I would like to think that the switch to renewables is inevitable, but could a continuous series of administrations similar to the current US admin be enough to curtail it?
Seems unlikely to me. I always thought the only engine that could actually accomplish transition was capitalism. We will transition at a time and to an extent that renewables are actually cheaper and better, no sooner and no later. Government action can encourage technological development, but it can't force the transition when the technology is not ready yet, and it can't stop it either once it's actually better. Note that we are actively building out a lot of that stuff now, even though the current administration is at best indifferent towards it. It all fits with the bottom line that we transition when the technology is ready, and the opinion of activists and Government officials isn't relevant.
> a hundred years building hydrocarbon-based energy infrastructure
One consequence of that is the enormous of amount of scrap steel that will become available as that infrastructure becomes obsolete. It will noticeably perturb the world steel industry.
The amount of steel in a refinery is tiny compared to what the world uses. Even if we could scrap them all in single day (as if it wouldn't take months to tear it down) it is a drop in the bucket of recycled iron.
Global fossil fuel infrastructure (which is much more than refineries) is estimated to be 1.34 billion tons of steel (and 10 million tons of copper). That's a bit less than 1 year of output of the world steel industry.
Note also that it's a worldwide chart, so it includes developing countries that may not be so quick to jump on projects that are expensive right now even though they'll save a bunch of money in the long term. Though to be fair, some may have a leapfrog effect when it comes to building brand new infrastructure.