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.
Hmmm . . . how many times in the past have we been warned about “peak oil”, “peak coal” and “peak fossil fuel”? 50, 100, 200 times?
Yet it always seems like technology innovations (e.g., fracking) develop so as to push those peaks further and further into the future . . . calling to mind the famous one-liner from Saturday Night Live character Emily Litella, “Nevermind.”
IRENA, a Renewables Proponent, Ignores the Actual Cost Data for Offshore Wind Systems in the UK
https://www.windtaskforce.org/profiles/blogs/irena-a-european-renewables-proponent-ignores-the-actual-cost
The International Renewable Energy Agency (IRENA) provides politicians and media with false information, based on faulty models, the same as the IPCC does for the climate, instead of dealing with real-world measured data, as advocated by various Nobel price recipients, and hundreds of professors and engineers, who are members of CLINTEL, etc.
IRENA claims, it’s difficult get hold of hard data on the subject of onshore wind projects.
This is absolute nonsense.
Allow me to introduce you to “Companies House”, where you will find the audited financial accounts for every UK offshore wind project, and at least half of the onshore ones.
Hard data, freely available to download!
Offshore Wind in Deep Trouble in the US and UK
About 7,000 MW of offshore wind bids were awarded by the UK 4th Auction, in 2022
No bids were submitted for the UK 5th Auction, in 2023; European companies protesting low UK subsidies.
No bids were submitted for a new floating offshore wind project off the coast of Scotland.
The Pro-Wind bureaucrats and Media, in the poor state of Maine, should pay attention
The bids were made under ‘contracts for Difference’ (CfDs) that guarantee future minimum prices to wind turbine producers.
The price offered by the UK government was around £60/€69 per megawatt hour (MWh)
Apparently, it is much too low to attract investors, who want at least £120 – £138/MWh, i.e. about 100% more.
Levelized Cost of Energy, £/MWh, is Underestimated by IRENA
Operations and Maintenance Cost, £/MWh, is Underestimated by IRENA
Capacity Factors are Overestimated by IRENA
Operations and Maintenance Costs/MWh is Underestimated by ERINA
Wait, you’re saying the IEA actually has some credibility to lose? No, no I don’t think so.
The real reason libs are all in on alternative energy is that it can’t succeed at least not in the United States. And they are afraid that improvements in efficiencies and emissions control will make their grandstanding irrelevant.
There are only two kinds of forecasts and organizations that produce them. Type 1 is by far the most common and should not even be labeled a forecast. It is often shallow opinion presented as a forecast and has no known cost other than the indirect impact of opinion in promoting wrong directions or wasted time observing them. Type 2 is the professional forecast tied to professional and organization reputation such as budget planning and control. Costs tied this to forecast type might include contractual obligations as part of a budget or public policy planning with direct expenditures. It’s also common to see flippant comments about forecasting as a waste of time. Clearly there are some personality types and occupations that never get involved in the budget process or cost control–the Bud Light marketing VP mentality comes to mind among others.
I’m sure IEA has a large team of researchers on the ground in China evaluating coal power plant construction, planning, and industrial trends tied to coal power. They must also have teams in the Arctic monitoring expansion of Russian oil development and Chinese financing for Arctic oil development. Beyond that, their straight edge predictions must account for changes in cost over time for each type of energy project. /sarc
IEA worldview stuck in the 1980’s seems like a consequence of picking presidents so far past retirement age (from whichever party).
I understand that the man is smarter than me, has studied the data and is well.respected in certain communities, but people who make predictions of resources running out trip my “let’s see it really happen” alarm. Even if I agree with most of their work I’ll still believe it when I see it, but not 7 years before.
I remember the peak oil run-up of 2008. Brent at $100/bbl.
The first peak oil prediction was Hubbert in 1956 I believe
If the Asia-Pacific region is currently accounting for 80% of global coal demand and if it’s building new coal plants so fast that their emissions alone will negate any possibilities of Net Zero by 2030, is the IEA so purblind it hasn’t noticed this? It seems to me that its entire credibility level is at stake.
No body and I mean nobody is going to accept or put up with this net zero nonsense if they push it into the realm of energy un affordability for things like heating, etc (and yes of course eating!) People will put up with it for a little while until all their discretionary income, all their savings and their entire line of credit is used up. Then the mobs with pitch forks, torches and stuff come out.
Oh and If I am say a billionaire could I build a mansion some place that runs on all “ renewables” as a show piece . Yea, could that same billionaire build all the manufacturing plants that made all the stuff that made it and his healthcare system and the transportation system, the ships, trains planes -No! And he won’t be a billionaire for long because his net is in reality net negative. It is all more like a Rube Goldberg machine .
pretty easy to understand that fossil fuels have been a key, and the fastest way to improve the quality of life for mankind; and that most people are constantly striving for a better life – currently the majority of the world doesn’t have access to fossil fuels and until that changes there will be increasing demand, not decreasing demand for fossil fuels
I don’t subscribe to the nonsense that any of these worthless agencies should be regarded as experts. I’m now in my 8th decade on this planet and throughout its entirety I have always been told that we were at or very close to peak oil. Each time, their predictions have not only been wrong, but we have realized we have more oil than we ever had.
The IEA has a terrible reputation, why should it care?
As a fact of governmental life, EIA has a similarly horrible reputation.
They both hide information, those expecting to learn everything about any energy from either agency will be woefully uninformed.
Otherwise, it would be easy to get subsidies fully explained along with detailed lists of every subsidy for every type of energy.
Both agencies hate fossil fuels, especially coal and oil.
Both agencies turn a blind idea towards renewable energy harms to wildlife and sea life.
Both agencies consider human life as inexecrable and that Earth would be better off without humans or fossil fuels. Don’t even get them started on the evils of nuclear power.