Catch up on stories from the past week (and beyond) at the Slashdot story archive

 


Forgot your password?
Close
typodupeerror
×
Power

The End of the Oil Age Is Upon Us (vice.com) 251

Posted by msmash from the shape-of-things-to-come dept.
A new report suggests that over the next 30 years, at least 80% of the oil industry will be wiped out. From a news report: The oil industry is on the cusp of a process of almost total decimation that will begin over the next 30 years, and continue through to the next century. That's the stark implication of a new forecast by a team of energy analysts led by a former US government energy advisor, seen exclusively by Motherboard. 2020, the forecast suggests, will go down in history as the final point-of-no-return for the global oil industry -- a date to which we will look back and remember how the production of oil, as well as other fossil fuels like gas and coal, underwent a slow, but inexorable and largely irreversible decline.

Along the way, some 80 percent of the industry as we know it is going to be wiped out. Of course, the COVID-19 pandemic is likely to be recognized as a principal trigger for this decline. The new era of oscillating social distancing rules and remote working has crushed once rocketing demand, at least temporarily. But in reality, the broad contours of this decline were already set in motion even before the pandemic hit. And the implications are stark: we are in the midst of a fundamental energy transition which will see the bulk of the fossil fuel industry gradually eclipsed in coming decades.
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

The End of the Oil Age Is Upon Us More

The End of the Oil Age Is Upon Us

Comments Filter:

  • Good. Let's hasten it's decline. (Score:5, Insightful)

    by dmay34 ( 6770232 ) on Wednesday August 26, 2020 @03:49PM (#60443979)
    Why wait until 2050? Let's just go ahead and make the world a better place for us and our children today.

    • Re: (Score:3, Funny)

      by ShanghaiBill ( 739463 )

      Let's just go ahead and make the world a better place for us and our children today.

      What if it turns out that climate change really is a hoax? Then we will have made the world a better place for nothing.

      • And had these sky is falling people had just pushed pollution and closed loop they would get less pushback. I abhor manipulation and exaggerated lies. Al gore claiming the world would begin boiling alive by 2020. Its all bullshit and hurts the actual cause. Closed loop / no pollution is something engineers strive toward. Lie to us to the point you make claims so rediculous we want to smack you into a coma, and you lose someone who otherwise would have agreed with you. Just sell it as less pollution. Nobody

    • Not so fast! How am I supposed to fuel my Corvette when I retire???

    • Comment removed based on user account deletion
      • Yes, the US is dependent on big oil use, oil production, and the economy is intertwined in many other ways. On the other hand, the middle east and Russia are even more dependent. And our economy is more diversified than either of them. Also, we stand a chance to be on the forefront of emerging new technologies. Them? Not so much, despite their trying. The collapse of oil prices will lead to a decrease in Russian influence, not an increase.

  • No, it is not (Score:3, Interesting)

    by guruevi ( 827432 ) on Wednesday August 26, 2020 @03:49PM (#60443981)

    There is sufficient oil-based products to sustain current production rates for the next 30 years: https://www.eia.gov/tools/faqs... [eia.gov]

    With the failure of wind and solar and the resurgence of nuclear, we should have enough to sustain us to finally enter the nuclear power age and perhaps even enough to lift us off this rock.

    • huh? (Score:3, Insightful)

      by DogDude ( 805747 )
      "With the failure of wind and solar "

      What are you talking about, exactly?

      • Re: (Score:3, Informative)

        by MightyMartian ( 840721 )

        Mainly about the fantasies in his head.

      • Re: (Score:3)

        by Trogre ( 513942 )

        It looks like the GP fits into the following group:
        anti-wind, anti-solar, pro-oil, pro-nuclear

        Which is rather popular with republicans for some reason.

        Whereas myself and pretty much everyone concerned about fixing the environment are:
        pro-wind, pro-solar, anti-oil, pro-nuclear

        Unfortunately far too many pseudo-environmentalists have hijacked the green movement and brought with them anti-nuclear BS, ensuring many more decades of dependence on oil than was necessary.

    • Re: (Score:2)

      by dmay34 ( 6770232 )
      Okay, so you didn't even read the /. summary. The point isn't that we are hitting peak oil any more. The point was that demand will continue to decline. Looking at how many companies have successfully converted to remote work during the pandemic AND how many car companies are pivoting to electric, yeah I think it's likely if even pretty conservative.

    • Re:No, it is not (Score:5, Informative)

      by Anubis IV ( 1279820 ) on Wednesday August 26, 2020 @04:05PM (#60444059)

      There is sufficient oil-based products to sustain current production rates for the next 30 years

      Which would be fine, except that the article is saying there is insufficient demand for oil-based products to justify current production rates for the next 30 years. The supply side is fine, but the drop in demand is accelerating.

    • With the failure of wind and solar

      I'd like some of whatever you're taking, but in a smaller dose.

    • With the failure of wind and solar

      Where? In La-La-Land? For, where the rest of us live they have been anything but a failure, and they keep getting better and better with every passing year, from the point of view of cost - forget about the environmental impact.

  • No, 80% of the industry will not be wiped out (Score:5, Insightful)

    by magzteel ( 5013587 ) on Wednesday August 26, 2020 @03:51PM (#60443985)

    The article "A new report suggests that over the next 30 years, at least 80% of the oil industry will be wiped out"

    It says:
    “Our results showed petroleum consumption reduced 31 percent by 2050 and 60 percent by 2100. "
    "Only 20 percent of industry players will survive by 2050, they forecast. And the oil market will be “one-third smaller than today.”"

    So the oil industry will be fine, but the less profitable players will be squeezed out or combined into bigger players.

    • Re: (Score:2)

      by DogDude ( 805747 )
      Well, I don't know if I'd call 66% of the current market "fine". It'll still be massive, but a lot less massive than it is now.

    • The article [says]...
      "Only 20 percent of industry players will survive by 2050, they forecast. ..."

      If only 20% will survive, subtraction tells me that 80% of the industry will be wiped out.

      So the oil industry will be fine, but the less profitable players will be squeezed out or combined into bigger players.

      Right: so, the 80% that are wiped out will be the less profitable 80%.

      • The article [says]...
        "Only 20 percent of industry players will survive by 2050, they forecast. ..."

        If only 20% will survive, subtraction tells me that 80% of the industry will be wiped out.

        So the oil industry will be fine, but the less profitable players will be squeezed out or combined into bigger players.

        Right: so, the 80% that are wiped out will be the less profitable 80%.

        80% of the players is not 80% of the industry. The entire 80% could account for 5% of the industry.
        This is just market consolidation, which happens all the time.

        • Scale was important back in the days of big projects offshore and in the Arctic.

          It is much less important today in the age of fracking.

          I doubt that the forecasted consolidation will happen.

          • If oil use tips towards industrial processes and away from energy production, then a lot of those reserves become effectively worthless. Many are reliant on a fairly high price of oil and oil used mainly to produce fuels. See a significant reduction in use of oil for fuel, then you see those reserves become stranded assets, and the holders of those assets rendered worthless. Also consider that some of those non-traditional oil reserves, like the oil sands, leave behind a pretty heavy cleanup cost, it means

    • Re: (Score:2)

      by urusan ( 1755332 )

      Yes, exactly, 20% of the industry players will survive in 30 years, so 80% will have been wiped out.

      Sure, a better headline might have been "oil consumption to drop by 31% in the next 30 years", but I guess that's our click-focused media for you.

      • Yes, exactly, 20% of the industry players will survive in 30 years, so 80% will have been wiped out.

        Sure, a better headline might have been "oil consumption to drop by 31% in the next 30 years", but I guess that's our click-focused media for you.

        All industry players aren't equal. If the last 5 booksellers on earth were Amazon with 99.996% of the market and 4 others each with .001%, and the little guys went under, this math would claim that 80% of the industry were wiped out. It's just idiotic. The oil consumption number makes more sense, but it's still a wild ass guess.

        • It's a useful statistic if one is trying to predict an absolute number of oil producers that go bankrupt. Yes, that means the biggest companies, multinationals like BP, Chevron and Exxon-Mobil will be around for a very long time, but all those smaller companies will sink like stones. So, in terms of overall market, sure, even at 30% reduction, the market for oil will be huge, since they make up the vast majority of the actual market. But in number of companies, they'll be pretty lonely. As to consolidation,

          • Re: (Score:2)

            by urusan ( 1755332 )

            Yes, I agree. The concept of "stranded assets" is going to become very familiar to people over the next few decades. Especially investors, but even normal people might end up with their car becoming a stranded asset if fuel distribution becomes unprofitable.

            We'll also have an acceleration of stranded real estate assets in some areas, such as Florida neighborhoods that are now experiencing more extreme flooding and their groundwater turning to saltwater. Many people there want to sell and get out, but if it

    • Re: (Score:2)

      by dmay34 ( 6770232 )
      I think it's a pretty conservative estimate. VW, GM, Ford and others are pivoting fast to electrify their line ups. This is being pushed on two fronts 1) Tesla is making money and 2) European and Asian government regulations. By 2030, the big car companies will be selling more electric vehicles than gas vehicles, probably significantly more.

      • I think it's a pretty conservative estimate. VW, GM, Ford and others are pivoting fast to electrify their line ups. This is being pushed on two fronts 1) Tesla is making money and 2) European and Asian government regulations. By 2030, the big car companies will be selling more electric vehicles than gas vehicles, probably significantly more.

        Well, that's ONLY if there is sufficient demand for fully electric vehicles.

        Frankly in the US, I just don't see that much of a demand for them yet and nothing really

        • Re: (Score:3)

          by Ichijo ( 607641 )

          Nothing compelling the consumer to go electric? How about:

          - Fill up at home
          - No more oil changes
          - No more emissions checks
          - No air filter to change

          • Nothing compelling the consumer to go electric? How about:

            - Fill up at home

            Not really an option for renters now or anytime in the foreseeable future, and new buyers will have to spend more $$ with installing them.

            - No more oil changes

            Good Point, but then again, it isn't that much of a big deal nor cost currency, but is a valid point.

            - No more emissions checks

            Well, not everyone lives in a state with car inspections, much less emissions check.

            I've never had an emissions check and didn't know there was

        • Supply and demand are intimately intertwined, since the drawbacks of electric (higher price, limited charging locations) will be largely alleviated by wider adoption.

          As for selling off the vehicles they currently use, I don't think we want to be junking good cars, but they have a finite lifetime. If say 70% of new car sales were electric by 10 years, that's what matters to Ford and GM, even if 70% of the cars still on the road in 10 years are gas.

        • The average commute for an American is well within the limit of the average EV even today. Most people in North America and Europe live in cities, so it's not like they all need F350s to drive to the cabin in Montana. And that's with battery technology as it sits now, and capacity is only going up. The momentum is already there, and I suspect that once we reach the tipping point, you're going to see ICE vehicles disappearing at a huge rate. The trick for auto manufacturers is to try to figure out when that

      • Light vehicles use about 25% of global oil production. Electricity production accounts for another 5%. Even if we convert to green / nuclear energy and EVs overnight, that is nowhere near an 80% decline in demand. Oil consumption is still increasing on average; it took a hit due to COVID but it is already recovering, and barring a huge second wave of the pandemic, projected to recover to 2019 levels at the end of this year. I bet that 2019 will not be the year of record oil production.

        • Light vehicles use about 25% of global oil production. Electricity production accounts for another 5%. Even if we convert to green / nuclear energy and EVs overnight, that is nowhere near an 80% decline in demand. Oil consumption is still increasing on average; it took a hit due to COVID but it is already recovering, and barring a huge second wave of the pandemic, projected to recover to 2019 levels at the end of this year. I bet that 2019 will not be the year of record oil production.

          The issue with your logic is that you're looking at the % of production and not the % of profit. Refining tar and bunker fuel is not profitable. Refining gasoline is. And gasoline makes up almost half of what comes out of every barrel of oil.

          When you hit the profit center of the fossil fuel industry, that's got the potential to do more far more damage than if you hit the unprofitable byproducts part of it.

          In addition, gasoline and diesel is where a massive amount of assets are tied up for most major fossil

      • I think it's a pretty conservative estimate. VW, GM, Ford and others are pivoting fast to electrify their line ups.

        Or, at least, they are putting out a lot of hype about pivoting fast to electrify their line-up.

        GM did that before, with the Impact, which they then pulled and junked once they got out of it what they wanted.

    • Re: (Score:2)

      by GuB-42 ( 2483988 )

      It is more complicated than that.
      First thing, the more oil you extract, the more expensive it becomes, because you deplete the easily accessible sites.
      Another aspect is that countries that have hard to extract oil may want to keep their production for national sovereignty, i.e. they don't want to depend on Arabs for something as critical. I think there is a bit of that in the US.
      Arabs, btw, are not stupid. They know their power as oil exporters will dwindle, so how they intend to adapt will certainly play a

      • A third of the world's oil reserves are in North America, just it hasn't been until the last few decades that we've been able to access most of it. This is why OPEC no longer has the power it once had, i.e. if it decides to create artificial scarcity like it used to, it will only hurt itself rather than successfully raise the price of oil.

        The US currently produces more oil than any of the "Arab" (as you put it) states, and its own oil reserves could last 11 years even if it suddenly stopped importing oil.

    • About 60% of all oil pulled out of the ground is used to produce energy, with the rest for feed stock for industrial processes. If we see that 60% halved that means not just some producers go broke, but certain reserves that produce oil less amenable to being used for feed stock will become worthless. In other words , producers of sweet crude will probably do very well, at least until alternative processes to produce useful long chain hydrocarbons come along.

      This is the message investors are already beginni

  • Divination 101 (Score:5, Insightful)

    by devslash0 ( 4203435 ) on Wednesday August 26, 2020 @03:55PM (#60443997)
    This is wishful thinking at best, if not complete guesswork. Our dependency on oil is so great and has been a thing for such a long time that trying to predict that we'll be over and done with in 30 years is simply silly.

    • Re: (Score:3)

      by urusan ( 1755332 )

      What are you talking about? Oil capital assets have regularly been abandoned (https://www.bcg.com/publications/2015/upstream-oil-gas-energy-environment-asset-abandonment-in-upstream-oil-a-growing-threat-to-the-sector) and/or stranded since well before 2020 (in fact, the big upswing started around 2012-2015). This is just an acknowledgement that this long term trend is really happening over the long term, and that COVID-19 has supercharged it (both temporarily and permanently).

      There's a lot of reasons for oi

    • The issue is this: Yes, the world economy is heavy dependent upon oil right now. But if you look at the longer trends among the oil players, they have been slowly diversifying or getting out of oil. GE (back before it gutted itself in the financial crash) had been slowly divesting itself of its entire oil portfolio (this is an example).

      This issue is this: Many companies see the reduction in oil production coming and are trying to plan for it now. Yes, oil production is still going up year over year, but

  • They've been saying that for 50+ years.... (Score:4, Interesting)

    by Joey Vegetables ( 686525 ) on Wednesday August 26, 2020 @04:01PM (#60444035) Journal

    I've heard this before. Over and over. For decades.

    The reality is, we have viable alternatives for lot of use cases, but not for others.

    The reality is that inflation-adjusted prices are near an all-time low.

    The reality is that cars are not going away, though they are getting cleaner, as more and more electric and hybrid vehicles are starting to replace fossil-fuel burning ones. But we're decades away from the point where that would drastically reduce demand for oil.

    The reality is that oil is the starting point for fertilizers and other important chemicals that help us to feed 7 billion people well enough that obesity has long since overtaken hunger as the leading cause of death.

    The oil industry is changing, and will change further, and will also gradually diminish in importance, as we find better, cheaper, cleaner, and more sustainable things to fill many of the roles it once did.

    But "end of the oil age"? IMO, that's way premature. 50 more years from now, probably. 20-30 years, maybe. Now? Not quite.

    • I've heard this before. Over and over. For decades.

      Have you? I have not. And based upon Teslas current valuation, it is going to be making and selling more cars than the entire auto industry combined - obviously, the current fossil fueled car makers are all going to go out of business and Tesla will be the only company left selling billions of cars every year - based upon its current valuation and opinions of its shareholders..

      Anyway, they will need trillions of tons of plastic for their cars - you know, petroleum based polymers.

      Therefore, my argument is t

    • But we're decades away from the point where that would drastically reduce demand for oil.

      That's basically what the report says.

    • Feed stock for industrial and agricultural production represent 40% of the oil being pumped out of the ground. That, one can assume, will remain relatively static or grow modestly, though with an approaching flattening of population growth, there's a ceiling on the non-energy uses of oil as well, just further along. But it's going to be pretty uneven; some reserves may actually go up in value as the oil being pumped out of the ground is more amenable to being used as feedstock, whereas lower quality oil res

  • Decimation is 10% (Score:5, Informative)

    by bruce_the_moose ( 621423 ) on Wednesday August 26, 2020 @04:07PM (#60444081)

    Allow me to be the first to pedentically point out that "decimation" is one in ten. Total decimation would be wiping out 10% of the oil industry. Perhaps the word they are looking for is annihilation?

    • I came here to post this. You're already modded up, so I can leave now. No work to be done.

    • Re: Decimation is 10% (Score:4, Insightful)

      by jemmyw ( 624065 ) on Wednesday August 26, 2020 @04:48PM (#60444255)
      The original meaning has been decimated. The dictionary gives "to reduce drastically especially in number" and "to cause great destruction or harm to". As so many words do change and do have different meanings in context I think the use here is accurate.

    • Re: (Score:2)

      by Quirkz ( 1206400 )

      Gutted. Extirpated. Massacred. Zapped with a very powerful shrink ray. Decimated 8 times over (I know, bad math). Demolished. Run down the curtain and joined the bleedin' choir invisible! Lots of good choices there.

      • Re: (Score:2)

        by rbrander ( 73222 )

        You're right, we need an accurate table and new compound words:

        WORD ----- FRACTION REMAINING
        decimated 90%
        duodecimated 81%
        tridecimated 73%
        quadrodecimated 66%
        quintodecimated 59%
        hexadecimated 53% ...I suppose I should stop, as we already have "Halved".

        • Re: (Score:2)

          by Quirkz ( 1206400 )

          Halved, quartered, drawn and quartered, decimated in the drawing room, drawn like moth to a flame and burnt to a crisp. There's plenty of turns of phrase to choose from, and a lot of fun to be had doing it! I don't know what people's love affair is with "decimated" and why it's the only term they ever use.

  • The oil industry is on the cusp of a process of almost total decimation that will begin over the next 30 years, and continue through to the next century.

    That sentence makes it abundantly clear the oil industry will be around for at least a century. So it's tough to take this pronouncement of "total decimation" seriously. Even tougher to say that COVID-19 is a direct cause of the end of the oil industry that is going to take over a century to play out.

  • Great Consequences Often Overlooked... (Score:4, Insightful)

    by dark.nebulae ( 3950923 ) on Wednesday August 26, 2020 @04:11PM (#60444105)

    Getting off of oil altogether has really great consequences that no one seems to consider.

    We are sending a ton of money, infrastructure and resources to really shitty places, governments and leaders, all in the name of keeping the fossil fuels going.

    Why did the world join forces against Saddam Hussein? Sure he was a bad guy and all, but we did it for the oil. We did it because he threatened stability in the region. We did it because any spark over there would throw the whole oil production model out of whack and would potentially upset the world economy apple cart.

    Why is the world in Afghanistan? Why is the world after Iran? Why did the world let a Saudi prince kill and dismember a journalist critical of him and his family? Why were some Saudis able to flee the US just after 9/11?

    It's all because of the oil.

    It's not just the middle east, either. We have issues in Venezuela where clearly there's problems there but they can't be tackled without upending the government and therefore risking the oil. Russia, now only a bit player in Europe, remains relevant if only because of the oil and gas they are producing and sending to the rest of Europe.

    All of these problems can go away if we got off of oil. The middle east could return to killing each other relentlessly like that have for the past 3,000 years. Russia would lose the remaining control they have over the world.

    There is so much good that could come out of quitting oil if only it was presented in the right manner, without influence from the big oil companies that will throw money hand over fist to keep the money flowing.

  • Sorry, I don't buy it....or actually I literally bought it. I bought a bunch of oil stocks when they crashed. Time will tell if I'm right or not....Wall Street is presently less optimistic than I am.

    Sure, it will be tough...like when people stopped buying landlines. It no doubt caused problems for AT&T, but they just sold mobile phones instead. I am sure there will be painful restructuring, but I am convinced BP, Shell, Chevron, Exxon, etc can figure out how to sell petrochemicals for plastics.

    • As I've said elsewhere on this topic, about 60% of the oil pulled out of the ground ends up producing energy, leaving the other 40% for feedstock and other processes. Let's assume that that 40% for industrial and non-motive agricultural processes stays relatively stable. That leaves 60% that's vulnerable. Even a 10% or 15% reduction in the use of that oil represents a significant number of producers, particularly smaller ones, that are going to belly up. The big guys will adjust, buy out the reserves that a

  • Plastics.

  • Plastic & Petrochemicals? (Score:5, Informative)

    by Going_Digital ( 1485615 ) on Wednesday August 26, 2020 @04:25PM (#60444169)
    So where are all your plastics and petrochemicals coming from then?

    There is an awful lot more to the oil industry than fuel, Evan that diet soda you are sipping right now, thinking it won't make you fat contains artificial sweeteners made from petrochemicals. Whatever you ate for your breakfast this morning will have been produced using fertilisers and pesticides, all products of the petrochemical industry.

    This is why it is shortsighted to burn it for transport, that use case will disappear rapidly, but all the other uses for petrochemicals are going to be with us for a long time yet.

    • This is why it is shortsighted to burn it for transport,

      I have long thought that, but fortunately we can get it from the air, just at a higher cost.

    • Currently that makes up 40% of oil production. That's huge, but seeing the fuel side drop in production has some pretty huge consequences. Producers can still pump the stuff out of the ground for making iPhones, and still see wide swathes of the industry end up in oblivion.

  • Low prices are bad for oil companies, but great for consumers. If it becomes expensive and scarce, that will be good for the oil companies and bad for consumers. The author obviously thinks that won't happen. As a consumer I will not complain. Keep the cheap plentiful oil flowing. It's not like it's going to run out.

    • What happens if it becomes cheaper and not very scarce, and nobody particularly needs large amounts of it. There are some jurisdictions that are so reliant on oil for generating economic activity and government revenues that a major pivot away from oil is going to leave them in ruins.

      • What happens if it becomes cheaper and not very scarce, and nobody particularly needs large amounts of it. There are some jurisdictions that are so reliant on oil for generating economic activity and government revenues that a major pivot away from oil is going to leave them in ruins.

        Generally speaking, the economies most reliant on it are the ones that can produce it the most cheaply (Gulf states, Russia, Venezuela, etc), which kind of makes sense. They will be the last to suffer any consequences of low demand/prices.

        I live in Canada, and low oil prices are absolutely bad for our economy, but quite nice for people personally. If the prices go up, it will be worse for me, but I'll have the consolation of it being better for the country. If prices don't go up - the oil won't be going

        • Canada as a whole will do well, but Alberta, in particular, is essentially a petrostate, and a long-term slump in prices represents an economic disaster for that province, and thus far, successive provincial governments have done absolutely nothing to pivot the economy away from oil. In fact, the budget Alberta passed in February, right before the pandemic struck, still bet on oil being around $56 a barrel, and now Alberta is faced with the largest budget deficit in its history. Now I think it's likely in t

  • Decimation means removing 10%, not 80%. The prefix, "deci" should give that away to all but illiterates, but people keep using it to mean virtual annihilation when something that was decimated still has 90%.
  • but in no way does this mean fossil fuels are going anywhere.
    Even California is now starting to understand that best of intentions does not keep the lights on. Gas fired demand plants are here for the foreseeable future. Along with fracking will until we are truly ready for our transition from fossil fuels.

    It is actually funny, the blackouts and brownouts will spur the sale and production of mini gas plants. If the Utilities and Governments won't provide dependable services. Individuals and Business have
  • Don't let the door hit you in your ass on your way out.

  • I think it was in the 1970s we were told that the oil industry had peaked and was at the final point of no return. It was like a lot of things we keep hearing -- every few years we hear that oil is dead, and then it isn't. I'm sure they'll be right some day. But I strongly suspect, not today.

  • There's no way oil is lasting more than twenty years, probably 15. It's only cheap because of major economies of scale, and only has major economies of scale because of gasoline, all the other products are secondary.

    And the Tesla stock betters have it right, or at least the right idea. Electric cars are already among the cheapest out there taken over a lifetime. And once a self driving car hits in (1-5 years???) 60% of the world's population (urban dwellers) will never need to buy a car again. Hell even

  • So someone ran a model? (Score:3)

    by nealric ( 3647765 ) on Thursday August 27, 2020 @08:49AM (#60446188)

    Stories of the end of the oil industry appear to be mostly based on wishful thinking. Don't get me wrong, the end of the oil age will happen. But we are celebrating the demise of oil before we even have the systems in place to replace it. A few points:

    1) The majority of oil is indeed used for transportation, but we are a long ways from replacement. EV marketshare is around 2% with current tech. The barrier is not convincing consumers with catchy ads or making them feel better about things, the barrier is making EVs better. Until we have a 300 mile EV for $25,000 that charges in 15 minutes from stations that are nearly as common as gas pumps, we are going to have serious barriers to mass adoption.

    2) Fleet turnover will take over a decade even once EVs constitute a majority of new car purchases.

    3) EV adoption is far more problematic in developing countries where car ownership is growing the quickest as a portion of the population. The U.S. and European power grids can support EV charging infrastructure. India's power grid cannot, and such problems are unlikely to be fixed this decade.

    4) There is no immediately available replacement to internal combustion for long haul trucking, air travel, and shipping.

    5) Petrochemical usage won't decline under any of these scenarios, and is likely to increase.

    6) Renewables eventually hit a ceiling without a massive amount of grid level energy storage, which does not currently exist. Nuclear could theoretically take over, but we aren't building nuclear plants and even if we were, they take a very long time to come online.

    7) We need a replacement for coal fired power plants, but such plants are being replaced with natural gas, which is mostly an oil production byproduct. An EV running off a natural gas power plant is still dependent on oil production.

    8) The relationship between oil consumption and economic growth is fairly linear, and has been for over 100 years. Oil consumption has decreased this year, but only because of a massive global recession.

    Long story short, before we start celebrating the demise of oil, we actually need all systems in place for its replacement. Perhaps we will get there in 20 or 30 years, but in the year 2020, we are still dependent on oil, and anybody who thinks otherwise is engaging in wishful thinking.

Slashdot Top Deals

I am not an Economist. I am an honest man! -- Paul McCracken

Close