
Eric S. Raymond: Why Alternative Energy Isn’t - ntoshev
http://esr.ibiblio.org/?p=521
======
lliiffee
> And no, electric cars aren’t the answer either; the power to run them has to
> come from somewhere. The best case is that people will charge them off the
> grid at night. This will require power plants to be burning just as much
> additional fuel as if the cars themselves were doing it, perhaps more given
> transmission losses.

It has to be said. This guy is simply lazy, and did not do the research
necessary to have informed opinions.

Here are the facts I gathered in about 5 minutes. (Its pretty sloppy research,
but hey-- I'm just posting a comment!)

1) Electric grid transmission efficiency: ~90%

<http://www.energetics.com/gridworks/grid.html>

2) Internal Combustion Engine Efficiency: ~20%

[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Internal_combustion_engine#Ener...](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Internal_combustion_engine#Energy_Efficiency)

3) Power Plant Efficiency: ~33%

[http://cleantechnica.com/2008/06/26/electricity-
generation-e...](http://cleantechnica.com/2008/06/26/electricity-generation-
efficiency-its-not-about-the-technology/)

4) Battery Efficiency: ~80%

<http://xtronics.com/reference/batterap.htm>

33 * .9 * .8 = 23.76

23.76 > 20

~~~
mrtron
Also factor in the alternative sources we could use to create electricity that
are not practical for having on the car itself. Wind, solar, geothermal, etc.

If we could produce endless supplies of cheap renewable energy, it would be a
no-brainer to switch to electric cars.

~~~
yters
That's a really good point. It's much more efficient to centralize alternative
power production than to decentralize it in a bunch of cars.

~~~
DaniFong
That's not necessarily true. To decentralize production it merely needs to be
the better economic choice. There is no fundamental reason why polluting
energy sources should be cheaper: this is only true with most current
technologies in most current situations.

------
einarvollset
"[In comments Eric S. Raymond] Says: Um, what global warming? There hasn’t
been any since 1998. Recently global average temperature has actually been
dropping rather dramatically, enough to wipe out the last century of warming
trend."

Good lord, did I really consider this guy a luminary in my teens? I am
ashamed.

~~~
SwellJoe
The thing about being a contrarian is that you end up wrong
sometimes...possibly a lot of the time. I think we still need them, though, to
keep us questioning common wisdom. And ESR, for all his flaws, _is_ still an
interesting character and a useful member of society.

~~~
wheels
My opinion of him isn't too high. He likes to brandy himself about as some
sort of hacker hero, but in truth, he's not really contributed much to OSS.
Combined with him standing up a packed audience at my college without even
bothering to call and cancel, and general nutjobery (see his rants about guns
or mysticism) I'm somewhat less than a fan.

We need wackos like Stallman. He's a little south of sanity, but damn, he's
slung a lot of code and really changed the landscape of technology with his
idealism.

~~~
iuguy
> My opinion of him isn't too high. He likes to brandy himself about as some
> sort of hacker hero, but in truth, he's not really contributed much to OSS.

OSS ESR has been involved in or founded:

Fetchmail, GPSd, CML2, The Cathedral and the Bazaar, The Jargon File,
Terminfo/Termcap, VC Mode/GUB in Emacs (ESR is the second biggest lisp
contributor to Emacs after RMS), Contribs to Gnuplot, Gnome, Python, Groff and
Nethack, GNU Toolkit SED, Hexdump, gif2png, Bogofilter, Countless Howtos at
the LDP

With the exception of the above, you're right he's not contributed much to
OSS. I'm not saying ESR's not a polarising person (I've met both ESR and RMS,
both can be black and white people) but he has contributed a lot to OSS.

~~~
wheels
As noted below, his versions (or contributions) to most of those software
projects were all pretty trivial. And listing "projects" like hexdump is kind
of cute -- it's 211 lines of code.

The one claim that stood out there -- the one that gave a really testable
statement that would have surprised me if true was, _"ESR is the second
biggest lisp contributor to Emacs after RMS"_. I thought, hey, there'd be a
surprise, so I decided to run cvstat on the emacs lisp subdir:

    
    
      - RMS contributed the 2nd most code to Emacs' Lisp with 217542 lines of changes.
      - ESR contributed the 39th most code to Emacs' Lisp with 6367 lines of changes.
    

The reason that I don't like the guy so much is because he claims to speak for
a movement, that by his own prognostication is a meritocracy, and I don't feel
like he has the credibility for that. Combined with the fact that I think a
lot of what he says is bozo-riffic, I'd prefer him step back from his self-
appointed spokesman position.

------
stcredzero
_Geothermal is like hydropower, economically speaking, but requires unusual
geology. Basically the only place it can work on a large scale is in Iceland,
home of a full third of the world’s active volcanoes._

There's at least one startup working on this:

[http://www.greentechmedia.com/articles/altarock-breaks-
new-g...](http://www.greentechmedia.com/articles/altarock-breaks-new-ground-
with-geothermal-power-918.html)

Apparently, with advances in drilling technology, and developing the tech to
fracture hot dry rock could greatly expand the range of possible geothermal
sites.

------
streety
What I found most sad about this is that in the entire post he didn't post a
single link. Not one.

There is a lot of new technologies discussed and I for one would like more
information so I can make an informed evaluation. This post doesn't provide
it.

~~~
DabAsteroid
_he didn't post a single link._

<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Algae_fuel>

<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tidal_power>

The "atmosphere tower" might be the convection "energy tower":

<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Energy_tower_%28downdraft%29>

~~~
streety
Playing around with some figures sourced from wikipedia and assuming best case
scenario meeting the demand for oil would require an area the size of Germany
be turned over to algae oil production.

One of the points raised in the post that I didn't quite understand was tidal
power being presented (although it isn't explicitly stated) as though it isn't
time variable. The last time I checked the tide went in and then out twice a
day. You can trap it in a reservoir and then slowly release it but there are
going to be periods when it generates no power.

~~~
DabAsteroid
_You can trap it in a reservoir and then slowly release it but there are going
to be periods when it generates no power._

Why not use pumped storage? What is needed is elevation to overcome the head-
deficiency inherent to the equilibrium periods. This is achievable by
sacrificing some of the stored water, to pump a smaller amount of water to a
higher elevation.

~~~
DaniFong
Pumped storage is quite low capacity and low efficiency for the cost and
surface area. 1 kg, that is, 1 liter of water, up 20 meters, is only 200
joules. An apple laptop uses 40 watts: which is that amount every five
seconds.

~~~
dhimes
actually, 2 meters gives you 20 joules...but your point is still valid

~~~
DaniFong
Whoops. g ~= 10. Always I forget...

------
maxklein
I prefer not to pay attention to pseudo-racists with strong opinions and few
proofs. Give me numerical proof anyday over the type of race-baiting
uproductively negative rambling that ESR seems to love.

~~~
DabAsteroid
_Give me numerical proof_

...Of what? Do you mean something like this?:

[http://www.amazon.com/Bias-Mental-Testing-Arthur-
Jensen/dp/0...](http://www.amazon.com/Bias-Mental-Testing-Arthur-
Jensen/dp/0029164303)

[http://www.amazon.com/Factor-Science-Evolution-Behavior-
Inte...](http://www.amazon.com/Factor-Science-Evolution-Behavior-
Intelligence/dp/0275961036)

~~~
maxklein
So you're saying here that you support the notion that people with darker skin
are less intelligent than people with lighter skin color?

~~~
defen
It's fairly well established that the _mean_ IQ (i.e. g, or general
intelligence factor) of people of African descent is lower than that of people
of European descent, which is in turn lower than that of people of East Asian
or Ashkenazi Jewish descent.

~~~
maxklein
Quite apart from the argument you are proposing there - what does that have to
do with skin color? Everybody that lives at the equator in all parts of the
world have dark skin, it has nothing to do with if a person comes from Africa
or not.

And it's not "fairly well established". Not in any way that one would deem
scientific. It's fairly well established in the minds of bigots and in the
minds of people who are looking to justify their denial of rights to certain
groups of people, but it's not established in any meaningful way.

For example, take a look at the body of evidence showing that the earth is
round. Now, using the same SCIENTIFIC criteria, show me the evidence that
people of African descent are less intelligent than people of european descent
- you'll find that the 'studies' that were done are very fuzzy, very open to
intepretation, use very skewed sample size, and are not pure at all.

What you are really trying to say is that In tests conducted in the 70s with
tiny groups of African-American people of mixed race, who came from long
disadvantaged communities, there was a difference in problem solving ability
according to a certain metric, compared to affluent children from educated
homes.

The evidence is weak and very unscientific. If you REALLY want to prove that
the IQ is lower, then I demand sample groups approaching 2000, I demand that
the tests be taken in Africa, and written in an African language, I demand
that the socio-economic backgrounds of the participants be the same or
similar, and I demand that all questions related to verbal ability be removed
from IQ tests.

IQ has not been measures properly, and having lived in several continents,
nothing I have seen indicates to me that there is any significant difference
in IQ between people living on different continents, once you factor in their
family background.

But people like you once found a study that fitted in with your narrow
perception, and you hang on to it like it was the holy grail. It's flawed, and
it's an argument similar to creationism.

~~~
DabAsteroid
_nothing I have seen indicates to me that there is any significant difference
in IQ between people living on different continents, once you factor in their
family background._

What if family background is ignored?

    
    
      .
    

_I demand that all questions related to verbal ability be removed from IQ
tests._

How's this?:

[http://www.amazon.com/Clocking-Mind-Chronometry-
Individual-D...](http://www.amazon.com/Clocking-Mind-Chronometry-Individual-
Differences/dp/0080449395)

 _it appears that the variance [IQ subtests] share can be reliably and
accurately indexed by reaction time on a task where subjects must merely press
a lighted button. The correlations between such simple tasks and g is around
.62, which is higher than the correlation between many subscales of IQ tests
and the g factor to which they contribute._

    
    
      .
    

_IQ has not been measures properly_

Is that what you gleaned from studying those two books (both listed as ISI
Citation Classics)?

[http://www.google.com/search?q=citation+classic+arthur+jense...](http://www.google.com/search?q=citation+classic+arthur+jensen)

~~~
maxklein
What I glean from this discussion is that people who are obsessed with proving
another people inferior in some regard are not people I want to associate
with. Particularly when I belong to the subgroup they want to prove as being
inferior.

I mean what's your point? What do you hope to gain by telling me that people
like me are less intelligent than people like you? And how do you think it
makes me feel to read that?

~~~
defen
This is not an attack on you personally, nor is it an attempt to
scientifically "prove" that all whites are smarter than all blacks, or some
other such nonsense. I'm of European descent and I'm positive that for any
given race/ancestry, you can find someone who is strictly smarter than I am
(by any metric you want).

The point you're missing by interpreting our statements as personal attacks is
that we're talking about group _mean_ differences. And the reason this is
relevant is that for the past 40 years in the United States, inequality of
outcome has been taken as evidence of inequality of opportunity (i.e., lower
_average_ African-American and Hispanic educational/economic achievement is
evidence of discrimination by whites), thereby justifying affirmative action
and other forms of income redistribution. This is a perfectly reasonable
conclusion if you assume that all races have an equal distribution of
cognitive abilities. What we're trying to say is that this assumption is
unfounded.

------
jbert
"The combination of these problems [storage and transmission aren't 100%
efficient] means that household energy conservation is mainly a way for
wealthy Westerners to feel virtuous rather than an actual attack on energy
costs. Household conservation slightly decreases the maximum capacity needed
locally where the conservation is being practiced, but has little impact
further away, where demand has to be supplied by different plants."

Errm...doesn't the fact that transmission is less than 100% efficient just
multiply up the gain? If I lose 50% of power sending it to a house, if that
house saves Y kwH, I need to generate 2Y less kwH? i.e. the worse the
transmission %, the more effect I get from efficiency at the point of use?

Or did I miss his point?

~~~
streety
I haven't read the whole post yet but what I think he means is that if energy
efficiency goes up locally there will be a bunch of power stations sat idling
because it isn't efficient to send the energy long distances to areas where
demand hasn't fallen. For example cutting demand in the US by 100MW won't stop
a 100MW power station from being built in India.

It makes sense but only if you confuse efficiency and demand. Increased
efficiency should decrease demand assuming all other things are equal.
Surprisingly all other things aren't equal.

~~~
jbert
Ah, thanks.

Well, the demand generally increases over time, so efficiency just means you
can delay building that next 100MW plant in the US a while longer - which is
useful.

I agree with his basic point that "a dense form of energy is useful for
transport". But he doesn't seem to have much beyond that.

He also neglects the point that turning power -> useful work done is more
efficient for electricity from a battery, which is pretty relevant. And for
fuels, is more efficient in bigger engines/power plants.

Wikipedia tells me diesel engines get in the region of 45% efficient, petrol
30%, electric 90%.

That's a lot of room for transmission loss.

~~~
stcredzero
High energy density is indeed key for mobile applications. This is why Diesels
are so popular. 45% efficiency is 1/2 that of 90%, but the fuel is very energy
dense and the fuel tank is compact. In addition, the storage and transfer
technologies are simple, low-tech, and cheap.

The key is that _not everyone needs that kind of power_. Most of the people
here in Texas running around in work trucks would be just fine with one of
those little euro coupe utility vehicles that's as small as a compact car.
It's only in a minority of cases where you need the heavy hauling capability
of even an F-150.

------
DaniFong
This is strongly false. Utility scale flywheel systems can store massive
amounts of energy, and can do so quite cheaply.

So can compressed air. If you look at household electricity usage, an enormous
amount is taken up by refrigeration, and air conditioning. Much of the rest is
taken up by appliances: washers, dryers, that sort of thing. Finally there's
heating and lighting and electronics. The major energy expenses are now
transport, which we're trying to address, stuff, which is hard, and air
travel, which will have to be scaled down because it's polluting the
environment like crazy.

<http://www.wattzon.org/gameplan.htm>

~~~
DabAsteroid
_Utility scale flywheel systems can store massive amounts of energy, and can
do so quite cheaply._

Yet, electric utilities use lead-acid batteries, instead (providing ~30
seconds of backup power).

If utility scale flywheel systems are cheap, why aren't they being added to
nuclear power plants (so those plants can be used more-effectively for peak
power)?

~~~
DaniFong
Utility scale flywheel systems are being added to new powerplants, but it's
been slow going. Utilities are not exactly dynamic organizations; my cofounder
used to consult for one, getting them to change anything was an enormous pain.
There are many growing companies in this area: Beacon Power is one in
particular.

<http://beaconpower.com/>

They aren't being added to nuclear powerplants because nuclear powerplants
have a wide and controllable dynamic range (they can run higher or lower
depending) and new ones aren't being created.

There are large scale installations of flywheel systems in government use,
though. The Princeton Plasma Physics Lab used a flywheel system for peak power
delivery, as did many other government labs; including particle accelerators.

~~~
DabAsteroid
_Utility scale flywheel systems are being added to new powerplants_

Can you name one?

 _Beacon Power_

Has Beacon Power ever made a single sale in its 11-year existence? I see it is
trading at $1.25 (up from 84 cents, within the last year). The NASDAQ keeps
threatening to delist it.

<http://www.google.com/search?q=%22beacon+power%22+delisted>

~~~
DaniFong
On making sales, the short answer is yes: they announced a sale as far back as
2001, uncovered from shallow googling. This was for a telecom utility though,
not a powerplant scale utility.

<http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_hb5265/is_200102/ai_>

[edit: in H1 2007 they produced sales of $842,034, with $30,244 gross profit,
minus substantial operating expenses of $6,443,344. Such magnitudes may or
maybe not be expected in a startup company]

On adding to powerplants, the intent with the beacon power demonstration plant
is to actually commercially deploy the system and make revenues from
regulation services. Technically this is not adding to an existing powerplant,
though it is adding to the power grid. Eventually the aim to to add to
existing power plants where possible, as this avoids transmission losses.

[http://phx.corporate-
ir.net/phoenix.zhtml?c=123367&p=iro...](http://phx.corporate-
ir.net/phoenix.zhtml?c=123367&p=irol-newsArticle&ID=1197634&highlight=)

I'm not intimately familiar with the state of the two large utility scale
demonstrations. The public information, posted in their stockholders 'results'
release, is that they're building a 5 MW plant, have tested a 1 MW system,
siting another (10 MW), and ramping up to production; following approval in
open bid regulation market.

 _Beacon expects to have frequency regulation facilities in two locations
before the end of 2008 with a total of five megawatts of capacity. To that
end, the Company has initiated the process of establishing up to five
megawatts of frequency regulation capacity on its Tyngsboro site, and is
actively pursuing potential locations in the PJM Interconnection in addition
to a site in Stephentown, New York. On July 17, 2008, the Company received a
land-use permit it had requested from the town of Stephentown, New York, and
subsequently exercised its option to purchase the land. Pending approval of an
active interconnection request to NYISO and any other implementation
requirements of the NYISO, a possible location for Beacon's first 20 megawatt
frequency regulation plant will be in Stephentown._

[http://phx.corporate-
ir.net/phoenix.zhtml?c=123367&p=iro...](http://phx.corporate-
ir.net/phoenix.zhtml?c=123367&p=irol-newsArticle&ID=1186246&highlight=)

There's also Pentadyne, which manufactures smaller scale UPS systems, used,
for example, in process plants. The economics are much the same though, since
it competes against batteries. If anything, economies of scale should tweak
toward the utility scale implementation.

~~~
DabAsteroid
Thanks, Dani. I'll read your links. You're right, I should have done more
googling.

~~~
DaniFong
Dab,

Actually, I don't think so. The accuracy of one's predictions must be weighed
against the expected importance of their consequences on how one might decide
to act. Obviously this is an issue important to both of us. But the energy
problem is a big problem, perhaps _the_ problem, with monstrous amounts of
data, being generated faster than one can argue about it, at detail.

The goal is to act well, not to make zero mistakes. The arguments we've had
have unearthed interesting data, but I would not suggest it's worthwhile to
continue much further, unless, for either of us, it is in good sense
productive. Some of the arguments and contrary positions you've taken have
been very helpful for me. But I must admit, I am getting tired, and there is
work to do.

------
Lagged2Death
Alt-energy contrarians very often make the same argument: "We'll _never_ be
able to supply _all_ power needs from renewables. Therefore the whole alt-
energy movement is a doomed, loopy pipe dream."

Has it ever been the goal of serious alt-energy boosters to replace _all_
power with renewables?

~~~
DaniFong
Asymptotically. We have three problems: power capacity, power on demand, and
power portability. Renewable energy sources can solve the capacity problem, if
our energy consumption goes down through efficiency and changing habits (in
particular, if we stop flying everywhere...). The main thing we must optimize
for is energy per day versus cost.

Power on demand is another major problem: we need to supply a 'peak' of power
when people demand it. Renewable energy wavers during its production, so we
need to store some proportion of its energy somehow. The main thing to
optimize for here is energy capacity versus cost, assuming you can get the
power out fast enough. Efficiency also factors in, though not hugely. Anything
over 50% is ok.

Portable power is most problematic. We need an energy source that's clean, but
that has a high energy density, measured relative to both weight and volume.
Solving each problem leads to different possibilities.

For example, if you solve the weight problem, but it takes up tons of room
(hydrogen), you might be able to power airplanes. You can also power trains.

If you solve the volume problem, you can easily power automobiles and two
wheeled vehicles. (for example, hydrocarbon fuel cells work pretty well here.
We're trying to make compressed air vehicles that will work well here)

If you have solved the low cost and efficiency problems, and it doesn't weigh
too much, you can power ships, in particular, container ships. If the fuel is
buoyant you can make a double hulled vehicle and store the fuel in it.
(compressed air works very well here).

~~~
DabAsteroid
_If ... it doesn't weigh too much, you can power ships, in particular,
container ships. If the fuel is buoyant you can make a double hulled vehicle
and store the fuel in it. (compressed air works very well here)._

Why would the fuel need to be buoyant? Ships use steel hulls, steel is denser
than seawater, and, despite that, ships float. Some ships are even powered by
lead-acid batteries (<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Submarine#The_snorkel>) --
though these batteries are recharged by onboard diesel generators -- and yet
they float. Aircraft carriers and icebreakers are even powered by uranium --
18 times the density of water.

Pressurizing the space between the two hulls of a double-hulled boat would
require thicker steel than normal. (For a single curve, the tensile PSI needed
is the air-pressure in PSI multiplied by the radius in inches -- for a sphere,
divide by two.) Since steel is denser than seawater, this would tend to make
the vessel sink (so the fuel would hardly buoyant unless it were further being
contained in-between the hulls in carbon-fiber cells -- but that would obviate
the need for two hulls). It would also impact the shape of the boat, since
containing pressure is easier with a smaller radius-of-curvature (e.g. the
usual flat-sides of containter ships would be counter-efficient for this task
of retaining air-pressure).

An efficient design of such a container-ship might have two or three long,
parallel tubes as hulls, with a container-platform mounted above on blade-
pylons (to slice through the water). Optimally, the tubes would remain
entirely submerged during cruising, so as not to interact with surface waves
(which interaction normally causes efficiency losses).

~~~
DaniFong
The principle was to make the air stored in the volume surrounded by the hull,
not to store the air in between the hull cases.

One of the major costs in storing air at high pressures is the impact shell.
This can be merged with a thick hull, which are already designed with this
purpose in mind.

True, there are other alternatives. One can have a heavy fuel and a much
larger hull. But if the fuel and tank and hull combo are buoyant you minimize
the required material, lowering cost.

------
lemonysnicket
I guess non-hackernews _is_ hacker news...(Maroon linked to this in his post
as one of his favorite pieces of 'nonhackernews')

------
ash
"...tidal generators and atmosphere towers."

Atmosphere towers?! What's that?

~~~
DabAsteroid
It might be this:

<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Energy_tower_%28downdraft%29>

~~~
ash
Thanks for the link! Citation: "Currently, no known physical implementation of
an energy tower exists."

The article refers to another similar concept:
<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Solar_updraft_tower>

"A research prototype operated in Spain in the 1980s."

~~~
DaniFong
These designs are quite silly. In fact the best location for a solar updraft
tower is in between the forest floor and it's canopy. In fact, there are
already billions of implementations of concept, taking advantage of the
entropy differential between the strata of forest biospheres: trees.

------
jdavid
ummmm, just a note, did everyone notice ALL of the icons on the header of this
site?

------
newt0311
More interesting reading: <http://www.withouthotair.com/>

Basically shows that nuclear is the _only_ viable alternative to coal and oil.

------
DabAsteroid
From the article:

 _What’s going to replace oil?_

Why replace oil? It is relatively dense, we have 70,000 years worth, and it is
rechargeable.

~~~
DaniFong
Accessing those 70,000 years worth is very costly. The carbon in accessible
fossil fuels is around 1600 gigatons, which will be exhausted in much closer
to 100 years than 70,000. Doing so would pitch our atmospheric carbon content
around 2200 gigatons, nearly three times the current content of 600 gigatons.

<http://www.wattzon.org/plan/pages/GamePlan_v1.0%20050.htm>

Based on physical models pointing at similar conclusions from a plethora of
different directions, this will raise temperatures. By how much? We'd reach
approximately 1650 ppm carbon. At only 1000 ppm, many models predict a raise
of temperature from 3.5 to almost ten degrees C (varying across the world).
Most importantly, the heat will mostly be circulated to polar regions, melting
them. The last step of the argument is quite well known: at 4.5 degrees C, the
land borne glaciers will begin to melt, drowning entire cities and countries.
Before that happens, 20-50% species will be lost, and billions will face water
shortages. The ensuing ecological niches and prevalence of human targets may
end up creating many new diseases.

<http://www.wattzon.org/plan/pages/GamePlan_v1.0%20046.htm>

<http://www.wattzon.org/plan/pages/GamePlan_v1.0%20054.htm>

Why replace oil? Because it's tremendously risky not to, and not nearly so
hard as people seem to believe.

~~~
DabAsteroid
_this will raise temperatures._

That might objectively be the case, but it is not the case, according to ESR
-- and it is his article that we are discussing. Did you read the article?:

 _[I] don’t believe [CO2 emissions are] driving global warming. ...

The pressing question, then, remains: What’s going to replace oil?_

So, aside from greenhouse-gas considerations, why replace oil?

    
    
      .
    

_accessible fossil fuels ... will be exhausted in much closer to 100 years
than 70,000._

For 150 years, oil supplies have continuously been pronounced to be on the
verge of running out. And for 150 years, oil production has continuously
increased.

<http://www.radford.edu/~wkovarik/oil>

<http://www.radford.edu/~wkovarik/oil/5oilreservehistory.html>

 _• 1879 -- US Geological Survey formed in part because of fear of oil
shortages.

• 1882 -- Institute of Mining Engineers estimates 95 million barrels of oil
remain. With 25 milliion barrels per year output, "Some day the cheque will
come back indorsed no funds, and we are approaching that day very fast,"
Samuel Wrigley says. (Pratt, p. 124). ...

• 1906 -- Fears of an oil shortage are confirmed by the U.S. Geological Survey
(USGS). Representatives of the Detroit Board of Commerce attended hearings in
Washington and told a Senate hearing that car manufacturers worried "not so
much [about] cost as ... supply."

• 1919, Scientific American notes that the auto industry could no longer
ignore the fact that only 20 years worth of U.S. oil was left. "The burden
falls upon the engine. It must adapt itself to less volatile fuel, and it must
be made to burn the fuel with less waste.... Automotive engineers must turn
their thoughts away from questions of speed and weight... and comfort and
endurance, to avert what ... will turn out to be a calamity, seriously
disorganizing an indispensable system of transportation."

• 1920 -- David White, chief geologist of USGS, estimates total oil remaining
in the US at 6.7 billion barrels. "In making this estimate, which included
both proved reserves and resources still remaining to be discovered, White
conceded that it might well be in error by as much as 25 percent." ...

• 1928 -- US analyst Ludwell Denny in his book "We Fight for Oil" noted the
domestic oil shortage and says international diplomacy had failed to secure
any reliable foreign sources of oil for the United States. Fear of oil
shortages would become the most important factor in international relations,
even so great as to force the U.S. into war with Great Britain to secure
access to oil in the Persian Gulf region, Denny said.

• 1926 -- Federal Oil Conservation Board estimates 4.5 billion barrels remain.
...

• 1932 -- Federal Oil Conservation Board estimates 10 billion barrels of oil
remain.

• 1944 -- Petroleum Administrator for War estimates 20 billion barrels of oil
remain.

• 1950 -- American Petroleum Institute says world oil reserves are at 100
billion barrels. ...

• 2000 -- Remaining proven oil reserves put at 1016 billion barrels._

    
    
      .
    

Oil production has continuously increased as society has gotten continuously
better at finding and exploiting the oil in the earth's crust. Why should we
assume that that process would stop any time soon -- especially in the face of
estimates of total in-place oil that put our supply lifetime in the tens of
thousands of years?

<http://www.google.com/search?q=2.1+quadrillion+barrels+oil>

~2.1 quadrillion bbl / ~80 million bbl/day = ~72 thousand years of oil.

~~~
DaniFong
You cannot separate the argument from the objective reality the argument
claims to describe.

Regarding the wild swings in the estimates of remaining oil, the largest
discrepancy comes from the fact that oil in different places requires
different amount of toil to extract it. At a certain point, this is too much
to pay for all but a few applications (where energy density is needed most, or
where the stored hydrocarbons can be used for other purposes).

Already the oil infrastructure is some of the most complicated and costly
equipment in the world. We don't _know_ where that economic break even point
will be, but we do realize that one must exist. This, among other things, is
driving futures. Each new type of oil requires a new type of capital
investment. The involved parties are making gambles on future technology.
Further influencing this is the fact that it's polluting enough to,
potentially, influence much of the world away from it, thereby reducing the
attractiveness of such bets.

~~~
DabAsteroid
_Regarding the wild swings in the estimates of remaining oil_

What wild swings? Over the last 150 years, they have gone in only one
direction -- up.

 _it's polluting enough_

Please be specific. Are you talking about smog? CO2?

 _to, potentially, influence much of the world away from it_

Why would that happen now, instead of at any time during the last 150 years?
Let's see what Google Images says:

[http://images.google.com/images?q=world%20oil%20consumption%...](http://images.google.com/images?q=world%20oil%20consumption%20chart)

People and countries seem to like oil. They keep buying more and more of it.
Why would they suddenly stop?

~~~
DaniFong
Wild swings meaning the enormous gulf between the estimates of accessible oil
typically cited and the estimates of oil resources you cite.

 _Are you talking about smog? CO2?_

CO2 most importantly, but smog plays a major role.

Why would they stop? We've reached a few inflection points. Americans drive
less this year than they did the last.

[http://www.nytimes.com/2008/06/19/business/19gas.html?ref=bu...](http://www.nytimes.com/2008/06/19/business/19gas.html?ref=business)

One might gather that price will similarly effect heating costs and flight
usage. Fuel economy is one of the foremost items on the minds of Americans
now, according to Gallup (#2 in national issues, apparently).

[http://www.gallup.com/poll/108067/Fuel-Prices-Now-Clearly-
Am...](http://www.gallup.com/poll/108067/Fuel-Prices-Now-Clearly-Americans-No-
Concern.aspx)

Countries might increasingly wish to reduce their economic dependency on the
oil market, as it becomes cheaper and cheaper to do so. There has been much
support for an ethanol economy in the US; for example the bipartisan bill to
introduce biofuel installations in gas stations.

<http://www.greencarcongress.com/2008/08/bill-in-congres.html>

Already Brazil has an ethanol economy, provoked by the 1973 oil crisis.
Nations with similar agricultural capability and high oil dependency have the
same incentives to guard against future market downturns.

Finally, there's the global warming problem. I assume you don't believe CO2
has a major role. But from a pure economic standpoint, it is likely the
governments and the populace will increasingly believe it has a major role and
will probably do something about it, either collectively or individually. This
will probably influence demand to drop, though it may not do so suddenly.
Anticipating this, oil companies have a riskier bet to make in large capital
investments in heavy oil extraction. Increasingly, such companies will try to
diversify into the broader energy business, as many are already making efforts
to do.

------
pragmatic
I knew this would send the Al Gorites into a rage. How dare he question the
environmentalist religion.

Science is not consensus.

~~~
orib
Science is also not the unqualified saying loudly "LALALA I CANT HEAR YOU". In
many cases he's simply dead wrong, but people listen because what he says is
more pleasant than the truth.

We're running out of resources (not just oil. Copper, platinum, I belive...
indium? are all going to be in short supply in a short few hundred years). The
climate is changing. We don't care if it's man made or not, it's harming our
living conditions. We're still polluting our lakes -- the great lakes have
large segments of horribly toxic sediment, for example. (although cleanup is
going well, and costing only a few billion dollars.)

And yes, I am a physics student taking some extra classes on analyzing human
damage to the environment, and a number of my professors are researching or
otherwise involved with this stuff, from attempting to create efficient solar
cells to cleaning up the great lakes. I'm not an expert on our environmental
challenges, but I think I have a somewhat better-than-average grasp of the
situation.

~~~
Prrometheus
>We're running out of resources (not just oil. Copper, platinum, I belive...
indium? are all going to be in short supply in a short few hundred years).

You should google a man named Julian Simon.

