The IEA will be right on coal and oil...they will both peak prior to 2030. (Note: "Peak" is a word that carries a connotation that will probably not match the actual situation. That is, it will be clear in 2050 that global coal and oil consumption are much lower in 2050 than they were in 2030. But the "peak" may be more of a "plateau-ish" shape...so it might be that people will say, "Gotcha! Oil actually peaked in 2031, and coal in 2033.' But the reality will be that the true peak in terms of exajoules of output will probably be within 1 or 2 percentage points of the 2030 value, even if the 2030 value is actually a tad below the "peak".)
The IEA will be way wrong on natural gas. Even the U.S. EIA will probably be too low on how much natural gas consumption will rise. That is, from your graph, it looks like the U.S. EIA predicts global natural gas consumption in 2025 will be about 78 percent of the value in 2050. I think the ratio between 2025 to 2050 will probably be even lower (i.e. production of natural gas will be even higher than the U.S. EIA predicts).
I'm going to work on a detailed analysis to develop my own detailed predictions. I'll post them on my blog. It may be that I come to different conclusions, based on the detailed analysis. But as of this minute, I say:
The IEA is right that global consumption of coal and oil will peak before 2030. The U.S. EIA is right about global consumption of natural gas continuing to rise through 2050.
Meatloaf's observation for the IEA would be, "Don't be sad. Two out of three ain't bad." ;-)
It would be interesting to see how many people work at IEA, and what their salaries are. I'll bet it is mind-bogling. Like the UN, these folks will say anything to protect their funding and livelihoods; damn any solid evidence to the contrary.
‘The IEA has made a significant bet on peak fossil fuels and its reputation hangs in the balance.”
On the contrary, the IEA will be proven completely wrong and they will suffer no reputation damage at all. The IEA will be applauded for being on “the right side of history.” Truth is irrelevant.
Great contrast in scenarios. I’ve been wondering for a long time what exactly is under the hood of these scenarios, especially the current policy ones. I’ve seen a lot of different scenarios over the years but have little insight into how the cake gets baked.
Any chance Roger that you get someone on to explain how energy scenarios get built and which key assumptions lead to the discrepancy you’ve highlighted here? I know there’s at least the illusion of quantitative rigour but maybe it is the more qualitative judgments that have the largest impact on the output?
"The Stone Age didn't end because we ran out of stones, and the age of oil won’t end because we run out of oil."
Ahmed Zaki Yamani, Saudi Minister of Petroleum and Mineral Resources from 1962 to 1986.
The peak is orchestrated, currently an Opec+ symphony that has nothing to do with the physical availability of fossil ressources, or lack thereof.
While the world energy consumption grows (current trend over the past 5 years +1.0 %/a) in line with the economic growth (+2.3%/a), the use of fossil fuels still grows (+0.7%/a). The decarbonization of energy supply is so slow (-0.27 percentage points per year, from the current fossil share of 88.7%) that it will not precipitate an absence of fossil demand for many decades to go. (Source: https://blog.mr-int.ch/?attachment_id=10873 )
Wasn't it Niels Bohr who said, "Predictions are hard, especially about the future."? It was only ten years ago that "Peak Oil" was so much in vogue, so universally expected, that preppers were planning on the breakdown of modern civilization, planning to abandon cities, going to learn how to live off the land, butcher hogs, etc. Only then "Peak Oil" meant peak oil supply. Now Peak Oil has morphed to mean peak oil demand. The problem is the same, however; humans as a species are pretty poor at predicting the future, and that problem has not improved in the last ten years.
Who funds the IEA? If their money comes sources that expect realistic projections, they will be disappointed. If it comes from organizations that want to influence policy decisions, that is something else. Trying to convince everyone that fossil fuels are dying while still necessary will only drive up their prices and increase worldwide hardships. But the renewable industries' profits certainly will not suffer.
They still assume the truth of the false assumption-that doubling CO2 will increase energy absorption and thus global warming. Have you noticed that in 30 years none of the greens has published a proof of their assumption?
Also, the NASA data on IR transmission/absorption of the atmosphere shows that all of the energy that CO2 can absorb is already absorbed. "NASA Technical paper 103957" Lord 1992, Appendix E.
The IEA is betting that governments are too stupid to realize the truth and cut the horrible subsidies to "green" power/
• I'm not sure that the two forecasts as presented are quite comparable. Are they indexed to the same absolute value of consumption? I would rather see the absolute numbers - then I'd see the same trend llines but also how they are shifted vs the indexed values.
• While I don't disagree with what Binder says (except for storage) - "There are an abundance of technologies progressing nicely" - it's what she doesn't say that's more important. None of the intermittents RELIABLY provide the power we need. Ladies and gentleman of the jury, I mark as Exhibit 1 the whole sorry history of California's energy mess over the last decade: brownouts, service disruptions, increasing prices. A year ago Gov Gruesome had to suspend the closure of the Diablo Canyon nuclear plant for another five years. I mark as Exhibit 2 the February 2021 power outage in TX where there weren't any renewables available. I mark as Exhibits 3 and 4 the ongoing messes in NZ and Australia (see Judith Curry's Climate Etc for more on these). As Exhibit 5 I offer Binder's failure to mention nuclear - the one proven reliable low-carbon source of power.
I don't understand the discrepancy at all. You'd expect the data to 'possibly' be somewhat differentiated but not like this. My personal expectation is a decrease in coal provided sanity prevails. There are an abundance of technologies progressing nicely in storage, green hydrogen, solar, wind, wave. The home grown job incentive (a real market) will naturally raise standards of living and provide decent jobs. It's a model any nation can follow. Real jobs, real people, real quality of life. So my question is what are the assumptions?
- rapid urbanization using coal? surprising? when wind, solar, storage are becoming so cost competitive and offer nations energy independence?
-wars, fear mongering that set us back another 20 years we don't have? NOT A DOOMER
- failure of multilateral institutions and increased fragmentation?
Clean tech will win because it's a great idea that pushes other great ideas. that's why one would expect the dirtiest fuels to disappear by degrees.
I believe even Florida is going all in for green hydrogen due to the 'market forces' of 'woke' science. Jobs and great natural living spaces which would be their oceans, and beaches.
As someone who has been an adult long enough to remember Black Monday in 1987, the first Gulf War, etc it is evident that today's widely cited (by news media) scientific organizations no longer have the rational forecasting of the future as their purpose but rather cheerleading and advocating for an outcome. It's embarrassing to witness but only because I'm old enough to recognize a huckster when I see one. Over the last decade at least, I have had many arguments with otherwise intelligent people over diverse topics in which it becomes clear that the opposing argument doesn't recognize what IS but rather what they WANT as a baseline. With reality dispensed with early on, there really isn't anything impossible to believe and posit and scream about. That is of course a useless position when arguing the reality of a situation, but a lack of reason seems to not be a stumbling block to vapid ideas. It's pretty obvious that government funded institutions have a stake in what reality ought to look like, so why not nudge it a bit when the natural world doesn't act the way these folks believe it should. After all, it's their bread and butter, they are captive to a belief, and it's not their money at stake. Let them eat cake. This incidentally exactly captures what has taken place with the MRNA vaccines the government forced on people on threat of expulsion from public life and work.
Good luck to a nation captive to irrational beliefs. Quickly things get totalitarian when they don't go to plan in a control economy and in this case a controlled scientific community.
"It is not hard to conclude that the IEA is taking a big risk with its reputation".
As if.
Show me one person or institution that has gotten called out or suffered any reputational damage for making outlandish nonsensical predictions? There are websites dedicated to cataloging failed climate/energy predictions, updated daily.
How about Paul Ehrlich, that guy has no credibility at all, does he?
Oh wait, no, he still gets interviewed and quoted as the rock star he is to all these corrupt institutions and people.
As long as they are supporting the narrative there are no consequences.
Hi Roger,
I'm late to the party on this. ;-)
Here are my off-the-cuff predictions:
The IEA will be right on coal and oil...they will both peak prior to 2030. (Note: "Peak" is a word that carries a connotation that will probably not match the actual situation. That is, it will be clear in 2050 that global coal and oil consumption are much lower in 2050 than they were in 2030. But the "peak" may be more of a "plateau-ish" shape...so it might be that people will say, "Gotcha! Oil actually peaked in 2031, and coal in 2033.' But the reality will be that the true peak in terms of exajoules of output will probably be within 1 or 2 percentage points of the 2030 value, even if the 2030 value is actually a tad below the "peak".)
The IEA will be way wrong on natural gas. Even the U.S. EIA will probably be too low on how much natural gas consumption will rise. That is, from your graph, it looks like the U.S. EIA predicts global natural gas consumption in 2025 will be about 78 percent of the value in 2050. I think the ratio between 2025 to 2050 will probably be even lower (i.e. production of natural gas will be even higher than the U.S. EIA predicts).
I'm going to work on a detailed analysis to develop my own detailed predictions. I'll post them on my blog. It may be that I come to different conclusions, based on the detailed analysis. But as of this minute, I say:
The IEA is right that global consumption of coal and oil will peak before 2030. The U.S. EIA is right about global consumption of natural gas continuing to rise through 2050.
Meatloaf's observation for the IEA would be, "Don't be sad. Two out of three ain't bad." ;-)
It would be interesting to see how many people work at IEA, and what their salaries are. I'll bet it is mind-bogling. Like the UN, these folks will say anything to protect their funding and livelihoods; damn any solid evidence to the contrary.
Recall the peak oil headlines circa 2006. It was a supply argument then and pretty much baseless.
‘The IEA has made a significant bet on peak fossil fuels and its reputation hangs in the balance.”
On the contrary, the IEA will be proven completely wrong and they will suffer no reputation damage at all. The IEA will be applauded for being on “the right side of history.” Truth is irrelevant.
Great contrast in scenarios. I’ve been wondering for a long time what exactly is under the hood of these scenarios, especially the current policy ones. I’ve seen a lot of different scenarios over the years but have little insight into how the cake gets baked.
Any chance Roger that you get someone on to explain how energy scenarios get built and which key assumptions lead to the discrepancy you’ve highlighted here? I know there’s at least the illusion of quantitative rigour but maybe it is the more qualitative judgments that have the largest impact on the output?
"The Stone Age didn't end because we ran out of stones, and the age of oil won’t end because we run out of oil."
Ahmed Zaki Yamani, Saudi Minister of Petroleum and Mineral Resources from 1962 to 1986.
The peak is orchestrated, currently an Opec+ symphony that has nothing to do with the physical availability of fossil ressources, or lack thereof.
While the world energy consumption grows (current trend over the past 5 years +1.0 %/a) in line with the economic growth (+2.3%/a), the use of fossil fuels still grows (+0.7%/a). The decarbonization of energy supply is so slow (-0.27 percentage points per year, from the current fossil share of 88.7%) that it will not precipitate an absence of fossil demand for many decades to go. (Source: https://blog.mr-int.ch/?attachment_id=10873 )
Wasn't it Niels Bohr who said, "Predictions are hard, especially about the future."? It was only ten years ago that "Peak Oil" was so much in vogue, so universally expected, that preppers were planning on the breakdown of modern civilization, planning to abandon cities, going to learn how to live off the land, butcher hogs, etc. Only then "Peak Oil" meant peak oil supply. Now Peak Oil has morphed to mean peak oil demand. The problem is the same, however; humans as a species are pretty poor at predicting the future, and that problem has not improved in the last ten years.
ExxonMobil buys Pioneer Natural Resources for $59.5 billion. Chevron buys Hess for $53 billion. Does the IEA read the headlines?
Who funds the IEA? If their money comes sources that expect realistic projections, they will be disappointed. If it comes from organizations that want to influence policy decisions, that is something else. Trying to convince everyone that fossil fuels are dying while still necessary will only drive up their prices and increase worldwide hardships. But the renewable industries' profits certainly will not suffer.
They still assume the truth of the false assumption-that doubling CO2 will increase energy absorption and thus global warming. Have you noticed that in 30 years none of the greens has published a proof of their assumption?
Also, the NASA data on IR transmission/absorption of the atmosphere shows that all of the energy that CO2 can absorb is already absorbed. "NASA Technical paper 103957" Lord 1992, Appendix E.
The IEA is betting that governments are too stupid to realize the truth and cut the horrible subsidies to "green" power/
A coupla comments...
• I'm not sure that the two forecasts as presented are quite comparable. Are they indexed to the same absolute value of consumption? I would rather see the absolute numbers - then I'd see the same trend llines but also how they are shifted vs the indexed values.
• While I don't disagree with what Binder says (except for storage) - "There are an abundance of technologies progressing nicely" - it's what she doesn't say that's more important. None of the intermittents RELIABLY provide the power we need. Ladies and gentleman of the jury, I mark as Exhibit 1 the whole sorry history of California's energy mess over the last decade: brownouts, service disruptions, increasing prices. A year ago Gov Gruesome had to suspend the closure of the Diablo Canyon nuclear plant for another five years. I mark as Exhibit 2 the February 2021 power outage in TX where there weren't any renewables available. I mark as Exhibits 3 and 4 the ongoing messes in NZ and Australia (see Judith Curry's Climate Etc for more on these). As Exhibit 5 I offer Binder's failure to mention nuclear - the one proven reliable low-carbon source of power.
I don't understand the discrepancy at all. You'd expect the data to 'possibly' be somewhat differentiated but not like this. My personal expectation is a decrease in coal provided sanity prevails. There are an abundance of technologies progressing nicely in storage, green hydrogen, solar, wind, wave. The home grown job incentive (a real market) will naturally raise standards of living and provide decent jobs. It's a model any nation can follow. Real jobs, real people, real quality of life. So my question is what are the assumptions?
- rapid urbanization using coal? surprising? when wind, solar, storage are becoming so cost competitive and offer nations energy independence?
-wars, fear mongering that set us back another 20 years we don't have? NOT A DOOMER
- failure of multilateral institutions and increased fragmentation?
Clean tech will win because it's a great idea that pushes other great ideas. that's why one would expect the dirtiest fuels to disappear by degrees.
I believe even Florida is going all in for green hydrogen due to the 'market forces' of 'woke' science. Jobs and great natural living spaces which would be their oceans, and beaches.
There must be more to the discrepancies.
As someone who has been an adult long enough to remember Black Monday in 1987, the first Gulf War, etc it is evident that today's widely cited (by news media) scientific organizations no longer have the rational forecasting of the future as their purpose but rather cheerleading and advocating for an outcome. It's embarrassing to witness but only because I'm old enough to recognize a huckster when I see one. Over the last decade at least, I have had many arguments with otherwise intelligent people over diverse topics in which it becomes clear that the opposing argument doesn't recognize what IS but rather what they WANT as a baseline. With reality dispensed with early on, there really isn't anything impossible to believe and posit and scream about. That is of course a useless position when arguing the reality of a situation, but a lack of reason seems to not be a stumbling block to vapid ideas. It's pretty obvious that government funded institutions have a stake in what reality ought to look like, so why not nudge it a bit when the natural world doesn't act the way these folks believe it should. After all, it's their bread and butter, they are captive to a belief, and it's not their money at stake. Let them eat cake. This incidentally exactly captures what has taken place with the MRNA vaccines the government forced on people on threat of expulsion from public life and work.
Good luck to a nation captive to irrational beliefs. Quickly things get totalitarian when they don't go to plan in a control economy and in this case a controlled scientific community.
"It is not hard to conclude that the IEA is taking a big risk with its reputation".
As if.
Show me one person or institution that has gotten called out or suffered any reputational damage for making outlandish nonsensical predictions? There are websites dedicated to cataloging failed climate/energy predictions, updated daily.
How about Paul Ehrlich, that guy has no credibility at all, does he?
Oh wait, no, he still gets interviewed and quoted as the rock star he is to all these corrupt institutions and people.
As long as they are supporting the narrative there are no consequences.
Good article. I haven't seen the IEA forecast compared to the EIA one. That's an eyeopener.
Their credibility has evaporated over the last decade. Like NextEra, the IEA needs to “Repower” itself.