A large amount of the "bulldozers and heavy equipment at sites outside of fully established infrastructure" are the giant machines used to pull oil and natural gas from remote locations (tar sands, arctic and offshore oil rigs) and transport them the large distances to places inside fully established infrastructure. The need for hydrocarbons is compounding.
Similarly with biofuels, even if we are to genetically engineer more efficient plants to grow fuel, it still must be grown in a remote location, processed, and transported to places with existing established infrastructure.
In comparison, most places where people need energy already have the electric infrastructure to support it. We should be using liquid fuels in cases where it is truly necessary, not just for the short distances and minor wants of most.
We are not disagreeing. My position is that liquid hydrocarbon fuel is always going to have a specialist niche. I also think the bulk of transportation should be electric, ultimately deriving power from the sun. There's no reason to be dogmatically absolutist about energy storage technology. I say we use what works in whatever context it works. This way, we're never stuck by the disadvantages of a particular technology.
Similarly with biofuels, even if we are to genetically engineer more efficient plants to grow fuel, it still must be grown in a remote location, processed, and transported to places with existing established infrastructure.
In comparison, most places where people need energy already have the electric infrastructure to support it. We should be using liquid fuels in cases where it is truly necessary, not just for the short distances and minor wants of most.