Bravo. I applaude your intellectual curiosity and your willingness to step outside your ideological comfort zone. I believe that type of courage and curiosity is how we need to define American Patriotism. Without self questioning, this country is dividing into hundreds of self-reinforcing closed ideological groups which barely even understand the language of the other groups. This trend is getting worse with the internet since one can now exclusively listen to any ideologically colored news coverage which suites one own predispositions. This, in my opinion, is the greatest threat to this country, and the most significant change to our culture in the last 50 years.

As an aside, I work in solar cell industry, and I come across numerous pro-solar groups which are very ideologically isolated. They have 'conventional wisdoms' and phrases so often repeated that no one questions them anymore. Some close-minded political ideologies have radicalized solar cells and view solar cells as if they were part of a communist revolution, literally giving power to the people and overthrowing the tyrany and pollution of corporate utilities, ushering in an age of harmonious co-existance with each other and the planet (think Berkeley, CA). They reinforce each other's views through certain web sites and new groups which never challenge their own views and deeply held assumptions. The pseudo-communist view of solar cells is ironic, since I, and other solar businesses, are tapping into venture capital and other capitalist institutions to fund, what we hope will grow into large profitable corporations. We deal with such un-harmonious things like business plans, return on investment, fiance rates, capital depreciation, etc.

Good!  I'm really glad to hear comments like this because it is way too easy to go overboard when surrounded by people of a like mind.

About the only thing I think we can really predict is turbulence and lots of it.  The problem with predictions is that they are, at best, really crude compared to the complexity of the system we attempt to model.  I'm not saying they aren't a worthwhile effort - just that we shouldn't take them for gospel.  And I don't think most of us here do.

I think the ultimate irony and a likely outcome would be the discovery and mining of vast new oil reservoirs under the Arctic Ocean due to melting of the ice caused by global warming.  We already know its a good candidate given the success at Prudhoe Bay.

If we discover another 1GB of reserves up north then the question will become how fast can that oil be extracted.  Perhaps such a discovery coupled with relatively modest extraction rates could be a good thing since it would give us more time to transition to whatever comes next.

I'd be much happier if we called what's happening now the age of "expensive energy" rather than "peak oil."  It would resonate with a greater audience because I think almost everyone agrees that the cheap energy has been harvested.  The likelihood of finding another oil field like Ghawar with low extraction costs at high volume is essentially zip.  We now climb the price curve.  China has reduced labor costs for production to zero so the cost of energy has to become the primary factor in the price of finished goods.

"we're going to have a very turbulent 20 years."

So if we just batten down the hatches, put up the storm shutters and hang on tight, the hurricane will pass over and we can start the clean up and everything will be alright again?

No, this is not some incident we have to survive. This will be a fundamental change in the way we live. There is no other side to the problems of peak. The question is what new kind of life, new kind of economy, new kind of society will we create. And this is going to take a bit longer than 20 years.

A very healthy sentiment.  I believe there are many troubles ahead, and most of them related.  I tend to think people underestimate the scope of the problem by looking only at production figures, because I think the "noise" and losses will increase, and make it harder for us to realize the amount of energy that we could theoretically be producing.  But this is just my hunch, and I have no data to back it up.  

The big question is the timing, and I know I don't have the answers.  I know I could be quite mistaken in the assumptions I have arrived at, regardless of how convinced I am.  The specter of the Y2K doomsayers I laughed at always hovers over my head!  All I can do is try to stay educated and be ready and willing to change direction.  The internet may provide too much positive feedback, but then the "news" provides none.  So we're left to search out the truth as best we can.  I find that overall, this is the best way, as it forces us to make decisions on our own, while the alternative is blind acceptance of the propaganda.  Reading the arguments from the opposing side of the argument is valuable - but it can be hard to wade through to find ones of value.  

So a proposal - TOD should post links to articles/discussions of opposing/contrary opinion, but limited to well reasoned and rational ones.  It could be a section like the "Peak Oil Primers", or a defined part of the "Blogroll".  This would reinforce the reality of TOD as I see it, which is that it is a balanced discussion of people trying to learn and understand, not mindless ideological preaching.