Based on this, do you predict an economic upheaval when it becomes more expensive to extract oil? Is cheap oil the only present way to support billions of us at a modern lifestyle?

Even at $100 a barrel, oil was less expensive than renewable sourced energy. Estimates are that the price would have to rise to $240 a barrel before renewable energy (with the technology available today) would be competitive without subsidies.

The problem with the model that says the simple solution is to make fossil fuels ridiculously high in order to make the demand for renewables to increase is that the resulting rise in the cost of living would crash the economy. There's no demand when life is so expensive you can barely survive.

No pixie dust, no free lunch, no path to make renewable competitive until the technology improves significantly. Either live with what you've got and shift the resources to improving the technology, or focus on improving the efficiency of energy use in general so that high energy prices have less impact on the economy. Since the latter would require massive changes throughout society, the better game is to invest in improving the performance of renewables until they can really compete.

": if all of the heavy equipment used to mine materials, construct the generators, ship the parts, and assemble the components of renewable energy sources are powered by fossil fuels, and international agreements restrict the use of those fuels, the schedule of implementing renewable resources will be impacted"
I guess we could study then by looking at whether alternatives are adopted more when oil prices are low or high. If you're right and higher prices paradoxically prevent development of alternatives, we will be in trouble as the supply curve for oil shifts as it gets harder to extract. Ordinarily when one things gets harder to get, the market encourages suppliers to introduce alternatives. You're saying it's the opposite in the case of energy.

Hopefully, efficiency improvements in generation and storage will eventually overcome these problems, but current technology just isn't ready to replace fossil fuel power.

"Man Day?" You sexist. This should be "Creature Day" so as not to offend any animal. As a representative of the Save the Ants Crusade Against Insecticide I fully intend to take this up with the Almighty Lord of the Flies.

It's a matter of resource allocation: if all of the heavy equipment used to mine materials, construct the generators, ship the parts, and assemble the components of renewable energy sources are powered by fossil fuels, and international agreements restrict the use of those fuels, the schedule of implementing renewable resources will be impacted.

If you don't have enough "clean" energy sources to rapidly produce more clean equipment, you have no choice but to use the "dirty" energy sources to produce their replacements until the balance shifts toward more available renewable resources.

There is no magic pixie dust to make these resources appear effortlessly, but proponents don't seem to be willing to comprehend that there are practical difficulties that have nothing to do with attitudes. The resource problem remains even if you disregard the economics issue of renewable energy being significantly more costly.

Switching to renewables makes the problem worse: http://www.coyoteblog.com/coyote_blog...

And is replaced by new and better things via innovation. Read the works of Julian Simon, especially "The Ultimate Resource".

I had not seen the post in question before, but decided it was more appropriate to comment on it directly, rather than in this venue. It is an example of slipshod thinking.

Hmm...another historic cycle we need to consider.

t's hard to envision some method of deliberate restrictions that would be so bad it would paradoxically discourage alternatives.

"How can you have continual growth in a finite world?"
People find new ways to meet people's wants and needs. Human ingenuity allows the amount of value to grow indefinitely without the the world growing.

Some simple math: 70% of the current energy in the world today is provided by some form of carbon fuel; 20% is provided by nuclear sources; 7% is provided by hydroelectric installations; 3% is solar, wind, or geothermal. Deliberate restriction of the use of fossil fuels impedes the transition to wind, solar, and geothermal sources, because we need to use our most plentiful energy source to create, transport, and install the renewables.

Is it a coincidence that this article first appeared on my birthday?
YES!
But, seriously folks, the issue of sustainability is as pertinent as the puzzle that occupied Catholics for a hundred years, i:e: "How many angels can dance on t6he head of a pin." Sustainability in it's useable context works on practical situations such as: Will my new car sustain its ability to run well for twenty years or will its cost of maintenance out-weigh its practicability before that time?

The question about "is it a coincidence Earth Day is Lenin's birthday?" caused old dino's creaky if not creepy extinct yet reanimated mind to recall seeing on my previous PC a certain close-up photo taken at the White House during King Barry's first Christmas there.
It was a hanging ornament with Chairman Mao's smiling face ion it.;
Would such a triggered memory be coincidental too?

Eventually everything runs out

Note does anyone notice the Hollywood left cruises around in private jets. And demand every one. Else give up every that makes life easier??

How can you have continual growth in a finite world?

Hot air balloons?...blimps, use it for combat global cooling?
Trouble is...hot air left alone...cools off!

Reading Wikipedia the first Earth day was started by John McConnell on the spring equinox on March 21st 1969, one year later a politician (US Senator Wisconsin-D) Gaylord Nelson 'started' Earth Day on April 22nd 1970. The senator was later awarded the Presidential Medal of Freedom by Bill Clinton in 1995 for his work on the environment. So.....(sarcasm alert) while the article pointed out the realities of entropy and 'Peak Resource' theory, I think 'Peak Hot Air' is years away. Now if it was useful for something . . . .