Kenneth Boulding's comments still ring true today. Storage is still a major problem, but one which is also tied into the fact that most of society still understands little about energy and our predicament. We've learned quite a bit about capturing and using renewable energy from the technical point of view and we've learned ways to use energy more efficiently as well. But, the public perception is still based on the fossil fuel model of consumption, especially the suburban model of living, which has a tremendous impact on out economy. What can be done is not what is being done and what can be done won't be the same sort of development path which has dominated the U.S. for the past decades.

Bolding's comment that we can't discover that which isn't there is not understood among the general public, which has been conditioned to think that science and technology will continue to bring forth newer and better gadgets to meet our needs. Our political class (mostly lawyers) exhibit similar lack of understanding, apparently thinking that all which is needed to solve a problem is a new law or regulation. The trouble is, the laws of nature can not be changed by man. Most economists also appear to have little understanding of this reality, as they assume that "growth" will occur as the result of their efforts. But, growth of material consumption on our finite planet must eventually reach limits and after that, begin to decline, even more on a per capita basis with population increasing.

As much as these ideas have been kicked around for more than 30 years, one wonders just what it would take to get these thoughts into the heads of our government and the common man. Well, one way might be for one of the car companies to go bankrupt, which would have a major impact on NASCAR and the culture of mindless consumption which it feeds. NASCAR teams are very expensive and without support from industry, they can't function. We can only hope for better times.

E. Swanson

The 1977 National Academy of Sciences study, “Energy in Transition 1985-2010.”

It's actually really interesting to look at their projections for today and compare.

For example, their estimate of energy sources available to the US in 2000 under the "enhanced supply" assumptions are (in quads):

• Oil: 19
• Gas: 15
• Coal: 37
• Nuke: 30
• Renew: 13
• Total: 114

The actual consumption by source for 2000 was:

• Oil: 38
• Gas: 24
• Coal: 23
• Nuke: 8
• Renew: 6
• Total: 99

Roughly speaking, the prediction was that oil&gas availability would plummet, and it didn't. Without that, other sources stayed relatively low. (It's interesting to note that energy consumption was 10-15% lower than predicted, despite a population ~10% higher than estimated.)

the transition required the development of liquid fuels or storage batteries that could store much energy, like diesel or gasoline. Since 1977, no major advances have been made in these respects.

"Battery systems have undergone significant improvements over the past 25 years."

It would appear that the Journal of the Electrochemical Society disagrees with you.

One likely reason is the substantial level of development in rechargeable batteries, including not only new chemistries (NiMH and Lithium), but continued refinements to new and existing chemistries. Improvements in battery technology have made electric and hybrid-electric cars viable replacements for the internal combustion engine for huge numbers of people, not to mention enabling other technologies such as electric bicycles (of which more will be sold in China this year than cars in the US).

There are options available today that were not available in 1977, and were not forseen. One example of that is how the report includes an entry for solar but not for wind, despite the fact that wind energy is currently much larger, cheaper, and commercially viable, and last year generated about 200TWh.

That doesn't mean their findings should be ignored, of course, but it does mean that they're far from conclusive.

For nearly 100 years, for instance, there have been very high payoffs for the discovery of a cheap, light, and capacious battery for storing electricity on a large scale; we have completely failed to solve this problem.

I would argue otherwise.

For bulk storage, pumped hydro is about 70% efficient, and can store enormous amounts. For portable storage, lithium-ion is light and dense enough to make electric and hybrid-electric vehicles with essentially the same characteristics as oil-powered ones.

Sure, it would be nice to have 90% efficient bulk storage instead of 70%, and batteries that are 1lb/mile instead of 5lbs/mile, but those are differences of convenience, not of necessity.

Fundamentally speaking, current tech can replace oil. The only issue is building out that tech fast enough.