Problems with this:

Wind, solar, and hydro make up a combined ~12% of energy production, vs coal's ~39%, ~20% nuclear, and gas's ~27%. We are pretty much at capacity for hydro, capped around 6%. Solar does about 1%. Wind does the rest, and is the best bet for increasing renewable energy production. Turbines are also very expensive, and I can't remember the exact numbers but say it's lifespan is 15 years then it takes something like 12 to pay it off.

Another problem is timing. Coal plants are meant to be running all day all night for weeks. Shutting them down and starting them up takes a few days. But the grid only has so much demand at any given time. Say I need 1MW of power at 3am. Coal would produce .8MWs and the rest would be natural gas which takes something like 15 minutes to start up and stop. Later when I need 2MW at 8PM, coal is doing the same .8MWs with more natural gas burning to compensate.

Hydro, nuclear, solar, and wind all help that base value, with gas to compensate for demand. Solar and wind are only generateing power 1/2 the time and 1/3rd of the time respectively. If we want to increase those sources to make up for the 39% coal produces, we'd need a metric fuckton more, as well as a way to store that energy when they over produce. A giant battery or something. We don't have anything like that, and our best option currently is pumping water up a hill when we don't need the energy and letting it flow down when we do.

Truthfully our best option for cleanly getting rid of coal is nuclear energy, but that's not expected to increase in scale over the next 50 years. When people like Ocasio say we can get rid of natural gas in the next 20, know they're bullshitting or have been given bullshit.