Bezza,

You’re shifting the goalposts. The discussion wasn’t about whether everything could be done in 8 years flat - it was about whether the scale of moving materials, building infrastructure, and transitioning energy systems was inherently impossible. It's not. It's difficult, yes. But difficulty isn’t impossibility - unless you start from the assumption that failure is inevitable.

Your "pyramids" analogy just proves my point: large projects take long-term vision, effort, and persistence. They don’t happen overnight - but that doesn’t mean you don’t start.

Second, your "bulk vs package handling" complaint misses the real-world fact that construction projects already deal with high-volume, high-frequency logistics across different materials and scales. Building solar farms, wind farms, transmission lines, and hydro projects isn’t remotely unique in that regard. Major mining operations, port expansions, oil pipelines, highway networks - they all move huge volumes of "packages" too. It’s just project management, not some unsolvable mystery.

Third, you’re right that some coal plants were shut down too early without full replacements ready - and that’s a legitimate criticism of how the transition has been managed. But that’s a policy failure, not proof that solar, wind, and storage can’t work. You’re confusing a bad rollout with a bad technology. They’re not the same thing.

Finally, no country is 100% solar, wind, and batteries - because nobody serious proposes that. Every real energy plan includes a mix: renewables, firming capacity (storage, hydro, gas), demand management, and grid upgrades. Pretending that the goal is to "only" have solar, wind, and batteries is attacking a cartoon version of the plan, not the real thing.

If you want to criticize specific timelines, fair enough. But if you're trying to imply the whole idea is impossible because it’s hard and governments have sometimes botched it - that’s just defeatism, not analysis.