Increasing the supply of energy must be looked at in an appropriate framework:

1. What is the EROI (Energy return on Investment)
   
2. What is the scalability/timing of the source?
   
3. And, often overlooked, what is the environmental/ecosystem cost of scaling the source (sometimes this is included in EROI)

For energy liquids, Hisrch and Bezdek concluded FT Coal to Liquids was the only source that was scalable but that it needed a long lead time. Anecdotal evidence from Powder River Basin is that coal infrastructure is currently maxed out (not enough rail, coal cars, employees, etc.) It will take a huge amount of lead time to really ramp up CTL in the US - Sasol in South Africa has been doing it for decades and is producing about 100,000 barrels per day.

Ive posted this before but it bears repeating. Of great concern is the impact on greenhouse gas emissions in a world where rapid climate change becoming less of a fringe idea. A good chunk of the GHGs we emit from driving are just from the choice to drive, irrespective of the fuel - however, as the following chart shows, the MARGINAL greenhouse gas emissions from FT technology vs Saudi crude oil refining (purple segments) are a magnitude of 5 times. (source - Ciferno and Marano 2001 report commissioned by DOE)

href="http://www.flickr.com/photos/16092113@N00/86990826/" title="Photo Sharing"></<p> Systems dynamics work that measures the tradeoffs between energy, climate, food and water will be increasingly important. Case in point, geopoets comment about water needs trumping drilling rights in Oklahoma.  Liebigs Law of the minimum is fundamental. (second paragraph on link)

I would call these the pre-interesting times. I think we ain't seen nuttin' yet.

Schweitzer's all wet. For details, see my comment on the next latest post after this one.