It seems a bit shortsighted to do all this reporting and ingore nuclear power. Indeed, there's no nuclear powered cars, but new nuke plants a big-batteried-plug-in electric cars would go a long long way to weaning us from oil.

The tragedy of oil is that it is so useful for things besides burning. Just as we learned to build houses from wood rather than burn it, we must transition to a world where we make plastic from oil far more than we burn it for crude heat.

...either we come off the other side of peak oil as a group of scavengers scrounging for rifle cartridges and unspoiled cans of Spaghettios, or our research in the field of nanobiotechnology enables us to break the carbon barrier, and we all get disassembled at the atomic level by a nanobot originally designed to freshen dog breath.

I don't think we can manage both.

We probably ARE at, or near, the global peak of conventional oil production. But that doesn't excuse the blatant fear-mongering and outright hyperbole of James Howard Kunstler, Matt Savinar, Richard Heinberg, Jan Lundberg, and their peak-oil doom cult. (Yes, I've read all their blogs and books.)

Reading between the lines, it's clear most peak-oilers actually wish doom and destruction on the current world politico-economic order. Many adherents are marginalized in the current system. They relish their fantasies of halcyon eco-villages, and the collapse of globalism and existing urban power structures. Finally, they chortle, the era of the "common people" has arrived, free of government and corporate domination. As oil-refineries worldwide gurgle to a halt, they envision a paradise for healthy, physically fit, mostly vegan, do-it-yourselfers. It's laughable. It's pathetic.

Last time we tried such tribalism, there were a lot fewer people on the planet--and they still managed to brutally slaughter each other in large numbers.

Thankfully, it won't come to this. There will be a period of energy transition, and contrary to peak-oil doomthink, the solution will be part economic, and part technological. Here it is, pure and simple: $3.00 gas didn't stop SUV drivers, but it nearly bankrupted GM. $6.00 or $10.00 gas will kill or transform GM once and for all, put the road-behemoths permanently in park, and restore some sanity to American's profligate sense of energy entitlement.

The government may be forced to step in and deal with shortages. But that doesn't mean it will collapse. If you don't think the military has first rights to any oil in this country, think again. Martial law would be declared in any kind of 'doomsday' situation. There's a far greater chance of internment camps than eco-villages in that scenario.

Last time we had those kinds of shortages in WWII, the government issued ration coupons. We Americans have a lot of fat in our energy diet. We are SPOILED ROTTEN. We could easily, and I mean easily cut our fossil energy consumption in half, almost overnight if necessary. (Carpooling, public transport, change all light bulbs to half wattage, turn off heat to rooms we aren't using, ride bicycles, use organic waste in place of fertilizer, turn lights and computers off in office buildings at night, and stop WHINING!)

I'm here to agree on one point with the peak-oilers: we will be forced to cut our oil consumption. And it will paradoxically be great news for future forms of energy. Amory Lovins' Rocky Mountain Institue is right on the money. And the only reason why his plans haven't been taken more seriously until now is because oil has been dirt cheap!

Both private and National Oil Companies know that they stand to make 5-10 times the money on the downslope of the peak as what they have made up to this point. Think you hate the Oil Sheiks now? The West is about to get into a bidding war with China and India over oil. Prices could hit $150-200 per barrel or more.

Wickedly high prices will be the bitter medicine America (and the world) needs to go cold-turkey. The coming energy shock will not only prove peak-oilers wrong, it will kickstart the long-overdue energy transition like the "chorus of doom" never could. As prices rise, demand will plummet. It will only be a matter of time before new energy extraction and production methods take over, and energy prices moderate worldwide. Some of this is already happening, such as in Brazil, which produces almost 20 percent of its transport fuel from sugar cane, and it's already cheaper than gasoline. Or globally with wind power, now the fastest growing energy source. If enough alt-energy comes on line in the next few years, we might not even have to go through such a traumatic shock. And--there's a silver lining to the energy transition: a better, healthier lifestyle, with far less CO2 production!

Either way, sell your SUV, and buy an efficient hybrid car or diesel (not a bullshit luxury hybrid). Buy stock in clean-tech companies. Buy E85 or biodiesel if you can find it. Plan to telecommute in the future. But don't waste your money on survival gear, or your life by drinking the peak-oil kool-aid. Don't take my word for it, pay a visit to JD over at Peak Oil Debunked. His writing style is great, and you'll see why human ingenuity will ALWAYS find enough energy to power the future.

...is at best a risky proposition.

Do you really see Nicki Hilton riding a bicycle to her next soiree? Or The Donald sticking solar panels on his roof and turning down his heat?

Yes, the vast majority of Americans will be forced into conservation mode by skyrocketing prices, especially during any transition periods to new oil sources. The last time I looked, there was not only a $30k price tag on most hybrids but a waiting list to boot, and we're not even to the point where demand has gotten desperate. But I honestly think any scarcity issues, particularly with regard to energy since it impacts virtually every other sphere of commerce, is going to have serious social consequences. If gas is $10 a gallon, then the only people who can drive are people who can afford $10 a gallon. And those people will drive, because let's face it, bicycling 5 miles to work is a sweaty proposition that a pretty big majority of people would rather opt out of. (If it were not, they'd already be doing it.)

Even if it never gets as bad as 'cannibals in the suburbs', the lives of the have-nots and the haves will continue to diverge in this country. And as any student of history can tell you, when the gap between the two becomes wide and severe enough, Wacky Social Things begin to happen.

Not limited to guillotines, communism, etc. And I don't know about you, but out where my family lives the jobs they have that keep their families financially afloat are far enough away from the homes they can afford that bicycling is something of a dodgy proposition. I don't want my 50 year old mom bicycling through gang-infested neighborhoods to her hospital, thanks muchly, but she's not going to be able to afford $10 a gallon to get there in a car. And the way public transportation has been implemented in my area, I wouldn't stick her on a bus, either. (It would be a roughly 2 hour trip, with at least three transfers, for her to take the bus to work.) And saying "move closer to work" isn't a realistic proposition for a family with two mortgages and burgeoning consumer debt, either.

Yes, society will adapt. But that adaptation will be expensive and difficult, and -that- is what has me concerned. And planting a garden, too. But I like fresh cucumbers, so there are ancilliary benefits. I think the reality will fall somewhere between cannibals and Star Trek transporters, as it always does.