Thanks for a timely reminder that energy density is important.
This again indicates that a mix of energy sources is desirable, and it would be an interesting exercise to calculate what the relative proportions of nuclear and renewables would have to be to maintain a similar energy density to today in the absence of FF, taking into account the superior density of uranium to FF.
Solar in many regions would seem to nicely cover many of the peak power requirements which are more difficult with nuclear power, and the costs are now getting fairly reasonable for peak use.

The other thing we could do with is liquid fuels, and although it is by no means clear that the technology will be successful the fuel from algae programs are perhaps the only ones which potentially could deal with that.

I bet those guys in the UK wish they had just a little biodiesel now. In any case, if we are going to see solutions to the problem we're going to need alternative fuel heavy transport and manufacturing equipment ASAP. And we will still need the wind farms...

IMO, this piece strengthens the case for a crash switch to electrified transportation. Nate's stated need for a diverse fuel base fits electric quite well. You can input any generating capacity to power the grid.

I also agree that we will scramble for new energy and make some bad choices along the way. Among the worst choices, IMO, include sinking massive amounts of energy and money into diminishing returns FF infrastructure. Simmons' shiny new oil industry makes no sense to me in view of a post peak oil world. What will the shiny new pipes pump?

As for Simmons' OTEC -- sounds like a great idea if we could rapidly develop a heat to ammonia conversion infrastructure in our oceans. Now I'd like to see some shiny pipes on that! Simmons is the investment banker after all -- hint, hint.

In any case, I think wind, solar, nuclear, and possibly OTEC are potential solutions. The obvious problem at the moment is FF scarcity. Wasting energy to squeeze more oil from increasingly unyielding FF rocks seems like a quick way to cascading failure.

"Wasting energy to squeeze more oil from increasingly unyielding FF rocks seems like a quick way to cascading failure."

Yes agreed in spades.
While we could continue to extract negative EROEI oil (as measured only using barrels of oil to get barrels of oil) by using higher EROEI renewables at some point it will surely dawn on us that we'd be better off just using the electricity directly!

The same argument could be applied to low EOREI biofuels. We could easily grow sugarcane in big greenhouses with heating powered by windmills, but WHY???

Electric streetcars, trains, cars and trucks are all much more efficient than diesel powered ones.

I think the issue is that we're only nearly there for it to be dollar for dollar equivalent.
We don't, for example, currently have a 200 mile range electric SUV for $30,000 or a subcompact 4 seater electric car for $20,000 yet but we're certainly within an order of magnitude.

Personally I just hope we can get electric transport mass market before 2012 or thereabouts because it looks like afterwards things are going to be a lot harder.