I hardly know where to begin. Were your last 2 posts some kind of a joke that I am missing? I will assume that you were serious but I don't think any thing you said makes sense.
Your information prices the elimination of all fossil fuels, not just coal....
No, my figures were just fossil fuel generation of electricity in the US. Liquid fossil fuel elimination would be many trillions more. And would take a similar amount of time. The quote was just for New York state and would be about a trillion just for there if one is talking all fossil fuels. Extrapolate to get the whole US. One thing that many people do not understand is the scale of the change required when they start talking about this stuff. They seem to think it could be done quickly and not cost much, but it does not follow from the data that this is realistic. The quote I put in above was for New York state. Its population is about 20 million. That is 1/16th of the US. So roughly 16 trillion for the US. The US is 4.4% of the worlds population. See where it leads us?
I don't think you understand the concept of EROEI. Various studies/analysis over many years have indicated that to run something approximating our current civilization requires an overall EROEI around 12. Renewables are looking like best case they will be under 5. You can't maintain what we have with those kind of numbers. Physics rules.
Those EROEI numbers already include all of the transportation costs for both renewables and fossil fuels so that entire part of your post was already included in the numbers.
Build out time for industrial switch overs requires vast amounts of effort, resources and time. It is simply impossible to transition in the timeframe you seem to think is possible. And it does not solve the primary problem (see below).
The detrimental effects on human health of burning fossil fuels will never become a deciding factor in switching from fossil fuels to renewables. It is far too intangible, unmeasurable, and subject to argument for policy makers to ever get their minds around it and to over come the industrial lobbies.
The majority of food will be produced on 3-D food printers -- Big Ag will be using krill, algae, insects and the like to make cartridges of carbohydrate, protein, and fat the printers will use to create food on demand, at a village or cafeteria or household level. (Thus far, printers are making chocolate and pizza, so I'm good for a while!) So food production and its transportation and storage needs will plummet, as will refrigeration needs and most kitchen appliances. Small farms and home gardens will grow food where possible, but to most, "real food" will be a luxury item. Call it Business As New.
3-D printing of food as the main way of feeding people?? I'm sorry but this is Star Trek nonsense. Care to try and back this up with any rigor? Some science and links? Describe the industry needed to support this and how many resources it takes to build it. Not to mention the nutritional issues to overcome.
When one is considering solutions some rigor is required and one has to keep in mind what the primary problem one is trying to solve is. The problem is not how to maintain some version of BAU based upon some fantastical new technology so we will all have comfortable lives. The problem is how to stop making AGW worse and to survive the conditions dialed into the global system at the point where we reach zero carbon emissions. There is no easy way out and no magic bullets. A modern civilization based upon all renewables will be still result in high carbon emissions and not be in any way sustainable. So it will continue to make AGW worse, although perhaps at a slower rate (but that is still not a solution as it will eventually kill us all).