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.
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.
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?
The IEA seem to believe that renewables are a replacement for fossil fuel generation, they are not and cannot do that.
No one should take the IEA’s predictions seriously. Despite its title it, was captured by Western net zero zealotry 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.
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
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.
Hopefully this displays. It shows how impossible the IEA projection is:
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.
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 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.
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.
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!
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?
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)
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!
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.