The FT reports this morning that:
Global oil and gas demand will rise for the next 25 years if the world does not change course, the International Energy Agency has said, in a new scenario that reflects governments' fading commitment to climate change.
The Guardian tackles the same material, saying:
Renewables will grow faster than any major energy source in the next decade, according to the world's energy watchdog, making the transition away from fossil fuels “inevitable”, despite a green backlash in the US and parts of Europe.
The world is expected to build more renewable energy projects in the next five years than has been rolled out over the last 40, according to the flagship annual report from the International Energy Agency (IEA).
Which is true? I suspect both are. But as a comedian once said, it's the way you tell them that counts.
I prefer the Guardian's spin.
I heed the FT's warning.
My point is, we need a media we can interrogate. Lose that, and we are in deep trouble.
Thanks for reading this post.
You can share this post on social media of your choice by clicking these icons:
There are links to this blog's glossary in the above post that explain technical terms used in it. Follow them for more explanations.
You can subscribe to this blog's daily email here.
And if you would like to support this blog you can, here:
Buy me a coffee!
I would argue that a demand for energy is not necessarily a demand for oil and gas specifically.
Conflating the two is spin.
Renewables will grow faster because there is less of it, so this too is spin.
As you say, we need journalism that understands basic maths and spin.
So, what are your saying, if you are spin free?
To be spin free, you need to say that there is an increasing demand for energy (true), and that energy comes from a variety of sources such as fossil fuels or renewables (true), but each source has advantages and disadvantages. One directly pollutes, one does not. One may contribute to global warming, one does not. (excluding manufacturing).
While everyone has a bias, we can always do better.
Thanks
The IEA has always provided fairly unbiased and useful energy projections. It is however funded by governments ultimately, and the Guardian article indicates it may have succumbed to some pressure to paint a rosier picture for fossil fuels in one scenario (it is not one outlook, but rather several cases or scenarios) due to pressure form the US.
In my cursory glimpse at the World Energy Outlook (WEO) for 2025, I would highlight a couple of important things:
1. Oil consumption is not projected to grow through 2050 in any scenario. Demand peaks some time between now and 2050 (2030s mainly). This is mainly sue to the impact of electric cars on oil consumption within the transport sector.
2. Coal is replaced by renewables at varying paces in all scenarios.
3. The main driver of fossil fuel growth, and hence higher carbon emissions, is natural gas for power generation. This hinges in large part on the expected demand for power generation arising from increased electric vehicles and, most substantially, data centres.
In my own view, the projection for data centres is massively overblown as I believe the AI industry is largely a bubble, so I would say the prospects for fossil fuels are not good. A lot will depend upon how quickly Africa can grow its economy, but sadly with climate consequences already built in due to emissions, I am not optimistic.
I would say the future is one with a big increase in renewables and electrified transport, and emissions will depend on the amount of gas needed to fund combined cycle gas at the margin, which will itself depend on whether AI is a real growth industry, or just a mirage.
Fossil fuels, by their very nature, are not unlimited. They will run out eventually, although whether that is before or after the human race runs out of time is open to debate. Renewables will not, for as long as the sun keeps shining and the wind keeps blowing.
Thanks also for bringing back memories of the late Frank Carson!
Thanks
Interesting video today about AI, and it touches on how it’s driving up domestic energy prices, extracting more wealth – https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=imtkNL4v2ks&pp=4gcKEghzdWJzdGFjaw%3D%3D
At the moment energy consumption globally is rising. The increase in renewables is merely complementing the increase and CO2 levels still rising. Unless economic growth contacts we are on a path to doom, not just through greenhouse gas increases but general ecological degradation and collapse as well. We are in for a very rough ride to put it mildly unless there is dramatic change in policy and life styles that are not apparent yet. COP 30 seems to be a fruitless cry in the wilderness at the moment. I hope I am wrong.
I agree: we have to cut consumption.
CHS agrees.
https://oftwominds.com/blog.html
Best,
Good…
Our planet Earth receives from the Sun about 5 × 10⁶ Exajoules (EJ) per year.
The World Annual Energy Consumption is about 5 × 10² Exajoules (EJ) per year.
The Global Annual Solar Energy Capture is about 5 Exajoules (EJ) per year.
The Sun currently delivers 10,000 times more energy than we currently need. I have no doubt we will need more.
This does not take into account other energy sources such as geothermal, hydroelectric (gravity) and nuclear.
It also does not take into account the recycling of energy, such as the conversion of waste heat back into electricity (heat engines and the Seebeck effect).
So we could consume more energy, as long as there are sources, and excess heat can be lost or converted.
…in my opinion.
As I now know, we radiate more energy than we receive.
We radiate it as infra-red though. Entropy requires this – or we would collpase as a system. As an open system we have to do so.
Whichever way it works out, England, well Westminster, can console itself that it can continue to help itself to most of Scotland’s resources, whether renewable or otherwise. Unless we grow a pair.
Western governments appear not to be interested in properly supporting/funding clean energy, improving residential home insulation and so on.
You can expect a muddle along the lines of the new Gates mantra, “it’s not as bad as everyone predicts”.
If you look at the ‘transition’ from coal to oil what in fact happened was that there was additional energy use from oil, not the replacement of coal. Plus of course moving coal consumption from ships, railways and homes to power stations.
Solar (PV) will continue to decline in price – probably by 20% by 2030 (for panels), inverters etc with the move to silicon carbide etc will become more reliable. Main production steps are +/- fully automated.
Main problem with PV in western Europe is it doesn’t in winter – but wind does (but the Brits up load their nimby sub routine when this is proposed). Need a whole-energy approach to de-carb which for the most part is absent – people still think (only) in terms of electrons and discrete systems – not whole systems. Which I find strange. Need to speak to my IEA contacts to find out a bit about the bun fights preceding the report (& what was not included).
BTW: looks like emissions in China are either flat or declining.
Thanks
And yet again demand reduction is ignored. Probably because it’s harder to measure, and doesn’t give politicians cool PR opportunities. It’s much more fun to pose in front of a new wind farm than to stand in a down-market housing estate full of properly insulated dwellings, or to film on a crowded commuter bus doing the same job as several dozen cars.
Agreed
Demand for oil and gas may well attempt to rise, but where is the new supply at prices that people can pay? Clearly drilling in the Arctic will be much more expensive (in money and crucially energy) than the original oil wells in Pennsylvania even if it can actually be done without great environmental risk.
Renewables will keep growing, but electricity is still only around 20% of the World’s energy usage and currently renewables are a small fraction of that 20%. The vast majority of energy is from burning things – for heating, for industry, and as chemical feedstocks for fertilisers and plastics.
A commentator I follow, Gail Tverberg, frequently points out in her blogs that if oil and gas prices rise enough to make commercial sense to exploit the difficult to get reserves that could provide the supply, then the prices are too high for consumers which then drops demand.
Given that fossil fuels are finite on human timescales (yes in a few million years some new coal, oil and gas will be brewed inside the mantle), and many of their uses are critical for our current level of civilisation, the price should be trending to infinity – at least until real scalable alternatives for all these uses are developed.