Some Responses

There've been a few interesting comments, and I thought I'd reply to some.

First off, the man who started it all, Mahigan. (My response is not exhaustive - the stuff I don't reply to is generally going to be the stuff I agree with.)

"Another point I'm not happy about is" The vast majority of our baseload power is delivered by hydro, coal, or nuclear.". Each of these comes with its own set of significant issues. All the cheap and easy hydro power in North America, and presumably everywhere else, has already been developed."

Sure, each has their problems - I certainly wouldn't want to see a massive increase in coal production, or even large-scale hydroelectric. But the point is that we're running out of oil, not energy per se. Driving our cars is going to be difficult/impossible, but heating our homes less so. Plastics will get more expensive, but not (necessarily) cloth. This is all part of my larger point, that as problematic as Peak Oil will be (no arguments here, of all places!) it won't be the end of civilization as we know it. I have a real problem with the kind of apocalypse fetish that certain oil peakers have.

Next up, a few comments from Chris:

The problem here is not necessarily when oil production declines, but when it ceases to meet demand. When demand continues to increase, but supply remains flat, that IS the crisis. Later, when supply decreases as well, that's when the shit really hits the fan.

Agreed. And given rapidly increasing demand in Asia, this might be a problem a lot sooner than we think, even if we aren't at the Peak yet. However, I'm still optimistic about the possibility of efficiency to outpace scarcity, especially with the increasing possibilties of plug-in-hybrids, ethanol, etc.

But in the short run, oil is one of the most inelastic goods available. In 1973 OPEC reduced the world supply by only 5%, which created a 400% increase in world price.

Yes. And as bad as the oil shocks were in the west, they were catastrophic in the third world. Again, I would say my point is not that Peak Oil won't be difficult, but that it won't be the apocalypse. Hardship is a definite probability. My optimism should not be mistaken for authority.

I'm really, really curious to see the information that says Japan reduced its oil use in half. Are you sure they're not saying that the rate of increase in oil consumption was reduced in half? Because that's more or less what the U.S. did.

Looking over my notes, I believe I made a mistake. My notes say a 43% decrease in Japanese electrical consumption in 1973-74. These are notes from a lecture on Kyoto I attended - I'll see if I can nail down a source. As is, I apologize for the mistake.

Last up, from Battlepanda:

We throw so much energy away now. From waste vegetable oil to corn stalks to all the solar energy we're not harvesting. No one alternative source is going to be the solution, but they're all pieces of the puzzle.

Exactly the point I've tried to make, and the mention of vegetable oil and corn stalks reminds me of a Washington Monthly link I keep flogging about cellulosic ethanol, a possible replacement for gasoline that is far more feasible than pure hydrogen or natural gas, and recent developments may finally make competitive in costs. The article cites a really low cost to convert existing internal-combustion automobiles to ethanol, in the range of $50. This neatly avoids the trillion-dollar problem of switching the actual car fleet - we need only replace their fuel lines. It would be ridiculous if the government couldn't subsidize a gradual switchover to ethanol that would greatly prolong the crisis point with oil.