I like your argument. You seem to understand the laws of thermodynamics, which is a rare thing these days. It is perhaps because of that lack that so many people utterly fail to understand exactly what fossil fuel is.

There are really only a few sources of energy available on Earth. We have the energy stored in molecular bonds, which we may access through fission (a messy, dangerous process, but useful). We have geothermal heat provided by our good planet (Scandinavian nations are busy exploring that). We have the natural motion of wind and water that can be harnessed by various means. Then we have the big one; the sun. An enormous gravity-powered fusion reactor that has provided life on Earth with heat and light since we were a proverbial fly in the primordial soup.

Fossil fuel is the concentrated essence of hundreds of millions of years of photosynthesis. Light, converted to biomass, stored in great deposits under the ground like a wine cellar filled with easy energy. We’ve been very lucky to have it, but the overall energy delta, while positive, is smaller than most people think once extraction and refinement are factored in. In any event, we won’t have it for much longer. Even the rosiest estimates have us running out in less than a century, which really isn’t very long as civilizations go. What then? We need to start thinking about that. It will take time and energy to develop and implement alternatives. If we don’t start now, we might not make it. Biofuel is a neat thought, but the laws of thermodynamics are the word of God, and every alternative so far from HHO to biodiesel has had an overwhelmingly negative energy delta. This presents something of a problem, seeing how a large part of our civilization is based on moving stuff around. You need energy to do that and energy has to come from somewhere. And as the late, great Heinlein observed, there ain’t no such thing as a free lunch. Speaking of lunch, why is it that we feel the need to base every meal around a large slab of dead animal? Raising animals for human consumption requires an exponentially greater commitment of resources in terms of arable land and sunlight converted to plant matter. Wouldn’t it be better to reclassify meat as a delicacy and devote that land to growing vegetable proteins? That would feed far more people with a much smaller infrastructure. I have a feeling these calculations will be more important in the years to come, as our magical energy juice runs out.

Isn’t it great how the universe provides equilibrium? The Tao thrives on balance, after all. :-)