Sherry, “Bio-diesels and ethanol have problems of scale - they will never replace more than a small fraction of oil production.”. What a load of rubbish, that is propaganda from the multinationals. Already bio-oils are being used to replace products made from petro-oils and they provide superior products. Biofuels, are also less of an environmental problem.

The cost even with excise to produce a litre of biodiesel, is about 65c. We produce enough fuel to operate 3 vehicles, a 15m charter boat as a generator from a bit more than acre of land. Maybe you should get out of your closeted office and see the real world. You live in an economic world, not a real one. Economic worlds are fantasy as they can't be sustained, a real world means sustainability. Alternative energy sources are not in favour, because they would take power and money out of the hands of the elite and into the hands of people. That is the only thing that stops them becoming the norm.

Your ideas of preparing for peak oil times is stupid in the extreme and will do nothing to help. Why because you and your ilk, won't change how you live to reduce usage, you couldn't do without your make up, junk food and desire to consume at any cost.

So if you weigh up the sustainability, environmental, social, economic and employment parameters between bio and petro, bio wins hands down.

It would be interesting to hear from anyone in the know about what acrage of land needs to be culitivated to replace X% of oil production and what that translate to in the land currently used as food production.

Maybe I am an optimist but I see humans being able to deal with the coming issues. Could Fusion (if the plant in France works) replace big transport vehiles (ships, tains?), fission is proven in ships already but that has much social stigma attached to it (right or wrongly).

Hydrogen can be made from sea water which is an energy intensive process. I am sure someone has ideas on schemes for that already..

So I am an optimist.

There was some discussion on this site recently about the timing of the oil peak. Of course, the path to that peak, the magnitude of the peak and the rate of decline from it are also important - and extremely hard to estimate - factors in assessing the rate of adjustment to oil depletion. Given the difference in the possible timing of the peak - I've seen a range of 2010-2090 - does anyone know of defensible estimates on the other parameters?

The point that we can't at the same time be desperately afraid of both fossil-fuel-driven global warming AND of running out of fuel is well made. (Though coal will still be around for some time.)

Hi alchemist

You commented re: problems of scale in biofuel production

Brian Fleay has calculated that converting *all* of Australia's wheat crop to ethanol would replace less than 10% of our current oil usage. No one would suggest we should seriously do this of course, but it illustrates the problem of scale with biofuels. Some other crops are more efficient energy converters when turned into biofuel that wheat (eg sugar cane waste) but are not available in the huge quantities required. That is not to say that they won't be useful, just that they are not a magic bullet.

George Monbiot (who I might add is not an economist or an oil company stooge) has written an interesting article of the risks of diverting large amounts of agricultural production to fuel.
http://www.monbiot.com/archives/2004/11/23/feeding-cars-not-people/

Dear Big Fish

George Monbiot presents just the sort of figures you are looking for (http://www.monbiot.com/archives/2004/11/23/feeding-cars-not-people/).

If he is anywhere near right (and I reckon he’s pretty close), then problems of scale are indeed ominous. Even with the highest-yielding biofuel crops and huge reductions in fuel consumption, the issue would still be daunting. There would be a massive shift away from food production into fuel production, with consequent issues of starvation and/or massive land clearing.

As Monbiot said; “If the production of biofuels is big enough to affect climate change, it will be big enough to cause global starvation.”

"Necessity is the mother of invention"

The supposed "problem" with "cheap oil" is it means their is insuffienct return and therefore interest in developing real alternatives.

When "cheap oil" starts to become "reasonably expensive oil" then we will see a real flourishing of innovation and alternatives instead of just a few politically /greenie inspired panaceas.

How do we know this - well simple - when their is enough profit in an opportunity, everyone will want a piece of that opportunity.

Hence, "big bad capitalism" will do what it has always done best - supply the capital in a risk market to ensure consumer demand for a currently uncompetetive but poterntially commercially viable product or resource improvement is met.

Will the result mean there will be a shift in consumer spending - yes

Will some oil companies and the vendors of alternative energy supplies go broke in the process - yes

Will the world end and mass starvation fall upon us - No.

Our present world is the product of the innovativeness and inventiveness of man. Man will resolve the problem and live with the consequences.

I recall the 19th century concerns of then UK economists regarding supply of coking coal - based on the then known resources and extreaction processes for coal - turned out to be complete bunkum.

Before that I recall the statutory embargo on the felling of trees in UK because of competition for supply of wood between the Navy (for ships of the line) and the demands of a fledgling industrial revolution - which prompted the development of a coking coal.

Invention and innovation are fabulous things - the ideas of man, not governments and best used when men benefit from those developments through capitalist ownership not government ownership.