My comment to the previous post on Epstein's book was rather short. It inspired me a more complete version that can be found on my own blog : https://blog.mr-int.ch/?p=9050&lang=en .
This leads me to argue that the metrics that are commonly used are wrong: there is no actionnable content in counting and reporting CO2 emissions or fossil fuel uses. These are fatalistic outcomes from other actions or inactions.
Also, scenarios that project these parameters into a cristal balls are condemned to be wrong (with exception of the only right one but we don't know which is it!).
What counts is the sum of the investments made in the harvesting of non-fossil primary energy, to be expressed in G$ and in TWh/a produced). With some time delay, fossil utilisation and CO2 emissions will correspondingly be reduced.
This is about deliberate human action that will change the framework conditions for energy supply.
As a result, Peak Oil (or Peak Fossils) will be (must be) postponed until these new sources will be sufficient. As investments are far from reaching a pace that would allow for full substitution, more exploration and exploitation of fossils is needed.
Thus, it is better to follow the money that will lead to the desired result rather than to develop a backward-looking accounting that only provokes rather sterile arguments of the blame and shame type.
Studying and monitoring investment scenarios would be more interesting, especially if and when they do not depend on heavy subsidies, i.e. paid for by a political and populist takeover of people's wealth, without any other public economy and social considerations (for example Energy Return on Energy Input, affordable debt burden, adaptation-oriented climate policies, etc.).
1) Yes, good point.s It is indeed very likely that we're at or near the peak of global carbon dioxide emissions from burning fossil fuels. But this isn't really "news" to someone who two decades ago could look at historical trends in an unbiased manner. As I've noted before, way back in 2006 I predicted that there was a five percent chance that global CO2 emissions (from burning fossil fuels and industrial processes) would peak before 2020, a 50/50 chance they would peak in 2030, and a 5 percent chance they would peak after 2050:
2) You're right to focus on specific countries and areas of the world, and correct that they are: China, India, and Africa. (No Europe?! Correct, no Europe. Europe has already decided: fossil fuels are goners.) But I would add two additional sub-points:
a) Focus on coal in China and India. And once coal is seen to be near/at/past peak consumption in those countries, focus on oil in those countries. And if oil happens to *already* be past peak in those countries when coal is seen to be near/at/past peak in those countries, then it's game over. Global CO2 emission are headed down without any possible doubt. (Don't bother with natural gas. As the U.S. has shown, if coal is decreasing fast enough, even increasing natural gas consumption doesn't mean an increase in CO2 emissions.)
b) Focus *only* on photovoltaics in Africa. If you don't see photovoltaic contribution to the electricity supply in Africa increasing steadily and significantly, we may already be past the peak of CO2 emissions, but the slope downward will be more gradual. If, as I predict, you *do* see steadily and significantly increasing contributions of photovoltaics to electrical generation in Africa, then the downward slope of global CO2 emissions will be very steep. (Don't worry about coal, oil, or natural gas in Africa. They're meaningless. Coal is meaningless because only South Africa has enough to matter. And that's "matter" to South Africa, not to the continent of Africa's emissions. And oil in Africa will be handled by the global transition to battery electric vehicles.)
Oh, one more thing: It's worth taking a glance at the U.S., in addition to focusing on China, India, and Africa. The U.S. is the global leader in coal reserves, and not just by a little:
That alone should have *many years ago* told anyone willing to evaluate trends objectively that the world does not need coal. (Just as battery electric vehicles are now showing the world doesn't need oil either.)
Upon reading Roger’s forecast I certainly would scale back my priors, which were for another 25 to 50 years of fossil fuel growth.
But already peaked??
I shouldn’t mock the research team at BP or Roger carelessly. But they seem to be missing something. Commenters mentioned the 7/8ths of global population not in Roger’s blue countries.
China’s primary energy consumption grew by 7680 terrawatthours from 2016 to 2021.
That’s about 1/3 US Energy consumption, so won’t be offset by shrinking US energy consumption. (Which still grew by 120 Terrawatthours over same timeframe.)
Xi promises / expects publicly that China, a very advanced “developing” country, will stop growing carbon output (aka fossil fuel consumption) by 2030. Lesser developed countries, representing a majority of global population would presumably lag that. Of course they could remain preindustrial, 150 years behind advanced countries. Let’s hope not!
Fossil fuels already peaked? Not an odds on bet that I’d wager!
"Xi promises / expects publicly that China, a very advanced “developing” country, will stop growing carbon output (aka fossil fuel consumption) by 2030."
The thing about China is that they annually consume an astounding 50 percent of the global coal consumption:
Or to put it in other terms, they consume 4.3 billion metric tons per year of coal, with about 150 billion metric tons of coal reserves. So that's about 35 years of consumption to equal present reserves.
So they'll run out of coal in 35 years, right? No, Limits to Growth was nonsense. But what it *does* mean is that coal is going to rapidly become more and more expensive in China, compared to alternatives. That's going to put big pressure on China to find other ways to generate electricity than with coal. Chiefly, those will be: photovoltaics, nuclear, and wind. So that's why a figure like this for China in 2060 is a little bit exaggerated, but not totally ridiculous:
I think the fact that the graphs are vertically offset from zero gives a misleading impression of the magnitude of the forecast change. Is the BP prediction technical or political? Does BP want to convey a message that we are on a very good trend, so don't worry about the oil companies? If you believe Jim Hansen (which I don't necessarily) 350 ppm is the maximum acceptable. We are already at 412 ppm, and even if you believe BP (about which I am dubious) a back of envelope rough guess is we still end up over 500 ppm by 2100. This report is good news compared to previous reports but we might have already entered a problematic range from which there is no escape and there doesn't seem to be any way not to cross the 500 ppm threshold. Fortunately or unfortunately, depending on one's persuasion, it is not clear what that implies.
If one thinks about the likely trajectory for coal, oil and gas then peak fossil fuels seem pretty plausible.
Coal - 90% of which is use to generate electricity - is clearly in decline with the US being a great example. Even if wind and solar plus batteries can't totally replace coal, renewables plus say 20% gas can. Metallurgical coal is different but only a minor player relative to thermal coal.
If one then looks at gasoline - 10% of new car sales in 2021 were EVs and the trend is clearly rising sharply. While EVs wont satisfy all transport applications (long hauls and heavy duty) there seems no obstacle to them replacing ICE for a major portion of light vehicle commuter travel, especially if there are government incentives.
I see demand for gas staying essentially stable - maybe growing a little - until and if hydrogen becomes a credible alternative. If green hydrogen doesnt play out we will probably be left with residual gas for the forseeable future
By my reckoning these realities will see fossil fuel usage decline over the next few decades to new baseline that is a least 50% lower than it current level. Further decreases from there could be pretty tricky and will need solutions not on the radar at the moment
Jim, I think the push to accelerate the conversion to EVs has brought the actual importance of fossil fuels to the forefront. My belief is that fossil fuels, primarily coal and natural gas, are bridge fuels to a combined nuclear/hydrogen energy world. Great comment. Martin.
Thanks Martin - agree on gas while not so sure about coal. Clearly fossil fuels have always been extremely important and in some form will remain so for deacdes to come. We can simultaneously be seeing peak fossil fuel while fossil fuels remain strategically important. The fact that the debate is so binary is disappointing - I believe governments as part of their net zero plans should be explicitly estimating fossil fuel supply and demand balances over the next few decades as well as what level of residual fossil fuel usage/ GHG emissions they expect when net zero is reached. This later point will also draw out future land use changes and hence the quantum of expected / required long term sequestration
Jim: The binary nature of the debate is due to the difference in opinion on the driving need to accelerate reduced CO2. I do not think CO2 is driving climate change or is an existential threat to humanity. So I do not support Net Zero or ESG. I do believe fossil fuels will reach an economic limit naturally and forcing that limit is harmful to the developing world. My opinion of course. All the Best, Martin.
I don't think BP was issuing projections 10 years ago, but IEA was, and they foresaw ever-increasing fossil fuels. Remember that a decade ago was the heyday of RCP8.5 and Rogner's theory of learning-by-doing. It is difficult to describe just how fast and how quickly energy expectations have changed. Both science and the media have had a hard time keeping up.
The BP Energy Outlook 20230 was published in 2013, it contains a figure showing a steady increase in oil, gas and coal up to 2030, no indication of a slowdown up to that point.
I am betting that future growth in the developed countries will be met by FF-less means, resulting in peak FF use by 2025. The developing world cannot afford such luxuries and will be burning accordingly. Overall conclusion therefore is that FF use will be increasing from here through 2050.
One factor not mentioned in the article is that world wide population is projected to peak some time this century too. Once population decline begins that would be another factor in favor of declining energy demand.
And this is happening sooner than predicted. The RCP8.5 assumption of a world 12 billion population in 2100 is very unlikely. It is more likely to be around 8 billion.
And, equally important, the average age of the population will increase rapidly. China already has more people in each age group from 30 to 59 than in every age group from 1 to 29 (https://www.populationpyramid.net/china/2022/). In 20 years the grouping will be more in each age group from 50 to 79 than in every age group from 1 to 49.
This will result in less energy demand per person.
Trends are interesting, but digging into the details is more enlightening.
Reduction of fossil fuel consumption in rich nations has been driven by a variety of factors, particularly populations that are declining or increasing only very slowly. Offshoring of heavy industry and its associated emissions is common in this group.
Venezuela's economy has cratered, while European consumption has been impacted by the Russian war as well as aggressive renewables development - both of which are producing energy crises and big questions about whether the reductions can be sustained while repairing economies.
Iceland and New Zealand have small populations and immense renewable resource potential, far out of proportion to larger nations.
Meanwhile, the appetite for increased fossil fuel consumption in the populous, developing nations is accelerating, along with their appetite for other energy sources, including renewables and nuclear.
It's clear that FF demand will continue to increase in lower-income nations, and it's apparent that at least some of the mechanisms of demand reduction in high-income nations have run their course and may even be reversed for economic stability. Renewables (and, one hopes, nuclear) will continue to increase, but they are only beginning to confront massive supply-chain and critical materials challenges.
BP and others have many energy forecast scenarios. It's safe to say there are few if any left that forecast massive increases in FF consumption by 2050, but there are plenty (and should be more) that reflect current challenges to energy transition - which will delay peak FF consumption.
So per BP we might see a 25% reduction in global carbon emissions by 2050. I agree that would be impressive. However the Biden Administration plan, supposedly necessitated by the science, was a 50% reduction by 2030 and carbon neutrality (100% reduction) by 2050. Seems fantastical
Far be it for me to challenge the oracles of Beyond Petroleum, but the projection of Peak Oil seems to always advance further into the future. We can all agree that the supply of fossil fuels is finite. The observable plateaus in consumption are more likely the result of geopolitics and economics, not reserve decline. With average global temperatures declining in spite of increased CO2 emissions, it would seem that wise nations may just give lip service to the Davos hypocrites and increase their consumption of the more economical sources of energy—most likely fossil fuels (probably coal and natural gas from hydraulic fracturing).
Without some breakthrough in storage technology, the growth in renewables will soon peak and nuclear energy will advance. The actual timing will be based on economics. Now that would be an interesting set of projections.
"Without some breakthrough in storage technology, the growth in renewables will soon peak and nuclear energy will advance."
How do you figure nuclear will advance? In the U.S., Virgil Summer 2 and 3 and Vogtle 3 and 4 were/are absolute disasters. Flamanville is a disaster in France. Hinkley Point 3 is a disaster in Britain. Germany is shutting down all reactors. Where will the advance come from?
Since you know the names of several nuclear power plants, you are well ahead of me. So why are/were the plants you’ve cited “disasters?” Technology, economics, permitting red tape, poor management? A cost effective storage technology is a critical need for solar and wind. Without that, after fossil fuels, there is no alternative to nuclear for baseload power to the grid as of today. Hopefully, the cause of “disasters” can be eliminated.
"Since you know the names of several nuclear power plants, you are well ahead of me. So why are/were the plants you’ve cited “disasters?” Technology, economics, permitting red tape, poor management?"
Regarding your alternatives, the answer is "Yes." :-) All of the above. "Technology, economics, permitting red tape, poor management." All those plants were (and are) disasters in that even if the do come online for 40-60 years, they won't be able to generate enough electricity to make the electricity cost-effective, as a result of the incredibly high capital costs.
They are all "Generation 3+" reactors. That was supposed to create safe and *inexpensive* reactors. But for those four reactors in the U.S. and two in Europe, the results have been a disaster. The four reactors in the U.S. are Westinghouse reactors. Those four reactors essentially *bankrupted* Westinghouse. The two European reactors I mentioned are European Pressurized Reactors, designed by Electricite de France (EDF). They're a nuclear giant...just like Westinghouse was.
"A cost effective storage technology is a critical need for solar and wind."
Yes, absolutely. It must be cost-effective and it must be "multi-day." Even cost-effectiveness that will only suffice if solar or wind is low for less than a day won't do it.
"Hopefully, the cause of “disasters” can be eliminated."
I wish I could be optimistic. I worked for Babcock and Wilcox (the company that designed the reactor supply systems for Three Mile Island) in the years after TMI. There are just so many problems: 1) it seems almost impossible to get a significant portion of the U.S. public to support nuclear; 2) the regulators have a natural and understandable inclination to ignore costs; 3) companies don't want to become the next Westinghouse (or...and I'm showing my age here...the next Washington Public Power Supply System...aka, WPPSS, pronounced "woops"), so they're just not going to gamble in light of past disasters. And many more reasons that would take to long to elaborate on.
So the question is, what is more likely, multi-day cost-effective storage technologies, or new nuclear technologies, such as small modular reactors (SMRs). I think the storage technologies are a more likely bet.
It may be that the "road not taken" of new nuclear technologies would be a better road, but I just don't think the U.S. is going to go down that road.
Thank you Mark. Now that was informative. Basically we are thinking alike on storage and new nuclear technology. For a while now I have thought that super capacitor technology would have a breakthrough and provide an environmentally sound storage alternative. And advancements in nuclear technology would lead to more rapid construction with fewer permitting delays. Unfortunately all of the research funding is being directed by climate alarmists and the renewables lobby using CO2 as the whipping boy. Thanks again, Martin.
You make an interesting point about FF usage declining:
"The new downward revision in oil and gas consumption in coming years leads BP to project that global carbon dioxide emissions will peak by 2025, and decline rapidly thereafter, even without additional policies."
This prediction will probably be seen by the 'progressives' as an existential threat to their quest for ever more power. After all, what use would we have for the Al Gores and Greta Thunbergs if the problem has already been solved? I believe their response to data of this sort will be to invent a NEW problem that only they can solve - but only with ever more of our money and freedom :)
The European countries in green plus Japan have a declining population, which means no substantial increase in energy demand. And wealth to waste on subsidies on solar and wind, replacing use of hydrocarbons.
The other half of the world population are trying to reach the prosperity level of the West, having no obligation to limit CO2 emissions, while mostly (not China) having an increasing population. Most of the energy demand in these countries will be met by coal in the near future.
The numbers for 2023 might be more interesting than those for 2022, with the ongoing war in Ukraine.
It's not the poor in the world's population causing the consumption problem, it's the RICH and that portion of what Middle Class remains wanting to move upwards.
Making 'everyone RICH' will simply increase the rate of consumption of scarce resources by those who feel consumption is their divine right.
Regrettably this is our human nature, not something easily managed for the benefit of those who want rather to have a comfortable existence instead of a RICH one.
There's an interesting divergence taking place now between the BP 2023 Energy Outlook, their 2022 report, the most recent US Energy Administration Short-Term Energy Outlook, the International Energy Agency World Energy Outlook and other forecasts.
We're skeptical of the latest BP 2023 Energy Outlook's change in projections on peak global oil demand/decline. Your points about the advanced world are very good ones and we don't discount the significance of the trend in these high GDP nations.
It's all guesswork, but we're settling somewhere between two time frame/peak amts in mmbpd:
1) the IEA World Energy Outlook 2021 STEPS scenario (~104mmbpd mid-2030's)
2) US EIA 1/10/23 Short Term Energy Outlook (102.8mmbpd 2024..... though we think the amt is about right, we think it won't be reached until 2-5 years later)
Something in that 102.8 - 104mmbpd range, reached between 2026 - 2035 more probable than the new projections in BP's 2023 EO if only for China, India, SE Asia (watch Indonesia specifically), Africa and South America.
We hedge all the guesswork with the reality that there are many things the high GDP industrial nations could continue to do to hinder oil and gas use in the mentioned developing nations. We both know who would be behind it and why this would occur. It occurs to us that doing so in the name of preventing a climate change "crisis" would have serious negative consequences on pulling 3 billion+ out of poverty and human prosperity.
First - a couple of editing nits. In para 3 you have "First, according the BP...", which IMO should be either "First, according to the BP..." or "First, according to BP...". Later on you have "...found in the BP 2023", and "...coming years leads BP...". You omitted the 'to' in the first case, and the 'the' in the last one :(.
Second, I'm not sure I'm buying your premise about peak FF consumption. My own reading of the plateau of FF consumption is due to the wrong-headed and destructive 'green' policies enacted by those same countries you have noted in green (Freudian slip, perhaps?) on your world map. Now that reality (in the form of Putin's invasion of Ukraine) has hit Europe in the face, they are madly trying to bring their FF infrastructure back on line, and here in the U.S. I believe there is a reckoning coming where the 'green mafia' gets pushed out of power, and then it will no longer be heresy to suggest that FF consumption can again increase to power newer and better industries without being struck by lightning from above, or 'cancelled' from below. I believe you are indulging in 'confirmation bias', otherwise known as "wishful thinking".
Give it another 10 years or so for the progressive idiocy to fade away and THEN I might be willing to believe the FF consumption trends.
My comment to the previous post on Epstein's book was rather short. It inspired me a more complete version that can be found on my own blog : https://blog.mr-int.ch/?p=9050&lang=en .
This leads me to argue that the metrics that are commonly used are wrong: there is no actionnable content in counting and reporting CO2 emissions or fossil fuel uses. These are fatalistic outcomes from other actions or inactions.
Also, scenarios that project these parameters into a cristal balls are condemned to be wrong (with exception of the only right one but we don't know which is it!).
What counts is the sum of the investments made in the harvesting of non-fossil primary energy, to be expressed in G$ and in TWh/a produced). With some time delay, fossil utilisation and CO2 emissions will correspondingly be reduced.
This is about deliberate human action that will change the framework conditions for energy supply.
As a result, Peak Oil (or Peak Fossils) will be (must be) postponed until these new sources will be sufficient. As investments are far from reaching a pace that would allow for full substitution, more exploration and exploitation of fossils is needed.
Thus, it is better to follow the money that will lead to the desired result rather than to develop a backward-looking accounting that only provokes rather sterile arguments of the blame and shame type.
Studying and monitoring investment scenarios would be more interesting, especially if and when they do not depend on heavy subsidies, i.e. paid for by a political and populist takeover of people's wealth, without any other public economy and social considerations (for example Energy Return on Energy Input, affordable debt burden, adaptation-oriented climate policies, etc.).
"Your thoughts?"
1) Yes, good point.s It is indeed very likely that we're at or near the peak of global carbon dioxide emissions from burning fossil fuels. But this isn't really "news" to someone who two decades ago could look at historical trends in an unbiased manner. As I've noted before, way back in 2006 I predicted that there was a five percent chance that global CO2 emissions (from burning fossil fuels and industrial processes) would peak before 2020, a 50/50 chance they would peak in 2030, and a 5 percent chance they would peak after 2050:
https://markbahner.typepad.com/random_thoughts/2006/04/complete_set_of.html
2) You're right to focus on specific countries and areas of the world, and correct that they are: China, India, and Africa. (No Europe?! Correct, no Europe. Europe has already decided: fossil fuels are goners.) But I would add two additional sub-points:
a) Focus on coal in China and India. And once coal is seen to be near/at/past peak consumption in those countries, focus on oil in those countries. And if oil happens to *already* be past peak in those countries when coal is seen to be near/at/past peak in those countries, then it's game over. Global CO2 emission are headed down without any possible doubt. (Don't bother with natural gas. As the U.S. has shown, if coal is decreasing fast enough, even increasing natural gas consumption doesn't mean an increase in CO2 emissions.)
b) Focus *only* on photovoltaics in Africa. If you don't see photovoltaic contribution to the electricity supply in Africa increasing steadily and significantly, we may already be past the peak of CO2 emissions, but the slope downward will be more gradual. If, as I predict, you *do* see steadily and significantly increasing contributions of photovoltaics to electrical generation in Africa, then the downward slope of global CO2 emissions will be very steep. (Don't worry about coal, oil, or natural gas in Africa. They're meaningless. Coal is meaningless because only South Africa has enough to matter. And that's "matter" to South Africa, not to the continent of Africa's emissions. And oil in Africa will be handled by the global transition to battery electric vehicles.)
Oh, one more thing: It's worth taking a glance at the U.S., in addition to focusing on China, India, and Africa. The U.S. is the global leader in coal reserves, and not just by a little:
https://www.worldometers.info/coal/coal-reserves-by-country/
Yet, coal consumption in the U.S. peaked in 2007, and has declined *substantially* since then:
https://www.statista.com/statistics/184333/coal-energy-consumption-in-the-us/
That alone should have *many years ago* told anyone willing to evaluate trends objectively that the world does not need coal. (Just as battery electric vehicles are now showing the world doesn't need oil either.)
Increasing use of nuclear in those countries would make a much bigger difference than increasing photovoltaics, as well as having fewer other costs.
Upon reading Roger’s forecast I certainly would scale back my priors, which were for another 25 to 50 years of fossil fuel growth.
But already peaked??
I shouldn’t mock the research team at BP or Roger carelessly. But they seem to be missing something. Commenters mentioned the 7/8ths of global population not in Roger’s blue countries.
China’s primary energy consumption grew by 7680 terrawatthours from 2016 to 2021.
That’s about 1/3 US Energy consumption, so won’t be offset by shrinking US energy consumption. (Which still grew by 120 Terrawatthours over same timeframe.)
Xi promises / expects publicly that China, a very advanced “developing” country, will stop growing carbon output (aka fossil fuel consumption) by 2030. Lesser developed countries, representing a majority of global population would presumably lag that. Of course they could remain preindustrial, 150 years behind advanced countries. Let’s hope not!
Fossil fuels already peaked? Not an odds on bet that I’d wager!
"Xi promises / expects publicly that China, a very advanced “developing” country, will stop growing carbon output (aka fossil fuel consumption) by 2030."
The thing about China is that they annually consume an astounding 50 percent of the global coal consumption:
https://www.worldometers.info/coal/coal-consumption-by-country/
But they only have 14 percent of the world's coal reserves:
https://www.worldometers.info/coal/china-coal/
Or to put it in other terms, they consume 4.3 billion metric tons per year of coal, with about 150 billion metric tons of coal reserves. So that's about 35 years of consumption to equal present reserves.
So they'll run out of coal in 35 years, right? No, Limits to Growth was nonsense. But what it *does* mean is that coal is going to rapidly become more and more expensive in China, compared to alternatives. That's going to put big pressure on China to find other ways to generate electricity than with coal. Chiefly, those will be: photovoltaics, nuclear, and wind. So that's why a figure like this for China in 2060 is a little bit exaggerated, but not totally ridiculous:
https://www.visualcapitalist.com/chinas-energy-transition-in-5-charts/
I think the fact that the graphs are vertically offset from zero gives a misleading impression of the magnitude of the forecast change. Is the BP prediction technical or political? Does BP want to convey a message that we are on a very good trend, so don't worry about the oil companies? If you believe Jim Hansen (which I don't necessarily) 350 ppm is the maximum acceptable. We are already at 412 ppm, and even if you believe BP (about which I am dubious) a back of envelope rough guess is we still end up over 500 ppm by 2100. This report is good news compared to previous reports but we might have already entered a problematic range from which there is no escape and there doesn't seem to be any way not to cross the 500 ppm threshold. Fortunately or unfortunately, depending on one's persuasion, it is not clear what that implies.
If one thinks about the likely trajectory for coal, oil and gas then peak fossil fuels seem pretty plausible.
Coal - 90% of which is use to generate electricity - is clearly in decline with the US being a great example. Even if wind and solar plus batteries can't totally replace coal, renewables plus say 20% gas can. Metallurgical coal is different but only a minor player relative to thermal coal.
If one then looks at gasoline - 10% of new car sales in 2021 were EVs and the trend is clearly rising sharply. While EVs wont satisfy all transport applications (long hauls and heavy duty) there seems no obstacle to them replacing ICE for a major portion of light vehicle commuter travel, especially if there are government incentives.
I see demand for gas staying essentially stable - maybe growing a little - until and if hydrogen becomes a credible alternative. If green hydrogen doesnt play out we will probably be left with residual gas for the forseeable future
By my reckoning these realities will see fossil fuel usage decline over the next few decades to new baseline that is a least 50% lower than it current level. Further decreases from there could be pretty tricky and will need solutions not on the radar at the moment
Jim, I think the push to accelerate the conversion to EVs has brought the actual importance of fossil fuels to the forefront. My belief is that fossil fuels, primarily coal and natural gas, are bridge fuels to a combined nuclear/hydrogen energy world. Great comment. Martin.
Thanks Martin - agree on gas while not so sure about coal. Clearly fossil fuels have always been extremely important and in some form will remain so for deacdes to come. We can simultaneously be seeing peak fossil fuel while fossil fuels remain strategically important. The fact that the debate is so binary is disappointing - I believe governments as part of their net zero plans should be explicitly estimating fossil fuel supply and demand balances over the next few decades as well as what level of residual fossil fuel usage/ GHG emissions they expect when net zero is reached. This later point will also draw out future land use changes and hence the quantum of expected / required long term sequestration
Jim: The binary nature of the debate is due to the difference in opinion on the driving need to accelerate reduced CO2. I do not think CO2 is driving climate change or is an existential threat to humanity. So I do not support Net Zero or ESG. I do believe fossil fuels will reach an economic limit naturally and forcing that limit is harmful to the developing world. My opinion of course. All the Best, Martin.
What was the BP prediction 10 years ago?
I don't think BP was issuing projections 10 years ago, but IEA was, and they foresaw ever-increasing fossil fuels. Remember that a decade ago was the heyday of RCP8.5 and Rogner's theory of learning-by-doing. It is difficult to describe just how fast and how quickly energy expectations have changed. Both science and the media have had a hard time keeping up.
The BP Energy Outlook 20230 was published in 2013, it contains a figure showing a steady increase in oil, gas and coal up to 2030, no indication of a slowdown up to that point.
Forgot to mention the first BP Energy outlook was published in 2011. The link to the archive is https://www.bp.com/en/global/corporate/energy-economics/energy-outlook/energy-outlook-downloads.html
I am betting that future growth in the developed countries will be met by FF-less means, resulting in peak FF use by 2025. The developing world cannot afford such luxuries and will be burning accordingly. Overall conclusion therefore is that FF use will be increasing from here through 2050.
One factor not mentioned in the article is that world wide population is projected to peak some time this century too. Once population decline begins that would be another factor in favor of declining energy demand.
And this is happening sooner than predicted. The RCP8.5 assumption of a world 12 billion population in 2100 is very unlikely. It is more likely to be around 8 billion.
And, equally important, the average age of the population will increase rapidly. China already has more people in each age group from 30 to 59 than in every age group from 1 to 29 (https://www.populationpyramid.net/china/2022/). In 20 years the grouping will be more in each age group from 50 to 79 than in every age group from 1 to 49.
This will result in less energy demand per person.
Less energy demand by the aged themselves, but demand for health care and related services will increase. This will affect overall energy demand.
A bad scenario is having a large aged population who are feeble. We need to shoot for increased healthspans rather than just increased lifespans.
We're past 8 billion today and still growing - but agreed that 12 billion seems unrealistic. A peak of 9.5 to 10 billion looks reasonable
Yes, excellent point.
Trends are interesting, but digging into the details is more enlightening.
Reduction of fossil fuel consumption in rich nations has been driven by a variety of factors, particularly populations that are declining or increasing only very slowly. Offshoring of heavy industry and its associated emissions is common in this group.
Venezuela's economy has cratered, while European consumption has been impacted by the Russian war as well as aggressive renewables development - both of which are producing energy crises and big questions about whether the reductions can be sustained while repairing economies.
Iceland and New Zealand have small populations and immense renewable resource potential, far out of proportion to larger nations.
Meanwhile, the appetite for increased fossil fuel consumption in the populous, developing nations is accelerating, along with their appetite for other energy sources, including renewables and nuclear.
It's clear that FF demand will continue to increase in lower-income nations, and it's apparent that at least some of the mechanisms of demand reduction in high-income nations have run their course and may even be reversed for economic stability. Renewables (and, one hopes, nuclear) will continue to increase, but they are only beginning to confront massive supply-chain and critical materials challenges.
BP and others have many energy forecast scenarios. It's safe to say there are few if any left that forecast massive increases in FF consumption by 2050, but there are plenty (and should be more) that reflect current challenges to energy transition - which will delay peak FF consumption.
China also contributed to the decline in demand since 2020 with their draconian Covid lockdowns. They’re demand will increase.
So per BP we might see a 25% reduction in global carbon emissions by 2050. I agree that would be impressive. However the Biden Administration plan, supposedly necessitated by the science, was a 50% reduction by 2030 and carbon neutrality (100% reduction) by 2050. Seems fantastical
Here is some data on that:
See: https://rogerpielkejr.substack.com/p/tracking-progress-towards-president
And just a few weeks ago: https://rogerpielkejr.substack.com/p/failing-grade-a-us-climate-report
No, the targets are not going to be hit on the present course.
Far be it for me to challenge the oracles of Beyond Petroleum, but the projection of Peak Oil seems to always advance further into the future. We can all agree that the supply of fossil fuels is finite. The observable plateaus in consumption are more likely the result of geopolitics and economics, not reserve decline. With average global temperatures declining in spite of increased CO2 emissions, it would seem that wise nations may just give lip service to the Davos hypocrites and increase their consumption of the more economical sources of energy—most likely fossil fuels (probably coal and natural gas from hydraulic fracturing).
Without some breakthrough in storage technology, the growth in renewables will soon peak and nuclear energy will advance. The actual timing will be based on economics. Now that would be an interesting set of projections.
"Without some breakthrough in storage technology, the growth in renewables will soon peak and nuclear energy will advance."
How do you figure nuclear will advance? In the U.S., Virgil Summer 2 and 3 and Vogtle 3 and 4 were/are absolute disasters. Flamanville is a disaster in France. Hinkley Point 3 is a disaster in Britain. Germany is shutting down all reactors. Where will the advance come from?
Since you know the names of several nuclear power plants, you are well ahead of me. So why are/were the plants you’ve cited “disasters?” Technology, economics, permitting red tape, poor management? A cost effective storage technology is a critical need for solar and wind. Without that, after fossil fuels, there is no alternative to nuclear for baseload power to the grid as of today. Hopefully, the cause of “disasters” can be eliminated.
"Since you know the names of several nuclear power plants, you are well ahead of me. So why are/were the plants you’ve cited “disasters?” Technology, economics, permitting red tape, poor management?"
Regarding your alternatives, the answer is "Yes." :-) All of the above. "Technology, economics, permitting red tape, poor management." All those plants were (and are) disasters in that even if the do come online for 40-60 years, they won't be able to generate enough electricity to make the electricity cost-effective, as a result of the incredibly high capital costs.
They are all "Generation 3+" reactors. That was supposed to create safe and *inexpensive* reactors. But for those four reactors in the U.S. and two in Europe, the results have been a disaster. The four reactors in the U.S. are Westinghouse reactors. Those four reactors essentially *bankrupted* Westinghouse. The two European reactors I mentioned are European Pressurized Reactors, designed by Electricite de France (EDF). They're a nuclear giant...just like Westinghouse was.
"A cost effective storage technology is a critical need for solar and wind."
Yes, absolutely. It must be cost-effective and it must be "multi-day." Even cost-effectiveness that will only suffice if solar or wind is low for less than a day won't do it.
"Hopefully, the cause of “disasters” can be eliminated."
I wish I could be optimistic. I worked for Babcock and Wilcox (the company that designed the reactor supply systems for Three Mile Island) in the years after TMI. There are just so many problems: 1) it seems almost impossible to get a significant portion of the U.S. public to support nuclear; 2) the regulators have a natural and understandable inclination to ignore costs; 3) companies don't want to become the next Westinghouse (or...and I'm showing my age here...the next Washington Public Power Supply System...aka, WPPSS, pronounced "woops"), so they're just not going to gamble in light of past disasters. And many more reasons that would take to long to elaborate on.
So the question is, what is more likely, multi-day cost-effective storage technologies, or new nuclear technologies, such as small modular reactors (SMRs). I think the storage technologies are a more likely bet.
It may be that the "road not taken" of new nuclear technologies would be a better road, but I just don't think the U.S. is going to go down that road.
Thank you Mark. Now that was informative. Basically we are thinking alike on storage and new nuclear technology. For a while now I have thought that super capacitor technology would have a breakthrough and provide an environmentally sound storage alternative. And advancements in nuclear technology would lead to more rapid construction with fewer permitting delays. Unfortunately all of the research funding is being directed by climate alarmists and the renewables lobby using CO2 as the whipping boy. Thanks again, Martin.
Did you read the post? JP was not arguing (and neither is BP) that FF will peak for geological reasons!
Yep, read it. If geological reasons means non-recoverable reserves, I agree. What did you think of Jim Orchard’s comment?
You make an interesting point about FF usage declining:
"The new downward revision in oil and gas consumption in coming years leads BP to project that global carbon dioxide emissions will peak by 2025, and decline rapidly thereafter, even without additional policies."
This prediction will probably be seen by the 'progressives' as an existential threat to their quest for ever more power. After all, what use would we have for the Al Gores and Greta Thunbergs if the problem has already been solved? I believe their response to data of this sort will be to invent a NEW problem that only they can solve - but only with ever more of our money and freedom :)
The European countries in green plus Japan have a declining population, which means no substantial increase in energy demand. And wealth to waste on subsidies on solar and wind, replacing use of hydrocarbons.
The other half of the world population are trying to reach the prosperity level of the West, having no obligation to limit CO2 emissions, while mostly (not China) having an increasing population. Most of the energy demand in these countries will be met by coal in the near future.
The numbers for 2023 might be more interesting than those for 2022, with the ongoing war in Ukraine.
It's not the poor in the world's population causing the consumption problem, it's the RICH and that portion of what Middle Class remains wanting to move upwards.
Making 'everyone RICH' will simply increase the rate of consumption of scarce resources by those who feel consumption is their divine right.
Regrettably this is our human nature, not something easily managed for the benefit of those who want rather to have a comfortable existence instead of a RICH one.
Consider that the World Bank defines a high-income country as one with a GNI of $13,205 per capita. That is rich.
There's an interesting divergence taking place now between the BP 2023 Energy Outlook, their 2022 report, the most recent US Energy Administration Short-Term Energy Outlook, the International Energy Agency World Energy Outlook and other forecasts.
We're skeptical of the latest BP 2023 Energy Outlook's change in projections on peak global oil demand/decline. Your points about the advanced world are very good ones and we don't discount the significance of the trend in these high GDP nations.
It's all guesswork, but we're settling somewhere between two time frame/peak amts in mmbpd:
1) the IEA World Energy Outlook 2021 STEPS scenario (~104mmbpd mid-2030's)
2) US EIA 1/10/23 Short Term Energy Outlook (102.8mmbpd 2024..... though we think the amt is about right, we think it won't be reached until 2-5 years later)
Something in that 102.8 - 104mmbpd range, reached between 2026 - 2035 more probable than the new projections in BP's 2023 EO if only for China, India, SE Asia (watch Indonesia specifically), Africa and South America.
We hedge all the guesswork with the reality that there are many things the high GDP industrial nations could continue to do to hinder oil and gas use in the mentioned developing nations. We both know who would be behind it and why this would occur. It occurs to us that doing so in the name of preventing a climate change "crisis" would have serious negative consequences on pulling 3 billion+ out of poverty and human prosperity.
In that vain, we noted Pakistan as a recent example in Part 3 of our series "Sacrificing Humanity on the Green Altar?" Europe's mad scramble to replace Russian gas cost Pakistanis dearly > https://envmental.substack.com/p/sacrificing-humanity-on-the-green-16c
First - a couple of editing nits. In para 3 you have "First, according the BP...", which IMO should be either "First, according to the BP..." or "First, according to BP...". Later on you have "...found in the BP 2023", and "...coming years leads BP...". You omitted the 'to' in the first case, and the 'the' in the last one :(.
Second, I'm not sure I'm buying your premise about peak FF consumption. My own reading of the plateau of FF consumption is due to the wrong-headed and destructive 'green' policies enacted by those same countries you have noted in green (Freudian slip, perhaps?) on your world map. Now that reality (in the form of Putin's invasion of Ukraine) has hit Europe in the face, they are madly trying to bring their FF infrastructure back on line, and here in the U.S. I believe there is a reckoning coming where the 'green mafia' gets pushed out of power, and then it will no longer be heresy to suggest that FF consumption can again increase to power newer and better industries without being struck by lightning from above, or 'cancelled' from below. I believe you are indulging in 'confirmation bias', otherwise known as "wishful thinking".
Give it another 10 years or so for the progressive idiocy to fade away and THEN I might be willing to believe the FF consumption trends.
Just my $0.02 ;)
Frank
Thanks for the eagle eyes!