I think there's a great deal of hysteria about Russian gas cutoffs. German bills are projected to be lower than UK energy bills over the winter[0][1], even though the UK has basically no dependence on Russian gas.
A war is an unusual and extreme event, and when it's started by your major gas supplier, it's unsurprising that prices go up. It is, however, obviously not enough to write off the whole european energy policy just because when you stress test it, there are higher bills.
It's no use if your 'sensible' energy policy results in 3 degrees of global warming: that will be far worse than a high energy bill, or a war for that matter.
Not really? Germany is a mid-range, slow-moving sort of country, and they get about 40% of their energy from renewables. They still get 30% of their energy from coal, but it's being fairly steadily phased out.
Energy sources are fungible. Solar power is cheaper than coal in a lot of places, as is wind, and the US has a ton of natural gas to make up for the intermittency problem.
I think you're mistaking a political problem for a technical one.
Sure, politcal problems are hard problems. However, your original post asserted that the current energy demand of the US cannot be met without coal. You did not say they will not, because of political pathology.
It is, however, patently obvious that they can - many countries in Europe are doing that right now, and not all of them depend on Russian natural gas.
Further, the only reason why EU states in the east depend on Russian natural gas is because Russia is close. The US is a gas exporter. They would need no such overseas supply.
Most of Europe is off coal. It's not really a necessary part of an energy mix.