
The end of the Arab world’s oil age is nigh - prostoalex
https://www.economist.com/middle-east-and-africa/2020/07/18/the-end-of-the-arab-worlds-oil-age-is-nigh
======
charlysl
_THE Stone Age did not end for lack of stone, and the Oil Age will end long
before the world runs out of oil._

Sheikh Zaki Yamani, a Saudi Arabian who served as his country's oil minister
five decades ago, quoted by the Economist in 2003 ("The End of the Oil Age").

[0] [https://www.economist.com/leaders/2003/10/23/the-end-of-
the-...](https://www.economist.com/leaders/2003/10/23/the-end-of-the-oil-age)

~~~
rapnie
Yes, 17 years ago..

> Hydrogen fuel cells and other ways of storing and distributing energy are no
> longer a distant dream but a foreseeable reality.

And that was said at least 20 years earlier still.

I really hope we'll reach the end of the Oil Age, but as one gets older it
becomes hard not to be sceptical of these claims. Seeing is believing.. more
evidence.

In this thread so far only one comment mentioned geo-politics surrounding oil
- a building block of global power - that needs to be dealt with. Hampering
the transition to clean energy.

~~~
jseliger
_I really hope we 'll reach the end of the Oil Age, but as one gets older it
becomes hard not to be sceptical of these claims. Seeing is believing.. more
evidence._

Tesla keeps outperforming other car makers, even in a difficult environment:
[https://www.cnn.com/2020/07/02/tech/tesla-
sales/index.html](https://www.cnn.com/2020/07/02/tech/tesla-sales/index.html).

VW's electrics are about to hit: [https://electrek.co/2020/07/13/volkswagen-
vw-id-3-electric-c...](https://electrek.co/2020/07/13/volkswagen-vw-
id-3-electric-car-july-20/).

Electric semis are moving towards production, by Tesla, Daimler, and others.

Even electric bikes and scooters are still seeing massive sales growth. If
you've not tried you, you should.

The change is happening. Long-haul plane flights will remain on fossil fuels
for the foreseeable future but the rest of the world is changing, fast.

~~~
raydev
I don't understand why companies like Toyota and Honda and Hyundai haven't
moved on electric. Ford and GM I understand, I don't expect them to do
anything anymore, but 10 years ago I thought the Japanese and/or Korean
companies would be shipping multiple electric models by now.

Tesla, with so little marketshare and so many fewer dollars in revenue, seems
to have made incredible progress.

~~~
tastygreenapple
I don't think there are batteries that meet Toyota's durability standards.

Toyota wants their cars to be able to last a million miles in extreme
environments (-40 degrees Alaska, +120 degrees F deserts). You can't do that
with today's off-the-shelf battery technology.

~~~
NotSammyHagar
Gas cars can't go a million miles on one engine, either, and need endless
maintenance. EVs already get past a few 100k miles with much less work. EVs
will be first to 10^6 miles.

------
baron_harkonnen
>But don’t be fooled. The world’s economies are moving away from fossil fuels.

There is absolutely no evidence for this, and much to the contrary. Global CO2
production, which is a good proxy for overall fossil fuel use as steadily
risen [0]. This comparison is limited only in that it fails to show that
switching from coal to LNG does decrease emissions while doing nothing to
change reliance on fossil fuels.

The dip in emissions and oil production that happen with the pandemic
demonstrate very clearly that emissions and fossil fuel consumption are
directly tied to our economic activity. Since our goal is to resume to
"normal" as soon as possible global fossil fuel consumption will get back to
"normal" as soon as our economies do (now what plays out there is an
interesting question).

Bizarre that the Economist can make an assertion like that and people swallow
it without question.

[0]. [https://www.iea.org/articles/global-co2-emissions-
in-2019](https://www.iea.org/articles/global-co2-emissions-in-2019)

~~~
Retric
US fossil fuel consumption has been dropping for a while, with per person
emissions peaked in the 70’s. Population growth offset that, but total US CO2
emissions peaked in 2007. [https://www.macrotrends.net/countries/USA/united-
states/carb...](https://www.macrotrends.net/countries/USA/united-
states/carbon-co2-emissions)

Globally population and economic growth has hidden the trends, but kg per PPP
$ of GDP shows very steady improvements.
[https://data.worldbank.org/indicator/EN.ATM.CO2E.PP.GD](https://data.worldbank.org/indicator/EN.ATM.CO2E.PP.GD)

This goes beyond simple efficiency gains, fossil fuels are inherently limited
in what they can provide and we are moving past them.

~~~
koheripbal
The planet doesn't really care about the _per person_ data, nor is it
reassuring since human populations continue to explode, and the fastest
growing CO2 emitters are in the countries with the fastest growing
populations.

Per unit of GDP _also_ should not reassure anyone since GDP is constantly
growing even faster than CO2-pruduction-per-unit-of-GDP is dropping (according
to the data you linked). Additionally, regional improvements in these metrics
(prominently showcased for the US and EU) are driven by the fact that
manufacturing has been relocated from the first world to developing countries
- not because manufacturing is becoming significantly cleaner. In fact, the
higher sulfuric acid levels in the Pacific are a direct consequence unfiltered
coal burning in China - so we've actually made things worse by moving
manufacturing to countries with poor environmental standards.

Net total CO2 emissions are all that matter. Moreover, even ZERO growth of CO2
is insufficient to stop increasing temperatures since CO2 accumulates.

The alternative to aggressive absolute level CO2 caps (something many
countries openly refuse to agree to) some are quietly pursuing _planning for
failure_. Planning for human migrations, sea level changes, and local
precipitation changes, are things those with means are doing. ...and the more
people with wealth and/or power begin to plan for failure, the fewer will work
on preventing catastrophe. What emerges is an unfortunate game-theory dilemma
without a solution where parties actually produce _more_ CO2 in order to
prepare for higher CO2-driven global temperatures, and the regional challenges
they bring.

~~~
hosh
There are things that families in the US can do to sequester CO2. They require
changes to landscaping practices, but they do not require changes in laws or
policies. They don't require collective action. They are small solutions that
together, add up to a lot. Those same practices can also prepare families for
some of these catastrophes. These practices are found in permaculture design.

You don't hear much from permaculturists because they don't need to act at a
state or national level to affect changes in the local area. They are the ones
quietly practicing permaculture principles in the backyard, in apartments, and
some figured out how to include the homeless.

I see these extreme weathers and environmental threats to human civilizations
as part of self-healing mechanism of the planet. If human civilization
collapses, then the source of the protuberance disappears, and the planet can
get back to restoring the ecology. The planet doesn't _need_ us humans to save
it. That's a sort of arrogance that blinds us to the truth: we need to save
our place in the ecology, and that is going to require giving up some of the
conveniences we take for granted. It means becoming a part of the ecology
rather than somehow pretending that we are apart from the ecology. It means
caring for the earth, caring for the people, and taking no more than our fair
share. It means decentralizing our food system, and finding ways to
decentralize the remaining basic survival needs (water, shelter, warmth,
clothing).

It means reframing what "wealth" means to us. Rather than "wealth" being the
result of extracting resources and controlling access to it, it would better
serve us to see "wealth" as being stewards of regenerative processes.

~~~
TremendousJudge
Sounds great, but you can't convince half the population of the US to just
wear a piece of cloth over their faces and you think it's possible to convince
the entire population of the world to radically change their way of life?

~~~
hosh
I'm not looking to convince people. I am implementing this right now in my
household. I'm trying to find ways to reach family and neighbors. The low
hanging fruit are people who already have an inkling for this stuff.

Writing on here helps me clarify my thoughts, and I get a lot of good feedback
from it. But again: I came to the conclusion, I don't need to save the whole
world. I just need to focus on what is within my circle of influence... and
there is quite a bit I can do even if it does not cover the whole population.
I do what I can with CO2 sequestering, food resiliency, regenerative and
restorative agriculture. I'm taking steps towards a future where many people
do this ... but I will also have a much greater chance of surviving if there
is a collapse of civilization because people are not doing these things.

The question for _you_ though, is if _you_ are willing to change your way of
life. I'm ok if you decide that you are, or if you decide you are not. If you
do decide you are, there are a lot of resources out there to help you get
started. And if you are not, then at least you now know what your options are.
You're welcomed to try later if you ever change your mind. Or not. That's the
beauty of this kind of permissionless, decentralized solutions. There are
things you yourself can do, and you don't need to wait for half of the US
population to do it with you. It really is in your hands and your choice, your
freedom to pursue this or reject it. Or come up with something better.

------
Dumblydorr
Saudi Arabia missed a huge opportunity in the 2010s. They could be one of the
biggest solar players in the world, they are equatorial with a ton of
cloudless desert land for utility scale. They waffled on their impulsive solar
plans and they are years behind where smart policy could've put them.

Step back and just imagine: they are burning oil for electricity in one of the
best solar markets possible. Burning oil for electricity is like using whale
oil for lamps, it's harming your own society and planet due to myopic decision
making.

~~~
csunbird
Have you ever been there? Solar panels would be extremely useless because of
the sand building up everywhere.

I mean, literally, people never open up their windows, because of the extreme
amounts of sand in the air.

~~~
rtkwe
That's solvable though, there are setups for cleaning solar panels with robots
on rails it'd be pretty easy to have a similar setup just dust off panels
every few hours.

~~~
modriano
>robots on rails

That's a pretty fancy way to say motorized brushes on a timer.

~~~
gumby
Yep, but that’s how you get press and get funded. I’m not being cynical or
joking.

------
mothsonasloth
Does this mean Al-Qaeda and other terrorist organisations will go bankrupt
after their state sponsored funding dries up?

I don't mean this in an inflammatory way.

All I can see from this is more instability in the Middle-East which means
more bad news in the years to come...

Perhaps Turkey will take up a bigger role in the future for policing the
Middle East as they have a more diversified economy?

~~~
DSingularity
Yeah I agree with your conclusion. Instability in the present is due to
western interest maintaining their dictatorships. Instability in the future
will be as the western policies shift and they cut and run for whatever
reasons. I’d like to think that will come when we realize the immorality of
our policies but it will probably just be when our interests shift.

Maybe that’s why Israel is ramping up their annexations and colonization of
the West Bank. If the west loses interest in the Middle East they may lose
interest in maintaining Israeli geo-political supremacy.

~~~
ilstormcloud
>Maybe that’s why Israel is ramping up their annexations and colonization of
the West Bank.

This is probably because they don't expect Trump to be reelected. Now is their
chance.

------
adventured
> So the end of this era need not be disastrous if it prompts reforms that
> create more dynamic economies and representative governments.

There is no scenario where it won't be disastrous.

The most important number in the Middle East is barrels of oil (produced) per
capita. That figure has been falling for decades and is reaching critical low
levels (as represented by their budget situations).

What the Middle East producers have to try to do economically, is like trying
to replace the landing gear on a 747 while you're hurtling down the runway.
They don't just have to plot for replacing oil vs their economy today (a
nearly impossible task), they have to do it and come up with enough economy to
manage another 100% increase in population in the next few decades.
Realistically it's impossible, it will end in catastrophe; the conflicts
(including civil) will be far larger, matching the size of the population
increases. As the regimes melt under the pressure, wars will spiral out from
it. Neither the House of Saud nor the Iranian theocracy will survive it
intact.

Here is the population expansion for some prominent OPEC members since 1970:

Saudi Arabia: 5.8m -> 34m (486%)

(Saudi's oil production hasn't gone up much in 40 years, and their population
has increased by 250% in that time; a lot more mouths to feed, dramatically
fewer barrels per capita)

Iraq: 10m -> 40m (300%)

Iran: 28m -> 84m (200%)

Egypt: 34m -> 100m (194%)

Oman: 700k -> 5m (614%)

Kuwait: 750k -> 4m (433%)

Libya: 2m -> 6.6m (230%)

Sudan: 10m -> 42m (320%)

Algeria: 14m -> 44m (214%)

------
lordnacho
It's not all bad. If your economy depends on simply taking money right out of
the ground, the government will make sure that's done, but with zero
accountability.

An economy with more diverse interests will also be one where no interest has
total power and will need to explain itself.

Edit: yes, the transition is gonna be painful.

~~~
airza
Historically the main problem with state control of oil hasn't so much been "a
lack of accountability" as "The united states government and client states
aggressively destabilize your country in order to facilitate access for
private oil companies"

~~~
imtringued
No, it has more to do with the fact that an authoritarian state can fund
itself with oil. Elite politicians and oil companies employees live a modern
westernized lifestyle but the rest of the population remains in deep poverty.
Those politicians aren't lacking anything but since the oil trade is deeply
connected with the government anything that doesn't involve oil will weaken
the government's influence over the country. It is much easier to stay in
power by oppressing your population.

There is also the opposite scenario. You have an economic sector that is so
incredibly lucrative that you can just bribe your way to popularity by
creating a welfare state. Anything that pushes the focus away from the main
sector would also involve losing the welfare benefits even though it is better
in the long run.

Here comes a terrible analogy. Oil is like an economic painkiller. The pain is
gone but you are still injured.

~~~
zentiggr
Not so bad an analogy... Venezuela is suffering just so.

------
curiousllama
A couple points to keep in mind, that make this a bit overblown:

(1) While COVID is a negative demand shock, but is likely rather temporary

(2) Non-COVID oil demand is declining, but is more of a melting glacier.
Infrastructure-level energy operates on looooooong cycles due to immense cost.
COVID doesn't change that.

(3) The recent misfortune of the fracking industry is likely less temporary.
Demand is more likely to recover short term than supply.

2030 has perhaps become 2020, as the article suggests, but that doesn't mean
2022 will be what we thought 2032 will be. We can't just pretend we're all the
sudden up the maturity curve with renewables just because demand dropped for a
few months.

~~~
anoraca
Many companies switching to work from home will definitely have an impact on
gas usage: [https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2020-07-15/new-
work-...](https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2020-07-15/new-work-from-
home-culture-will-cut-billions-of-miles-of-driving)

------
bulgr0z
> No Arab oil producer, save tiny Qatar, can balance its books at the current
> price, around $40 (see chart).

This is pretty much an open secret for anyone following the price of oil, but
how can Aramco still brag about producing for less than $10 [1] a barrel while
the kingdom is openly hurting from the current prices ?

[1]
[https://www.forbes.com/sites/christopherhelman/2020/03/16/oi...](https://www.forbes.com/sites/christopherhelman/2020/03/16/oil-
prices-fall-further-as-virus-kills-demand-ahead-of-saudi-flood/)

~~~
kiriliponi
The cost of production and the price level required to balance the
government's budget are two different things.

~~~
pa7x1
Correct, to further explain the difference. The budget is drawn with a certain
assumption of the price of oil, which nets them an expected profit per barrel
with which they can balance income and expenses. If the price of oil is lower
than that they may still make a profit per barrel but the budget is not
balanced anymore and they will run deficits.

~~~
koheripbal
This is why higher oil prices seem to correlate with military adventures.

------
john4534243
The Arab world failed to use the opportunity. They could have invested more in
education and built in home research labs, etc. Instead they used the money to
build more taller buildings and imported the tech while the culture never
changed.

------
ur-whale
[http://archive.is/FMaId](http://archive.is/FMaId)

------
Shivetya
Any article about oil profits declining should really make to to mention
Russia because if their economy starts to tank from loss of too much income
from this trade it could lead to more adventurism by their leadership.

~~~
koheripbal
I wonder who they'd invade next... Armenia? The rest of Ukraine? Turkey?

~~~
Balgair
Whatever they (Vlad) are going to do, they have a closing window to do it in.

Russia's population is expected to fall to ~130 million by 2050 [0]. The dual
upcoming hits of reduced fuel purchasing and climate change are not going to
affect Russia well. Their petrorubles are not likely to maintain a punch in a
solar/wind/etc world. And as the temperate zones move towards the poles, with
the grain belts tagging along, all of Russia's neighbors are likely to look at
that unmanned land in a more hungry way. Their southernly neighbors of India
and China are still growing in population to ~3B combined in 2050, let alone
all the other countries. Whatever balance there is now will change with a
hungrier and hotter populace.

In some ways, these issues with Donny and Boris are amazing feats of
engineering. But they are only delaying the inevitable. Whatever they (Vlad)
are planning on doing, I don't see how they get out of this hole. Sure, they
bought time and space to move, but that time is limited. The next election in
the US is likely to reveal more of their (Vlad's) hand.

[0]
[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Demographics_of_Russia](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Demographics_of_Russia)

~~~
koheripbal
On one hand, you're saying their land is going to be more valuable - and then
on the other you're saying their land is going to suffer under climate change.

Your analysis seems very politically motivated, rather than objectively
looking at probable outcomes.

If anything, more fertile land will drive immigration, not invasion, and help
solve their demographic problems.

~~~
Balgair
My apologies for being unclear.

No, the land may become more valuable as the grain belts and people migrate
poleward. Land to the south will become less valuable and hotter. The southern
neighbors are gaining greatly in population, while Russia is loosing
population.

The current Russian actions (Vlad's) do not seem to indicate welcoming
immigrants or other diverse people (Chechnya, hyper complicated, yes, but
still). Russia does have a long history of multi-ethnic tension and release
though. I'd hope that they (Vlad) welcome the climate refugees, but such
integration is likely to be very difficult, as is usual.

A 'Roman' approach may be good to alleviate the strife, where in the pre-
Gothic invasions, the Roman M.O. was to take the younger immigrant men into
the legions, separate the clans/tribes across the empire to tie allegiance to
their neighbors and Rome, and then in about three generations the
grandchildren would run the empire. Unfortunately for Russia, that takes
~60-80 years, so about 2080-2100, well past the issues of 2050.

------
macspoofing
>But don’t be fooled. The world’s economies are moving away from fossil fuels.

To what?!? If your geography does not allow for large scale hydro or
geothermal development, then your only alternative is Nuclear or Fossil Fuels.
Solar and wind need base load provided by Fossil Fuels to be remotely viable
and clearly are not capable of replacing fossil fuels.

~~~
pfdietz
Solar and wind and storage can supply 100% of the grid more cheaply than a
CO2-free solution also using newly constructed nuclear. Many nuclear advocates
still don't understand this new reality.

~~~
pas
The problem is, currently there is not enough economic activity spent on
storage (or any CO2-neutral thing really). You probably know the numbers. To
switch off CO2 emissions we would need to build CO2-free power plants about 10
per day for 10 years.

Total US electricity generated by nuclear power plants was about 807 TWh
(~92GW), but just in 2010 the world used 41 354 TWh generated by coal. That's
a factor of 50. The US has about 95 commercial plants. So to replace just coal
we'd need about 4750 new power stations.

Basically at this point everything that's not fossil based is great. Build all
of them. More wind, solar, storage, nuclear, geo, etc.

~~~
philipkglass
The problem is huge, but not quite as grim as this. I think that you may be
confusing primary (thermal) energy in coal with electricity supplied by coal.
In 2018, coal was used to generate about 10,000 TWh of electricity:

[https://www.iea.org/reports/world-energy-
outlook-2019/electr...](https://www.iea.org/reports/world-energy-
outlook-2019/electricity)

Renewable generators only need to displace the electrical output of combustion
based power plants, not the greater thermal energy contained in source fuels.
A highly electrified, renewables-dominated world would consume less primary
energy at the same level of energy service consumption. There's a lot less
energy going toward production of useless waste heat when renewable
electricity displaces fossil combustion electricity.

The average American coal plant turns only 37.4% of coal's thermal energy into
electrical energy:

[https://processbarron.com/u-s-coal-power-plant-efficiency-
st...](https://processbarron.com/u-s-coal-power-plant-efficiency-stack/)

In 2019 the United States lost 2/3 of all primary energy as waste heat:

[https://flowcharts.llnl.gov/content/assets/images/charts/Ene...](https://flowcharts.llnl.gov/content/assets/images/charts/Energy/Energy_2019_United-
States.png)

~~~
pas
Thanks for the correction, alas the edit period has closed for that comment.

(I used the number from this wiki page:
[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/World_energy_consumption#Fossi...](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/World_energy_consumption#Fossil_fuels)
)

------
konschubert
I think the price will recover a fair bit more.

As low as it is, it will keep pushing out other energy sources until demand
goes up.

But for the sake of mankind and planet, I hope shale never becomes profitable
again.

------
Robotbeat
Hopefully they will be able to transition to a more sustainable economy based
on development of manufacturing and export of higher quality goods. As others
have noted, they have some of the best solar resource in the world, but that’s
not as easily exported. More like farming than oil production. To take
advantage of it, they’ll need local industry.

[https://www.alternativeenergyhq.com/wp-
content/uploads/2015/...](https://www.alternativeenergyhq.com/wp-
content/uploads/2015/10/SolarGIS-Solar-map-World-map-en.png)

~~~
ArkVark
This is unlikely as they have the advantage of neither cheap labor, nor a
highly intelligent workforce: [https://www.worlddata.info/iq-by-
country.php](https://www.worlddata.info/iq-by-country.php)

They are limited by an ideology/culture which discourages women from
participating in the workforce or receiving an education, and also encourages
cousin marriage (60-70% of marriages in Saudi Arabia) which lowers IQ and
leads to birth defects [https://english.alarabiya.net/en/life-style/art-and-
culture/...](https://english.alarabiya.net/en/life-style/art-and-
culture/2015/04/04/Health-fears-question-Arab-tradition-of-cousin-marriages-)

I think its more likely that Arab leaders will siphon off as much wealth as
possible then flee to London and other tax havens. The survivors will be left
to fight over the scraps and places like Saudi Arabia will come to resemble
Yemen (which is a country which simply exhausted its oil reserves faster than
the rest).

------
albntomat0
What other sources have written about how this will affect other oil producers
with 'interesting' political situations, such as Russia, Venezuela, and Iran?
Looking for recommendations of similar articles.

------
minikites
[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rashid_bin_Saeed_Al_Maktoum](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rashid_bin_Saeed_Al_Maktoum)

>A quote commonly attributed to Sheikh Rashid, "My grandfather rode a camel,
my father rode a camel, I drive a Mercedes, my son drives a Land Rover, his
son will drive a Land Rover, but his son will ride a camel", reflected his
concern that Dubai's oil, which was discovered in 1966 and which began
production in 1969, would run out within a few generations.

------
christiansakai
I'm trying to go more into investing in green energy/renewable/alternative of
some sort. If the world is going to end in 50 years due to fossil fuels then
might as well put my money in the alternatives.

I have some things in mind but maybe HN readers can give me a few suggestions
on what to read/look.

~~~
joelbluminator
I bought this ETF [https://www.ishares.com/nl/particuliere-
belegger/nl/producte...](https://www.ishares.com/nl/particuliere-
belegger/nl/producten/251911/ishares-global-clean-energy-ucits-etf) , if
you're not familiar with the concept of ETF it's best you read about it but
basically it's a basket of stocks that follow a certain index, in this
instance its the global clean energy index

~~~
christiansakai
I looked at that. What do you think of that vs the QCLN for example. Why
global?

~~~
joelbluminator
I think going global in these uncertain times is a pro!

------
m12k
Yay, maybe the West can stop invading countries and propping up dictators once
there's no valuable natural resources there. I just read that back, and I
really wish I was kidding.

------
psadri
As demand for oil falls, it will get cheaper, making it more attractive and
alternative energy less competitive. It’s a weird dynamic. We literally need
to run out of the stuff or pass laws that make it much more expensive (by
taking into account its real environmental cost).

------
thecleaner
... and with it hopefully Wahabi Islam with other more peaceful sects raking
up more influence.

------
chansiky
Just because we eliminate oil as a source of energy doesn't mean we end its
dominance. The stone, bronze, iron age were not about using them as fuel.
Plastics are still everywhere and not about to change any time soon.

~~~
AtlasBarfed
Google: Percent of oil used for plastics?

Answer: 4%

------
kelvin0
It's far more profitable to mine the spice on Arrakis then to use solar
energy.

------
sremani
In spite of its flaws -- twitter is probably best place for finding top-shelf
analysts and their opinion for free.

For Oil follow: @anasalhajji

[https://twitter.com/anasalhajji/status/1284132912850522115](https://twitter.com/anasalhajji/status/1284132912850522115)

Enjoy!

------
athesyn
They've been saying this for the past 20 years and even though it's inevitable
it's still nowhere near our lifetimes.

~~~
martythemaniak
We have mainstream electric vehicles now and more are on the way. A very large
part (40-60%) of petroleum is used for gasoline. That will wreak havoc on oil
producing places, although who gets hit how hard and what consequences it has
is impossible to say.

~~~
nsl73
The developing world, a group very cost sensitive and unlikely to switch for
environmental reasons, is putting gasoline vehicles on the road much faster
than the developed road is taking them off.

For electric vehicles to eat the world they have to be cheaper than gasoline
counterparts. Not only for luxury electric vehicles to be cheaper than luxury
gasoline vehicles, but for the cheapest gasoline motorcycle/scooter/car to be
more expensive than the cheapest electric motorcycle/scooter/car. Given the
current cost materials inside a battery/electric engine compared to the
current cost of materials inside a combustion engine it’s unlikely to happen
with our current approach.

~~~
yyyk
The developing world can't pay much for ICE technology, and more importantly
can't sustain it on its own. It will ultimately follow the lead of the
developed world with a slight delay.

------
known
"If it moves tax it. If it keeps moving regulate it. And if it stops moving
subsidize it" \--Reagan

------
PHGamer
oil is used for so much more than gas...

------
davidf18
Prior to the oil embargo of 1973, the cost of a barrel of oil in today's
dollars was about $23.

In 1973, OPEC created an artificial scarcity, "economic rents", in oil
transferring and over the past five decades "robbed consumers" of trillions of
dollars of wealth transferred to oil rich nations such as those in the Middle
East.

These "economic rents" not only harmed consumers but they helped certain oil
rich nations such as Russia and Iran to invade other nations.

The hope is that with US fracking and oil export, the days of more than $50
per barrel oil is over.

It is estimated that the Arabs spent $1 trillion of wealth to combat Israel.
Imagine, if instead of attempting to destroy Israel they had partnered with it
investing in the "Startup Nation?" Had that happened, the Middle East may have
been a very wealthy region for all of it's citizens.

Historian Paul Johnson wrote an article in Commentary in 2005 called "The
Anti-Semitic Disease" along these lines. [1]

[1] [https://www.semanticscholar.org/paper/The-Anti-Semitic-
Disea...](https://www.semanticscholar.org/paper/The-Anti-Semitic-Disease-
Johnson/65c0aa0fddb84641518c22aef8f409e95b4c3942)

------
notmyfriend
Fossil fuels are only part of the usage. Oil and hydrocarbons are used in a
lot industrial production, housing, foams, chemical plants etc. Even if you
somehow replaced all fossil fuels with some other energy alternative (nuclear
container ships, electric cars, trucks, trains and planes) you would still use
a massive amount of hydrocarbons from oil and gas to power the worlds economy.

And before you say use plant based hydrocarbons. It's kind of perverse to use
trees and food crops to create fuel and industrial products.

------
ackbar03
This seems like a huge issue and a major social/economic trend going
forward...

As a startup how do I take advantage of this?

------
throw1234651234
Archive link please? Also, won't the price bounce back after COVID? We are
nowhere near sustainable on renewables.

~~~
fred_is_fred
Fracking producers in the US act as a cap or brake on prices. When prices hit
$50/barrel, some oil shale becomes profitable and comes online. When it hits
$60, more does, and at $100, even more, etc etc.

~~~
Robotbeat
Not only that, but the costs for frakking have become much lower in the US as
oil companies have gotten better at cost control. The US’s generous bankruptcy
system also makes it fairly straightforward for companies to shed debt and
continue operating.

And unlike the Middle East, Low fossil fuel prices are a boon to the rest of
the economy, so you don’t experience broad societal decay and upheaval due to
low fossil fuel prices but instead higher stability.... This is why a
diversified economy is so important because it reduces hysteresis losses in
the case of sectoral interruptions.

