The International Energy Agency bets its reputation on an aggressive prediction
In a recent substack by Roger Pielke Jr., a critical analysis is presented regarding the International Energy Agency’s (IEA) bold prediction concerning the peaking of fossil fuels by 2030. Pielke’s meticulous examination of the IEA’s forecast reveals a landscape where the integrity of scientific prognostication seems to be on a precarious ledge, teetering between objective analysis and the abyss of advocacy.
“The International Energy Agency (IEA), headquartered in Paris and overseen by the OECD, issued a bold prediction in its 2023 World Energy Outlook (emphasis added): The combination of growing momentum behind clean energy technologies and structural economic shifts around the world has major implications for fossil fuels, with peaks in global demand for coal, oil and natural gas all visible this decade – the first time this has happened in a WEO scenario based on today’s policy settings.”
Pielke underscores the significance of the IEA’s position as one of the world’s preeminent institutions providing global energy analyses to decision-makers. The IEA’s forecast, therefore, carries substantial weight in shaping global energy policies and strategies, making its objectivity and analytical rigor of paramount importance.
“Conflict over the IEA’s latest World Energy Outlook matters because the IEA, created in the 1970s to focus on oil, has evolved to serve as one of the world’s preeminent institutions providing global energy analyses to global decision makers.”
The article juxtaposes the IEA’s predictions against those of the U.S. Energy Information Administration (EIA), revealing stark contrasts in their respective outlooks on the future of fossil fuels. While the IEA foresees a peak in fossil fuel consumption by 2030, the EIA’s projections do not align with this view, showing no such peak in any of the fossil fuels before 2050.
“First, in its reference scenario the EIA foresees no peak in any of the fossil fuels before 2050. Coal increases the least, but still by about 5% over 2025. Second, the differences between IEA and EIA are stark, especially so for coal. IEA sees a 40% decline by 2050 and EIA see an increase of about 5%.”
Pielke emphasizes the risk that the IEA is taking with its reputation by making such aggressive predictions. He suggests that the IEA’s forecast seems to be more aligned with advocacy than objective analysis, a position that could potentially undermine its credibility and influence in global energy discourse.
“The IEA has made a significant bet on peak fossil fuels and its reputation hangs in the balance. Here are the implications: If the peak occurs by 2030, the IEA will be celebrated as going out on a limb and being correct, solidifying its position as the preeminent international body for energy system analyses.”
In conclusion, Pielke’s article invites a discerning evaluation of the IEA’s predictions, encouraging a vigilant appraisal of the objectivity and analytical integrity of influential global energy institutions. It underscores the necessity for these institutions to maintain a steadfast commitment to objective, evidence-based analysis, free from the influences of advocacy and policy predispositions.
“In either case, IEA’s issuance of the peak-fossil fuel forecast has created strong incentives for the organization to act as an advocate, because of the two possible outcomes above. Rooting for your own forecast is not a good situation to be in for a science advisory body — it is also the reason why we think it a bad idea to let referees bet on the games that they are officiating.”
You can read the entire article at Dr. Pielke Jr.’s substack.
Discover more from Watts Up With That?
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
When it comes to Peak FF Prognostications the OECD appears to be rather OCD on the subject.
Fossil fuels, especially petroleum are the drivers of the world economy. Won’t peak by 2030 other than in price.
So far, oil (crude + condensate) peaked in late 2018, five years ago.
We are about 2 million barrels/day below the peak.
The difference between a Trump economy and a Biden economy.
The graph is for world production not US production.
Who shut off the oil? ?
Biden / Newsome
Trump just cares about Trump. If something good happened it was in spite of Trump.
TDS
What does TDS mean?
Trump Derangement Syndrome
When all the evils are blamed on Trump. Even those currently foisted on society by Biden
Thanks
Trump has his faults, just like all of us, but when someone blames Trump for *everything* bad then that person has Trump Derangement Syndrome.
I imagine an overexposure to the lies and distortions of the leftwing media is the main cause of TDS, that, and a gullible character receiving the leftwing propaganda.
Unfortunately, the young are not the only people in society who are easily influenced and are incapable of separating fact from fiction.
Propaganda works. Especially in the particular positon the world is in now with the leftwing dominating nearly all the means of mass communications.
So we get an overabundance of leftwing spin, including lies and distortions about Trump, and a lot of people believe this BS, to the detriment of our society and our future.
Total dissolved solids.
In this context “TDS = Trump Derangement Syndrome”.
Definitions were provided, in all their gory details, by “Mish” (Mike Shedlock) just under 2 years ago.
URL : https://mishtalk.com/economics/voters-send-messages-to-democrats-and-republicans-is-anyone-listening/
In most case “TDS” on its own equals “TDS Type I”, i.e.Donald Trump can do no right.
Trump is by far the best president we’ve had at least since Reagan, and he may have been even better than him. By almost every measure, Americans were better off under Trump’s policies than under anyone else’s. And his foreign policy was unequaled before, and certainly since.
Exactly right.
We need Trump to get us back on track after the disaster of Joe Biden.
OPEC is actively limiting production.
I agree. Artificial constraints on supply and weak demand from a struggling economy explain lower supply. The cartel being able to restrict supply without effective competition explains the rising prices. That is what a producer with market power would do to maximize earnings—raise prices by creating scarcity.
Dementia Joe hands OPEC market power by doing all he can to cripple the US energy industry so that it can’t thwart the cartel as it had in the recent past. In a functioning free market, attempts by a supplier to create scarcity would just lead to a loss of market share.
Oil is much like electricity is hard to store and slowing down production of existing wells, is often is a one way street, you may never be able to get the well’s peak production back again.
Hard to affect production when Permian oil come in at about eleven dollars a barrel, and Bakken oil comes in around twenty nine dollars a barrel. At those prices the Saudis are at a price disadvantage. Also note most of those formation are under private land.
Curious. So you’d have us believe that the recent price increases are not due to policy-driven constrained supplies? That leaves the explanation of surging demand outstripping supply. No doubt due to the booming economy we’ve been enjoying?
And what is OPEC’s angle, announcing imaginary production cuts even though they know they can’t affect production?
I’m pretty sure the graph on the left would involve ww3.
Or some other calamity.
The Old West had Calamity Jane.
Now we have Calamity Joe.
I’d criticize them for making 20-year predictions, but someone has to do it. Better them than me. I agree the Coal line’s ski slope down needs a better explanation than solar panels and wind mills. WW3 would need a leading upward spike.
At almost 30 years in the future it’s most likely cause is due to alien technology where coal is used for an extremely efficient form of fuel.
It’s a matter of perspective. This is not unusual in the history of oil production. After peaking in 1929, it took 5 yeas to reach a new peak. After peaking in 1979, it took 17 years to reach a new peak. After peaking in 2008, it took 4 years to reach a new peak.
I think a more accurate assessment would be it that oil production has been slow to recover from the pandemic plunge due to both economic and political factors, but there is little evidence to suggest the long-term trend toward higher oil production has changed.
The peak oilers have a long history of failed predictions, so far.
1970
1980
2005
2018
Next…
2005 or 2008?
I thought that generation might have had something. I thank them for teaching me – just because it sounds right and has smart advocates doesn’t make it true.
Yes, the big drop started in April 2020, when estimates range from 14-18% decline in anthro’ emissions because of COVID shutdowns.
Javier,
Make that same graph 10 years from now. If it is still down 2 million, I will take it seriously. The decrease you show is due to politics affecting investments. The investment cycle is about 15 years anyway. Another issue, there is a substantial replacement of liquids with natural gas going on today, especially in the West. Here is a graph of total fossil fuel consumption. Except for a minor blip due to covid, it is not changing, thus supply is not changing. I’m 71 years old and very busy, but I am still receiving requests to apply for jobs as a petrophysicist. Investment is returning to the fossil fuel industry very rapidly as people realize the renewable and EV push is a lie. I see no peak in fossil fuels in 2018 or in the foreseeable future, the US EIA is correct. Link to make your own graph.
https://ourworldindata.org/grapher/global-fossil-fuel-consumption
Javier gave the qualifier “so far” so is rightly hedging. Your comprehensive and well reasoned explanation is superior.
Andy, I am not saying anything about the future, I am just saying what the data shows. Successfully predicting oil prices or oil production is very difficult as attested by the failure of past predictions. We can say three things for sure:
Oil is a special kind of energy, as transportation depends on it, and it can’t be easily substituted. Some people worry about the future of oil and some people don’t, that’s the only difference because we all hope we get as much oil as we need. Affirmationists too. They just want us to need less oil and substitute it for something that doesn’t produce CO2. As misguided as they are they don’t want less energy or an oil crisis. Many of them didn’t live through one, so they are not afraid of that. They should. They are more real and more probable than a climate crisis.
Lots of oil, gas, and coal are available, over 100 years of technically recoverable reserves (or resources as David wants me to say), as I have written about before. This does not count unexplored international waters. Our limits are all political and economic. Given the various alternatives, oil at $300/barrel is still competitive with solar and wind, but nuclear might be cheaper than $100/barrel, if the political and regulatory constraints on nuclear were somehow dealt with.
Oil – Will we run out? – Andy May Petrophysicist
I’ve heard all the arguments before, but I am a skeptic. If there was so much oil around we would not need to frack rocks to get it. Making a hole in the ground and pumping it out is much cheaper. And the more expensive it gets the worse the economy will perform and the less we will be able to afford it. We could get mostly de-oiled with lots of oil around. So not running out means little.
I wonder how much oil is ghosted in order to bypass sanctions, at least some of which is not accounted for. It would certainly be a higher amount today relative to 2018.
Oil is used less but natural gas, and LNG is used more.
Crude oil production is close to 95 million barrels/day in 2022
https://www.statista.com/statistics/265203/global-oil-production-in-barrels-per-day/#:~:text=Global%20oil%20production%20amounted%20to,at%20nearly%2095%20million%20barrels.
Not for long….
Is that drop in 2020 a result of demand dropping because of COVID shutdowns?
Yes, but the CO2 decrease of world GWP it did not show up in the atmosphere PPM, as measured in Hawaii, which means that manmade CO2 decrease was not measurable regarding the flows from sources to sinks and visa versa.
Manmade CO2 is a VERY SMALL ACTOR, in the overall CO2 picture.
The 97% of scientists are the woke part, looking for the job security of tenure, or working for a government entity, or a government-sponsored NGO, not adhering to the scientific method.
The other 3% are the movers and shakers scientists, among whom are those who get all the Nobel prices and other such awards, because they do adhere to the scientific method
You left out coal and natural gas which are also fossil fuels which is what the IEA is predicting will decline by 2030. I wonder if they asked India and China about their fossil fuel usage.
IEA is a government-sponsored glossy-renewables-report generator.
It uses “selected” data to predict this and that about solar, wind, etc., to ensure government renewables pronouncements and messaging are reinforced.
If it would base its analyses on MARKET AND OPERATING AND MAINTENANCE DATA, which is available, the government messaging would NOT be reinforced
The peak oilers remind me of the global warming activists.
They have taken a position, now they are desperately looking for evidence to support that position.
If you like them you can only say… well, let’s see how it woks out.
All that North-Asian Russian tundra must have gas reserves under it. If such a huge expanse of land has no resources someone needs to explain how that could happen.
Gas is a matter of have available where is needed. In the Bakken a lot is flared since it far away from where it is needed. Also have you tried to put in a pipe line in the US lately? Add in all but two counties in North Dakota have drillable gas not being drilled because of the transport problem
Even if the USA and Australia make coal mining completely illegal (still unlikely, IMO), Russia, China, India, and Indonesia still hold about 45% of world hard coal reserves (Britannica and Wiki).
I just don’t see them dropping it while they can make money selling it. They (China in particular) just need to install some modern cleaning technology in the smoke stacks. They can easily make coal popular again once the rest of the world turns away completely from the global boiling mantra.
I strongly advocate that fossil lubricants as well as fossil fuels should be emphasized. Wind and solar power cannot provide lubricants the petroleum industry can and does .
The AGW agenda marxists/scammer/whatever will do basically anything to shut down Fossil Fuels.
If there is going to be a “peak” it will be because of their actions…
… NOT because of lack of reserves or needs.
The litmus test is the growth in reliable non fossil fuel energy. If the IEA doesn’t have a solution to this the numbers are meaningless.
I want thru the IEA numbers using chatgpt. These shower fossil fuels growing faster than wind and solar past 2050.
You can’t cut fossil fuels without a replacement. What is the IEA proposing?
Maybe the IEA is giving weight to the UN’s Agenda 2030 ambitions becoming reality? Maybe they think a massive depopulation is baked into the upcoming ‘world’ policies demanding the world be much lower in humans come 2030 and shrinking from then on?
On the plus side those who are privileged enough to still be around will be blessed with endless good fortune, despite owning nothing they will be happy….apparently.
Energy poverty except for the elite of course
You can’t cut fossil fuels without a replacement
You can. The other variable is social and economic life. If you are prepared to take the hit you can just cut and see what happens. Or if you are innumerate and unthinking enough to think there won’t be a hit. And this is the path the English speaking countries are headed down.
The hit will come in a combination of three ways. Car ownership, use and sales will fall. Get ready for a much less mobile society. If politicians are really serious about this, trucking will be restricted to local deliveries, and there will be a lot less of them. Consumer goods will fall out of bed. Electricity supply will become unreliable. Electricity costs will rise. People will be very cold in winter. Get ready for long woollen underwear, for which you will pay dearly.
As it bites you can expect the IEA, Guardian, BBC, Washington Post, NYT to deny that Net Zero is in any way responsible or that there is any other reasonable alternative.
This is what happens when the luxury beliefs of liberal arts graduates metamorphose into luxury policies of elected politicians, also liberal arts graduates when they are not lawyers.
There are people in the UK right now who hesitate to boil a kettle to make tea because of the cost of fuel. Paul Homewood has estimated the UK subsidy to wind and solar from a variety of levies at about £450 per household per year. Some of it is a tax on the price of electricity. You can cut fossil fuels with no alternative, but the consequence is price rises, fuel poverty, and shortages. Or debt fuelled subsidies to keep prices down, whatever, the costs will have risen and countries will pay one way or the other.
It sounds at the moment like no political leaders or parties are prepared to back off, so this is what is coming.
“trucking will be restricted to local deliveries, and there will be a lot less of them”
Rechargeable electric drone delivery. Pizza delivered to my window.
“You can’t cut fossil fuels without a replacement
You can. The other variable is social and economic life. If you are prepared to take the hit you can just cut and see what happens. Or if you are innumerate and unthinking enough to think there won’t be a hit. And this is the path the English speaking countries are headed down.”
That’s exactly what’s going on.
Politicians are locked into CO2 reduction for one reason or another, and they are “rolling the dice” on our futures with no clear vision of what that will look like. We at WUWT have a pretty good vision of what that will look like, and it’s not good, but our politicians obviously do not.
The Net Zero momentum is too strong for our politicians to resist. It will take a disaster of one form or another (widespread blackouts/deaths) before we change course away from Net Zero, at least as far as powering the world with unreliable windmills and solar is concerned.
The only Net Zero that’s going to work is for us to build nuclear reactors to power our societies. The sooner our politicians realize this, the better off all of us will be.
You can readily see what happens, if you were to cut to the levels of per capita consumption of fossil fuels in Africa, etc.
No need to experiment
You cut, you suffer
Haven’t digested this latest report yet but in their 2022 WEO they said coal demand would peak in the next few years, gas reach a plateau by 2030 and oil a high point in the mid 2030s “before falling slightly”.
And “From 80% today, a level constant for decades, fossil fuels fall to 75% by 2030 and just over 60% by 2050”
Bureaucratic idiots making statements without any basis of fact, just to see their garbage spread by the subsidized, lapdog, Media
They’re actually being quite clever here, they aren’t actually “proposing” anything specific, their document just “explores different scenarios that reflect current real-world conditions and starting points”.
From the Executive Summary, on page 17 (of 355 !) :
STEPS is their “worst-case / no additional policies / business-as-usual” scenario.
One page later they indicate how their scenario writers perspective has changed since the 2021 version of the WEO :
For the “power” (electricity) sector, as opposed to the much larger “(primary) energy” numbers, they foresee most of the fossil-fuel replacement being solar PV.
On page 20, still in the Executive Summary :
NB : At first glance the basic data for the STEPS scenario appears to be contained in “Table A.1a : World energy supply” (in EJ) and “Table A.3a : World electricity sector” (production in TWh + capacity in GW), on pages 264 and 267 respectively, but this requires more time to investigate.
According to Table A.3a solar PV will “only” increase from 1,145 GW of (installed / nameplate) capacity in 2022 to 12,639 GW in 2050 in their STEPS scenario, but I can’t (yet) see where they quantify just how much “storage” would be required as well …
Spotted seconds after hitting the “Post Comment” button (as per usual) !
The last line of Table A.3a, “Battery storage” goes from 45 GW in 2022 to 2,352 GW in 2050.
How much does ~2300 GW (or “GWh” ???) of Li-ion batteries cost nowadays ?
The IEA seem to believe that renewables are a replacement for fossil fuel generation, they are not and cannot do that.
Yes, that’s correct and its the fundamental problem. Just like EVs have their uses and advantages in some applications, but they are not a plug in replacement for ICE cars or trucks as these are presently used. The consequence of trying to replace one product or service with a differently featured one is that buyer behavior and use will change, and this will spread collateral effects all through society and the economy.
No one should take the IEA’s predictions seriously. Despite its title it, was captured by Western net zero zealotry years ago.
The EIA’s forecasts aren’t particularly reliable, but even compared to those – the IEA is far more known for being wrong than being right.
The EIA’s last world outlook to 2050 published in 2021 showed oil and gas still growing strongly in 2050 due to emerging nations striving to drag billions out of poverty.
My money would be on a situation closer to that, than on the fantasy projection of the IEA.
Do we have 20-year prediction charts from 10- or more years ago?
The IEA has coal use falling off a cliff starting today. It is a completely bogus call.
Coal is king. You can stack it in a pile for a rainy day. It is found almost everywhere water has cut through the earth.
Coal is perfect in countries where labor is cheap and 2 billion poor people are still waiting for electricity.
And you can turn it into oil or gas, and there is enough of it to last for hundreds of years.
Their Coal Market Update, July 2023, said global coal demand hit a new all time high in 2022 rising above 8.3bn tonnes and provided a record 36% of the world’s electricity. They expect China, India and the ASEAN region to account for 76% of all coal consumption in 2024.
Coal is green. It is just trees that mother nature has heated and compressed for easy storage.
“trees” – – – See Lepidodendron
Mother Nature did all that FOSSIL storing FOR FREE
The ‘peak’ word is rather emotive and utterly unnecessary in its use here by IEA
As I read it, YMMV…
quote (my emphasis) “with peaks in global demand for coal, oil and natural gas all visible this decade
So what I see is they’re projecting that demand for renewables will overtake demand for fossils.
Not especially Peak Price and no mention of Peak Supply = Not that fossils are going to run out by then
They’re pushing on a piece of string. Reality-disconnected Dreaming.
Anybody can do that, IEA is a waste of time/space/bandwidth/money
Yeah, but Fatih Birol so wants to be the first Turkish UN Sec General 🙂
All true, but they started it this year. In your world, is FF demand down?
Easiest way to reach “peak demand” is for Big Government to demand it not be used.
(When are the everything must be EVs and the grid be “Green” powered mandates scheduled to kick in?)
EV’s are causing huge problems for the automobile industry.
“Green” powered electrical grids are putting our electric supplies in danger.
I think we are getting close to hitting the Net Zero Wall, and the brainless New Zero effort all comes tumbling down.
The CEO of General Motors sounds really delusional about EV’s. I guess she drank the Kool-aide and despite losing billions of dollars on EV’s so far, she is still a big promoter of EV’s for the near future even though the problems with this, like lack of infrastructure to power these vehicles, among other things, are apparent.
People can fool themselves into believing just about anything.
If GM is loosing money on each EV it sells, the rest of the country is losing even more money trying to deal with the requirements and drawbacks of those EVs, such as:
-charging and additional, very costly, electrical system infrastructure
-wasteful charging time
-reprocessing and hazardous-waste landfilling
The IEA graph requires India and China to stop building 1 new coal plant a week and instead decommission 1 existing coal plant a week. Africa can forget about electricity. The west can forget about building solar farms and windmills and evs. There will be no coal energy.
Dream on.
“”the abyss of advocacy.…””
Going down
Buy shares in Fossil is what I say. Just betting that the IEA is wrong, again. A slam dunk.
A man after my own heart. I’m looking to add some CQP (an LNG play that pays over a 7% dividend).
😎
And if you want hedge your bet, add buggy whips and rock hammers (to build your new home).
Hopefully this displays. It shows how impossible the IEA projection is:
This source of this impossible graph is the IEA. Lower right of graph.
Coal will increase at least until 2030 or 2035. If the increase goes beyond 2035 will be dependent on how much Global Industry has relocated away from the energy restricted West and EU to Energy Abundant China
What the IEA is predicting is a one world centrally planned economy outlawing the use of coal. The 2 billion people without electricity might have other opinions on the matter.
It is called BRISC-11, in a few years becoming BRISC-30
Here is the iea vs email
The one on the left may well come true if Biden continues to underestimate the rest of the world.
The graph on the right is much more realistic. Natural gas will increase more than oil or coal to cut pollution. The graph on the left is plain stupid because coal can replace oil and gas in many applications.
Not only that but Coal is needed to reduce FeO2 to Fe for making strong structural steel to support behemoth wind turbines.
Coal is an so needed to purify silica SiO2 into silicon to manufacture the Solar PV wafers in solar panels to generate electricity 4 hours a day.
One day, perhaps, this could be done with Hydrogen but that would make the components unaffordable by today’s standards as producing Green Hydrogen is cost prohibitive or we would already be doing it. Not to mention the potential weakening of the steel without any carbon in the mix
People forget that coal (in the form of coke) is vital to make the steel the pinwheels need.
They also forget that CO2 has many industrial applications along with its vital role in growing plants. (No CO2, what will vegans eat?)
(No CO2, what will vegans eat?) Each other
Soylent Green.
(And all organic!)
The graph on the left is the “someone nukes the 3rd world out of existence while leaving the rest of the world untouched” sort of fantasy.
Running up to the 2021 climate conference in Glasgow, I read that we had reached “Peak Renewables” in 2017! Some 8 RE companies had just gone bankrupt in Europe and there were articles on reluctance of investors to fund the first wave of decommissioning and replacement of ‘spent’ windmill farms in Germany and UK, let alone the ambitious plans for expansion.
A year ago a famous photo appeared with a wind farm being bulldozed over in Germany to expand a brown coal mine in prep for the refurbishment and recommissioning of a coal-fired electricity plant. Of course it’s been disappeared, but WUWT covered the story:
https://wattsupwiththat.com/2022/10/26/wind-farm-in-germany-is-being-dismantled-to-expand-coal-mine/.
Since, major cost hikes by wind farm constructors in UK and USA, major pushback against Net Zero in Europe, a shift to the right in politics, etc., has further choked renewables. I’m ‘all in’ on 2017 Peak Renewables being permanent.
2017? Doesn’t look like it.
https://ourworldindata.org/grapher/renewable-share-energy?tab=chart&country=USA~IND~CHN~OWID_EU27~OWID_AFR~AUS~OWID_WRL
Yep…Peak Stupidity still has a long way to go
You forgot to subtract decommissioning of ‘spent farms’. They only last 15 to 20 years and their peak power output declines throughout their lives. These are not being replaced these days because of cost of knockdown plus replacement. You can’t just add on to old figures.
Now leave hydro out of that data. !
They hate existing dams and building new dams but they love to call hydro “Green” then add its output to the “Green” energy numbers.
It would have been slated for decommissioning soon anyway as the subsidies had expired so the subsidy mine tailed out
75% of the world’s electricity is generated from steam.
Replace that. It doesn’t matter if you create the steam from wood, charcoal, coal, oil, gas. Google showed it can’t be done with solar.
Because Photovoltaic converts directly to electricity?
If you want steam:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Concentrated_solar_power
Bird BBQ, we know 😀
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yY6s2zu4_2U
Speaking of cooking
Still requires Gas Boilers functioning at night to maintain heat
ROFLMAO.
Yep, they have been so, so successful ! NOT !
America’s Concentrated Solar Power Companies Have All But Disappeared | Greentech Media
You forgot nuclear.
That in a sane world would be the number on generator of electricity! Small foot print least amount of environment damage.
Bring back the Stanley Steamer (the car) or the Ford “Nucleon”! https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ford_Nucleon
Or even this.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuclear-powered_aircraft
Well, maybe not. A fender bender with an EV can cause an inferno. (Sometimes the inferno is delayed.)
9/11? What if they were nuclear powered?
Fossil fuels are the much safer option.
There will come a time when fossil fuels become an important part of our energy history — replaced, finally and rationally, by safe, clean, cheap and reliable nuclear power. We were on our way there when the irrational crazies temporarily took over.
The guardian is running an article on the IEA piece from the angle that Africans do mot want fossil fuel power since it will be peaking soon. “Africans do not want fossil fuels forced on them”.
I suppose it depends upon who you ask!
I don’t want that billion dollar winning lottery ticket forced on me. Think of the taxes! And it wouldn’t be sustainable!
https://www.energymonitor.ai/renewables/weekly-data-south-africas-unprecedented-rooftop-solar-boom/
So, what do they use for electricity after dark, and when it is cloudy.
You really are coming across as a griff.
Never fear South Australia is almost NET zero fossil fuels with our power grid right now-
South Australia grid operates at 99.8 per cent wind and solar over past seven days | RenewEconomy
South Australia is unique in that its share of renewables – 71.5 per cent of the past 12 months, 86.6 per cent in the last 30 days, and 99.8 per cent in the last seven days – comes from wind and solar only: The state has no hydro, and no geothermal, and no biomass power to speak of.
IEA forecast here we come eh skeptics?
So SA doesn’t need that fleet of diesel fueled generators for backup any more?
They have GAS for windless nights, .. and Brown Coal power from Victoria… (see below)
Well that is good news isn’t it. I am sure all of the South Australian population are very proud That is all 1.71 million of them in a land area of almost a million square kilometres which is four time the size of the entire UK, which has a population of 70 million.
With a land area able to home wind and solar and a total population less than one quarter that of London’s, SA is living the dream.] and puts the scale of renewables plus areas needed for them to be achievable into perspective.
SA is such an industrial giant… NOT !!
At this actual moment, Wind is down, Sun is not up, and they are getting nearly half their electricity from Victoria, who are 70% BROWN COAL.
7 days. What happened 8 days ago?
Why does anyone with any understanding of the history believe this “peak oil” crap anymore?
The USGS was established by an act of congress in 1879. Staring in 1919 every several years it has been claiming that peak oil was coming in the next so many years. It has NEVER been correct. And now they are doing the same for coal.
They have no credibility. Any many others have gone down that same path with the same results.
We’ve Been Incorrectly Predicting Peak Oil For Over a Century (gizmodo.com)
It’s about peak demand, not supply.
It’s about Peking demand
And the AGW scummers are doing everything they can to destroy the use of oils.
It is and agenda-forced peak they are after….. not a human needs based one.
Please don’t call humans “scummers“.
People that wan other people dead are scummers. The greens have stated over and over again they want the population below one billion. Now you tell me what the hell they are?
It’s about peak government stupidity.
Mandate everything must be EV and the grid supplied by pinwheels and mirrors, of course the demand will drop.
But the need for fossil fuel won’t.
When will we reach peak peaks, I wonder. There have been so many of them since the first peak, Peak Coal, scheduled for 1900. They are like fashion, cyclic.
Without crude oil that is the basis for most of the products now in society, those citizens that are part of the 80% of the 8 billion on this planet earning less than $10 a day, will never be able to enjoy the materialistic living styles of those in wealthier countries.
Interestingly, everything that NEEDS electricity is made with crude oil.
Electricity can charge an iPhone but CANNOT MAKE the iPhone.
Electricity can make the defibrillator in a hospital work but CANNOT MAKE the defibrillator!
The IEA does not comprehend that the products in our daily lives come from petrochemicals manufactured from crude oil, and that wind turbines and solar panels cannot manufacture anything!
In fact, all the parts for wind and solar are made from petrochemicals manufactured from crude oil!
Can’t help but laugh.
https://spectrum.ieee.org/wood-transistor
The Spectrum will push every cockamamie green idea that comes down the pike — notice they didn’t include an I-V curve, which would show just how absurd it is.
I suggest such a prediction is essential to the OECD/IEA maintaining its reputation with the political elite.
It’s a self fulfilling prophesy. Ban exploration, drilling, and pipelines and you end up with “peak fossil fuels” by leaving them in the ground.