I've always wondered why it is that people see weaning off of oil as a horrendous economic headache. The logic goes that the technology is expensive and there is no money to be made in switching.

Of course I think this simplistic notion is entirely bunk. Think of it in terms of basic economics. There will always be someone willing to make a buck when people need to buy things. If you need to buy a wind turbine, someone will gladly make a buck off of your purchase. Any good industrialist knows that there is a buck to be made nearly anywhere. So, even if switching off of oil is not entirely a money maker the idea that there are not numerous win-win situations to spur the economy is absurd.

A kicker for me was the graph in Amory Lovin's talk showing the actual energy used per gallon of gas to move the car. Only 1/8 of the energy of a gallon of gas is actually converted into the work required for a car to do it's primary job, move. Only 1% is actually used to move the people inside. As he says, this the a stunning achievement of a century's worth of engineering R&D. I think mabye there is some room there for conservation improvements.

Consider the Aptera as a case in point, coming in at a cool $26-30 grand and topping out at 300 miles per gallon on a 120 mile trip.

Amory Lovins makes and excellent case that the economic benefits of energy conservation and renewables may outweigh the costs once it is all added up. And he does it in a hilarously nerdy academic deadpan that makes me giggle.