I wrote in my inexpert-way about peak oil recently in a few diaries. If you haven't read them, they're here, here, and here (links in chronological order).
Here are a few more thoughts.
UPDATE: Typically, I think, people look at a problem like this and assume that powerful, responsible people will take care of it in time. I don't think we can assume that, especially with people like the Bushies and everyone who supports them running so much. -Swan
I'm specifically concerned with how we're going to transport our food when oil runs out, the problem of not knowing exactly when it's going to run out (and no industries, authorities or advocates seeming to do much of preparing us for that) and the problem of replacing oil with coal or nuclear energy to power the power plants to provide energy to plug-in vehicles.
I've got to say it seems to me like we won't have to worry about emissions and global warming so much anymore when oil runs out, unless we pick coal instead of nuclear, as nuclear will have reduced emissions and coal burns very dirty. That's just my inexpert, layman's evaluation.
Transporting all our food around the country and to all the consumers is not going to happen by a new trend of pedestrianism or bike riding-- that's for sure-- and if you think it will be a piece of cake once vehicle traffic on the road is reduced to what's vital and some people are living closer to work or to farms, think again. Think of all the trucks it takes to bring food to all the restaurants and supermarkets-- probably irreplaceable by any means but other automobiles!! Reorganization of where people live and work just won't do it-- at least it would take a huge, and probably authoritarian/totalitarian-driven effort to do so in a way that is effective and meets its goals of nullifying the need for as many vehicles as we currently have.
Another thing you should think about when people talk about using coal to run generators to power plug-in cars instead of building new nuclear plants (coal-burning plants currently provide most of the USA's electricity, by the way):
Coal is supposed to run out (just like oil) in 164 years at current rates of consumption. So if population increases, and coal consumption is increased as a consequence of that (as is to be expected) it will run out even sooner. If we add a transition to electric cars from internal-combustion, gasoline-burning cars on top of that (which will require more generators burning more coal) the coal will run out even quicker. So however long it's going to take for coal to run out, it will in fact be much quicker than 164 years from now, and coal is nothing like a lasting solution to peak oil on its own.
Also sometimes a practical joker will show up and say that nuclear is implausible because it is too expensive. But France uses it to generate 80% of their power. If nuclear is so expensive, then why does France use it for 80% of their power? Snobbish elitism? This criticism of nuclear is just anti-nuclear propaganda.
Better, I think (since battery-power may not be potent enough to make planes fly), to save the coal to create liquid jet-fuel from it, and to use nuclear to power our buildings, streetlights and cars.