Aniya, glad your still here, and hope you come back to check for a reply, the challenging questions you raise are too good not to want to discuss!

First you ask:
Main question: So, what are some of your ideas for the "best case" "best, most positive mitigation paths and strategies" WRT "peak"?

This is a broad enough subject to require a book, but let me go in the general direction that I have been developing (and not me alone but many others who are concerned about energy issues in the world).

1. I have come to believe that conservation and efficiency are the first and most cost effective means of stretching the world energy supply and reducing greenhouse gas. That is not a radical theory, it is often mentioned here at TOD. But by extension, I have come to a much more radical theory, being,

2. Conservation and efficiency will have to be essentially "transparent",
that is to say, the average consumer/customer will have to be made to be efficient without even knowing it, and while suffering no major impact on the convenience/comfort of his/her lifestyle. In fact, it can be argued that the efficiency must actually enhance the comfort/convenience of lifestyle.

Why? Because most consumers will not, or, and this is important CANNOT reduce consumption if it involves a great change in lifestyle or great sacrifice.

We live in a very complex culture, and one with a rapidly growing population of elderly, single aging females, and professionally trained "information/clerical/office" workers. All these things combine to mean that our population is not only unwilling to suffer a huge change in living conditions, most cannot. Pure and simply, they would risk a rapidly declining level of health and well being and many would not survive.

I will use myself as an example: I was raised around farming. My grandfather had the closest thing one can imagine to a "survivalist" type farm. No running water, it came from a spring. We killed and ate chickens, beef, and pigs, gathered eggs as they were layed, milked cows, and had a wide variety of garden vegetables grown on the farm. He had two mules, which were worked well into the 1960's. Many years, he came to town perhaps twice or three times, to buy a few staples (salt, pepper, etc, that could not be grown) and to grind corn for corn meal, as he had no grinding mill (one had existed, driven by water on the creek on the farm, but it finally washed away in flooding, broke apart to the point it was not replaced) I know that one can survive in such an ultra low energy environment....except...

I suffer from severe hypertension, hereditary in nature. My grandfather suffered from it, eventually being disabled by a stroke, and having to be moved to a nursing home. My aunts, uncles, father and several cousins suffer from it, many younger than myself.

Without modern medication taken daily, our odds of survival begin to drop. In my own case, after about 48 hours, I begin to have "starburst" vision, and begn to become incoherent in writing, speech and comprehension. Within hours, my blood pressure will exceed "hypertension crisis level",
over 220/170 and I go to the emergency room to have it brought down by intravenous injection. So, all of my knowledge of how to survive in a primitive manner are of no benefit. I must work for the preservation of the modern age.

But I am only one of millions. Hypertension, diabetes, heart blockage, kidney and digestive issues affect tens of millions of Americans. Their ability to change lifestyle in a fundamental was is very limited.

"Elegant conservation' and efficiency must be almost invisible in nature.

Can this be done? Of course, but the design has be done very well. A few examples of elegant design already in use:

(a) Ground coupled heat pumps. These extract heat and cooling from the tempeture of the Earth, and avoid the wild swings of air tempeture in climate control. I have freinds who have them, and have almost forgotten they have them! Then, they have a dinner party, and hear some speak of what they are paying for natural gas heating or air conditioning costs. My heat pump owning friend was astounded! It was the first time he had heard of such prices! Surely, he said, you must be miscounting! That price can't be right can it? Have you called your gas company, maybe you have a leak!
THAT is elegant design!

(b) Transportation: Have you ever noticed the airfoil on the top of the cabs of tractor trailer trucks? In the early 1970's, those did not exist. NASA did wind tunnel studies in research to reduce fuel consumption in America, and pointed out that these could be of great benefit. Truck manufacturerers at first said they would install them on new trucks, the drivers would not like them. Fleet owners, when they saw the results and the potential savings of Diesel fuel (and money) thought otherwise, bought aftermarket versions of the airfoil spoilers, and had them installed. HUGE savings finally forced the truck manufacturers to build them into new trucks. The amount of Diesel fuel saved since the 1970's by these aerodynamic devices has been huge. And unlike other fuel saving devices, they were not abandoned in the later 1980's-90's when fuel prices dropped, because there was no sacrifice in using them, and people were used to the styling of them.
Elegant design!

At the same time, (late 1970's-early 1980's, a pharmacist friend of my families bought one of the Mercedes 300E series cars. He was smitten! The car was electronically governed to 143 miles per hour, comfortable, fast, and modern looking:
http://www.automobilemag.com/features/news/20_greatest_cars/0604_1987_me...

Named as one of the 20 greatest cars ever built, it is hard now to understand what a sensation this car was at the time. But, it was tricky! Through careful windtunnel testing, the car's aerodynamic drag was reduced by about a fourth compared to the model it replaced (but through details, no one could easily see where), and the drivetrain, with lockup torque converter, extra high top gear, and very efficient engine, was far more efficient than the car it replaced. The result was a car that would get easily 20% or more better fuel economy than the model it replaced, BUT was faster, quieter and more comfortable!
Elegant design!
--------------------

Turning to the future, this is the type of design we must look for in alternatives:
It must reduce consuption of fossil fuel and or increase production of energy without increasing imput of fossil fuel, but do it without the customer really noticing it is happening. Below are some examples:

Confluence on the transportation front:
One of the most promising technologies is hydraulic hybrid drive:
http://www.hydraulicspneumatics.com/200/Issue/Article/False/38545/Issue

This system holds the possibility of fuel savings of 70%, and greenhouse gas carbon emission reductions of 40% (as my friend above said in shock, can that be right?). The article linked above gives plenty of food for thought, but consider this: This sytem has possibility for use in school buses, sanitation trucks, mail delivery, RV and motorhomes, utility company service trucks, on and on. But what about private cars? A Diesel Mercedes sedan will currently get about 30 to 35 miles per gallon. Imagine a 70% fuel consumption savings on top of that, and you are looking at 50 miles per gallon plus, and this with a comfortable roomy sedan, and better acceleration from a standing start!
Elegant design!

The plug hybrid electric car has everything going for it, all we are waiting for is the batteries, and we are close. This is a car that several of my middle aged female friends are curious about, not for the fuel savings, but for the convenience of only having to go to the convenience store rarely to refuel.
For older women, it is easy to forget that the gasoline car entails some inconvenience. So used are they to not having to endure any discomfort they do now want to, it is becoming a real annoyance to them!

The greatest "transparent" alternative energy is solar. Placed on the roof of homes, businesses, warehouses, out of sight, out of mind, all the customer cares about is the cheap clean power, they do not care where it comes from:

Confuence on the solar front:

http://www.solarforecast.com/

http://www.solarforecast.com/ArticleDetails.php?articleID=333

http://www.solarforecast.com/ArticleDetails.php?articleID=322

The confluence of CIS and CIGS (Copper, Indium, Gallium and Selenium) along with high concentrating solar collectors is moving now at a VERY fast pace.
What is lacking is development of electric storage technology, and integration of the advances into the grid system.

The variety of elegant solar solutions is much more varied than some realize:
http://www.seia.org/solartypes.php#

Solar coupled with ground coupled heat pump can create shopping malls and office buildings that use less fossil fuel than a current private house, but the savings will create absolutely no discomfort to the users of the building.

Likewise, earth bermed architecture. many buildings are what the Germans once referred to as “facadentecture” in that they only put one face forward (one side) as an aesthetic front to the world, while the other sides of the building are nothing but warehouse looking sheer walls. Go around to the backside of most shopping malls, hospitals, and even schools and one sees this effect readily (have you ever been around to the backside of most Walmart stores?

If these buildings are oriented with the south side facing correctly, the other three sides can easily be bermed with earth, making them storm safe as well as hugely energy efficient. We could go on for days, but as we can see, there is plenty of work to be done. If I had a child with promising technical skills, I would encourage them into the field of alternative and efficient energy design, it is a growing field full of promise (unless the price of oil collapses, in which case....a person would have had a rewarding early career, and look for the switch....
------

Speaking of growing, your other major question:

"In general, growth cannot continue unabated. But that's something you know...?

In general, I agree. But, growth does not have to continue unabated for humans to have a fulfilling and decent life. And defining growth in anything better than "general" terms can be tricky.

In 1980, Alvin Toffler pointed up some of what he called the CODA of industrial civilization: The worship of growth was one of the codes, as was the cult of bigness, centralization, maximization, synchronization, and standardization. All these were considered at the heart of modern existance in an industrial modern culture.

But the definintion of "growth" has been very narrow. If one can go 100 miles on the same amount of fuel as it used to take to go 25 miles, is not that a type of growth, efficiency growth, that frees up wealth to do other things?
If by way of flattening population growth through the will of women and birth control, does not the wealth per capita grow (there is only two ways to grow per capita income....increase the income or hold down the per capita! :-)

Is it possble to develop new financial arrangements and tools to increase an individuals access to many assets, without the individual having to own them? If I can rent a race car the quality of an Indianapolis 500 racer and drive it a few times because I wanted to know what a thrill it would be, then turn it back to the owers to rent to someone else, would there be any need to ever build more than a handful of them? Likewise, a high speed boat, or a luxury condo on the beach for me and my mistress to play in once in a while? ;-)

Growth of human experience can be accomplished without exactly matching growth of oil consumption. And we must remember that oil and natural gas are only forms of energy. Energy on Earth, despite what some say, is NOT a closed system. This is why I am such a beliver in making the effort on solar energy. As solar collecting efficiencies grow, is that not a form of growth in the energy supply, more and more power, essentially extracted from thin air?
We need to study carefully what we mean when we say "growth". Again, the issue of transparency comes up: If people were enjoying as much freedom of movement as ever, and as much comfort and security as ever, and a vareity of interesting eperiences, would they know or care if the economy was "growing" per se, in the old definition?

Lastly, Richard Heinberg. Let me say that I have always enjoyed Richards writing and thinking, and do accept that he is sincere. I was not speaking ill of his work in anyway, he is sharp, and can build a convincing arguement.

My discussion centered around his core "philosophical" and aesthetic belief, and what he desires for the world. I really don't know. In his early work, he seems to at times have a great deal in common with the "deep green" or neo-primitivist philosophers. There are many among those groups who see anything that delays what they see as the inevitable collapse (because all cultures collapse someday) as a false path. Thus, technology is not something to be endorsed, even if it works very well, because the better it works, the longer it delays the inevitable collapse!

Heinberg does not seem to be that radical. I do know what he seems to be certain will happen. I just wonder what he wants to happen, in the deepest place in his heart. I do think Heinberg cares about people. I just sometimes wonder about many in the peak movement, and those aligned with the "deep green movement", as to whether they realize that the so called "sustainable" culture they sometimes describe will mean early death to many people, possibly as many as 100 million in the U.S. alone were it to actually come to pass. Of course, death will come to us all. In one way, one could say that the only truly "sustainable" course is suicide. But, I think we should try out some technical ideas first, just for fun! If we're all "Dead Men Walking" what harm can it do! :-)

Roger Conner Jr.
Remember, we are only one cubic mile from freedom