As for your vision, maybe it is possible. Maybe it is not. Until we do the work of building models of current and possible energy use, the future remains something that HAPPENS to us — not something we shape. That was the point of this series of posts. Dreams — by themselves — do not help when dealing systems on a national or global scale, and the US seems to have contracted an allergy to data and analysis.

Try renewable with hydrogen storage and smart networks to distribute what’s produced from a multitude of sources by a multitude of means and a multitude of people and groups of people.

Down with centralized domination and control. Power (literally) from the people and for the people.

While I am not a doomster (”catastrophe”), a horrifying scenario (peaking soon followed by sharp production decline) is a possible scenario. It must be considered when doing national-level planning. I agree with you that the current peakist tactic of focusing on this one low probability scenario is unwise. See the recent ASPO conference to see why. Filled with doomster forecasts; received little expert or media attention.

Unfortunately, increased energy efficience and conservation are only one plank in the bridge to our future. No matter how high the ROI’s, they effect national stats only over years — strong impacts only over a decade or more. Commercial incentives, high returns on investment, only get us so far, so fast. Again, see the Hirsch et al “Mitigations” report for more on this.

I’ve abandoned catastrophe as a tactic. Whether your motivation is geopolitics, peak oil, global warming, or financial risk, you can defend making investments with a good ROI that reduce energy consumption. I just ask for a bias, not a sacrifice. Do not make investments with a poor ROI, and certainly do not spend money without a return. That is the big failing of the global warmingists and environmentalists.

The news continues to report companies that find 100% annual ROI from energy saving investments. That is not the norm any more. Typical ROI are 25-35%. That is not a bad ROI. I only ask that people pick a energy saving investment over some non-energy saving investment. It’s just a bias, not a sacrifice. Also, unless peak oil is happening right now, energy usage is fungible. You can’t switch fuels overnight, but you can switch over decades. So pick the energy savings with the best ROI regardless of the type. The long term fungibility of energy will shift this saving to oil saving over time.

The easiest first step in the ROI focus is to ask that all regular maintenance, service, replacement, and renovation activities include consideration of energy saving alternatives and evaluate their ROI. Don’t follow the 2GW path of mandating any particular answer. Accept that many alternatives will not have a suitable ROI and will not be done. There are enough with a good ROI to consume the available investment dollars. The conscious act of evaluation will reveal much more than you think. I picked these activities because these are the times when you are already planning an expenditure and have already planned the disposal of older facilities. This makes the investment cost just the incremental difference between a pure replacement and a more efficient replacement. That makes high ROI more likely.

The other question you raise is “what does our government know?” I discuss this in “When will Global Production Peak?“