OK UT, how about...

Coal... for the next 10 years/then complete shutdown
Methane... for the following 10 years/then almost complete shutdown
Mixed solar, geothermal, hydroelectric, etc ... thereafter

Ultimately, oil will stop being a fuel and will be only a lubricant.
Electrical power will replace long distance carbon-based fuels

Nuclear, perhaps in a StarTrek sort of way, may be the ultimate long range fuel.
But until the waste disposal is acceptable, it probably "can't fly"

When these will happen will depend on when such decisions as:
... shut down the long haul trucking industry in favor of rail shipping
... shut down business air travel in favor of internet-types of video conferencing
... shut down personal air travel in favor of high speed rail service
The mechanisms of these changes will probably be $ and public attitudes.

It's the long term negative effects (nuclear waste storage, water contamination,
over-consumption of non-renewable resources) that need to be considered now,
not later when resolution of such problems will be more expensive or un-do-able.

Unforeseen problems are part of the process of innovation.
Overcoming these problems furthers innovation.

Well that seems like the most reasonable LL. Let's go with that.

I like the Lamplighter plan.

It won't happen overnight, but it had better happen.

I prefer K-Y, but whatever floats your boat.

Don't forget plastics, medicine, etc. There'll still be a market for oil.

I think you all sorta missed the mark - the future won't be about which energy source we use. It will be about super efficient energy storage and distribution.

Not just the best "battery", but the most efficient way to use (and re-use) energy, sending
it from point A to point B, C, D and back to A with the least amount of loss.

Drive energy production requirements way down - to the point of sustainability - this will minimize (though probably not eliminate) the importance of energy source.

The one with the best battery wins.

We just have to learn how to herd electric eels to work and back home again :)

But seriously, welcome to the discussion, Jacquelita

Hallelujah. Someone demonstrates a grasp of the actual problem. We have plenty of energy. More energy solves nothing. For the past decade, I kept posting variations of this expression. "Application to a changing load". And still don't understand why so many do not get it.

Burn ten gallons of gasoline in a car. Only a little more than one does anything productive? Over 8 gallons burned to do absolutely nothing. Why is that acceptable? Because so many want to solve the problem with alternative energy sources. So many would encourage the stifling of innovation by letting spin doctors avert the problem for political purposes or self serving profits.

This even applies to batteries. The bunny battery (Energizer, Duracell, etc) are a battery developed by Americans for WWII walkie-talkies. That little has been achieved in battery development. Most of that innovation has only achieved in the past generation.

Everyone remembers a GM electric car: EV1. Its designer wanted to use a new technology - the NiMHd battery. GM loves to screw the world to maximize profits. Business school graduates said GM did not make a NiMHd battery. So he had to use lead acid - an 1860 technology.

Hydrogen as a fuel benchmarks the so many brainwashed by business school liars. Hydrogen obviously solved nothing when George Jr (an MBA) advocated it in his State of the Union address. He demonstrates the problem. So many are brainwashed about alternative energy rather than address the problem. Only one plus gallons of gasoline moves a car that burns ten.

No viable replacement exists for petroleum. Nothing else has the energy concentration required. Damning reality to so many who forget to first define the problem. Solutions are found in application to a changing load. That (and not more energy) is the problem to be solved.

BTW, this month's edition of Scientific American describes fracking by defining the problem. And by defining spin that averts informed discussion.

Oil is and always will be part of our life. It is more than fuel. Our world is completely dependent.

Distributed electric production using wind and solar slaved to natural gas would seem to be the way to go, but Jacqie is right storage is the real barrier.

A partial list of items made from oil.

http://www.ranken-energy.com/Product...0Petroleum.htm

Another list:

http://www.pbs.org/independentlens/c.../petroleum.pdf

9 Shocking Things Made From Oil (PHOTOS)

(Not all that shocking, but you get the point. We can't do without it and live in our current state of existence.)

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2010/0...title=Plastics

I'm too lazy to check your links because I already agree. (lets mark this moment with a :beer: ) We make all sorts of things out of oil.

Which, to me, makes burning the stuff to get around seem awfully extravagant.

Just saw a report on TV about the significant rise in earthquakes near fracking sites.

One hypothesis is that fracking, which fractures rock, is affecting existing fault lines.

Of course, this is just a hypothesis. Since the proving of this hypothesis might damage a multi-billion dollar industry, I predict the swift hiring of battalions of lobbyists and tame scientists to delay, debate, and debunk any attempt at actual fact finding.

It took 50 years before pro-smoking forces finally folded their tents on the harmfulness of smoking.

Can the scrappy lobbyists of a nascent industry do as well as those of an entrenched industry at stopping any attempt to study an issue critical to public welfare? Only time will tell.

It is only a hypothesis at this point, so no action is needed except more study. If, however, it is true, then the millions of dollars in damages need to measured against the benefits. This might make fracking uneconomic unless the industry manages to keep forcing the public to shoulder the burden. Some businesses are good at this.

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/arti...al-energy.html

http://www.csmonitor.com/Environment...something-else