DavidH says "On one hand, no matter what the technology, it seems like it is all relatively technically complex, either in design, fabrication, construction, or all three."

I can't speak knowledgably about solar or any of the alternatives to oil/ng. However, it seems to me that what they all have in common is a far greater dependence on high capital intensity and high tech. Therefore they depend on a complex and specialized infrastructure. But it seems to me that this is precisely what's going to be hard to maintain at a certain point down off peak.

Here I think there is a really big unknown: once the hydrocarbons are mostly used up, how much of our infrastructure that supports high tech and high capital intensity will be sustainable? I tend to believe, but can't come close to proving that we'll have to back some considerable way off the way we operate now. Shumacher's "small is beautiful" in some form may come into it's own.

The powers-that-be strongly prefer the capital-intensive solutions and are quite hostile to the opposite. Maybe the most flagrant example is where some western owned water companies in third world countries have forbid people to collect rain water.

Besides the capital intensity, what of the energy intensity?

There's going to be a certain amount of mining minerals for solar panels, semiconductors, etc., if we try to ramp it up to commercial scale. And last I checked, nobody had invented electric-powered bulldozers, trenchers, trucks, scoops, etc.

And consider the other end of the equation as well. Who can afford individualized solar collection equipment? Certainly there is a certain portion of the planet that could manage, but what about the rest? Do we become a planet where the top 5% create and manage their own electricity generation and the rest have no hope to do so? And can we expect that they will just sit by and watch those that continue to live the "powered lifestyle"?
Exactly. A world of electricity elitism like that would separate the rich-poor gap even more than today.
Very good point.
There are Gaussian distribution curves as to how many people have economic access to the better, more efficient technologies and who they are in the scheme of things.

Consider how many people own hybrids (i.e. Priuses) versus how many people own oil burning, broken down jalopies and where they fit in the income and population distribution curves.

My guess is that there way more poor people driving low mileage (low MPG) wrecks than there are movie stars strutting their Prestige Priuses around town.

And the low MPG drivers are usually also the low wage earners who have to drive that many more miles from outlying rural areas to get to work in the high-rent town centers.

Arguably, rather than tax deductions for Priuses, government-funded discounts for the poorest people to buy newer cars would do much more to reduce gasoline consumption in our country. Given that many of these cars are also burning major amounts of motor oil through bad valves and/or rings, it would make an even greater difference in air quality, especially in metropolitan areas.

Of course, and running the risk of sounding like I'm stereotyping, getting urban minorities to sell big boats isn't going to happen very easily.