we can't transport them or mine the material to make them without solar power..

I don't follow.

We could eliminate the requirement for biomass consumption by downloading our conciousness-es into solar powered android bodies and giant orbital solar reflectors would beam sunshine down upon us 24 hrs a day. Our positronic brains would be much faster so we would need to learn Dolphin to speak to each other.

This technology is only 5 years away, perhaps 10.

thomas deplume -

As you probably know, many here at TOD hold the view that we can't get from Here to There because we are presently dependent upon a dying technology, i.e., the burning of fossil fuels to produce useful work. They say that we can't go solar, wind, etc. in a big way because a significant amount of fossil fuel is required to create the infrastructure for such systems.

I say that this view is sorely off base. If one studies the history of technology, one sees that new technologies don't just suddenly snap into being like spring flowers. Rather, they are generally bootstrapped and gradually carried into being by the older technologies, of which they gradually displace.

Much horsepower (of the kind with hooves) had been used to bring the steam engine into being, and much fossil fuel technology was required to bring nuclear energy into being. One builds on the other, hopefully in not too wrenching of a way.

One of my favorite little examples of this sort of thing is that of the Japanese Zero fighter plane of WW II. The Japanese got into the aeronautics game quite late, but they were amazingly quick learners. Contrary to blatant racist views to the contrary, they had mastered the state of the art of aeronautical engineer and were good flyers. Their Zero fighter was developed a year or so prior to Pearl Harbor under great secrecy. At the time it was arguable the best fighter plane in the world. However, I read that when they took the first prototype Zero from its hanger to the test field, they had to tow it by horse-drawn wagons because trucks were in such short supply in Japan. So here we had 18th-Century technology helping to bring 20th-Century technolgy into being.

That's the way things usually work. As such, I think the best possible use of our dwindling fossil fuel reserves is to create a sustainable energy infrastructure. Sort of like towing a Zero fighter plane with a horse.

I don't know how old high school seniors are in America, but here in Britain a presentation aimed at 16-18 year olds would be great! I'm 16 and have a good understanding of peak oil and have already made at least 4 people aware, so the answer to your question is no, it's not too young.

With the amount Peak Oil is now being discussed in the media, it is likely that they are going to start hearing about it one way or another. If you can make a presentation to them, that would be good.

Joe -- Go for it!

I just did a presentation for my son and his peers in a fifth-sixth grade classroom. These 11 and 12 year-old students really want to talk about the world they are growing up to live in.

My presentation included rides in the bed of my Zap Xebra electric truck, and rides on some inexpensive electric scooters. Most of these kids have already gotten rides on my pedicab or cargo trike. (Those are now sold and I am building up another pedal machine -- a pedicab/cargo trike combo.)

We talked at length about ecological footprint, over-consumption, mis-consumption, overpopulation, resource depletion (especially petroleum and water), and resource war.

Believe me, kids today do not get enough healthy discussion with adults about reality!!!

The students I've spoken with really wanted to keep going. One of my son's former teachers grabbed me by the arm playfully, but said quite seriously "I wish I still had a child of yours in my class!" as I tend to provide plenty of fodder for classroom discussion.

I encouraged the students to take the discussion home as well -- and armed them with a few websites and published material to discuss with their parents.

Go for it, Joe.

If 5 year old cars are valueless just try buying one for less than $5,000. For the majority of American families 5 year old cars are unaffordable.

Except that that five year old electric car needs to have its batteries replaced.

Cost?

$6000 (today, never mind a peak oil world). That's not cheap maintenance.

um... Heisenberg uncertainty principle?

I am newly playing the electric car conversion game and the unequivocal advice I have been receiving is to "start with a lightweight, standard transmission" car. Many other types of cars and trucks, though entirely possible to be converted, are too heavy to provide much range. The extra batteries needed add more expense, too.

Perhaps these batteries, when available, will provide a good balance between performance and price:
www.fireflyenergy.com

I suspect we will have a lot of scrap metal soon. I've been pondering how to melt it and use it locally rather than having it dismantled and sent somewhere else. My initial research seems to indicate that massive amounts of energy are required to melt it, up until now available primarily from fossil sources.