All of the gloom and doom comes from the assumption that the oil spigot will be turned off tomorrow, and that there will be an immediate need for something else for us to drive to work the very next morning. Your "analysis" is no different.
Every year, agricultural companies market yield-boosting products that increase crop production. Bio-fuels are not necessarily 100% "bio". Lots of them are mixtures with gasoline. A 50/50 mix would double the length of time we have to use gasoline - IF oil really is depleting at a rate we can't catch.
Every year, labs all over the world make progress in battery capacity. Every year, more and more efficient engines are produced. Ten years ago, there were virtually NO hybrids on the market. Look at that today... There are certain engine designs that could double or triple efficiencies, but are not yet proven.
MY ONLY POINT was, that the SKY IS NOT FALLING. It may be raininig - there may even be a tornado coming, but the SKY IS NOT FALLING.
This whole situation reminds me of a passenger in a car who is screaming that she will be killed by an approaching truck - when all the while, the driver sees the truck and is steering out of the way. Who's driving? Industry. Academia. Entrepreneurs.
All I'm saying is, I don't think that truck is going to hit us. But don't screw up the driver by passing laws that says he can only turn the steering wheel a certain distance, and the he must stomp on the brakes in a certain way.
I'm not suggesting that we should pass laws to solve this problem. I'm suggesting that people need to put more money and effort into solving the problem, and stop pretending that the problem doesn't exist.
Although frankly, I would be in favor of giving companies incentives to do research on things like biomass, fuel cells, etc. The problem with relying solely on the private sector to do that is that the only way to recoup investments like that is thru patents, and that is a very ineffective way of doing it. A lot of things aren't patentable, and patents end up in court. They also expire. In addition, they are basically monopolies. Anything that depends on a monopoly to make it work is at best what the economists call a "second best solution."
I am not of that mind set. I see constant technological advances in the oil industry. As an example, a decade or so ago, the West Sak, Schrader Bluff and Ugnu oil fields where not even counted in the reserves because the oil was too thick to bring to the surface (they are shallow relative to the permafrost in the North Slope). They are in the same area we have existing infrastructure, we routinely drill through parts of the formation to get to deeper oil so we have proven the existance and location. In the past couple years, West Sak and Schrader Bluff have started production with newer technology. The three fields have up to 36 billion barrels of oil. Tar Sands and Shale are now producing fuel and will become huge. I do not see any sky falling. Alternative fuels can and should be investigated, but realistic in the capability and requirements. And federal tax dollars should not be used to fund one industry against another when developing fuel.