You are wrong. Nuclear fission accounts for only 10% of global electrical energy production (and is declining as nuclear plants are retired and less expensive and faster to deploy renewables are increasing), but that is only a fraction of total energy used which includes transportation, material processing, and industrial use. We do not have an endless supply of uranium (details in this post) and magically scaling up nuclear fission power production would reduce viable duration of uranium reserves to a few years at best before depletion notwithstanding the environmental devastation of uranium mining and the total lifecycle costs of the nuclear fuel production process (milling, separation, enrichment, processing, reprocessing or disposal). Thorium is an alternative fissionable material which requires less processing but requires different technology and there are still practical limits to how much can be extracted and produced into fuel within some reasonable scope of developing an infrastructure to support it and maturing the technologies to use it.
The production of battery electric vehicles is currently predicated on lithium reserves which are limited, and BEVs are best suited for ground fleet and commuter vehicles, not for commercial aircraft, cargo watercraft, and many other applications. There is no process, existing or proposed, by which “gasoline can be made from algae”; there is research into genetically engineering algae that can be processed into biodiesel but not anywhere near ready for even small scale production, and the production of alcohol fuels (methanol, ethanol) from vegetative feedstocks is not anywhere close to cost effective (and likely never will be given the low energy density of those feedstocks).
This is all notwithstanding the ways in which hydrocarbon feedstocks are used in a vast number of structural materials, textiles, coatings and packaging, chemical precursors for a vast array of industrial and agricultural uses, et cetera, the cost-effectiveness is heavily dependent upon that the feedstocks are essentially a byproduct of the hydrocarbon fuel industry.
This isn’t even remotely true. You appear to be making sweeping statements about the feasibility of replacement processes disconnected from any actual data or understanding of the limitations of how far energy and other technologies can reasonably replace hydrocarbon fuels in the energy economy (which is basically ‘the economy’ as far as industrial activity is concerned). If it were really this easy people would actually have concrete proposals for replacing gas and oil instead of vague, sweeping notions without hard analysis behind them. The techno-optimism of just kicking the can down the road because future generations will figure it all out is what has led us to the place where we are now, with people hopefully pleading that “AI” will come up with the magic pixie dust that will somehow scoop out the diffuse carbon dioxide from the atmosphere at pennies per tonne. The reality is…somewhat different, and does not lend itself to such positivism.
Stranger