because after I seen the statement on gap, I searched and immediately got an article - graphene not only can be equipped with gap, but tunable one. just make double layer graphene: http://spectrum.ieee.org/semiconductors/materials/graphene-makes-transistors-tunable

from the beginning - the link I provided talked on coal and oil as energy providers. Could you check? it is not about what you think - but about how you treat what you read - and here I cannot help. also - computations of effect of coal prices exists in Greg Clark works.

as you like. But it is easy to my eyes - coal played the same role as oil in British economy and author computes how prices of coal affected economy. So if you substitute coal by energy - you are done. Now for chemical industry - the peak oil is not a problem, as chemical industry just as good in most cased can work on coal or natural gas. then for that several percents which cannot function without oil - there is oil for centuries and then - as I already provided links - it is possible to derive any chemicals derived from oil - just from thin air - the only thing - is energy, but here is another story on nuclear energy. Which is interesting - but in short - it can provide energy for millenniums ( using not current tech, but tech we already have ).

Your problem with results is easily resolved if you take a look at papers of the author ( they are at his site http://www.econ.ucdavis.edu/faculty/gclark/research.html look for coal). He spent good part of his life calculating impact of coal on British economy and he calculates overall impact of coal on economy. I think that using just the same approach he made conclusion on impact of energy prices on modern economy.

Oh, how exactly do you explain the DOD document that came out several years ago warning of the same thing? there are two facets 1) there will be peak oil - and somehow it is better to be prepared 2) how to be prepared is the next question - and here military guys just look to fill their pockets and meet their interests - not to solve a problem, so the society might decide - what to make with them - fire from government agencies. There should be no self interested persons in gov organisations, they should work for society

but look - http://www.lanl.gov/news/index.php/fuseaction/home.story/story_id/12554 - you may make gasoline ( and all higher products you mentioned ) out of air ( and out of biomass too ) and the price ... lower than nowday oil on market, so how it could be more pricely in future?. Even now china produces a lot of chemicals from coal instead of oil. The relative price for higher order products is much lower, than it is for transportations. So even if the plastics will be done out of air ( not biomass not coal ) then the final price will change dramatically. Last - 'peak oil' does not mean end of oil, so there are hundreds of years before end of oil - so no need to replace all and at once now. and transportation gets now 60% of all oil. so reducing this part - will resolve problem to change to new ways to produce plastics for hundreds of years at least.

You may use google translate translate.google.com and translate part which is titled Die Erschließung weiterer und alternativer Energie-Ressourcen schafft neue sicherheitspolitische Herausforderungen as you may notice - the authors really have some info of alternatives ( but not too much - much less that in wikipedia article :) ). But still - they do not even attempt to put this in context. they do not consider that 500 usd/barrel oil will not stop economy so any thoughts that coal liquefication will signigicantly change price of coal ( which can be mined in much more quantities, for example in Russia ) and this change will make great trouble are less than founded. so this report is just a piece of garbadge

So, given what you say, authors of this report http://peak-oil.com/download/Peak%20Oil.%20Sicherheitspolitische%20Implikationen%20knapper%20Ressourcen%2011082010.pdf do not know even the things which happen in Germany

The link to paper was here http://peak-oil.com/download/Peak%20Oil.%20Sicherheitspolitische%20Implikationen%20knapper%20Ressourcen%2011082010.pdf

The paper which can be got in German here has almost no signs of ability to think. Consider - there is DME http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dimethyl_ether , which can be produced from coal/biomass, then read http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Synthetic_fuel, then figure out , as Gregory Clark did http://economistsview.typepad.com/economistsview/2007/12/life-after-peak.html that up to the price of 500 dollars per barrel of oil will decline the economy for only 11 percents and at such prices - DME other synfuels will spring to wide use, so it is not possible that we live in era of 500 per barrel fuel for very long time. And then - not even 11% drop will be achieved - so if 5% drop in this recession did not kill all us, how then the comparable shock will make any worse?

a new demo, following a release is posted