Most of the people in both Finland and Japan live in cities, while most North Americans live in cities. Moving away from cars in rural areas may not be easy, but there is no reason why it would not be possible in the cities. The things that are needed are: denser cities (less tight zoning laws) and more alternatives to driving, like bike lanes or trams. These things are achievable by policy change. Also, the USA has around five times as much population density across the country as Finland, so while it may be big, it is not too big for decent alternatives to driving

This may be true, but I am not convinced that it is any better than nuclear. To start up regeneration quick the gas winning needs to be on a pilot light (dutch source: https://nos.nl/l/2485108). In Groningen there are (according to the same source) 5 places on pilot light that together must produce at least 2.8 billion cubic metres of gas a year. This is quite a lot of fossil fuels, so I would rather have a nuclear power plant than this gas winning (which comes with other disadvantages as well).

A big problem with solar and wind is that they are not as reliable as nuclear. In a worst-kaas scenario neither will produce energy because there is no sun or wind and there is no way to store enough electricity for these moments. Therefore we need a constant source that creates electricity for those moments. Of course, we do also need renewables, but nuclear is essential because it is reliable.

*Stroopwafel, cultuurbarbaar