Hacker News Reader

Hacker News

Comment by randyrand | Hacker News Reader

Parent Full thread

randyrand

Again?

1882: "only 95 Million barrels remaining/4 years of oil left"

1919: "only 20 years of oil left"

1950: "only 100 Billion barrels left"

1956: "peak oil" by 1970

1980: "only 648 Billion barrels left"

1993: "only 999 Billion barrels left"

2000: "only 1016 Billion barrels left"

2008: "only 1238 Billion barrels left"

The point is not the peak oil will never happen, it's that we have no clue when it will.

Past precedent says prices will rise slightly, technology will improve, and new oil that was once too expensive to obtain becomes obtainable. Here's my prediction: We will switch to some cheaper alternative long before oil ever runs out. There won't be some dramatic crisis where everything goes to shit. It will be a gradual change where oil prices steadily climb and consumption slowly diminishes. Just like has already happened with countless other resources and just like is happening now.

Source and video explanation [Are we running out of Resources?]: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AcWkN4ngR2Y

View on HN

>Past precedent says prices will rise slightly, technology will improve, and new oil that was once too expensive to obtain becomes obtainable.

And common logic says that a resource that is finish will, sooner or later, finish.

It also says that there's no natural law that "technology will improve" always, so that getting harder to get oil will only require the prices to rise "slightly". At some point a specific technology does not improve anymore, or you get diminishing returns.

Also, common sense says, that as time goes by, and measurements improve, it's far more likely for us to predict correctly how many barrels are left that it was in the past.

Common sense says that for a civilisation to run out of a resource and NOT find a proper, similarly cheap, replacement in due time, it's bloody probable. Nothing strange about it.

Now, some people like to think that stuff like "technology always improves in time to save us" is some kind of natural law. I guess they are more into science as religion, than in science as science.

Now, some people like to think that stuff like "technology always improves in time to save us" is some kind of natural law. I guess they are more into science as religion, than in science as science.

(Shrug) On the one side, we have some people who have always said that. They have always been right.

On the other side, we have some people who have always forecast an imminent heat death of Malthusian malaise for us all. Those people have never been right, so I'd say they bear the burden of proof that This Time It's Different.

>On the other side, we have some people who have always forecast an imminent heat death of Malthusian malaise for us all. Those people have never been right, so I'd say they bear the burden of proof that This Time It's Different.

Never been right? They'd been right in predicting the Big Depression. They'd been right saying this "gold rush" thing was BS.

Heck, there were people who predicted the decline and fall of Rome quite accurately. There were people who predicted the dot-com bust quite adequately. There were people who warned about the dangers of Nazi germany (or even the dangers of the Versailles treaty) before it was even a consideration for most. There were people who warned about the housing market bubble quite adequately.

Now, as for why those people (doing the warning) might seem to be wrong more often that others saying it's all OK.

Consider someone playing russian roulette -- perhaps with a 20 bullet chamber. Some other guy warns him: what are you doing, are you crazy? But he pulls the trigger and nothing happens. The other guy warns him again, stop it man, you'll kill yourself. Again, nothing happens. This goes on for a while, until at some point, say the 14th try, the guy blows his brains out.

Well, this same thing happened with situations like the recent economic crash.

Now, some people view it like the person giving the warning was wrong 13 times, and only right once. They'll say, dismisingly, "Well of course he eventually got it right: he always kept to the same warning even when he was wrong. Even a broken watch tells the right time 2 times a day, etc".

But I'd argue that that person was right ALL ALONG. Even when nothing had yet happened. And that if some other kind of action was chosen as he warned it should be (e.g putting the gun down), the tragedy would have been avoided.

And we got over all that stuff, and emerged stronger.

The Russian Roulette analogy is not applicable because we're not discussing random processes.

>And we got over all that stuff, and emerged stronger.

What, out of the recession? That's fairy tale level denial. The thing is still going strong, and it's not even close to over yet. Neither is the US economy coming out stonger at this point.

>The Russian Roulette analogy is not applicable because we're not discussing random processes.

Actually it's perfectly applicable.

For one, the processes we're discussing are essentially stochastic -- there are so many random factors playing into the economy at any given time.

Second, as with the russian roulette, the long term result after a specific consistent course of action is extremely deterministic (you blow your brains in one case, or you fuck up the economy in the other).

Stein's Law: If something cannot go on forever, it will stop.

The only thing that's guaranteed when consuming a finite resource at an accelerating rate is that sooner or later, It Will Be Different.

But being right at the wrong time is no better, and often worse, than being flat-out wrong.

Sometimes being right at the wrong time is better. Maybe we are only alive today because so many of our parents predicted Nuclear Armageddon and acted to prevent it?

It always depends. Every situation is different and it always boils down to a risk assessment. We have to make a collective call on whether the risks of doing nothing outweigh the benefits.

Unfortunately we can't rely on our current obsession: "the markets" to make an accurate risk assessment for us. Markets and oligarchies (and darwinism for that matter) operate within established patterns. They optimize and specialise for short term success. It takes external pressures to implement transformative change.

That external pressure will either be uncomfortably "communist" or the "creative destruction" of a global bloodletting that destroys most of our ecosystems.

Worse for what? If you're gambling on the stock market then sure it's worse for you. If you're wanting to keep civilisation functioning well, then no; taking precautions is not worse for us.

taking precautions is not worse for us.

Are you naive enough to assume that all effects of "precautions" are necessarily benign?

Insult + straw man position. Not worthy of a serious reply.

>> On the other side, we have some people who have always forecast an imminent heat death of Malthusian malaise for us all. Those people have never been right

I'd argue that for a very large part of the global population, maybe even the majority, life as they know is, is pretty close to a Malthusian malaise, and has been for ages.

Really ? Where were the technological improvements when oil shot up to $150 in 2008 ?

Sure technological improvements eventually got us to the energy level we were at in 2005 ... but only just barely and only for a week. Since then it's been going down, with predictable results.

And while shale (currently) provides a few years delay, it's only for a few years, and maybe even only America. That's the problem with these ass-saving technologies. The first few times they saved our ass for several centuries (coal + trains, which will keep working, later nuclear). The next revolution saved our collective energy-hogging asses for ~60 years. The next one, horizontal drilling, did for ~10-15 years. Now we have shale oil, which saves our asses for 5-6 years tops.

The situation is not as rosy as you indicate at all. We're effectively dependent on ALL technologies operating at totally maxed out capacity for economic prosperity, and a lot of these technologies are faltering all at the same time. It won't be pretty.

Frankly we have ~5 years to increase the efficiency of batteries (which have improved a factor 2 in ~100 years in mass/energy and volume/energy). Not by a factor of 2, but a factor of 10, to keep our society at the same technological level. Nobody has any even theoretical ideas to get a twofold improvement. We only have 5 years because of shale oil, and we knew perfectly well in 2000 that we'd need this super-battery before the decade was out, and humanity simply failed ...

I went to a robotic mechanics lecture 2 years ago. The opening line was this : you climbed 5 floors to get here, and you got seriously tired (the elevators were out). If you had been the best robot we have, with roughly half it's weight dedicated to battery you would have just used ~50% of the total energy contents of your battery. This is a problem that needs to be solved before we have any real hope of true independent robots.

Oh and let's feel inspired by nature. Wait. How does nature solve this ? Well, here's the basic formula for oil CnH2n+2. Here's the basic formula for human fat : CnH2nOOH. In both cases the energy is stored in the same chemical structure. The energy is pretty much stored in the exact same chemical bonds in the human body (or any animal) and in a gas tank. In other words : in 4 billion years evolution did not find a better way. Do you think humanity is likely to improve upon it ?

You best hope so. Or we'll see repeats of 2008, except without recovery.

There's not just the energy production and storage side of the equation. Technologies that increase engery efficiency are advancing pretty rapidly right now, in spite of the fact that energy cost is a much smaller share of GDP than it used to be.

I am confident that peak consumption will outrun peak production and that we have a lot of leeway to reduce consumption even more quickly without making major changes to our way of life.

Then how do you explain the obvious correlation between 2008's financial events and the oil price ? And all the previous times that happened ? Or do you think we've advanced ridiculously beyond what we had in 2008 ?

My explanation is that both are caused by a third variable: A speculative credit bubble that affected all kinds of assets, including commodities and and real estate.

Orbital solar. Methane Hydrate. More efficient engines of industry. These things are in development/getting done now. Economies might suffer but when they are needed they will happen pretty quickly.

"In development" as in,

"will be out in the mass market in 5 years",

or as in

"some research centers are taking grants and producing hald-assed results and/or there are some ho-hum products rushed out that don't work as expected and cost a ton"?

In other words, as in "next generation SSDs" or as in "memsistor drives/holographic memory for everybody".

Orbital solar is in development? I'd love to read more on that!

Well, since the DoE study in 81, the only active project is one between China and India announced in 2012. Solar cell costs have come down 100X since the 70's, so in that sense its getting some attention. But since power is still so cheap, its hard to pay back the lift costs of any space-based installation that's been designed.

I don't know how serious it is, but it appears that Japan has been looking into it too:

From Oct. 2013: http://www.wired.co.uk/news/archive/2013-10/02/japan-solar-e...

From Apr. 2009: http://phys.org/news172224356.html

selection bias. look up civilizations other than the one we live in currently, e.g. the mayans.

Actually the classic study is the Rapa Nui culture who inhabited Easter Island and whose culture had already been decimated by deforestation when the Europeans arrived.

Jared Diamond's book Collapse is an exploration of the phenomenon. A bit hard to read if you're paying attention.

oh yes that's a much better example, thank you.

The Mayans ran out of oil?

No, but they might have run out of a critical resource that they didn't expect to run out of. There doesn't seem to be much agreement on exactly what caused the collapse (judging from the wiki article), so it's not a great example.

First off, it is not running out of something that is nec the problem, just the drop in ROI can be devastating. Secondly, the Mayans ran out of corn.

    And common logic says that a resource that is finish will, sooner or later, finish.

Sooner or later — well, you're probably right, for some definition of "later." But the only reason people burn oil is because it's a cheap source of energy. As supply diminishes relative to demand, price will increase, but then it won't be a source of cheap energy anymore: it'll be an expensive one, and electric will take over.

(Let's ignore, for the sake of argument, the fact that oil isn't finite and can be produced in a lab from organic materials, albeit expensively; we can also ignore that oil will naturally form over millions of years from decomposing plant and animal materials, since that's largely irrelevant to humanity as we know it.)

Eventually, even as oil supply diminishes and prices go up, even as people switch away to electricity, someone somewhere will still have a need to consume oil. Years after it's barely useful anymore, even though battery tech has gotten so good it surpasses the internal combustion engine dollar for dollar even ignoring the tax credits, there'll be a lab buried away still burning it for something. And finally, some day, the last drop — or at least, the last easily-recoverable natural drop – of oil will be burned.

But, to be honest, it won't really matter.

The scariest energy-related crisis facing us in the foreseeable future isn't the inability to burn oil or other cheap but dirty energy sources: it's the ease with which everyone currently does burn them, slowly but surely smothering, melting, and then freezing the planet. I hope the BP geologist is right; I'd rather face peak oil than an ice age.

"electric" is not a source of energy. Is a way to transport energy. No oil / fossil fuels => no cheap electricity either.

>It also says that there's no natural law that "technology will improve" always, so that getting harder to get oil will only require the prices to rise "slightly". At some point a specific technology does not improve anymore, or you get diminishing returns.

If you (or anyone) actually believed that you'd be going out and buying oil and oil rights, expecting to get rich off the massive price increase you are predicting.

If people did that it wouldn't be a problem in the first place (it would conserve oil from the present supply for future demand, stabilizing the price.)

you assume rational markets. this assumption doesn't hold in the real world. that's regardless of the fact that most of humans on this planet don't have the money to buy oil or oil rights, and of those that do, most aren't interested.

PS financial institutions already do that.

I'm not assuming anything, merely pointing out an easy way to get rich (if you are truly confident that your prediction is correct.)

But I do believe that markets are more rational than you are giving them credit for, and that the reason oil isn't being conserved even more is that no one actually believes that and is willing to bet their money on it.

disagree. the reason oil isn't being conserved is that it's too cheap. the only cost in the price of oil is extraction cost and sometimes maybe some tax; depends who's paying. cost of pollution and oil replacement research? probably 'optimized' out.

Isn't that already the case? Isn't this "present supply vs future demand" already part of the pricing that makes oil ?

> Now, some people like to think that stuff like "technology always improves in time to save us" is some kind of natural law.

Survivorship bias. If it hadn't worked that way in the past, we wouldn't be here talking about it :)

Well, most people forget that it has NOT worked that way in the past -- only they weren't here to talk about it, their grandfathers were (and barely made it), or other counties were.

Your remark about finite resources made think about this video about the exponential funtion:http://m.youtube.com/watch?v=F-QA2rkpBSY&desktop_uri=%2Fwatc...

"Now, some people like to think that stuff like "technology always improves in time to save us" is some kind of natural law. I guess they are more into science as religion, than in science as science."

That is because IT IS a natural law.

If this law were not true, then there would be no humans on earth. It it scientific because there is evidence with real data to prove the hypothesis.

The fact is that humans are not only resource consumers but also resource creators.

It is you who misled science as science for "religion of the Doomsday". Science tells us that there is trillions of billions of stars, each carrying trillions of times more energy that we consume.

Actually, that's a good reason why we don't have evidence to prove that hypothesis. We're only seeing the trials that worked, because if science didn't improve in time to save us we wouldn't still be here to observe it. For all we know, there have been billions of civilizations out there that have thought the same and died out, but by the very nature of the problem we can only observe the successes.

Peak oil has nothing to do with how many barrels of oil are "left". Peak oil is about production rates.

And the 1956 prediction of a peak around 1970 wasn't a prediction of a global peak, it was a prediction of a US peak -- which occurred just as predicted.

Except that US crude oil production is now rising.

http://www.eia.gov/dnav/pet/hist/LeafHandler.ashx?n=PET&s=MC...

> Except that US crude oil production is now rising.

Its been rising for a while, but still way below the peak in 1970. The behavior observed is not at all inconsistent with the prediction.

Irrelevant when global production is declining.

Relevant when peak oil was just US.

but it's still below the levels of 1970.

The article actually concedes we're discovering "more barrels of oil." It's just that oil is harder and harder to get at from a production standpoint (retrieval, supply chain, finishing, etc). Just because the carbon is there doesn't mean we haven't already eaten all the easy stuff and so his premise is that the remaining fossil fuels (while possibly plentiful) are still really ugly from a cost perspective, driving up energy costs to the point where it alters economies. Which makes sense when you figure the cost of off-shore drilling or fracking or whatever vs sticking a tube in the ground in Texas or what have you.

>Past precedent says prices will rise slightly, technology will improve, and new oil that was once too expensive to obtain becomes obtainable.

And yet, even if all that is true, oil is still a finite resource being consumed with ever increasing demand.

The only thing this proves, if it proves anything, is that we're terrible at accurately stating the terms of the problem, not that there won't ever be a problem.

>And yet, even if all that is true, oil is still a finite resource being consumed with ever increasing demand.

That can't be said for certain: http://www.wired.com/autopia/2008/05/making-renewabl/

But yes, I agree with you. If oil is for some reason impossible to produce synthetically then there will without question have to come a time when we need to switch to an alternative. I think that switch will happen naturally without the need for government intervention, though. Even without a synthetic alternative I think that switch will happen sooner rather than later.

Oil can be produced synthetically: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fischer%E2%80%93Tropsch_process

Though the FT process is quite bad from a CO2 emissions POV.

I don't think that biofuel counts as "oil" for the purposes of this discussion.

it's not a fossil fuel that gets dug up. It's a renewable, carbon-neutral storage of solar power, really.

Renewable possibly. Sustainable & carbon neutral, definitely not. https://www.google.com/search?q=is+biofuel+carbon+neutral

It's heavily subsidized, pushes food prices up, causes deforestation and requires more energy to produce than it produces.

It's a short term hack that exists because it fits in to the current energy systems, not a longterm solution. It certainly does constitute as 'oil' for the purposes of this discussion.

The problem is also that oil becomes more expensive along an exponential curve. We'd have to see ~4% per year efficiency increase in the entire economy, every single year.

That's not just finding more efficient systems. That's inventing them, engineering them, building them, replacing existing systems, and the ROI of the ENTIRE process (including the activity needed for said replacement) needs to be at least 4% of the size of the economy. Every year. Even the renewable technologies we have, like solar, fail this test because of their production energy costs.

When was the last year we saw 1% improvement in the economy ? Right.

I wonder if there are networks of "think" tanks coming up with reasons to "stay the course" with our dependance on fossil fuels, similar to the one pushing global warming denial just recently exposed.

> Here's my prediction: We will switch to some cheaper alternative long before oil ever runs out.

But that's the thing, cheapness, or infinite availability, or both.. this threatens existing profits. Greater global good but less personal profit = not good enough. Hence my wondering about the existence of "advertising budgets" for steering away from that.

His point is that our economies didn't cope well with the previous "gradual" price rise and that we can expect further "gradual" price rises in the next decade and that most economies will not cope well once more.

You may not personally have been affected by the previous price rise, but in the developing world and for people already living below the poverty line these price rises will trigger more riots, revolutions, mass emigrations and resource wars.

And then there's fertilizers...

It's like we hit a new "peak" every 4 or 6 years with an imminent apocalypse on the other end of it. I just don't see Saudi Kings panicking in their castles built by below minimum wage workers so they must have a lot of it but need to justify price increases in the future because "we are running out and need more US dollar for it"

"My father rode a camel. I drive a car. My son flies a jet airplane. His son will ride a camel." Anonymous Saudi Sheik – 1982

not anonymous and i'm not sure if the date is right. upvoted anyway. see also http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rashid_bin_Saeed_Al_Maktoum#Dev...

A camel that drives the car with biochips infused in it's brain!

Reply on news.ycombinator.com