Peak oil a hoax? Prove it.

[Rory]

Why is Saudi Arabia drilling offshore? Why are BP and co. drilling on the ocean floor at a mile's depth and more? Why do the energy companies want to frak the New York and Pennsylvania watersheds although they know the stores of gas are unimpressive compared to the sources they have traditionally tapped? Why have the mining companies resorted to blowing up the tops of mountains and seeing how much coal shakes out? Why was there a scramble for Central Asia, since the greatest oil reserves are still in the Middle East? Why are the Canadian tar sands now considered viable? Why has oil company PR (and the intellectual travesty act of their sock-puppet academies) stopped laughing at solar and wind and now pretends to support them?

If anything, corporations are all about the margins and squeezing them for profit: It's crazy to think they would be doing all of the above (and at great and increasing cost) if they could simply continue to put holes in the sand and let the oil come out like the halcyon oil days of yore: Oil wells busting forth like newly tapped artesian aquifers.

If the price of cheap oil is rigged high enough, more expensive sources of energy become more viable. What about this is hard to understand? You think it's all supply and demand. I think anybody who even cursorily examines the long history of oil distribution will become rightfully suspicious of such claims. Did you ever hear the story of boyl who cried wolf?

Now will we reach a point where drilling for and burning so much oil becomes detrimental to humanity? We obviously reached that point a long time ago! Just because oil is cheap and plentiful is no reason to keep using it when cleaner, more democratic and more distributed energy sources are all around us.

Don't you see that every time you pretend that humanity relies on Big Oil for its very existence, you are perpetuating a destructive falsehood? I mean, gasoline engines came into being because gasoline was a cheap byproduct of the production of kerosene. But without gasoline, all of civilization as we know it today would grind to a halt. Right? See how silly that is?

"Without QWERTY keyboards, all of civilization will grind to a halt as typists will need 30 years to learn to adjust to more efficient keyboards!"

"Without the Windows operating system, all of civilization will grind to a halt! We will need 30 years to learn to adjust to better operating systems! Only the most naive fool could possibly contend otherwise!"

It's not just about the oil: (if it's been quoted before, sorry but it bears repeating 'Arithmetic, Growth and Energy' http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=F-QA2rkp ... ure=relmfu )
Here's his website http://www.albartlett.org/index.html
From these video lectures, this statement sums up the problem resulting from diminishing sources of cheap oil:

a definition of modern agriculture: "Modern agriculture is the use of land to convert petroleum into food."

There you have it right there. Feeding our planets population is a factor of how much oil we can get out economically. Price goes up and so does the foods. People will starve and react; violently. This will happen within the next generation or two. It cannot be stopped by utilizing the sun or waves.
We have put all of our industrial, logistical and infrastructure eggs in the 'oil' basket. We need to start the change now, like immediately: It's already too late for a lot of the population (7 billion people is already unsustainable: We're like a swarm of locusts consuming the planet).
The oil was a once in a million years, bonanza of growth and boom. We're cresting that wave and a great many people are going to have interesting times ahead.

[hanshan]

Why is Saudi Arabia drilling offshore? Why are BP and co. drilling on the ocean floor at a mile's depth and more? Why do the energy companies want to frak the New York and Pennsylvania watersheds although they know the stores of gas are unimpressive compared to the sources they have traditionally tapped? Why have the mining companies resorted to blowing up the tops of mountains and seeing how much coal shakes out? Why was there a scramble for Central Asia, since the greatest oil reserves are still in the Middle East? Why are the Canadian tar sands now considered viable? Why has oil company PR (and the intellectual travesty act of their sock-puppet academies) stopped laughing at solar and wind and now pretends to support them?

If anything, corporations are all about the margins and squeezing them for profit: It's crazy to think they would be doing all of the above (and at great and increasing cost) if they could simply continue to put holes in the sand and let the oil come out like the halcyon oil days of yore: Oil wells busting forth like newly tapped artesian aquifers.

If the price of cheap oil is rigged high enough, more expensive sources of energy become more viable. What about this is hard to understand? You think it's all supply and demand. I think anybody who even cursorily examines the long history of oil distribution will become rightfully suspicious of such claims. Did you ever hear the story of boyl who cried wolf?

Now will we reach a point where drilling for and burning so much oil becomes detrimental to humanity? We obviously reached that point a long time ago! Just because oil is cheap and plentiful is no reason to keep using it when cleaner, more democratic and more distributed energy sources are all around us.

Don't you see that every time you pretend that humanity relies on Big Oil for its very existence, you are perpetuating a destructive falsehood? I mean, gasoline engines came into being because gasoline was a cheap byproduct of the production of kerosene. But without gasoline, all of civilization as we know it today would grind to a halt. Right? See how silly that is?

"Without QWERTY keyboards, all of civilization will grind to a halt as typists will need 30 years to learn to adjust to more efficient keyboards!"

"Without the Windows operating system, all of civilization will grind to a halt! We will need 30 years to learn to adjust to better operating systems! Only the most naive fool could possibly contend otherwise!"

It's not just about the oil: (if it's been quoted before, sorry but it bears repeating 'Arithmetic, Growth and Energy' http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=F-QA2rkp ... ure=relmfu )
Here's his website http://www.albartlett.org/index.html
From these video lectures, this statement sums up the problem resulting from diminishing sources of cheap oil:

a definition of modern agriculture: "Modern agriculture is the use of land to convert petroleum into food."

There you have it right there. Feeding our planets population is a factor of how much oil we can get out economically. Price goes up and so does the foods. People will starve and react; violently. This will happen within the next generation or two. It cannot be stopped by utilizing the sun or waves.
We have put all of our industrial, logistical and infrastructure eggs in the 'oil' basket. We need to start the change now, like immediately: It's already too late for a lot of the population (7 billion people is already unsustainable: We're like a swarm of locusts consuming the planet).
The oil was a once in a million years, bonanza of growth and boom. We're cresting that wave and a great many people are going to have interesting times ahead.

as someone once said: massive algae die-off


...

[slimmouse]

Having seen both sides of the argument in considerable detail, here where Im at WRT Peak Oil :

I cant say for certain either way, and if anyone here believes they can, then good luck to them.

AFAIC therefore it comes down to instinct and "previous" wrt those who call the shots - and the indisputable facts WRT that is that these fucks are liars to a man .

So if they tell me the oil is running out ( and probably more crucially that there are no safe clean cheap alternatives ) and that GM food is safe and vital in order to feed everyone , and that 9/11 and the global war on terror are legitimate, and that Big Pharma is good and needs to control vitamins and vaccinate us regularly for our own protection, and entheogens are dangerous, and the IMF and WTO are magnificent institutions, and those banks were too big to fail, so we the Gov'ners saved you ( not you the taxpayer picking up that tab) blah blah blah ad infinitum ........Fool me one thousand times shame on you....

[eyeno]

Having seen both sides of the argument in considerable detail, here where Im at WRT Peak Oil :

I cant say for certain either way, and if anyone here believes they can, then good luck to them.

AFAIC therefore it comes down to instinct and "previous" wrt those who call the shots - and the indisputable facts WRT that is that these fucks are liars to a man .

So if they tell me the oil is running out ( and probably more crucially that there are no safe clean cheap alternatives ) and that GM food is safe and vital in order to feed everyone , and that 9/11 and the global war on terror are legitimate, and that Big Pharma is good and needs to control vitamins and vaccinate us regularly for our own protection, and entheogens are dangerous, and the IMF and WTO are magnificent institutions, and those banks were too big to fail, so we the Gov'ners saved you ( not you the taxpayer picking up that tab) blah blah blah ad infinitum ........Fool me one thousand times shame on you....

Amen. A person could turn everything they say backwards and probably be over 90% correct almost every time.

[hanshan]

Having seen both sides of the argument in considerable detail, here where Im at WRT Peak Oil :

I cant say for certain either way, and if anyone here believes they can, then good luck to them.

AFAIC therefore it comes down to instinct and "previous" wrt those who call the shots - and the indisputable facts WRT that is that these fucks are liars to a man .

So if they tell me the oil is running out ( and probably more crucially that there are no safe clean cheap alternatives ) and that GM food is safe and vital in order to feed everyone , and that 9/11 and the global war on terror are legitimate, and that Big Pharma is good and needs to control vitamins and vaccinate us regularly for our own protection, and entheogens are dangerous, and the IMF and WTO are magnificent institutions, and those banks were too big to fail, so we the Gov'ners saved you ( not you the taxpayer picking up that tab) blah blah blah ad infinitum ........Fool me one thousand times shame on you....

Peak Oil? Who knows.

Fool me one thousand times shame on you....

won't get fooled again...


...

[stickdog99]

If anything, corporations are all about the margins and squeezing them for profit: It's crazy to think they would be doing all of the above (and at great and increasing cost) if they could simply continue to put holes in the sand and let the oil come out like the halcyon oil days of yore: Oil wells busting forth like newly tapped artesian aquifers.

OK, then how do you explain the entire history of Iraqi oil production?



Why can't they just poke holes in the sand in Iraq? Why did they never let Hussein get around to just poking holes in the sand in Iraq?

There you have it right there. Feeding our planets population is a factor of how much oil we can get out economically.

Why? Why does agriculture have to be this way? Why is our doom inevitable? What is so bad about renewable sources of energy and so great about oil? Why in the absence of oil must humanity wither away and die? Whose agenda are you promoting when you proclaim with infinite certitude that there are no alternatives for humanity other than exploiting the same energy source that has been shoved down our throats as an elite control mechanism for the last 100+ years or facing extinction?

Why is the vision of the Revelatory oilpocalypse so compelling to so many that they refuse to even imagine any alternatives other than an "inevitable" massive die off?



The US military consumes far more oil than every resident in the US combined. And the main objective of the US military is protect and secure oil.

Modern agriculture is just like Big Oil. It is an evil centralized system that keeps the means of production of a necessary commodity out of hands of the many and in the hands of the few. What the fuck is so damn wrong with rooftop, backyard and community gardens and rooftop, backyard and community solar power panels and windmills? Why have you let propagandists convince you that our existing evil systems are the only possible systems?

[wordspeak2]

Stickdog99 nailed it:

"If you want to fight the die-off, about the stupidest thing you can do is believe that "peak oil" will imminently cause the downfall of all society, inevitably bringing civilization and its current masters crashing down around us regardless of whatever feeble remedies they or we might attempt at this late date. Finally, the undeniable fact that the entire history of oil distribution to date has consisted of of a series of engineered shortages and speculative bubbles designed to drive up prices in the short term for profit offers leftists a political opportunity that they should not forego because it conflicts with their Revelatory dreams of a looming oilpocalypse."

Jack, I think you should look at all the "Peak Oil" material again. If you can't see that it's thinly veiled economic warfare- I think you're not looking. Your jabs at Joesixpack are a little uncalled for. Joe may have some work to do, but we're going to need him/her if we're going to slay this fascist beast that's taken over the planet. I'd blame the oil industry more than Joe. The "Peak Oil" propaganda puts the blame on you and me. It's our fault as consumers for what's happening in the world. That displaces the blame from, say, the perpetrators of 9/11. It's not all that hard to see. It's a divide tactic and a set-up to accept increased economic warfare. The historical imperative before us is to remove the evil fascists from the power they hold in the world. *That* is our task; that is our only hope of saving the environment. The catastrophic environmental crisis on our hands is the result of capitalism; Evo Morales has been very articulate on this. Switching to cleaner energies, and energies less controllable, such as solar and wind, should be part of any leftist plank. It shouldn't just come from the NGO grassroots, per se; it has to come from governments, if we're going to be successful. It may be a 30 year process or we don't know exactly how long, but none of it will happen without political revolution. The "Peak Oil" propaganda is very anti-political-revolution. It's about blame-the-consumer and save-yourself. In contrast, we need more Bolivia-style revolutions. Let's go eco-socialist pronto. Is it so radical? I think it's really what most folks want- people deserve to eat and to have a roof their heads, and the planet should be cared for , not raped. Most people want agree; in fact a significant majority consider themselves environmentalists. It's escaping from the capitalist conspiracy that's the trick. Hating on each other isn't going to help. I'm overall impressed by the decency of the average person, considering we're mass-drugged, over-worked, and live in filthy environments, etc.

Why has the oil industry cartel (which, yet again, is about *distribution*) been co-opting green energy, at least in its PR? They wish to control it, just as elites wish to control social movements, but they don't really want a large-scale conversion, obviously.

Have we a vision, or are we convinced of the apocalypse and necessary human population die-off? The latter is just pathetic, if you ask me. It's the most disempowering contemporary historical narrative possible, and it's being sold to us by the criminal syndicate that doesn't want to give up their power in the world. A few of you are buying it. We should eat some psychedelic mushrooms and take a collective deep breathe. It's sure as hell not going be easy.
Where exactly do we disagree at this point?

But my favorite part of this thread is wintler2's theory about the wild underground oil economy in China, stealing business right under the Big 5's nose. The oil industry is not a cartel! There are dozens of competing interests. Capitalism is great like that.

[eyeno]

But my favorite part of this thread is wintler2's theory about the wild underground oil economy in China, stealing business right under the Big 5's nose. The oil industry is not a cartel! There are dozens of competing interests. Capitalism is great like that.

Ditto. But the supply and demand reference was good too.

It doesn't matter that the cartel currently has trillions of dollars worth of war machinery running night and day either, which is incredibly odd, to me anyway.

[wordspeak2]

Right, if we turned down the massive war machine a few notches- boy, that would save some energy wouldn't it? Gee, that's a head-scratcher. Damn, I feel like Bill Hicks. You have to be really sarcastic to get through on this kind of shit at all.

And, btw, since there's a separate thread about it- what about using HEMP as a fuel? Legalize it.

[hanshan]

...


stickdog99:

Modern agriculture is just like Big Oil. It is an evil centralized system that keeps the means of production of a necessary commodity out of hands of the many and in the hands of the few. What the fuck is so damn wrong with rooftop, backyard and community gardens and rooftop, backyard and community solar power panels and windmills? Why have you let propagandists convince you that our existing evil systems are the only possible systems?

Nothing wrong w/ home gardens, victory gardens, Wintergartens, what have you.
Solar panels, windmills, etc., all cool.

Entrenched interests.

stickdog99:

Why has the oil industry cartel (which, yet again, is about *distribution*) been co-opting green energy, at least in its PR? They wish to control it, just as elites wish to control social movements, but they don't really want a large-scale conversion, obviously.

It may be a 30 year process or we don't know exactly how long, but none of it will happen without political revolution. The "Peak Oil" propaganda is very anti-political-revolution. It's about blame-the-consumer and save-yourself. In contrast, we need more Bolivia-style revolutions. Let's go eco-socialist pronto. Is it so radical?

Yes. On the ground, it's quite radical. &, a 30 yr process is fine.
Long term thinking is useful.

It's escaping from the capitalist conspiracy that's the trick. Hating on each other isn't going to help. I'm overall impressed by the decency of the average person, considering we're mass-drugged, over-worked, and live in filthy environments, etc.

Trick indeed. People change, for the most part, when they're up against the wall. & some, not even then.

Have we a vision, or are we convinced of the apocalypse and necessary human population die-off?

Vision? Un-huh. & am not convinced of anything re: future prognosticating; just looking at trends & cycles.

... and it's being sold to us by the criminal syndicate that doesn't want to give up their power in the world.

Not exactly sure who the snake oil salesmen are or aren't; entrenched power doesn't go quietly into this good night, if written history is any guide.

Thoughtful. Tx


...

[stickdog99]

Blaming the "looming oilpocalypse" on Joe Sixpack's oil consumption habits is like blaming the trillions the US government spent to bailout the banksters on the few thousand proles who got loans for houses they couldn't afford that they have since lost to the same banksters who issued them the loans.

Furthermore, pretending that humanity's current population levels cannot possibly be sustained if humanity is forced to consume less oil (gasp!) is ludicrous. In 1985, for example, China managed to sustain a population of well over a billion people on less than 2 million barrels of oil a day. At current production levels, that ratio would sustain over 35 billion people.

Stop being paralyzed by the doomsday sirens and start advocating for community owned (or at least privately owned and community encouraged) renewable power sources.

[hanshan]

...

The Great Leap ended in catastrophe, resulting in tens of millions of excess deaths.[2] Estimates of the death toll range from 16.5 to 46 million,[3][4][5] with estimates by demographic specialists ranging from 18 to 32.5 million.[6] Historian Frank Dikötter asserts that "coercion, terror, and systematic violence were the very foundation of the Great Leap Forward" and it "motivated one of the most deadly mass killings of human history."[7]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Great_Leap_Forward




aside ... Morgs & S08 some non-sequitur levity
(may as well red-pencil myself)
...

[stickdog99]

http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0360544210002537

This review paper assesses oil supply modeling techniques and critically evaluates their usefulness in projecting future oil production. It reviews models that project future rates of oil production, but does not address estimation of oil resources. The following types of models are reviewed: the Hubbert method; other curve-fitting methods such as exponential and Gaussian models; simulation models of resource discovery and extraction; and data-rich “bottom-up” models. Economic models are reviewed more briefly. Forty-five mathematical models of oil depletion of the last century are classified along four dimensions of variability: emphasis on physical or economic aspects of oil production; model scale; hypothetical or mechanistic orientation; and complexity. Models based on quite disparate assumptions (e.g., physical simulation vs. economic optimal depletion) have produced approximately bell-shaped production profiles, but data do not support assertions that any one model type is most useful for forecasting future oil production. In fact, evidence suggests that existing models have fared poorly in predicting global oil production. The greatest promise for future developments in oil depletion modeling lies in simulation models that combine both physical and economic aspects of oil production.

A summary of this paper can be found here.

Curve-fitting models of oil production have been used since the 1950s. A variety of models exist, but their general approach is as follows.

1. Define a mathematical function to statistically fit to historical production data.

2. Include constraints to improve the quality of model fit.

3. Fit the constrained model to historical data to project future production.

Curve-fitting models vary in the function used, in the use of ultimately recoverable resources (URR) as a constraint and in the usage (or not) of symmetric model functions.

...

Unfortunately, curve-fitting models are often used to make overly specific predictions of future production, ignoring many of the difficulties with such an approach.

An example is given by the excessive importance placed by some analysts on the supposed novelty and accuracy of Hubbert’s 1956 prediction. First, Hubbert’s prediction was predated by at least four publications that provided bell-shaped graphs of future U.S. oil production [13,14,81,82], and no fewer than 7 estimates from the 1950s predicted a peak in US oil production between 1963 and 1973, the approximate range of Hubbert’s low-high predictions (see Table 1). Second, Hubbert’s prediction of a peak in 1970 was based on his high value of URR, which he considered unlikely to be ach- ieved (and which itself was an underestimate). Interpretations of these facts vary: one could argue that Hubbert’s method was not extraordinary, as other methods also came close to predicting the peak date. . .

Another often neglected fact is that all of these studies of the 1950s underestimated URR, some significantly so, despite their reasonably correct projections of the peak date (see Table 1). Cumulative US production has already exceeded 200 Gbbl and significant reserves still remain. Thus, production has not dropped as quickly as Hubbert (or the other authors above) thought that it would, and the US curve is asymmetric [83].

Major issues Brandt raises about curve fitting models include

a. Using exogenous estimates of URR to constrain curve-fitting models is problematic because estimates of URR have been too low in the past.

b. The use of logistic or bell-shaped functions is difficult to support with rigorous scientific reasoning.

c. Production profiles are often asymmetric, with slower rates of decline than rates of increase.

d. Curve fitting models do not account for economic factors, such as demand or resource substitution.

This author’s judgment with respect to the predictive value of models is as follows (noting that these topics are the source of much current debate):

1. Simple curve-fitting models can provide a first-order understanding of future production, assuming a given level of URR and no significant shocks to the system (e.g., demand continues to grow at rates within historical ranges). Such models are likely sufficient to predict the decade of peak production for an estimate of URR. The mathematical logic here is that consumption is so high during the years of peak production that minor variations in URR, or minor deviations due to political or economic factors, will not serve to significantly affect the date of the peak [111]. Unfortunately, such a conclusion is often of little practical use: major disruptions (e.g., the oil crises of the 1974 and 1979), or major errors in URR estimates have occurred in the past, and could occur again.

2. More-detailed mechanistic models (e.g., bottom-up, econometric), exhibit greater fidelity in reproducing historical data and are therefore likely more useful for near term predictions. But this advantage likely wanes for long-term forecasts because they are no less “brittle” with respect to uncertainties than other model types.

3. The most promising avenue for increasing our understanding of oil production lies in integrating the economic and physical factors of oil production.

4. There is no scientific justification for making specific predictions (e.g., the year of peak production) with any of the surveyed mathematical models: the uncertainties involved make such predictions of little use. Efforts should move away from making these kinds of predictions, and toward understanding the impacts of the inevitable transition to oil substitutes.

Improving Oil Depletion Modeling

It is no longer justifiable to build oil depletion models that neglect the reality of economic substitution with alternative resources like oil sands or coal-based liquid fuels. Nor should economic models neglect the underlying physical, geological, and engineering considerations that fundamentally drive the economics of oil production. Future progress will require building integrated models that account for both the economic and physical realities of oil production.

[stickdog99]

A nice FAQ about imagining a future with a lot less oil

[stickdog99]

http://energyfaq.blogspot.com/2010/11/do-we-need-oil-short-form.html

Do we need oil? - short form

Nah.

Again, there is this puzzling assumption that oil can't be replaced, that it is somehow magically necessary for industrial/modern civilization. Oil has been cheap and convenient for the last 100 years, but the industrial revolution started without it, and modern civilization certainly will continue without it.

• 130 years ago, kerosene was needed for illumination, and then electric lighting made it obsolete. The whole oil industry was in trouble for a little while, until someone (Benz) came up the infernal combustion engine-powered horseless carriage. EVs were still better than these noisy, dirty contraptions, which were difficult and dangerous to start. Sadly, someone came up with the first step towards electrifying the ICE vehicle, the electric starter, and that managed to temporarily kill the EV.

Now, of course, oil has become more expensive than it's worth, what with its various kinds of pollution, and its enormous security and supply problems.

• 40 years ago oil was 20% of US electrical generation, and now it's less than .8%.

• 40 years ago many homes in the US were heated with heating oil - the number has fallen by 75% since then.

• 50% of oil consumption is for personal transportation - this could be reduced by 60% by moving from the average US vehicle to something Prius-like. It could be reduced by 90% by going to something Volt-like. It could be reduced 100% by going to something Leaf-like. These are all cost effective, scalable, and here right now.

I personally prefer bikes and electric trains. But, hybrids, EREVs and EVs are cost effective, quickly scalable, and usable by almost everyone.

Sensible people won't move to a new home to solve this problem. That would be far, far more expensive than replacing the car. It makes far more sense to buy an EV and amortize it over 20 years at a cost of less than $2k per year (about the amount they'd save on fuel), versus moving to a much higher cost environment (either higher rent or higher mortgage).

• As Alan Drake has shown, freight transportation can kick the oil-addiction habit relatively easily. We don't need oil (or FF), and we should kick our addiction to it ASAP.

The only reason we haven't yet is the desperate resistance from the minority of workers and investors who would lose careers and investments if we made oil and other FFs obsolete.

Some might ask, what about our current debt problems?

Debt is a symbol, a marker - what matters is the underlying productive capability of our economy, which will be just fine. Could we screw up the management of our economy, and go into a depression? Sure. But it's not likely.

Don't these transitions take 50 years?

The transition from kerosen to electricity for illumination took roughly 30 years. The US transition away from oil-fired generation took very roughly 20 years. The transition away from home-heating oil was also faster than 50 years (though uneven).

The fast transition from steam to diesel locomotive engines is illustrative. There were a few diesel locomotives in use in the U.S. during World War II but steam dominated in 1945. However, the steam locomotives had been very heavily used during World War II, and they all wore out at approximately the same time the first few years after 1945. When steam locomotives wore out, they were invariably replaced by diesel in the mid 1940s. By 1949, almost all steam locomotives were gone. There were still some steam locos made in the late 40's, and they were still in service in the 50's but dwindling. The RR's also relegated the steamers to branch line and switcher use - replacing the most used lines with diesel first as you would expect. Cn rail retired its last steam engine in 1959.

Other, very slow transitions are not a good guide to the future. For instance, the transition from coal could be very slow, because there was no pressure - it was a trade up, not a replacement of a scarce resource. In other words, most of those transitions occurred because something new & better came along - but the older system was still available and worked just fine. Oil may become very expensive very fast and that would provide us an incentive to switch over much more quickly.

Unfortunately, we have more than 50 years worth of things we can burn for electricity. Fortunately, it doesn't look like we will. For instance, coal consumption in the US dropped 9% last year, about half of that due to loss of market share.

The transition from heating with wood to heating with coal took a lot more than fifty years. Electrification of the U.S. from small beginnings in the late nineteenth century to finishing rural electrification during the Great Depression took at least forty years.

Sure. These involved an enormous amount of infrastructure. On the other hand, EV/EREV/HEVs are manufactured on the same assembly lines as ICE vehicles, and roughly 75% drivers in the US have access to an electrical plug where they park.

If we mobilized all our resources as we did in World War II with the single objective of getting off fossil fuels as fast as possible, wouldn't the transition still take at least twenty years, and probably longer than that?

It would be much easier than that. A transition to EVs requires only a change within the automotive industry (for most drivers).