"To obtain in one year the amount of energy contained in one cubic mile of oil, each year for 50 years we would need to have produced the numbers of dams, nuclear power plants, coal plants, windmills, or solar panels"

Is that statement worded correctly? You seem to be mixing apples and oranges.

Comparing a coal fired plant to oil doesn't seem valid. Comparing oil to coal would seem to be a better comparison. I can halfway see the point for solar, wind or hydro, but coal and nuclear also need their cube of fuel.

There are some mistakes, see following discussion:

http://www.theoildrum.com/node/2320

oy. I was looking for something to post today and I remembered this one for some reason. Now it's all coming back to me...I can't remember it all, I guess.

I'd like to second this point - the statement (as quoted by bitteroldcoot, above) seems to compare 1) a rate of energy consumption (one CMO/year) and 2) a rate of INCREASE of energy production (building X number of solar panels/year). This doesn't make any sense to me. I had actually come across this study before but was so flummoxed by what they were trying to say that I couldn't take it seriously.

Cuchulainn