Model of the Greenhouse Effect didn't exactly have enough bite to kick of anti-prop in 1926, the world had other pressing issues.
Also worth noting that Three Mile Island was an earlier stain on public perception that kicked in a power station slow down well before Chernobyl.
Regarding the nuclear FUD, I'm not backing down. We'll never know how much the fear of nuclear was grassroots and how much was turf, but we can know for sure that someone didn't want Americans to have energy independence.
Didn't help that nukes didn't make good civil engineering tools or help conquer space by farting out tiny bombs.
Even Carl Sagan was pushing the nuclear should not be used primal back brain reaction by over hyping (?) nuclear winter for a disarmament argument.
The world is a lot bigger than the US and they've all followed pretty much the same trajectory the last two decades. A slow long term investment in R&D/manufacturing techniques, followed by increased adoption when it became economically competitive. Combined with varying levels of government incentives and measured regulation, to ease transitions so it doesn't destroy the economy which we still depend on for everything else.
These major shifts always happen slowly then start exponentially growing once it's demonstrated to be practical.
China won there because they can build things, they are also built 60+ nuclear reactors over the past decade. That's the main difference between them and the west. It's not a lack of government grants for green R&D.
They made renewable energy affordable for both themselves and others... by allowing industry to operate efficiently and affordably.
Tesla couldn't build a Lithium Battery plant in California for their electric cars because made it impossible via environmental air regulations. But now the west is benefiting from Chinese production.
105m range on nimh which rapidly degrades isn't a fully viable car and a maximum of 1000 people "loved" it considering that's all they made.
GM is in business to make money. They didn't cancel a car that was a viable product.
To pick one example: Once Studebaker decided to branch into self-going car territory, they were selling electric cars[1] nearly a century before GM's EV-1 project started delivering vehicles.
They were reasonably-reliable and they plugged into an outlet at home to recharge. Easy-peasy. But the range sucked: 40 miles is useful, but is just not very good for a lot of things that don't require any imagination to realize.
They did a lot better selling gas-fired cars than they did plug-in electric models[2], and this happened without requiring political conspiracy.
Anyway, it's 2026 and the range problem is solved well-enough for many folks. :)
[1]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Studebaker_Electric
[2]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Studebaker#End_of_horse-drawn_...
I can think of a lot of countries where it wasn't a factor, maybe because if you are a rational economic actor trying to decide to throw money and messing with what people believe you can concentrate on just the biggest country that everybody does what it says. I mean what would be the point in convincing a large part of the Danish population that climate change wasn't real? It seems like it would be inefficient.
on edit: rational in this context is just using money in a way that maximizes the result one gets while minimizing the expenditure, in case anyone was getting ready with a clever rebuttal.
But if trusted leadership told everyone that we were roasting the planet instead of telling them we weren't and that roasting the planet is un-American, you can bet your sweet ass we'd have some green and nuclear energy going by now.