Guest essay by Larry Hamlin
The latest EIA 2017 IEO report projects world energy consumption to increase by 28% from 2015 through 2040.
Non OECD countries (the developing nations-China, India, etc.) account for about 84% of this increased energy use with non OECD Asia making up the majority of this energy use growth.
Significant growth (43%) in natural gas use is projected in meeting the worlds total energy increase through 2040.
Petroleum and other liquid fuels use growth (18%) continues but at a slower pace than natural gas.
Coal energy use is projected to be stable during this period with declines in China offset by increased use in India.
Renewables (hydro, wind, solar, geothermal, other) is the fastest growing energy source with wind, solar and natural gas supplying most of the electricity sector growth.
Renewables are projected to supply 31% of world electricity generation in 2040 the same as coal with hydro representing 53% of the electricity renewable energy total.
In 2040 fossil (petroleum and other liquids, natural gas and coal) and nuclear fuels are projected to supply about 83% of global total energy consumption with 9% from renewables (wind, solar, geothermal, other) and 8% from hydro.
OECD countries (the developed countries-U.S., Europe, etc.) are projected to reduce CO2 emissions in the period between 2015 and 2040 while the non OECD countries are projected to be increasing CO2 emissions by about 5.5 billion metric tons in this period.
U.S. year 2040 CO2 emissions are projected to be lower than 2015 emissions and about 19% below peak CO2 levels of year 2005 which were about 6 billion metric tons of CO2.
Increased use of natural gas derived from fracking technology is replacing more costly coal sources and driving reduced OCED projected CO2 emissions as well as reduced rates of increased CO2 emissions from non OECD countries.
Coal energy use continues to create the majority of global CO2 emissions.
The EIA 2017 IEO report clearly demonstrates the continued dominance of fossil fuels in providing the huge majority of global energy consumption many decades into the future as well as showing that renewable energy will not control the future of world energy consumption despite much flawed hype to the contrary.
Additionally the report shows the huge role that the energy market price driven increased use of natural gas is playing in reducing OECD nation CO2 emissions while significantly lowering the rate of growth of CO2 emissions of the non OECD nations from 3% to 1% per year after 2015.
This reports results strongly suggest that it is absurd for global governments to demand that the world cough up trillions of dollars in mandated programs to reduce CO2 emissions and increase renewable energy use when fracking technology has produced such dramatic benefits in lowering market price based energy costs while increasing more economic use of significantly lower emissions fuels.
Discover more from Watts Up With That?
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
After decades of virtue signaling, false propaganda, and literally $T confiscated and spent on sun and wind power they only account for a few % of energy used. We’re talking about roughly 25% of the Industrial Age in its’ most technology productive time and rewables only providing a miniscule amount of the energy to drive it yet people insist on banning fossil fuels. Propaganda is a powerful weapon.
Since both Solar and Wind farms extract energy from the local environment, what happens to the weather in the vicinity, when a significant percentage of that driving energy is intercepted?
Assuming 90% efficiency (pipe dream), Just how much energy is available if the majority of habitable land was covered in Solar panels and Bird macerators?
For all those fossil fuel advocates who think it is just renewables that are subsidised then I would digest this to give you some food for thought:
https://mankindsdegradationofplanetearth.com/2018/01/02/empty-promises-g20-subsidies-to-oil-gas-and-coal-production/
Ivan, how is it possible for mankind to degrade the earth when it is mankind that judges such a thing in the first place? “Degrade” has meaning only in the mind of a human. The Earth doesn’t care! You seem to be anthropomorphising the Earth.
Ok so we are the only cognizant worthwhile species inhabiting this planet? Do you really honestly believe that? If you do then I suggest you put yourself out of your misery…
Do you never get bored with having to sleep on a rubber sheet, you poor little bedwetter?
Get out of your mummy’s basement into the real world, get a girlfriend (or boyfriend if that’s your thing), get a job and above all else get a life, FFS!
The biggest complaint about “fossil fuels”, particularly petroleum-derived fuels, has always, always been the huge, obscene, undeserved profits of those industries. Industries that were never, at least in the United States, subsidized. Quite the opposite. Until the Reagan administration, oil prices were regulated by the government, resulting in the shortages that price controls always produce. The Left is fond of pointing to things such as the depletion allowance as “subsidies,” which is more a betrayal of their view of the relation of individuals to the State (if the State doesn’t take money from individuals, it is a “subsidy” or gift – which means that the State owns the lives and efforts of everyone) than any economic facts.
Fossil fuels, in any context free of government meddling, have always been enormously profitable. That means they have delivered more value to their consumers than the cost of their production. Solar, wind, and even hydroelectric cannot make a similar claim. Neither can nuclear, thought it is unclear as to why. The U.S. regulation of nuclear is enormously burdensome. I know of a TRIGA reactor that has been seeking re licensing for a decade – and that is the safest reactor ever built in the U.S. Endless lawsuits by “environmental” activists cost stupendous amounts of money in delaying the completion of any nuclear power plant project. But we really don’t, to my knowledge, have a complete understanding of the end-to-end economics.
With fossil fuels, it is an exercise left to the student, as they said in engineering school. And it’s a very straight line to the conclusion that they are the best thing we have.