"So now it is "Science that" can't be questioned???" Druid

You've got it precisely backward Druid.
Science must be questioned.
Innovation and critical (sometimes antagonistic) peer review are major cogs in the scientific engine.
But questioning scientific assumptions, and acknowledging scientific consensus are two different things.
If you can quote a recognized body of accredited scientists that assert that oil consumption can NOT be reduced, I'll retract my statement.
Until then, I stand by it.
"I agree with your assumption ..." Druid

"Assumption"? What "assumption"?
"... but disagree that the effort should not be attempted." Druid

You can't possibly disagree with me about that; IF you hold the position you claim.
I think we should do more than "attempt" it. I think we should DO it.

To paraphrase Yoda:
- There is no try. There's only doing, or not doing. -
"We have some major dams here in Arizona and still we need to import electrical power from all over the N-west." Druid

Right.
As MG points out:
"The bald fact is that the vast majority of hydro-electrical sites are developed." MG

I'm not sure why this is a "bald" fact. But in any case, it seems, hydro-electric is so dam good (please pardon the pun) that it is more or less (but not entirely) max'd out.