Sherry, thanks for that link. Biofuels are not a silver bullet and we will continue to have problems until we find another form of propulsion. Wheat is a bad example of a biofuel resource, when you compare it with other plants that produce biofuels. Used with electric power and hydrogen it will provide us with means to get by.

Sadly government and big business will have to be dragged screaming towards these alternatives because there is nothing else presently. Our environment will make us change.

The head in the sand crowd, bureaucrats. Polies, the elite don't want these technologies to succeed, because it would take away their massive revenue streams and spread the wealth around.

If we can produce enough fuel for our use per year, then many others can as well. Using the worst scenario's to debunk biofuels is typical of vested interests. My business runs without the aid of mains power, my neighbour gets paid by Hydro Tasmania for the excess power that he puts into the grid. We paid for our system with in 3 years and next year we are upgrading to new technology that will allow us to feed the grid with our extra power. Our system will not need replacing for at least 25 years. Economically we are thousands ahead and never have a power bill, you can't beat that.

This planet can't sustain its present population, so there is no good trying to as the rich countries will never reduce their consumption so as to benefit others. Bet you wouldn't give up you lifestyle to feed the poor, except in a token way. Currently there is very little that is sustainable within our societies, so we must expect some form of collapse before things will kick start in a different way.

Believe it or not, but I know someone that is experimenting with bracken as a source of biodiesel. Now that would solve a few problems for farmers and allow them to just harvest what grows. Once our native plants reveal their potential, you will see the economies of scale change drastically.

Everyone seems to be looking for one so called magic pill, when the answer will come from many sources. Solar, wind, gas, coal, biofuels,
algae, more efficient use, etc.etc.

Biofuels could be the best thing to happen to agriculture, as the world is awash with ultra cheap food, governments outsubisdising one another to get rid of it. In Australia we run 100 million merinos,
now nobody wants their wool. Huge quantities of biofuels could be produced on that land and finally return farming to profitability.

The reason that there has been so little development in these areas, is that investors are aware that only a few years ago oil was 10$ a barrel. Nobody is going to invest, until they are reasonably sure that prices will hold. The cost of pumping oil in the Middle East is still only 1 or 2$ per barrel. The higher and more sustained the price of oil, the more other options will be examined and investments made. So its not gloom and doom at all, just economic reality.

Faustino - you say <i>"...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?"</i>

The range of credible estimate for the peak oil point is 2005 to 2030 - no credible observer seems to predict anything like 2090.

Depletion rates post peak are the key issue and they are dependent on a range of factors. There was a discussion at "The Oil Drum" on this topic recently:

http://www.theoildrum.com/story/2005/11/16/182053/32

You also say <i>"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."</i>

That point is ridiculous I'm afraid - substitution efforts to try and handle oil depletion will make global warming even worse.

As we go past the peak for light sweet crude (as we just have), liquid fuels will increasingly come from "alternative" fossil fuels - heavy oils, tar sands, shale, oal liquifaction etc. These all have much lower EROEI ratios than light oil, and thus much more carbon emissions are created simply creating these fuels - ie. to consume the same net volume of fuel we have burn a much larger amount in the first place. So even as consumption drops we can have increased emissions.

And a reasonable amount of power generation is diesel based - this will move to coal (already happening in China for example), again increasing emissions.

Natural gas depletion results in the same problem, but even worse.

Its a vicious cycle...