The gamers' if giving thought to the consequences; imagine their great grandkids living under a giant plexiglass solar collecter wizz bang unity networked supercomputer protoplasm world, with the rest of the world resembling a damp and poisonous version of Mars, think "Oh well, that's kinda cool!"
Meanwhile electricity based modules are going to dominate many aspects of the global economy, well beyond oil. With resource flexibility and all the billions going into carbon capture/ (recycle re-burn via algae emerges strongly at this point), the cards have essentially been shown.
After oil, the next seriously key resources are metals associated with electricity capture, storage and transfer. The energy to run through the equipment is going to be competitive up until there may be no live coral or anything with a spine in the ocean. I'm pretty sure, at that point, we are totally FUBAR. I think the science based on calcium accumulation in mollusk and reef species indicates global ocean death in the 100 to 250 year timespan from now. It is unknown what science may be able to achieve to alleviate or mitigate any of the most drastic effects.
The most serious thinkers seem to be suggesting nukes are the only backstop energy with a miniscule carbon footprint by comparison to any alternative, which may buy us enough time to sidestep absolute global disaster by carbonification of oceans and air.
Amazingly, central Australia may turn once again into a forest full of rivers.... mmmm....
Martenson discussed this idea in his video lecture, and I recall one report (probably mentioned in Energy Bulletin) that assessed the idea of business as usual with various sources of energy, and from what I gathered, the likely scenario is that we will use various sources of energy to survive, but it will not allow us to maintain the current global economy, which needs oil, either for most operations or as a start up.
There are many factors to consider. For example, for nuclear power, I think Martenson states that just to meet two-thirds of U.S. energy demands using nuclear power, one will need something like the total number of reactors worldwide. And that's just to meet two-thirds of the energy needs of less than 5 pct of the world's population. Of course, there should be various ways to lower energy and resource costs, but one should balance them with all sorts of problems that will crop up. This is important, as we did not do such when we started using oil.
Perhaps what's more logical is to look at something like ecological footprint and biocapacity, which considers resources in general: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ecological_footprint http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_co ... _footprint
With that, we can argue that our ave. global footprint is around 2.7 global hectares per capita but our biocapacity is only around 1.8 global hectares, which means we are in overshoot. What makes matters worse is that the 1.8 figure was based on a population of 6 billion. An increasing population will lower per capita biocapacity. Pollution and climate change will lower that biocapacity further.
In addition, it's possible that the ave. global footprint will have to remain the same or even go up, which makes the deficit worse.
If we assume that an amount of time (not to mention significant levels of global coordination) will be needed to move from an oil-based to an electricity (and other)-based economy as well as oil and other resources needed for other sources of energy, then we'll probably need something like two decades to make that possible. If we want economic growth to continue, and given the need to create a buffer against various black swans (like war, the effects of climate change, epidemics, etc.), then we will require the equivalent of one Saudi Arabia every seven years or so.
Finally, given that this is a global endeavor (as it involves a global economy) and will likely involve the same corporations, governments, and military forces that have been operating the last few decades, then we should probably see how we did the last five decades or so and see the next five in light of that.
We few, we happy few, we band of chipmunks....