6 ms·

How dumb does one have to be to use the word "endless" when talking about a very limited resource? The potential for technology to increase yields and the disc

by brazzy 17y ago

How dumb does one have to be to use the word "endless" when talking about a very limited resource? The potential for technology to increase yields and the discovery of additional deposits are nothing new. They were included in the original "peak oil" prediction in 1956 and are part of every serious analysis. The problem is: new deposits are overall not discovered as fast as old ones get used up. Meanwhile the consumption rate has been increasing all the time...

cwan 17y ago
I'm not sure how "dumb" it is to consider the economics of resource consumption/exploration/extraction. On a practical level, the last drop of oil will never be consumed or x resource mined because substitutes develop and markets are forward looking. While this article doesn't talk about the substitutes specifically, have a look at the availability of natural gas as just an example of why energy prices will go down. What I think they suggest here though is that politics and technology make it more available. Now as for "serious analysis", it's impossible to predict what new technologies will show up in the future as the massive _new_ abundance in natural gas in the last couple years (compare to just 4-5 years ago) shows. Now consider the emerging technologies that could have a major impact on reducing both cost and carbon dioxide emissions (e.g. thorium, pebblebed, thin film solar, concentrated solar, non-corn biofuels, etc.). To bet that we'll "run out" of oil/peak oil is to place a bet against our ability to innovate and adapt.
- mschy 17y ago
  Nearly all instances of "we'll run out of oil" are calls to action to innovate and adapt to ensure that the problem never comes to pass. Claiming it's a bet against that is disingenuous at best.
  - cwan 17y ago
    > Nearly all instances of "we'll run out of oil" are calls to action to innovate Hardly. In my experience, most alarmist calls about the finite nature of oil or resource xyz come with it a series of proposals to regulate or "conserve" whereas prices in and of themselves provide incentives to increase supply either through greater extraction/technology or substitutes.
    - kiba 17y ago
      Not sure why people downvotes his comment. Price systems are natural means of conserving/rationing resources.
      - mschy 17y ago
        Every serious proposal to "conserve" oil that I've seen consists of two core components: 1) An incentive to use a preferred technology 2) A disincentive against using an unfavored technology The basic functionalities of commodity markets aren't questioned by anybody. Implying otherwise is nonsensical.
    - mschy 17y ago
      The crux of the conservationist's point is that some resources are mispriced due to uncaptured externalities, and that this leads to overuse. There's a secondary argument about risk tolerance in that some people default to doing things until proven harmful, whereas others default to not doing them until proven safe, and the whole spectrum betweeen. But that said, as far as I can tell, the heart of nearly all environmental/energy debates is "is X mispriced?", where X might be gasoline, natural gas, water, trees, or darned near anything else. I'm not sure why you choose to deny that. ---- edit: full disclosure, I believe that decentralization of energy production is important for a number of reasons, and that increased diversity of energy production methods is also important for a number of reasons. I believe this so strongly that I have invested a fairly large sum of money into a startup that works to make energy costs more transparent, and that works to help entities evaluate and integrate multiple energy sources in an intelligent and cost-effective manner.
      - cwan 17y ago
        Not sure why you're trying so deliberately to be antagonistic. You state conservationists argue resources are "mispriced due to uncaptured externalities, and that this leads to overuse" (or misuse). How do you suppose these conservationists aim to correct these "externalities"? Obviously they attempt to do more than point out an item is mispriced. Otherwise, their best course of action would be to buy resource XYZ as it's pure arbitrage in which case it is a bet against our ability to innovate and adapt. edit: I notice you've modified a significant portion of your response and added a disclosure. I tend to agree that the grid will get smarter and we will become more energy agnostic. That merely goes back to proving the point that the markets themselves create the incentives for resources allocation - ie innovate and adapt and for this reason it has been historically foolish to bet that we will run out of a given resource.
tokenadult 17y ago
I'm old enough to remember quite a few predictions of when petroleum would be so scarce that it would be economically useless, each of which has been proven wrong in turn. There is the distinct possibility of technological change in renewable energy production and distribution coupled with technology change in petroleum synthesis resulting in oil always being available enough for the purposes for which it is unsubstitutable.
- jacoblyles 17y ago
  I've seen writing from about 100 years ago worried that the world would run out of coal, the dominant fuel of the day, thereby causing the railroads and factories of the industrial revolution to cease. Of course, we have plenty of coal today.
  - david927 17y ago
    Whew. It's good to know that if we were wrong in the past on some topic we'll always be wrong. Oil is not renewable. The crux of the argument for peak oil, as I understand it, is not that we'll run out of oil but that extracting it will become quickly very expensive. And building alternatives, as we already know, is very expensive. So that we'll have a period of time where we'll have a dramatic decline in our standard of living. It doesn't matter if we'll always have oil if very few people will use it.

by brazzy 17y ago

cwan 17y ago

I'm not sure how "dumb" it is to consider the economics of resource consumption/exploration/extraction. On a practical level, the last drop of oil will never be consumed or x resource mined because substitutes develop and markets are forward looking. While this article doesn't talk about the substitutes specifically, have a look at the availability of natural gas as just an example of why energy prices will go down. What I think they suggest here though is that politics and technology make it more available. Now as for "serious analysis", it's impossible to predict what new technologies will show up in the future as the massive _new_ abundance in natural gas in the last couple years (compare to just 4-5 years ago) shows. Now consider the emerging technologies that could have a major impact on reducing both cost and carbon dioxide emissions (e.g. thorium, pebblebed, thin film solar, concentrated solar, non-corn biofuels, etc.). To bet that we'll "run out" of oil/peak oil is to place a bet against our ability to innovate and adapt.

mschy 17y ago
Nearly all instances of "we'll run out of oil" are calls to action to innovate and adapt to ensure that the problem never comes to pass. Claiming it's a bet against that is disingenuous at best.
- cwan 17y ago
  > Nearly all instances of "we'll run out of oil" are calls to action to innovate Hardly. In my experience, most alarmist calls about the finite nature of oil or resource xyz come with it a series of proposals to regulate or "conserve" whereas prices in and of themselves provide incentives to increase supply either through greater extraction/technology or substitutes.
  - kiba 17y ago
    Not sure why people downvotes his comment. Price systems are natural means of conserving/rationing resources.
    - mschy 17y ago
      Every serious proposal to "conserve" oil that I've seen consists of two core components: 1) An incentive to use a preferred technology 2) A disincentive against using an unfavored technology The basic functionalities of commodity markets aren't questioned by anybody. Implying otherwise is nonsensical.
  - mschy 17y ago
    The crux of the conservationist's point is that some resources are mispriced due to uncaptured externalities, and that this leads to overuse. There's a secondary argument about risk tolerance in that some people default to doing things until proven harmful, whereas others default to not doing them until proven safe, and the whole spectrum betweeen. But that said, as far as I can tell, the heart of nearly all environmental/energy debates is "is X mispriced?", where X might be gasoline, natural gas, water, trees, or darned near anything else. I'm not sure why you choose to deny that. ---- edit: full disclosure, I believe that decentralization of energy production is important for a number of reasons, and that increased diversity of energy production methods is also important for a number of reasons. I believe this so strongly that I have invested a fairly large sum of money into a startup that works to make energy costs more transparent, and that works to help entities evaluate and integrate multiple energy sources in an intelligent and cost-effective manner.
    - cwan 17y ago
      Not sure why you're trying so deliberately to be antagonistic. You state conservationists argue resources are "mispriced due to uncaptured externalities, and that this leads to overuse" (or misuse). How do you suppose these conservationists aim to correct these "externalities"? Obviously they attempt to do more than point out an item is mispriced. Otherwise, their best course of action would be to buy resource XYZ as it's pure arbitrage in which case it is a bet against our ability to innovate and adapt. edit: I notice you've modified a significant portion of your response and added a disclosure. I tend to agree that the grid will get smarter and we will become more energy agnostic. That merely goes back to proving the point that the markets themselves create the incentives for resources allocation - ie innovate and adapt and for this reason it has been historically foolish to bet that we will run out of a given resource.

tokenadult 17y ago

I'm old enough to remember quite a few predictions of when petroleum would be so scarce that it would be economically useless, each of which has been proven wrong in turn. There is the distinct possibility of technological change in renewable energy production and distribution coupled with technology change in petroleum synthesis resulting in oil always being available enough for the purposes for which it is unsubstitutable.

jacoblyles 17y ago
I've seen writing from about 100 years ago worried that the world would run out of coal, the dominant fuel of the day, thereby causing the railroads and factories of the industrial revolution to cease. Of course, we have plenty of coal today.
- david927 17y ago
  Whew. It's good to know that if we were wrong in the past on some topic we'll always be wrong. Oil is not renewable. The crux of the argument for peak oil, as I understand it, is not that we'll run out of oil but that extracting it will become quickly very expensive. And building alternatives, as we already know, is very expensive. So that we'll have a period of time where we'll have a dramatic decline in our standard of living. It doesn't matter if we'll always have oil if very few people will use it.