That is true, but ONLY for densely populated areas like the central parts of western Europe. The USA is however NOT densely populated, so the relatively low cost highway system have served the country well. And with new technology like self driving electric vehicles it will be an asset in the future too.
What is needed though is heavy investment in modern clean electric production, like nuclear and solar cells. Oil/gas/coal just won’t cut in the future.
Nuclear is far too expensive. Solar and wind have now destroyed it in cost.
Someone made the argument that a carbon tax would actually make nuclear attractive since the CO2 offset credits it generates would add to its bottom line and make it profitable. So ironically republicans have done us a favour because as plants retire no one will be willing to pay to replace them since the economics are underwater.
And of course cheap Nuclear Fusion power has been ‘just around the corner’ for 50+ years now. We have spent billions trying to develop it, but a commercial system is still decades away as far as I can tell. I expect we will see renewables rendering fusion uncompetitive long before there is a commercially viable fusion based energy system. If we had invested half as much money in Solar as we have in Fusion, solar would have a much larger ‘footprint’ than it has today.
In 2013 a 5 year test began using Thorium-MOX in a conventional nuclear power plant. This is the article I found. Pretty nifty. Normally a fission reactor is supplied with enriched uranium and has very nasty plutonium as a by product. Thorium-MOX has 10% plutonium and very little waste so it actually uses up the waste from early generation reactors. Lockheed Martin Skunk Works is working on a Compact fusion reactor. “New fusion reactor” search leads to more articles on this.
I wish solar would be more ubiquitous but among other reasons (grid etc…) cost is still not an avantage compared to nuclear in a lot of places.
The breakdown for Sweden (2015) is a bit different:
47% Hydro
34% Nuclear
11% Wind
8% CHP/Thermal (oil/gas)
Hydro is obviously the cheapest way to produce electricity, but nuclear isn’t too bad either (our reactors where built in the ’70-ies, today they would be expensive to build).
Wind is the “cuckoo in the nest”, can’t carry it’s costs without subsidies when compared to hydro and nuclear (the subsidies are taken from hydro and nuclear).
CHP is horribly expensive (compared to the other types).
We are dependant on cheap energy for our standard of living in Sweden, it’s dark and cold this far north.
“Serious nuclear power plant accidents include the Fukushima Daiichi nuclear disaster (2011), Chernobyl disaster (1986), Three Mile Island accident (1979), and the SL-1 accident (1961).”
Until the serious problems of nuclear energy by-products are fully solved, nuclear energy is not a viable solution. 
“Scientists: Earth Endangered by New Strain of Fact-Resistant Humans”
Your data is years out of date, here is an article from today
and a couple more
+1
Western European insurance companies are calling for fossil fuels to be kept in the ground to prevent unsustainable loses to be paid from Climate Change.
U.S. insurance companies have an additional problem in that they are heavily invested in the fossil fuel industry.
Regrettably:
That page also debunked as a myth the story that rapidly moving ICBMs on trailers, to enable retaliation after a nuclear first strike, was part of the design spec.
More on that here:
That was all before multiple independent steerable reentry warheads and smaller lighter stronger H-bombs. I recall a caller to a talk show, a few years back, saying that he was one of the launch control guys under that mountain in Colorado at the peak of the cold war and “we target time zones, not cities” or words to that effect.
I sure hope we stay smarter than we were in the 1950s and 1960s ….
The Military Industrial Complex which today would include Silicon Valley with its connection to ‘Smart Weapons’ and its ties to the Nation Security Agency has always used national security to boost profits.
The argument to build highways for a defense from nuclear attack was the ticket for profit using fear as its reasoning.
We are currently in the Holocene Extinction, the Earth’s Sixth, and some still seem to argue that we arrived at this situation from sound policy.
Yeah, I’ve been hoping the IWW is learning Chinese …
Pride and attribution in workmanship helps toward solving a lot of quality control problems — here, there, everywhere.
summary article
The IWW which began in 1905 and flowered with Big Bill Haywood was soon to fade away. I am, however, still a member.
The IWW was certainly a sound concept with labor being world wide issue and the IWW tried to argue against racism.
In the U.S.today Union Labor is just 11%. I am 72 years old and worked four four different unions and currently receive a Union Pension which is on the verge of being bankrupt. If I was to begin work today as a young person, I could not reach the good fortune I do have now.
+1
What I don’t understand is why GM doesn’t make EV:s that can be fast charged and set up their own chain of “SuperChargers”. That would put the range anxiety to rest. Or are they maybe not really serious about EV:s?…
see number 7
The Chevy Bolt should compete with the model S in both range and price.
But without “SuperChargers” it’s not a viable alternative to any Tesla (as a single/primary car)!