One of the biggest miscalculations that the global warming alarmists have made is claiming that global CO2 emissions must reach their peak by 2020 and then begin falling rapidly. If they don’t, there will be no chance of reaching the 2°C maximum warming target. Planetary catastrophe will ensue, the alarmists claim.
British energy behemoth BP has just released its BP Energy Outlook 2035, and it states in no uncertain terms that there is no chance of CO2 emissions beginning their decline by 2035, let alone 2020!
Good news: global GDP to double!
The BP reports states, “By 2035, the world’s population is projected to reach 8.7 billion, which means an additional 1.6 billion people will need energy.” and the globe’s “GDP is expected to more than double“.
That’s good news for humanity. More people enjoying the one-time gift of life and doing so in greater comfort. But that’s going to require energy, of course.
India 3rd largest economy in 2035
The BP report projects that India will go from being a third world country to being the world’s third largest economy.
That has major implications for the world’s energy market. The BP writes (my emphasis):
Primary energy consumption increases by 37% between 2013 and 2035, with growth averaging 1.4% p.a.. Virtually all (96%) of the projected growth is in the non-OECD, with energy consumption growing at 2.2% p.a.. OECD energy consumption, by contrast, grows at just 0.1% p.a. over the whole period and is actually falling from 2030.”
That’s strong growth, and today’s renewable energy technology will have no chance of economically meeting that kind of demand. Wind and solar are just too unreliable, and their storage is still a long way from being feasible. This is glaringly obvious in the BP report.
No end in sight for fossil fuel growth
The BP report features the following chart showing the breakdown of primary fuel consumption by 2035.
Source: BP.
The above figure foresees massive expansion of the traditional carbon based fossil fuels, especially oil and gas, with modest growth in coal consumption. That means global CO2 emissions will continue growing strongly, which would mean bad news if the CO2 greenhouse theory were correct. But so far, despite the massive rise in global CO2 emissions since the year 2000, global temperatures have not risen at all, and global warming scientists are now under extreme pressure to revise downwards their once lofty warming projections.
Emissions well above path recommended by scientists!
The future development of CO2 emissions bodes extremely ill for global warming alarmists. The BP Report writes on page 85: “Global CO2 emissions from energy use grow by 25% (1% p.a.) over the Outlook. Emissions remain well above the path recommended by scientists, illustrated by the IEA’s “450 Scenario”. In 2035, CO2 emissions are 18 billion tonnes above the IEA’s 450 Scenario.”
CO2 theory rapidly approaching its Waterloo
CO2 emissions growth clearly is not going to be curbed anytime soon, and temperatures really will have to start climbing in earnest if the AGW theory is to survive. (Un)fortunately there are no signs that is going to happen in the next 10-20 years.
Only 8% renewable energy by 2035
Page 14 of the BP Report shows strong growth in renewable energy, but it will be only about 8% of global energy supply. That’s light year’s away from the UN’s 50% target! Obviously, no one except a few token countries are taking renewable energies seriously. Their impracticality is their major obstacle.
On page 17 the BP states that “coal remains the dominant fuel, accounting for more than a third of the inputs to power generation.”
Planet awash in energy
The report shows a planet that is awash in energy and also projects strong growth in “new energy forms” such as shale and oil sands (p. 20) which “are thought to be abundant”. On page 95 the report states (my emphasis):
North America’s oil and natural gas supply outlook has been revised higher yet again (14%) due to the continued evolving expectations for shale gas and tight oil.”
The BP report summarizes on page 97:
Our Outlook shows more growth in non-OECD energy demand than the IEA NP; it also shows more growth for fossil fuels, especially for coal. This probably reflects differing views on the outlook for rapidly industrializing economies, in particular on the speed with which they can move to a less energy-intensive growth path.”
Read: BP Energy Outlook 2035.
The report is by BP. A different result would send their stock prices down to zero, so this is no surprise.
But please look at the extremely pessimistic price graph on page 70 of the report.
Parts of onshore wind is cheaper than gas and coal today, even in the US market which is flooded by cheap gas.
Page 80 shows, how GHDP growth and energy consumptions will lose nearly all connection in the near future. In developted countries we see this today: reduction, not increase of power demand while GDP keeps growing.
If you wwant to see the problems with this report, check page 12 and the growing nuclear sector.
So wind is subsidized even though that isn’t needed? So you’re saying the subsidy are pure and entirely theft by an industry that is already more profitable than any other energy industry?
Do you support this theft by the wind industry? Do you own shares in windparks, participating in the giant theft you describe?
What are you talking about?
The comparison is between NEW wind and NEW coal/gas.
Wind needs subsidies to get access to markets dominated by existing OLD coal/gas plants.
wind needs subsidies because it is competimng with established companies, which for example have better access to money/loans.
your logic is seriously flawed. Coal and gas get enormous amounts of siubsidies. Do you own shares? do you participate in that theft of money?
Where are the subsidies for coal and gas? In Britain the biggest so-called subsidies are
– tax breaks for capital investment in oil exploration. Without it, there would be no investment, and no Petroleum Revenue tax revenues.
– domestic consumers of gas and electricity pay VAT of just 5% against the 20% standard rate. Because most of the payment is for fossil fuels some clowns say it is a subsidy. It is a reduced tax and is economically neutral between fossil fuels and renewables.
You reasons about wind not being able to compete with coal and gas are utterly false. In Britain the market is rigged in favor of wind and solar. An example – the World’s Biggest Wind Farm has been announced.
https://notalotofpeopleknowthat.wordpress.com/2015/02/20/what-the-bbc-forgot-to-tell-you-about-dogger-bank/
The wind turbines when operational have a guaranteed strike price, currently £147/MWh and index-linked for 15 years. Coal and gas have to make do with the fluctuating competitive wholesale price – which was £44/MWh in January.
At current rates and operating at 35% of capacity that is about £700m (€1,000m) of revenues a year.
It is even worse. When the wind turbines produce electricity they will get paid for it. The coal and gas fired power stations are only paid to produce electricity when it is needed. That is when there is demand that cannot be met by renewables.
This mega scheme – like so many lesser schemes – has had no difficulty in getting vast amounts of private sector funding as it has guaranteed returns, protected from competition. This is corporatism at its worst – powerful business interests given guaranteed returns and subsidized by the ordinary people. SOD – you have stood reality on its head. Renewables are not kept out by monopoly and market imperfections. They would not survive in a free market as they are hugely expensive compared to fossil fuels, and do not produce electricity when required.
thanks for this longh and thoughtful reply!
I actually agree with some parts of it.
But my main point was a simple one:
DirkH made the claim, that profitable industries do not need subsidies. That is obviously false, and you demonstrated that in your reply. we constantly subsidies profitable industries (start-ups are an example)
sod 19. February 2015 at 20:38 | Permalink | Reply
“Wind needs subsidies to get access to markets dominated by existing OLD coal/gas plants.”
Well you maintain that but it is a lie. Whenever you build a power plant you take depreceation and capital costs into account, CAPEX and OPEX, and you do the same when building a wind turbine. In times of zero interest rates you can’t even talk of meaningful capital costs, so there should be ample credit for creation of wind turbines if they’re so profitable.
I do accept as an excuse that you have no clue at all of economics.
i could give (and risk) my money with company A, building their 10th gas plant or company B building their first wind park.
let me think about it…
——————————–
In Germany, a significant number of small wind and solar plants was build by local private investors at their own risk.
when big money showed up (for example for offshore wind), they wanted guarantees and more (for example they don t want to pay for grid connection)
20 years guaranteed feed-in tariff hardly what I’d call “at their own risk”.
a feed-in tariff is exactly what the name says: you get a certain price for a certein time.
This wont help you, when there is less wind than predicted. Or when the wind power plant is hit by malfunctions, and repair costs keep piling up. (this does not happen all the time, but it could happen with your investment!”)
the risk with wind looked a little higher, as you could not check as much past experience as with other sort of investments (gas plant, for example).
That is, why wind needed a little help. and this help drove down prices, so today it needs even less help.
but it still needs help, because it is competing with existing plants. and because it is hard to start a business (and many start ups receive help). and because it is hard to generate new power source at all (that is the explanation, why there are also subsidies for coal and gas today). and because wind power is fighting a near monopoly situation.
so today, wind needs much less subsidies than new nuclear does (as demonstrated by the Hinkley plant).
“so today, wind needs much less subsidies than new nuclear does (as demonstrated by the Hinkley plant).”
Hey let’s slap as many regulations on wind as we do on nuclear – like, not killing bats – and see how it does then. (Hint: none will be permitted.)
All hail the 150 meter Planet Savers.
sod 20. February 2015 at 23:07 | Permalink | Reply
“i could give (and risk) my money with company A, building their 10th gas plant or company B building their first wind park.
let me think about it…”
Take your sweet time. Take into consideration that there will be no subsidies; and no law that enforces priority for wind kWh. The windpark and the gas plant will compete on even grounds for free customer.
“The report is by BP. A different result would send their stock prices down to zero, so this is no surprise.”
That is a rather simplistic smear tactic. BP does not write these reports for themselves or other fossil fuel companies. The reports are widely read and used. It would be a waste of money if they were heavily biased towards fossil fuel companies’ interests. Do you have any comment on their seriousness, any documentation that their forecasts are based on faulty information? IMO, the IEA is not far away from BP in this matter. But maybe IEA is just another Koch-brothers fossil fuel lobby slave?
” BP does not write these reports for themselves or other fossil fuel companies. The reports are widely read and used.”
I am not saying, that everything in the report is false. But the main result is extremelyx critical of alternative power and this is no surprise. Because we know the source.
You should read this report, as you would an optimitic one about alternative power, written by greenpeace.
————————–
As i pointed out before: you should not look at the summary, but focus on individual statistics and results with less bias.
for example page 70:
http://www.bp.com/content/dam/bp/pdf/Energy-economics/energy-outlook-2015/Energy_Outlook_2035_booklet.pdf
The statiustics show, that wind is beatinmgh coal today and will beat gas in 2035. and so will solar PV.
These are facts, admitted even by BP which most people writing on this site do not believe. That is a serious problem!
Please check page 70 of the report. Even this paper by BP shows, what i have been saying in the past.
onshore wind is overlapping with gas and beating coal today. And this is in the american maket, with cheap gas by fracking!
(sorry if this is a double post, but the big one i had typed before does not show up..)
[…] Full post […]
[…] Lees verder hier. […]
It’s a shame that nuclear is so overlooked. It is greener than the common mindset allows, and improvements to efficiency, safety, construction costs and re-use of spent fuel make it more attractive than the alternatives.
The really sad part is when you look at BP forecasts for Regions and they show the EU replacing even more Gas, Coal & oil with “Renewables” while the powerhouses of Chine, India & Asia all dramatically inrease the use of Gas, Coal & Oil.
Slow motion Economic Suicide.
Have you been to China? Do you know what technology is moving the motorbikes and scooters in their big cities.
Hint: Watch out, because you can not hear them coming!
http://www.bikesshanghai.com/category/electric/electric-scooters/
Sod, do you think your personal preferences should be subsidized with money stolen from me just because you are thievish; or do you think my money should be stolen to buy you some toy because you think it saves the planet from Global Warming?
I did reply to a post, speaking about china. What did you reply to?
electrci vehicles are an extremely common view on the streets of Shanghai.
anyone who is looking at china and is only seeingh coal, is missing the picture (might happen, in all that smog..).
China is subsidizing alternative powers and electric vehicles (basically all scooters in the city are electric) because they have to do it.
people there are directly experiencingh the negative effect of fossile fuels and they are getting more and more unhappy about it 8so unhappy, that it is even moving their undemocratic poliztical class!).
Well, you could answer my question. Do you want my money because you are simply greedy or because you think it saves the world if I have to buy you an electric noddycar?
BTW, if China is concerned about pollution they could enforce installation of flue gas scrubbers. Look it up, it’s an interesting technology of which Greens like you have never heard.
Ai I told you above, i am not buyingh an electric car at this prices, so of course i do not expect you to buy one.
80% of coal plants in China have scrubbers. The problem is, that they tend to get turned of.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/world/china-wrestles-with-stubborn-air-polluters/2013/05/09/627e9870-b13f-11e2-9fb1-62de9581c946_story.html
China is doingh much more, than you think or seem to know. That is my point and you just demonstrated exactly that!
sod 20. February 2015 at 08:11 | Permalink
“Ai I told you above, i am not buyingh an electric car at this prices, so of course i do not expect you to buy one.”
But of course you expect me to pay taxes and fees so that you and your ilk can buy subsidized electric cars, PV panels and wind turbines.
Understood. Please leave the country. You’re a leech and a negative contribution to society.
Sorry should say
the powerhouses of China, India & Asia all dramatically increase the use of
“Sorry should say
the powerhouses of China, India & Asia all dramatically increase the use of”
Looks like the BP report might be false even now.
China is not increasing coal consumption but has decreased it in 2014 by 2.5%.
http://www.wsj.com/articles/chinas-coal-consumption-and-output-fell-last-year-1424956878
Bad news for coal-lovers, eh?
That’s ok, they have a contract with Obama to keep increasing coal usage until 2030. 🙂
Wait, is that the BP report you so enthusiastically endorsed regarding the aspects you LIKED? Guess those parts need to examined in depth as well then.
“Wait, is that the BP report you so enthusiastically endorsed regarding the aspects you LIKED? ”
You got it wrong. I think the BP report is extremely pessimistic about alternative power and extremely optimistic about fossil fuels.
But EVEN the BP report expects wind and solar to be cheaper than coal and gas in the US by 2035.
So i used a conservative source, but even that one did not convince the coal lovers commenting here….
German Greens demand tax increase for Diesel, given that the price has fallen due to free market dynamics.
http://www.mmnews.de/index.php/politik/37504-gruene-diesel
sod, you say that Wind power is competitive on a pure cost basis. The German Greens seem to disagree, they want to help it along by artificially punishing fossil fuels. They are in need of your experience and wisdom! Tell them the truth!