The tech isn't there yet to replace hydrocarbons with electrons. Not only that, but the transmission and generation infrastructure would need MASSIVE upgrades, that all cost a LOT in terms of conventional (hydrocarbon) energy. With energy costs going to the moon, not many people are interested.

The first thing to realize is that the energy density difference between electrons and hydrocarbons. It's like comparing a nail file to a chainsaw. Another important thing to understand is that technology is NOT energy. Tech requires energy. One is not equivalent to the other. At all. They're entirely different animals.

We are "going electric" though. The plans are in place, and investment capital has moved from conventional energy (hydrocarbons) to "go electric" companies building solar and windmills. Now we are seeing the return on investment reality of that choice. Thus the price of energy going to the moon right now. I don't know the exact number, but there's something like a $500 billion deficit in the investment capital required to keep conventional energy production FLAT over the next five years. There's a serious problem bearing down on our monetary based civilization. Caused by investors that don't understand energy density and were fooled into investing in "electric magic" that not only isn't magical, but is not capable of providing a fraction of the energy required.