I agree that solar/wind can supply all the energy we need, i.e. it is technically possible. However, getting to that situation without accidents under the way is what most people here think the problem is, and it is caused not by technical difficulties but by the peculiarities of the human social behaviour.

Let me address things out of order.

"Just because you think something can be done doesn't mean that it will be done, or will be done in time, or that the transitions will be anywhere near painless."

There's no question in my mind that we will go to alternatives. The process has started: wind is 1% of US electricity and is growing at 25% per year at least: that's a doubling period of 3 years, so in 15 years we could be at 20% wind easily. If all of the wind projects planned for the US in 2007 actually get built, wind capacity will double to 2%, in just 1 year. That's not likely, but it tells you something about the demand for wind, which is mostly being held back by the speed with which turbine manufacturing can ramp up. Solar is doubling every 2 years, and in 10 years will be where wind is now. The needed batteries are here, and will be on the road in 3 years (whether it's GM or an asian manufacturer).

OTOH, I'm not suggesting that the transition will be painless. As I've noted elsewhere, if depletion happens relatively fast (or if war expands in the Persian Gulf to the point of greatly disrupting oil supplies), and we haven't prepared better than we have so far, then the transition will be much more painful than necessary. The question is, how painful will it be?

My hope is that the campaign against global warming will accelerate preparations.

"Renewables also take resources"

No question. OTOH, they don't take significantly more than conventional energy. Excess costs will arise if we have to retire infrastructure before the end of it's normal lifetime, as appears necessary. That's difficult, but doable.

"I don't expect them to be able to allow the party to continue"

Why not? And why do you phrase in a way that suggests that our current way of life is vaguely immoral, and that we should return to an ebstemious, pure life of ascetism?

"growth will trump any "solution" eventually."

Not really. This is an outdated notion. Growth levels off. Population growth is doing so, and manufacturing is doing so in OECD countries. The difficult question is how to raise developing countries to the standard of living of the developed.

"If your primary energy source peaks, I can't see peak FF being far behind, if it is behind at all. "

Oil isn't our primary energy source: it only provides 40% of our energy. Imported oil only provides 24% of US energy (and yes, US oil is declining, but very slowly).

"I can't see peak FF being far behind, if it is behind at all. A long time" for coal, won't be as long as you think, especially if it starts to substitute for oil, at least not at the required quantities."

A long time for coal is 30 years. No one thinks coal will be used up earlier than that, even with the highest estimates of growth in consumption. That's all we need it for - alternatives will be in place long before then.

"Natural gas is already peaking, or close to peaking, in some major regions. "

No question, NG is going to be painful. OTOH, we don't import much now, some imports will be available (as LNG, and probably in the form of fertilizer), and it will be around for a while, even declining.

"No doubt the US could operate on 10% of current energy consumption but there will be severe hardships getting there, unless it's done over many decades."

We could convert to PHEV's for 75% of vehicle miles driven in 20 years with relatively little pain (3 years to PHEV sales, 7 years to convert most vehicles to PHEV, 10 years of sales). That would accomplish a large chunk of the reduction. Actually, it could be really good for the domestic car industry to do it that fast or faster: it would keep them solvent, if done in the right way.