Analysts See Oil Demand Peaking by 2030 as Electric Vehicles Boom | Hacker News Reader

Analysts See Oil Demand Peaking by 2030 as Electric Vehicles Boom

bloomberg.com

38 pointsuptown86 comments

The year petroleum usage peaks is unknowable at present, but it obvious its coming. But the year will only be significant in hindsight. There have been many plateau years before. In 2007 Worldwide usage was 86.3 MBPD, in '08 it was 85.8, in '09 it was 84.3, then in 2010 it was back up to 86.4. All due to the economic slump, of course, but now every pundit will saying with every tiny slowdown "the end is nigh".

I always find it strange that people in the oil business talk about the "oil demand" without respect to price. Maybe this idea comes from when the West was pumping oil at maximum rates, fracking did not exist, and the OPEC cartel could control the price by fiat (and before OPEC I have heard the oil price was controlled by the output in Texas). At that time there was a price set by OPEC and they pumped to meet demand at that price. In that environment the using the phrase "oil demand" for "oil usage" made sense. But in today's world OPEC does not seem to be able to set the price very well. Peak "oil demand", where demand is determined by the peak amount of oil consumed, will depend on the price and uses of oil in the future.

Some crazy future tech in 2045 which makes heavy oil and tar sands profitable to extract and turn into carbon fiber at $100 a ton might replace structural steel. This could push oil usage up to a new peak, even if a previous "oil demand" peak happened in 2030, when we decided it was really stupid to burn this great chemical stock for raw energy.

When I studied organic chemistry in high school, I vividly recall one of the authors of the chemistry textbook saying something to the tune of: its unbelievable how much stuff you can make with petroleum but our civilization has decided the best use is to burn it.

If the world's population continues to grow at its current pace, and more people are lifted out of poverty, the demand for petrochemicals and petroleum derived products will only keep increasing. And in the further future when humans colonize other planets, petroleum will be a uniquely Earth-based resource making it even more valuable.

And in the further future when humans colonize other planets, petroleum will be a uniquely Earth-based resource making it even more valuable.

If you have electricity, water, and a carbon source, you can manufacture the hydrocarbons currently sourced from petroleum. Small scientific colonies would import terrestrial hydrocarbons just like they would import terrestrial aluminum and glass, of course, but if you're picturing self-sustaining space industrialization and colonization, it won't be worth sending hydrocarbons from Earth to Mars.

Hydrocarbon synthesis also puts an (admittedly high) upper limit on the cost of making organic chemicals on Earth. Some Peak Oilers were confused about this, imagining fossil resources as irreplaceable magic. "It's not just fuel -- pesticides, pharmaceuticals, and dyes are made from oil too!" they'd say, implying that you can't have modern pharmaceuticals without oil. But that's like saying that you can't make paper without trees. The reason that paper is overwhelmingly made from trees is because that's currently the cheapest way, not because other ways are unknown. If the abundance/cheapness of feedstocks changes, so will their share of the market. (And costs will go up too, of course. The cost of refined liquid fuels goes up nearly linearly with the cost of crude oil. The cost of drugs/dyes/pesticides rises much less, because only a small share of their total cost of production came from simple hydrocarbon feedstocks in the first place.)

With the exception of nuclear fuels, which are truly "used up" during fission or fusion, all atoms are recyclable.

I would love to see a chart of the energy required (both theoretical and "currently best working system") to produce various hydrocarbons from CO2 and H2O feedstock. Methane, propane, heptane, etc., and then some mixtures like gasoline, diesel fuel, asphalt. I quick search did not bring anything up for me.

Here's an analysis of methane synthesized with water, CO2, and electricity:

http://www.sgc.se/ckfinder/userfiles/files/SGC284_eng.pdf

They put it at 52% energetic efficiency from electricity. They're starting with a concentrated CO2 stream as a byproduct of a biological waste digester. If they were starting with a more dilute CO2 source like seawater or ordinary air there would also be an energy cost for concentrating the CO2. In my estimation, a reasonable rule of thumb is that it would take 2-4 megajoules of electricity to make one megajoule of common small hydrocarbons (methane, ethane, ethylene, propylene, benzene...)

For example, a megawatt hour of electricity is 3600 MJ. If it were used to synthesize the hydrocarbon commodity ethylene at 1/3 efficiency, it would yield about 24 kilograms of ethylene. Bulk ethylene prices in the US in July were $645/tonne, or $15.38 for 24 kilograms. Today a megawatt hour of renewable electricity might cost $30 in a favorable location. So the electricity cost alone of renewable ethylene would be nearly double the all-in cost of petro-ethylene. Probably renewable ethylene would be closer to 4x the cost of petro-ethylene once you add other costs. But, notably, not 100x or even 10x the cost; disposable polyethylene packaging might become too expensive for routine use, absent fossils, but durable goods incorporating polyethylene parts would still be affordable. Higher-value materials synthesized starting from ethylene, like detergents and coolant fluids, would also see a relatively modest price increase.

There's a lot of literature on producing liquid fuels and chemicals starting from natural gas and coal. Most schemas proceed through an intermediate called synthesis gas, ("syngas") a mixture of CO/H2 that can be converted into many different products depending on the catalysts used. To get the overall energetic efficiency you'd combine the extant huge literature on synthesis gas conversion with the assumption that synthesis gas is made from the reverse water gas reaction of CO2 with electrolytic hydrogen from water. (Not hard if you're fluent with chemistry and units conversion, otherwise may be challenging. I'd do a table of examples myself if I thought this comment would be more visible.)

Here's a presentation that has a schematic view synthesizing renewable hydrocarbons without biomass -- see particularly the slide "Combining Technologies" where it shows that methanol, gasoline, diesel, and methane can all be produced from the same syngas intermediate:

http://orbit.dtu.dk/files/51542760/Production_of_Green_Natur...

Thanks for the info and the links. Pretty easy to get a pure CO2 stream on Mars and H2O is all over the place. Just need some nuclear generators to get cranking.

Partially its because demand is fairly inelastic at historical price levels. As electric cars begin competing with ICE cars that won't be the case any longer.

Shouldn’t this change US Mideast policy immediately? My guess is that planners don’t believe this to be true.

Why would it?

Most of the “investments” in “stability” of the region have payoffs in the many decades.

By the estimate, peak oil is still a long time off, and just crossing peak oil does not mean that oil will become unimportant over night.

True, but much of the political importance of oil has to do with the threat of a sudden oil shortage. The first defense (for the US) is to create massive reserve tanks, the second is to befriend oil producing regimes, the third is to invest trillions propping up those regimes.

Another reading of this report:

Oil consumption will remain at today's level or higher through 2040. Present oil consumption is 99 Mb/d, will peak at 106 Mb/d in 2030, then decrease to ~97 Mb/d by 2045.

Honestly it's a lot less rosy than the title suggests.

My question is the demand collapse, and transition to a demand spike. The current models of increased load, like demand reduction and management companies that do nothing more than broker kW for incentives for shut-down during high peak times - et al. https://energy.gov/eere/wipo/demand-reduction-0 // --> so, as we shift away from fossil fuels/oil .. who are the great tycoons of electrical grid creeping?

Very little oil is used to power the grid. It's almost all used in transportation.

but the grid does use natural gas for peaker plants to respond to demand changes.

Natural gas comes from oil wells. If demand for oil reduces, and wells close, natural gas production will decline too.

While Natural Gas was considered a byproduct in earlier times when it couldn't be harvested efficiently (and had to be "flared"), current technology does allow us to do so, and wells targeting gas specifically are not uncommon.

According to the U.S. Energy Information Administration, you are correct in that very little fossil fuel is used in electrical energy production [1]. However, quite a lot of natural gas is used, which is what the GP was describing, so I think his question is still quite relevant.

[1]: https://www.eia.gov/energyexplained/images/charts/consumptio...

You're already seeing utility scale battery storage displace the most expensive oil and natural gas peakers who operate less than hundreds of hours per year (Tesla has an additional order in Australia, and a new order in New Zealand after the press from the Hornsdale Power Reserve [1]).

The winners will be renewables, battery storage owners who can arbitrage, and technology companies who can arbitrage using distributed resources in partnership with owners of those resources (ie Tesla and company).

[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hornsdale_Wind_Farm#Hornsdale_...

Minus Elon Musk ... like who are the big players though?

Can you be more specific? There are "big players" in utility solar/wind generator installation, utilities themselves, battery storage manufacturers, etc. I'd like to be as helpful as I can be in explaining, but I need the question constrained.

There is no cartel that "owns" a distributed generation and transmission future. Transmission systems operators are typically non-profits, utilities are heavily regulated, which leaves opportunities for generators (solar, wind, natural gas, batteries), residential consumers (rooftop solar), and industrial consumers (load shedding, batteries for reductions in demand charges, on-site colo generation).

https://www.theguardian.com/australia-news/2018/jan/22/briti...

How about this guy he is building a battery factory in australia and is trying to buy part of GM's car manufacturing plant that was shutdown.

This is awesome! Thank you for sharing!

Siemens.

https://electrek.co/2018/01/11/aes-siemens-launch-fluence-en...

Its a good question. I think Tesla is on to something with home Solar re chargers though. If we transition to a model where every (or sufficiently many) homes rely on solar power to generate electricity, the increase in EV's wouldn't much change the demand of electricity from the grid. That seems like a great solution to prevent the grid from being the bottleneck for the growth of EV.

(With self-driving cars I see an even better future: drive your car to the office, then indicate its not required for the next 8 hours. It searches for a nearby solar recharge station and drives itself, charges itself and returns by the time you need to leave. Seems like Sci-Fi right now but oh well... I can still dream )

Using electric car batteries to smooth out load on the grid is a good idea, but there’s no need for the car to be physically proximate to electricity sources. We already have a much more efficient way of transporting power through space - the grid.

> Using electric car batteries to smooth out load on the grid is a good idea, but there’s no need for the car to be physically proximate to electricity sources

transmission losses are non-zero. so there is at least _some_ value in having the power for the air conditioner 20 feet away.

What about some sort of electrical power hawala transaction?

I provide power in some far place with my car, and in exchange the power supplier gives an equivalent amount of power to my air conditioner for free for as long as I’m providing power.

Wow that is actually a really interesting idea! The problem with that approach would be trust: to trust that both parties hold their part of the bargain. There's likely to be a cryptographic solution to ensure that though, right?

Why do we need any of this? Physics takes care of it if we just hook everyone up to a grid. Electricity pretty much finds the sources and sinks by itself if you provide capacity (it’s more complicated that that, but simpler than what you are proposing). It’s kind of like saying why don’t we pump and sell well water to one another instead of using a common water supply where the runoff from all our land goes to the same pipes.

> Why do we need any of this? Physics takes care of it if we just hook everyone up to a grid.

That's exactly what is the bottleneck: the grid. Operating a grid, eating transmission losses etc. cost a lot of capital and labor. Not to mention: its also a single point of failure. Whereas communication (through cellphone towers) is cheap(er).

> It’s kind of like saying why don’t we pump and sell well water to one another instead of using a common water supply where the runoff from all our land goes to the same pipes.

Its not the same, and I don't think its a good comparison. Solar energy is much more plentiful than groundwater, and does not require any "processing".

Grid storage is the bottleneck today. You make the problem worse by splitting things up.

Maybe this is one example of a use case for blockchain technology.

With hawala the trust depends purely on a money brokers reputation.

Agreed that transmission losses are real, but I would be amazed if mechanically transporting batteries down a road were more efficient than a wire. Consider the capital cost of adding miles to roads and tires vs. running electricity through wires. You’d also decrease speed of transmission and availability - both important when we are trying to distribute load across time and space.

> but I would be amazed if mechanically transporting batteries down a road were more efficient than a wire.

It is, because it doesn't require building a fucking electric pole (or run it underground: more expensive) and making sure its not cut by external factors.

Suppose that a vehicle carrying a 1Ah battery passes a given point on the freeway every second.

That's like 3600A of current!

(Well, except that both positive and negative charges are present, so it's like two 3600A currents in opposite directions which cancel.)

The poles have already been built. This would only be relevant if we were considering building new construction that isn’t connected to the grid, or letting existing grid infrastructure fall apart completely. In this analogy, the wires and poles map to the road the car is driving on.

While home solar is great, it is nowhere as reliable as the grid. You can have days when the sun doesn't shine. You expect the grid to bear your super heavy load (once every home goes ev and solar) on cloudy days and don't use it any other day. The grid is going to get much more costlier than you know, or there will be a hefty grid connection fee

Let me be clear that I'm not advocating for getting rid of the grid. Like you said, on days when local generation doesn't meet demand, the grid will be very useful. What I'm saying is that local generation would supplement the grid; perhaps make it so that it can handle the additional loads put on it by millions of Electric Vehicles.

Oil demand has been "peaking" since the 90s...

I've never heard people saying that. There have been plenty of "peak oil" predictions, but that refers to supply not demand.

Maybe I missed something?

Another commenter replied to your misunderstanding between peak supply and peak demand, but I’ll address the issue you actually mentioned too.

Since 1980, we have never had a year where we found more untapped oil reserves than were consumed[1]. Can you explain to me how oil production can continue keep up with demand when demand outstrips new discoveries — and has, for nearly forty years?

[1]: https://dothemath.ucsd.edu/2011/11/peak-oil-perspective/

That's actually a pretty good link. It's pretty easy to read that document and come to the complete opposite conclusion. All it takes is a little more confidence that we could weather a spike in oil prices while tar sands production ramps up to meet demand.

Control of oil is about who extracts it and what currency they sell it in. There is plenty of oil but we are always told that it is scarce. All of this was established in the Standard Oil days when there was a glut of oil meaning that nobody could make money at it. The trick was to manage the supply so the price was high.

This is not to deny that we are burning the oil at a silly rate to therefore run out. However, the story of scarcity told along the way is not quite what the peak oil believers would have you believe.

At the same time the Permian has been found to contain tens of billions of barrels of oil beyond what was anticipated could be extracted just ten years ago. Undercounting is almost universal throughout oil's industrial history, and tilts toward there being a lot more.

Pioneer pegs Spraberry/Wolfcamp at 50 billion barrels (and Eagle Ford at 25 billion). The Permian will end up being comparable in size only to Ghawar, with ~100 billion barrels or more (Pioneer says 150+ billion, other studies say 70-80 billion, and so on). That's based on today's technology, tomorrow we'll be able to extract more.

Cross the border into Mexico, you're going to find more massive shale deposits that we haven't even looked at yet (it doesn't just magically stop at the Texas border very obviously). That'll happen in the next ten years.

There's $6 or $7 trillion worth of oil in Texas that was almost entirely off the table as a resource as recently as 2007.

Given that demand growth has outstripped discoveries, how is it that we've continued to grow production for these last 40 years?

The answer lies in the metric "proven reserves" - oil that we have the technology to recover today - which has outpaced production increases over the last 40 years (https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3866387/figure/...), leaving us with 50 years of production at today's rates, up from 30 years in 1980. Figure from https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3866387/

The weakness of most peak oil supply discussions, including that "peak-oil-perspective" link, is that they only count "Conventional" oil. Ignoring "Unconventional oil" https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Unconventional_oil has caused these predictions to be invalidated every time. Hubbert's original "peak oil" prediction did not consider "unconventional" oil, because there was no "unconventional" oil production at that time (and the term still remains loosely defined - basically oil that costs more than other oil to produce).

Increased prices provide incentives to create technologies to recover previously unusable sources and to bring previously uneconomic sources into production. Today's "unconventional" oil includes sources that most people just expect to be counted as part of the oil supply, like fracking and offshore drilling. Increased prices also motivate developing and shifting to other energy sources which were previously not economically viable, like wind and solar.

This article http://www.artberman.com/the-crude-oil-export-ban-what-me-wo... does better, but in his eagerness to declare peak oil supply, he ignores economics and his peak oil supply declaration failed immediately as world oil supply continued to grow: https://www.eia.gov/outlooks/steo/report/global_oil.php

Turning your question around, "Can you explain to me how we can hit peak oil production, when growth in proven reserves outstrips production growth — and has, for nearly forty years?" (It's possible, but it seems likely we will hit peak demand and reduce oil demand well before we hit peak supply).

The article is saying that it will peak in 2030, as in after that it will decrease.

When will it make sense for a practical, skinflint commuter to make the switch?

Is your commute under 40 miles round trip? You can get a Nissan Leaf today for ~$10k used, or $20k-30k new. Or a Chevy Volt, Chevy Bolt, or a reservation for a Tesla Model 3.

Makes great financial sense, as it's half the cost per mile to drive an EV vs an internal combustion vehicle [1].

EDIT: I own a Nissan Leaf I paid $10k for. I charge at home (6 cents/kwh, $3 for a full charge), and my employer offers free charging at my parking garage (which I use whenever I'm not working from home).

[1] http://www.umich.edu/~umtriswt/PDF/SWT-2018-1_Abstract_Engli... WARNING: PDF

With the Tax incentive in California, a used Nissan Leaf could effectively cost $6K used now.

And then if your work or city offers subsidized electric charging stations... it would definitely be worth switching now.

However I think there is a real chance that a fleet of automatic driving Ubers may make ride sharing cheaper than buying an electric car for most people.

There are tax incentives in California for used electric cars?

Apologies for the bad info... Tax credits for USED electric vehicles are only happening in Colorado right now.

I forgot how the math on this worked out exactly. But I saw people getting the Leaf a few months ago for about that amount.

I can get a 2014 Nissan Versa in good shape with 60,000 miles for ~$7,000 here, so the maintenance and fuel savings would have to be more than $3,000.

I pay around $1/mile to drive my (rather new) ICE car. Of that, less than a quarter is fuel. The majority is value depreciation. I haven’t seen any detailed calculations of EV ownership costs but I think it looks optimistic to hope for half the cost.

Or was the “half” just the marginal cost of the last mile driven and not the TCO per year divided my miles driven?

If you're going to buy a car anyway, it might already be today.

If you're deciding between a used Nissan LEAF and a ~2005 Honda Civic, the Honda is still going to be cheaper all-in. By a lot.

I daily drive a LEAF and like it a lot. It's still cost us a LOT more than my wife's 2005 CR-V over the last 3 years, because of depreciation and carrying collision insurance (due to financing the car at a 0% interest rate, but I still need to carry insurance, so the collision insurance is effectively the finance charge for me).

Per mile, I pay about 0.25 kWh, which at MA electric rates comes to ~$0.05/mile for power. That would equate to a 35 mpg car buying gas at $1.75/gallon. Plus, the car needs no oil changes and is very easy on brake pads. But a 12 year old Honda (or Toyota) will be tough to beat with an electric on an all-in basis.

Used Renault Zoes are exceptionally cheap in the UK. £69/month battery lease, and then about £2k for the car.

Yesterday?

If you only need typical commuter distances (less than 50 miles per day), then it's already practical to switch today. Go buy a Bolt / Volt / i3 / Leaf / Zoe / whatever. Used ones are already around, and reasonably cheap.

It's only really the edge cases that aren't super practical right now. (i.e., 'what about roadtrips?', or 'what about rural lifestyles', or 'what about cross-country trips', 'what about hauling a lot of freight', etc).

Urban = Core

Suburban, inter-city = Fringe

Your point stands, but your assumptions are a bit off.

Range anxiety is real, and you're underestimating its magnitude. Today, gas stations are practically ubiquitous along major population and travel corridors, so there's a huge install base of infrastructure when you're stuck in unfortunate or unusual circumstances and you need to acquire more fuel.

EV-related infrastructure has a lot of catching up to do, when your EV is one traffic detour away from being inoperable, because only dozens of charging stations exist in your area.

Charging infrastructure is getting near ubiquity.

https://www.tesla.com/supercharger

https://www.plugshare.com/

> and you're underestimating its magnitude.

I don't think I'm underestimating it. You are correct, EV infrastructure is poor or completely absent in most places. I mentioned the Volt and a i3 for precisely that reason. (I own a Volt for that reason). If you are worried about range anxiety, just buy an EV that has a gas backup generator, and you are fully covered in either situation.

To add to the edge case -- my normal commute is 50 miles a day. But on closing day of the sale of my old house, and purchase of the new one, I had two closings to attend to, in different locations. Had to drive from my old house to the one closing (about 30 miles in one direction), then to the closing on the new house (30 miles back, plus another 20 miles to get to that closing's location). Then had to drive to the storage unit to get a few things I needed for that night at the new house (bedding, some furniture items). An electric car with a 200 mile range would have had me extremely anxious. Oh, and when it was all over, still had to drive into the office for an hour for a meeting.

That's an edge case. Much as you wouldn't buy a moving van if you need it only once every N years, wouldn't this sort of examples be solved by Uber or similar?

I know it sucks when you have a perfectly serviceable car :) but I wouldn't dismiss an electric car just because of this edge case when a solution is very simple.

As soon as you have somewhere to charge your car? Driving electrics is already cheaper today than driving a newish ICE car.

I'm not really convinced we will see oil go away. We've been saying peak oil since the 70s. The US military as a whole still relies heavily on oil. Burning oil is still the only reliable propulsion for space programs.

But more importantly the whole global warming, anti-oil movement has been to minimize the impact of OPEC on US, and put pressure on oil producing nations, largely Russia.

OPEC remains the only organization to outwit the US by exploiting their reliance on it. Take a look at the oil shock during Carter's administration.

With fracking the US does not need OPEC/Saudi as they used to and they are freaking out. The main countries whose economy largely depends on oil have already suffered the economic consequences: Venezuela, Russia, etc. They also happen to have earned the ire of US by not submitting to their rule.

Electric cars will still be well out of reach from the rest of the population (Tesla shareholders/shills will say not for long) and combustion engine will still be in demand.

It was one thing to confront the US as USSR or when US oil production was low, it's a whole new ball game now.

It's no coincidence with fracking on US soil, we started to see a decline in crude oil prices, and oil producing countries panicking.

But more importantly the whole global warming, anti-oil movement has been to minimize the impact of OPEC on US, and put pressure on oil producing nations, largely Russia

I don't think so.

> I don't think so.

care to explain? is it coincidence the global warming narrative began suddenly picking up momentum post-Crimea?

wait, you believe the global warming "narrative" began in 2014?

That's some pretty incredible confirmation bias in action

> began in 2014

'picked up in momentum' means I acknowledge it did not begin in 2014 but that the velocity of dissemination and the depth of the narrative increased.

Sorry, I'm seeing nit picking here and there with language, and it's a poor way of arguing against my original position.

As a counterpoint, the German government has been implementing its "Energiewende" (energy revolution) for much longer than that. The Renewable Energies Act became law in 2000 and brought heavy subsidies for deployment of renewables on both individual and utility scale.

And as always, government usually trails behind political movements, in this case by several decades.

As another data point, the Kyoto Protocol was signed in 1997 and went into effect in 2005. The Paris Agreement, its most important successor, was signed in 2015, which correlates with the timeline you suggest, but it's pretty impossible that this is connected to the events in Crimea since preparations were already underway for several years at that point.

>Burning oil is still the only reliable propulsion for space programs.

Not true. The space shuttle for example burned a solid fuel (namely, ammonium perchlorate composite propellant) and liquid hydrogen.

> solid fuel

...and where does that come from?

From aluminium, which for which the primary inputs are electricity and ore and a binder. There are numerous possible binders and many are not petrochemicals.

right the ingredients still rely one way or other on dinosaur juice. you made it sound as if NASA was able to produce their own fuel out of thin air and test beakers.

edit: my point was that the solid fuel still relies on oil dug out of the ground. parent seemed to suggest that wasn't the case.

And you make it sound as though there is literally nothing on earth that contains chemical energy, except for oil.

Oil isn't going to disappear because of oil. Oil disappears because of batteries and the improvements that have been made over decades.

To say oil will win over batteries (where applicable) is to say that either 1) battery improvements will not continue; or 2) that oil is somehow immune to economics.

Any discussion of the end of oil without mentioning batteries is incomplete. They are the driver of the change.

so who is going to replace all the oil that is being used in jets, diesel trucks in third world countries, tanks, humvees, non-nuclear powered naval ships?

Tesla built the largest battery producing plant and they are going to meet the demand? They can't even meet their own supply targets for their cars! Are they going to retrofit F-22s with batteries? How about a farmer in India, is he going to be able to afford a Tesla Tractor vs the one he was using since he's grandfather?

You seem to be absolutely sure that the oil will be replaced by batteries without taking into a lot of uncertainties around it.

Key phrase in my post "where applicable". Naval ships, humvees, tanks, and diesel trucks can all possibly use batteries. The grid can use batteries instead of peaker plants too (enabling more renewable energy sources to be used instead of coal).

But the F22 will still use oil--battery development is no where close to provide that level of energy-to-weight.

You seem to be arguing that we're talking about ALL oil production. But that's not true.. we're just talking about the 90+% that is used for transportation. Removing that--which if battery improvements continue absolutely will happen--oil will never see the demand it has in the past. It'll be relegated to a specialty fuel.

your version of 'where applicable' seems to be just about anything. Like you say F-22 will still use oil and not batteries, but its not just weight but ease of transportation and economies of scale of pulling oil from the ground vs. manufacturing and maintaining the whole supply chain.

Transportation in what part of the world? Please be more specific, you made it sound like countries where people can barely afford to live are suddenly going to hop onto Tesla grid and their lives change. Who benefits from this narrative do you think? Definitely not the people who will be shackled into further debts by purchasing the new paradiagm shift in energy tech.

Until you have an infinite source of energy, the battery is not truly sustainable. They all have a shelf life, maintenance and harm to the environment. There's a lot of money thats going to be involved and so will people profiteering and selling their reality and attacking people who say otherwise.

The article and the person you're responding to are saying that oil demand will peak -- start to decrease after reaching an all-time-high -- as electrified transportation displaces it. Neither is saying that oil use will go to zero.

All shipping and aviation combined -- military and civilian -- accounts for a minority of global oil use. Hummers and people in India with ancient diesel tractors are just a footnote to global oil demand. It's entirely possible for oil demand to peak without F-22s, warships, or Indian tractors ever converting to batteries.

> We've been saying peak oil since the 70s.

peak oil supply yes, but this is peak oil demand, which is new

I used peak oil because I knew somebody would trip up on the wording. Peak oil describes both sides, either we run out (we aren't) or we just wake up and stop using it altogether (batteries are expensive, doesn't have economies of scale, and pricing is kicked down to the consumer).

It's easy to say battery is going to replace oil in a country where you don't see poverty or people don't live on a $1 a day. Oil demand will increase in majority of the world where people are still poor.

You had me until you said climate change is a government conspiracy to hurt Russia.

Is it a conspiracy that the US controls the global media and people just buy up whatever they read? After all, Russia was able to exploit this very fact into their favor.

Is it a conspiracy that the World Bank and US backed institution shackle poor countries with debt by corrupting their leaders to do their bidding? Talk to people from South America, they will have a very different opinion of US: See Panama, Colombia, Ecuador, Honduras. Talk to Iran and Afghanis. Talk to people on the receiving end of US "freedom". I mean a fucking institution that was supposed to document Amazonian language ended up displacing entire communities so US companies could dig oil out of it. But whose narrative did you buy? The only one they show to American citizens. How about United Fruits? How about the Shah of Iran who conspired with Roosevelt's grandson to kick out his own father to sell off the countries oil only to have the wrath come back in a non-secular fashion? How many 'dictators' who fought against American corporatocracy are alive?

All I'm saying is just to be conscious and careful when buying into such narrative from a party with a long history of manipulation. Have you gone out and done your own studies whether to check their narrative is true? Does the average HN user have the resources and technological powers to verify the results for themselves?

Or are you one of those people who think the US goes around all over the world spreading 'freedom' for the sake of the good of those people?

Reply on news.ycombinator.com