You are also very wrong to claim most electricity does not come from oil. It does, by abotu a 12% differential, as Bartlett notes. More crucial is the use of oil to provide the basis for agricultural development and transport of foodstuffs - coal can't do that.

This is a dead-end track toward massive disaster, or what we call the great "die off" (human surplus population, e.g. that can't be supported by existing resrouces, perish under the pressure of competition and diminishing food reserves).

This is no astounding revelation!

Bacteria in a Petri dish will multiply, for example, until they exhaust their food –nutrient supply at which point they “crash”. DIE

Confined human populations (such as at Easter Island - which went from max. 20,000 pop. in 1340 AD to barely 1,000 when the first Europeans landed in 1720) descend into war and cannibalism. In the case of the E. Islanders, they expended all their wood, forest stores – and were reduced to living in caves by the time the Europeans arrived.

They outshot their primary fuel resource base, and paid the price. Every civilization and group must likewise pay the price. There are no exceptions.

People bay and spout nonsense about being "saved by alternative fuels" or technology - but this is abject and utterly stupefying nonsense.

H.T. Odum's solar "eMergy" (eMbodied energy) measures all of the energy (adjusted for quality) that goes into the production of a product.

Odum's calculations show that the only forms of alternative energy that can survive the exhaustion of fossil fuel are muscle, burning biomass (wood, animal dung, or peat), hydroelectric, geothermal in volcanic areas, and some wind electrical generation. Nuclear power could be viable if one could overcome the shortage of fuel. No other alternatives (e.g., solar voltaic) produce a large enough net sej to be sustainable. In short, there is no way out.

As Jay Hanson (www.dieoff.org) pointedly notes:

“The fact that our society can‘t survive on alternative energy should come as no surprise, because only an idiot would believe that windmills and solar panels can run bulldozers, elevators, steel mills, glass factories, electric heat, air conditioning, aircraft, automobiles, etc., AND still have enough energy left over to support a corrupt political system, armies, etc.

Envision a world where freezing, starving people burn everything combustible -- everything from forests (releasing CO2; destroying topsoil and species); to garbage dumps (releasing dioxins, PCBs, and heavy metals); to people (by waging nuclear, biological, chemical, and conventional war); and you have seen the future. “

Author Matt Savinar also observes (Life after the Oil Crash):

""Solar energy, the ZECA (zero emission coal) process, ethanol production from cellulose, the hydrogen economy with the hydrogen supplied by solar energy sources or from the ZECA process or by pyrolysis of biomass, cannot possibly fuel our technology and industrial -military civilization unless we reverted to a pre-Industrial era living milieu. There is simply NO way to do it, given the low energy density of all those sources, not to mention the infrastructural problems attendant on their implementation. "

Matt Savinar - in his Life After the Oil Crash - demands that the purveyors of all these flighty future alternative energy schemes and programs answer the following first. If they can't - they need to be treated as flat-earthers or 'Nellie' (Loch Ness monster) chasers:

1. Is the alternative easily transportable like oil? Oil and oil-derived

fuels such as gasoline are extremely convenient to transport. The ease

with which gasoline is transported stands in stark contrast to the

difficulty with which some of the proposed alternatives are

transported. For instance, transporting hydrogen over long distances

is virtually impossible since it is the smallest element known to man.

As such, it will leak out of almost any container.

2. Is the alternative energy-dense like oil? In terms of energy-density,

none of the alternatives to oil even come close to packing the wallop

packed by oil.

3. Is the alternative capable of being adapted for transportation, heating,

and the production of pesticides, plastics, and petrochemicals?

4. Does the alternative have an EROEI (‘Energy Return on Energy Invested’) comparable to oil?

5. To what degree does the distribution, implementation, and use of this alternative require massive retrofitting of our industrial

infrastructure? How much money, energy, and time will this retrofitting require?

6. To what degree does the distribution, implementation, and use of this alternative require people and institutions to fundamentally and radically alter the way they do business and live their lives?

7. Will people and institutions be willing to make these changes prior to the onset of severe oil shocks, or will we wait until it’s too late? How much of a competitive disadvantage will the businesses who first make these changes be at compared to their fossil-fuel-consuming

competitors?

8. To what degree does the distribution, implementation, and use of this alternative require other resources which are in short supply?

9.Do these other resources exist in quantities sufficient enough that the alternative is capable of being scaled up on a massive level? Are these resources located in highly unstable parts of the world?

10.To what degree are the discovery, extraction, transportation, refining, and distribution of these resources dependent on cheap oil?

11. To what degree does the distribution, implementation, and use of this alternative require massive upfront investments in money and energy, both of which will be in short supply as the world begins to suffer from severe oil shocks?

12. What are the unintended consequences of the distribution,

implementation, and use of this alternative?

Answer those questions, then get back to me