Oil could easily be replaced by corn-based ethanol, and any argument to the contrary is pure propaganda, imho. But I'm with you that it needn't be replaced. Burn every last drop.

Solar is ok for a tiny fraction of power, shithead. Maybe 3-10% with mostly nuclear.

Solar is a scam. Look up “solar panel recycling”

Solar depends on the region and the ability to store energy

Free market? Sounds like a ultra-fascist conspiration theory! I am 100% sure that this infantile commie government will decide best.

You need to thoroughly review your sources of information on these matters. And then, even more importantly, find new ones.

Germany can reactivate the existing plants. Takes 6 months

Plastics are made from oil. The "just stop oil" movement would take a big hit if people realised than oil is everywhere, not just as energy source but also most materials, food, medicines...

My understanding of the whole idea that "the oil supply is decreasing" has been heavily influenced by some of the people that Saifadean Ammous has had on his podcast. Particularly this interview with Alex Epstein was great: https://saifedean.com/podcast/139-fossil-future-with-alex-epstein.

Basically, the oil supply is not decreasing. Check out the section "Catastrophizing Resources" in the book Fossil Future. I've asked ChatGPT to summarize it, this is what it came up with:

Summary from ChatGPT - why the oil supply is not decreasing The passage delves into the historical tendency of catastrophizing the availability of fossil fuels as a resource. During the 1960s and early 1970s, there was a widespread belief within the mainstream knowledge system, led by figures like Stanford University ecologist Paul Ehrlich, that humanity was on the brink of a resource depletion catastrophe. This perspective argued that the extensive consumption of resources, primarily driven by the use of fossil fuels, would inevitably lead to shortages, including of nonrenewable fossil fuels themselves, resulting in widespread suffering and death.

Ehrlich, considered a designated expert on the negative impacts of fossil fuel use and mass consumption, made alarming predictions about resource depletion and population growth. He forecasted a "population bomb" and mass starvation unless drastic government measures were implemented. For instance, in 1971, Ehrlich predicted that, by the year 2000, the United Kingdom would be reduced to a small group of impoverished islands inhabited by around 70 million hungry people.

The Club of Rome, another influential entity, also contributed to this narrative with its 1972 book, "The Limits to Growth," which claimed that computer models showed continued consumption growth would surpass available resources of various commodities, including gold, silver, copper, zinc, natural gas, and petroleum.

However, the reality contradicted these predictions. Instead of witnessing a decline in fossil fuel resources, the availability of fossil fuels and other resources significantly increased. The author introduces the concept of "proved reserves," a measure of fossil fuel resources, and illustrates through graphs that as consumption increased, so did the proved reserves.

The passage challenges the credibility of these designated experts, particularly Ehrlich, by highlighting their inaccurate predictions in the face of actual resource trends. It emphasizes the experts' tendency to catastrophize, overstating negative side-effects while overlooking the benefits and advancements in utilizing fossil fuels. Furthermore, the experts failed to grasp the vast amount of raw fossil fuel reserves in the Earth, rendering the notion of imminent depletion implausible. The passage underscores the importance of critically evaluating expert predictions and questioning prevailing narratives about resource availability.

Lol, no.

Oil is not made from a limited number of dinosaur bones. We're not running out at all.

The climate alarmism propaganda is outrageous... Seek more sources.