Paal, you're being reactionary and doom-focused again, as you were with the windmill/transport truck comparison.

First, a few flaws in your approximations and assumptions:

• The specific gravity of crude oil is closer to 900 than 1000, so cut 10% off your estimation for oil amounts from the get go.
• You assume that the only source for biofuels is grain - foodstuffs and feedstock. Alternatives like switchgrass grow well in arid or inhospitable regions, where grain cannot be grown, and produce quite acceptable quantities of ethanol for the effort entailed in their groth. (Also algae, but that's as yet unproven.)
• You're talking about biofuels, so that cubic mile of oil has to shrink again. When biofuel is extracted from biomass, it's ready to roll. Crude has (at best, from the article you sourced) an 89% efficiency in its conversion to fuel oil, so we're down to 80% of that effective fuel you spoke of in that cubic mile.
• Finally, you're once again making the "things are hopeless" generalization by saying "this one technology will not solve our problems". Barring huge advances in farming technology, biofuels cannot replace all the fuel oil consumed in the world wholesale. This is true. However, biofuels are a handy supplement to buy time, and to replace some of the oil in a long-term manner. Electric transport gives us more options. Increases in efficiency act as a multiplier on the effectiveness of any energy source. All you're doing is trolling by decrying the effectiveness of any one source, and, though I've fallen for it (again), I feel that someone ought to point out the flaws in your argument for the benefit of those reading what you write.

Incomplete information, a limited worldview, and calculations based on sketchy numbers trotted out as proof - just as before.