How demand for oil will change by 2030 | Hacker News Reader

How demand for oil will change by 2030

economist.com

8 pointssleepingbot17 comments

Suppose self-driving cars are developed by then? A lot of car trips would be rendered unnecessary. Instead of driving a 2 ton car to the grocery store to get a carton of milk, the store would send a 100 pound driverless go-kart to deliver it. And imagine if you had your walls covered with monitors streaming HD video in real time. Video conferencing would be almost as good as face to face contact, again rendering a lot of car and plane trips unnecessary.

Let's get real, you can make oil for 80-100$ a barrel from coal, and around 200$ a barrel from air and nuclear power. There is nothing magic about long chain hydrocarbons they are just really cheep right now. So we use them for building roads, (Asphalt), lubricants, plastics, fertilizer, and fuel. Something like 20% of our GDP depended on whale oil we found a cheaper alternative. Once supply becomes expensive you will see oil demand fall like a stone.

No one is saying any cause. Just prediction. Doesn't rising number of cars, also include electric or other alternative energy?

Rising number of electric cars wouldn't be accounted here, since they don't use fossil fuels.

What the graphic is telling us is, no matter how big the effort is to switch to renewables+ev's, etc., the fast growth of emerging economies, less prone to become green as fast as, say, EU, will lead to a sustainable and even increasing use of fossil fuels.

The best scenario, in my opinion: fossil fuel prices skyrocketing + some political agreements to boost smart subsidies where there are needed, to make renewables cheaper than coal. As Google.org says, RE<C (where "RE" is renewables and "C" is coal.)

60% of EU budget goes to farmers subsidies. USA subsidizes also monocrops such as corn (leading to massive use of corn syrup, packaged food, boosting obesity.)

So less subsidies to lobbies and more to renewables. And more electric cars on the roads.

I've driven some cool EV's and I only say this: it's really fun. Waiting for the 4 new Renaults to come in 2011-2012 and, specially, a smaller-cheaper version of the Tesla Model S.

All that said, I don't own a car.

Electric cars don't use fossil fuels, eh? Hrm...how do you suppose they get the electricity into the batteries? Kittens running on treadmills?

They of course use fossil fuels if you are using fossil fuels to generate electricity.

Which is why I explain the rest. Read the RE<C and be cool.

Which would mean that an increase in number of electric cars should be accounted for by the graphic as an increase in fossil fuel consumption as well. I don't have any stats on hand, but I would bet that a majority of batteries are charged with fossil fuel energy, simply because it's the cheapest energy around, and manufacturers need to make a profit.

Surprised by some of the responses here. OK. Fossil fuels consumption is not just cars, but Tomle seems to go there on and on.

Tomle: even if we account that all EVs are filled by electricity that comes from coal, their efficiency decreases dramatically the amount of CO2 into the atmosphere. It's just CO2 from production, not from constantly burning. Cities are also better off, without smog and several diseases. Less geoestrategic issues and probably less was, but you probably don't care.

And if you live somewhere like Spain, where in windy days daily electric production for the whole country increases from around 30% wind energy to a mix that reaches sometimes 50%, you are likely to pay way less for moving and be way more sustainable than with your tar sands clunker.

If you do want links with data for all the things I say here, I can look at them for you. I write about this, so I know what I'm saying.

By the way, you can take a look at this video interview with an ex NASA guy who created an EV motorcycles company: http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=939757

Please. We'll have hit peak oil long before then; there's no way that much oil will be produced in 2030.

Peak oil is there. It depends on the data you are looking at, though. Sadly, new sources are being discovered. Several new ones in Latin America, not to say the dirty sources (the really dangerous ones.) Tar sands from Canada (dig in there and then come back to talk to me) and yes, Alaska.

Tar sands are a huge issue in this picture. Just in there, north of your border.

It looks like we've hit global peak, yes, but it's hard to be sure. I went with the phrasing "long before then" just to be on the safe side.

Sadly? We're in no position to be picky about where we get our energy. We currently have no viable alternatives to oil. Combine all the different renewable energy sources you want; they'll never fill the hole left by oil.

I completely disagree with you. I don't think your explanation needs even a response. Oil needs to have alternatives this century. Oil is bad and doesn't make sense. It's burning "old animal matter" into what we breath, while in 6 hours we get as much energy from the sun as we do need for 1 year.

Anyway. Go burn some gasoline, my friend.

You can't just demand that technology advance at the pace you want it to. You can try your best, certainly, but to simply expect the alternatives to be there waiting is ridiculous. Don't depend on what you don't have.

Towle: alternatives are not ridiculous. Are you from ExxonMobil or something? I feel you are getting a bit defensive here, and don't know why.

I bring some facts: France generates almost all its electricity from nuclear power. It's not "green" if you want (your response will bring that) but it doesn't emit CO2 and it's there. Read Stewart Brand.

As said in another comment, Spain procudes 15%-50% energy from wind (I repeat, from wind, today).

> It's burning "old animal matter" into what we breath,

Mate, we don't need that kind of rah-rah emotional imagery here at HN. Penicillin is putting living fungus into your body - but we usually just call it antibiotics.

Anyway, I agree with your other comment about nuclear power being a positive solution to oil. If we can improve batteries, nuclear/better batteries can probably hold us over to hydrogen, fusion, or whatever's post-oil/gas.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com