Tell China to stop it right now! You bad Chinese are growing too much and using too much energy. You stop that right now! And India, don't even think about it! You hear me.

Stop it! Stop it! Stop it! We are in charge here.

Signed IEA

Though drastic revision IEA predictions are still quite optimistic especially when they show that future discoveries of oil will maitain the production of conventional oil flat until 2030. So far this assumption is not supported by facts, oil discovery has been steadily decreasing during the 40 past years despite continuous progress in the prospection technology. I don't see why this trend shoul change when the number of place yet to explore is shrinking, well ok deep offshore and artic, but it won't be that significant

It looks like IEA is not giving much credit to mandates for the renewable energy 'other' category.

Wow, the IEA finally wake up. And yes that is a laughably small projection for renewables. What a joke of an organisation.

IEA's WEO
Here is an assesment of the areas of weakness in this. It should be noted that this refers to the best case scenario.
@550ppm or blowing out to 1000 is entirely possible.

"45% increase in energy demand - usage 2006 -2030"
"Fossil fuels account for 80% of the world’s primary energy mix in 2030—down only slightly on today."

This is a little vague where does nuclear sit there or is the 20% non fossil include renewables and nuclear combined.
If so there is a large expectation on Carbon Capture Storage. Yet goes on t say that It is yet to be demonstrated. Many feel that ccs is an outside runner and Its hard to find any seriously suggesting it is making inroads.
The consensus seems that we must at least go through the motions re ccs as in theory it could make the difference.

"650 M -1,400 M cars"
More than DOUBLE the no of cars

"crude oil production up by 5mb/d compared to the Saudi output of 10.7 mb/d"
Crude oil production goes UP

"To achieve the 450 ppm level, the IEA projects global energy investment is $9.3 trillion, or 0.55% of annual world GDP, higher than in the Reference Scenario. Achieving such an outcome will require much more rapid growth in the use of hydropower, biomass, wind and other renewables, which together account for 40% of global power generation by 2030. Yet-to-be-demonstrated technologies such as carbon capture and storage (CCS) also contribute significantly to lower emissions."

"....and 450 ppm (approximate 2° C increase)."

However,

Of course we only have the ability to determine human emissions and merely entering the 450 scenario is likely to signal natural emissions that increase the temp to 3. - 3.8o

It seems that IEA assumed that the energy mix would be stable (about 76% fossil and 24% from all other sources) from 1980 to 2030.

A few hundred (200 to 300) new large Nuclear plants + many thousands large wind turbines + many million square meters Solar panels + agro and biofuels + millions of PHEVs and BEVs + HVAC electrification etc could change the energy mix considerably by 2030.

At least we (and IEA) should plan to do away with the status quo and promote accellerated move to non-fossil energy sources.

Oh the sky is falling what will we do?

Make a fake chart and blame China!

(whaddya mean renewable energy like wind and solar should be a big part of the solution? That would involve a nod to reality, and we can't have real solutions that ignore the billions made on oil.)

The ideal purpose of predictions like these is not to predict the actual future, but to predict what will
happen if nothing changes, then make the right changes. If the current course leds to disaster, then change course.

IEA, International Energy Agency?, knows more about energy than most people. It also knows more about what renewable energy costs than most people and politicians, and knows that it is too expensive to have a rapid expansion.

There are few or none who propose renewable energy who actually use it for all of their energy and pay for it out of their own pockets. If they were to do so they would know that it is impossible for any large number of people of the US to do it or be able to afford to do it.

Even if the sun shone for 24 hours a day, modern solar cells can only supply 2.4 kilowatt hours per day per square meter in the US. The average use per person is about ten times this for electricity alone.

Nuclear reactors will be built that will produce hydrocarbon fuels from recycled CO2 at the present price of gasoline. Or at least they will supply far cheaper power than gasoline for PHEVs. ..HG..

Just last year, IEA said that Oil Production by 2030 will be 130 million bpd, now they are saying its 110 million bpd, next year they will say that it will be 90 million bpd. Finally by 2010, they will admit that World has crossed Peak Oil.

Last year oil production dipped by 0.2 %, this year it will be even lower as prices have crossed $140 mark, so we can conclude that 2006 is the year of max oil production.

On the other hand, wind, solar and bio-fuels are growing by 25 % every year, pretty soon, they will standup to fossil fuels. If they cannot, then we have to reduce the consumption.

Keep watching the IEA's predictions.

Henry Gibson - "There are few or none who propose renewable energy who actually use it for all of their energy and pay for it out of their own pockets."

Neither do those that propose nuclear energy. First of all a baseload power system like nuclear can only supply 60% or so of a theoretical person's need as the other 40% needs to come from fossil fuel peaking plants. Second can you afford a 2 billion nuclear plant? The mere fact that a normal person can afford a renewable power plant shows how versatile renewables are.

"Even if the sun shone for 24 hours a day, modern solar cells can only supply 2.4 kilowatt hours per day per square meter in the US. The average use per person is about ten times this for electricity alone."

So that person would need 10 square meters of panels or use 10 square meters of panels in a better area connected by smart grids. Also as the sun does not shine 24 hours a day he could use 20 square meters with 10 of those meters storing energy in molten salts for when the sun is not shining. Even then no user has an energy demand of 24kWh every second of the day. The peak of demand especially in summer quite closely follows demand.

Quote.

"The projected increase in global oil output hinges on adequate and timely investment. Some 64 mb/d of additional gross capacity—the equivalent of almost six times that of Saudi Arabia today—needs to be brought on stream between 2007 and 2030. Some 30 mb/d of new capacity is needed by 2015. There remains a real risk that under-investment will cause an oil-supply crunch in that timeframe"

As we all know if you through enough money at something it magically creates more oil in the ground.

Look at the long term success that has come from continued investment in the North Sea, Mexico and Texas.

“First of all a baseload power system like nuclear can only supply 60% or so of a theoretical person's need….”

There are about 100 US Navy ships that show how nuclear can provide 100% of energy needs. France uses nukes for load following. There is not technical reason why any country can not be 100% fossil free.

“Second can you afford a 2 billion nuclear plant?”

Every year I would need about 36 seconds of nuke plant output. I can afford that. I can even afford the cost if it cost 11 billion. I would need 14.4 hours of the output of a 50 MWe biomass plant. I can afford that too. This is assuming that I share the cost with others.

“The mere fact that a normal person can afford a renewable power plant shows how versatile renewables are.”

Really? I do not think Ender has a good handle on ‘normal’ or ‘versatile’ because I am exceptionally blessed with the income and the knowledge of producing energy. Except for woodstoves, I can not find renewable energy systems that are not being marketed by con men who will sell you stuff that does not work.

“On the other hand, wind, solar and bio-fuels are growing by 25 % every year, pretty soon, they will standup to fossil fuels. If they cannot, then we have to reduce the consumption.”

The problem with this think is it is just not true. Renewable energy capacity is growing and breaking at the same time. The equipment to convert renewable energy is not sustainable. The energy industry will provide all the energy you want to consume. Max and Ender will happily pay for it not matter what the cost or how it is produced.

A new generation of folks like Max and Ender will come moan how terrible it is but they will continue to consume.

@ Kit P
I agree with your comment.
The big problem I see is that, once we are in the
post Peak-Oil era, the manufacturing costs for renewable energy (wind and solar) will be higher and higher each passing year.
I think the world should have invested heavily in renewables (even if solar was "too expensive") since at least 25 years ago.
Conservation and efficiency are very, very important in order to have more economic resourses for the growth of renewable energy.

What the IEA would say about this ?

Energy Watch Group: Peak Oil is now

http://www.energybulletin.net/node/47043

http://www.energywatchgroup.org/fileadmin/global/pdf/2008-05-21_EWG_Erdoel_D_kurz.pdf

Kit P. wrote;

"Except for woodstoves, I can not find renewable energy systems that are not being marketed by con men who will sell you stuff that does not work."

What an odd thing to say; solar hot water has a good payback (5-7 years), passive solar hardly costs anything, and wind turbines in favorable wind areas are also net cash flow positive, for starters. Have any idea what a clean coal plant will cost?

"I am exceptionally blessed with the income and the knowledge of producing energy. "

Perhaps in particular areas outside of renewable energy, but with the odd pronouncements you make sometimes, you'll forgive us if we'll have our own opinions on the matter.

KitP - "There are about 100 US Navy ships that show how nuclear can provide 100% of energy needs."

So lets demolish this one as I see it all the time. First of all the nuclear power plant on a Navy ship is there for propulsion which takes perhaps 95% of the output of the nuke. Hotel power for the ships systems is only a small part of the nukes total output. Second the last time I looked the US Navy was not a money making operation. The navy can operate its reactors any way it likes and will not be shut down by shareholders for poor financial performance. So this statement is a complete red herring.

"Every year I would need about 36 seconds of nuke plant output."

Yes however you contributed nothing to the cost of the plant. That was done by the shareholders. How do you think it would go if the 2 sorry now 4 billion dollar cost of the plant was divided up and consumers had to pay $1000 for the nuclear plant - how do you think that would work. What would happen if some of them did not have $1000 dollars - do they not get power. Again Mr Gibson's and your support of this argument is yet another red herring.

"France uses nukes for load following. There is not technical reason why any country can not be 100% fossil free."

No there is not technical reason however I thought that you were a free market champion not a socialist. France does not run any load following plants anymore as it can export its surplus energy and use peaking plants and pumped hydro from other countries to cope with peak demand.

If you actually like to check the facts its not 78%:

"The 78 percent number has been heavily quoted by nuclear energy proponents who hold up France as an example, at least for the Western world, of nuclear success. President Bush has used the figure in speeches promoting the nuclear energy industry. Publications, including this one, have routinely made the statement that France gets 78 percent of its energy from nuclear power.
Is it 78%?

Actually, no. The real number is 34 percent. No, wait, it's 59 percent... and the 17 percent and 42 percent figures aren't completely off-base, either. "
http://energypriorities.com/entries/2007/05/france_78_nuclear.php

Or this that gives about 40%

http://www.industrie.gouv.fr/energie/anglais/politique-energetique.htm

In a free market economy imagine a 4 billion dollar nuclear power plant only making money by selling electricity for 2 or 3 hours of the day. I can see the investors flocking to this one. However as you now have nationalised banks and insurance companies in the US a government power station is not outlandish. Just stop spouting about the land of the free market.

"Really? I do not think Ender has a good handle on ‘normal’ or ‘versatile’ because I am exceptionally blessed with the income and the knowledge of producing energy."

With rebates I can get a 1kW grid tie solar system installed for $2500 that will give 20 years of maintenance free power. The $8000 rebate is over subscribed and has been a runaway success with very few problems so a lot of ordinary people here in Australia and in California where a similar system exists disagree with you. And they do not even need a 90 billion dollar waste dump to store their waste.

@Will S
If you have low flow shower and an efficient front loading washing machine, then someone selling you a solar hot water heater is a con artist. If someone is selling you a personal wind turbine, they are a con artist. Will S. is confused between conserving energy and producing energy. Of course you should conserve energy doing such things as passive solar. If you look at all these expensive (our tax dollar) zero energy house, the amount of energy needed is reduced by low cost practical conservation methods and a very expensive solar PV system.

Also Will S, my extensive experience producing energy includes renewable energy. That is why I particularity dislike con artist who victimize well meaning folks. While I am an advocate or renewable energy, I will leave it up to Will S. to explain why making false claims about renewable energy would promote renewable energy.

@Anon 3:18

Please post you identifier and ask your nuke questions one at a time. There is an anti-nuke who likes to repeat the same list over and over.

“With rebates I can get a 1kW grid tie solar system installed for $2500 ...”

Go for it. Tell us how it works out.

KitP - "Go for it. Tell us how it works out. "

So this is all you have. I guess that engaging with you with real examples shuts you up.

"While I am an advocate or renewable energy, I will leave it up to Will S. to explain why making false claims about renewable energy would promote renewable energy."

And this is exactly the same as a person who dislikes a certain group of people starting with the the line "Oh some of my best friends are "

You are not an advocate of renewable energy but seem to be a troll for the nuclear and coal industry with multiple posts with the same message across multiple blogs.

How about you drop the crap about being a renewable advocate and be honest?

The Oil Drum has been planning a series on this report since it was announced.

The first two parts are on-line now:
The 2008 IEA WEO - The Oil Drum Initial Review (Part 1 of a Series)
The 2008 IEA WEO - The World Energy Model and Energy Demand

Max Reid:  You are spot-on.  The IEA's projections are drawn from the IHS (CERA) database, which has huge flaws in it (not the least of which is the self-reported figures of Saudi and other NOC's).  The IEA's record has been abysmal, and anything it produces should be taken as a paid-for product for the Middle East oil interests and no one else.

From EIA web page:

“In 2004, France produced 540.6 billion kilowatthours (Bkwh) of electricity and consumed 440.6 Bkwh. The country depends upon nuclear energy for 79 percent of its electricity generation.”

540*0.79= 427, or 97% of domestic consumption, the rest is exported.

And yes, nuclear power plants technically could be load-following (in order of 20-100% daily), it is just not economical in current energy mix and overpriced capital costs of nuclear power plants in US.

Andrey - "In 2004, France produced 540.6 billion kilowatthours (Bkwh) of electricity and consumed 440.6 Bkwh. The country depends upon nuclear energy for 79 percent of its electricity generation.”"

So you are saying that every one of the 440.6 BkWh is from nuclear power? Don't they have a requirement for peaking power?

Again no-one really knows where the 79% figure comes from as France imports peaking power from the rest of Europe.

This is possibly where it comes from:

"78 percent of the electricity generated in France -- 419 TWh out of 537 TWh -- is nuclear power."
http://energypriorities.com/entries/2007/05/france_78_nuclear.php

However not all the nuclear power is consumed domestically so the actual fraction of domestic nuclear power is less than this and this would vary from season to season. The point is that economically nuclear is as dependent on backup power almost as much as wind as no-one in free market conditions would ever consider a load following nuke.

Quite apart from that where and how is France storing it's waste, is every kilogram accounted for and are it's facilities secure? BTW Iraqs attempt at building a nuclear reactor was a French effort.

And lets hope it does not get too hot:

http://a4nr.org/library/globalwarmingclimatechange/06.22.2007-globeandmail
"But as Europe prepares for a predicted heat wave this summer, the French electrical utility is also preparing for the possibility that its beloved nuclear power system may not be able to cope. And environmentalists warn that's a sign that nuclear power may not be, as many now argue, a solution to global warming."

It is not just France:

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/22804065/
"“Water is the nuclear industry’s Achilles’ heel,” said Jim Warren, executive director of N.C. Waste Awareness and Reduction Network, an environmental group critical of nuclear power. “You need a lot of water to operate nuclear plants.” He added: “This is becoming a crisis.”

An Associated Press analysis of the nation’s 104 nuclear reactors found that 24 are in areas experiencing the most severe levels of drought. All but two are built on the shores of lakes and rivers and rely on submerged intake pipes to draw billions of gallons of water for use in cooling and condensing steam after it has turned the plants’ turbines.

Because of the yearlong dry spell gripping the region, the water levels on those lakes and rivers are getting close to the minimums set by the Nuclear Regulatory Commission. Over the next several months, the water could drop below the intake pipes altogether. Or the shallow water could become too hot under the sun to use as coolant."

@ender

I have often posted links to good solar projects. When I lived in California, I designed and built a passive solar house. I designed and built a solar hot water system. I will be happy to discuss the merits of such a system.

So Ender, tell me about the performance of your solar PV system? I think it is hypocritical of Ender to suggest that I am dishonest when he has not made the effort to be knowledgeable on the technology he is promoting.

Specifically, ANON did not provide an example (sorry my sarcasm went over Enders head). ANON makes up stuff to support an anti nuke position. Enders made a claim, “The mere fact that a normal person can afford a renewable power plant shows how versatile renewables are.”

If Ender claim is true, there would be many examples. If fact everyone would be doing it.

My solar advocacy is better than Enders.

"To achieve the 450 ppm level, the IEA projects global energy investment is $9.3 trillion, or 0.55% of annual world GDP."

Who in the world would put any credence in these unsupportable claims? Does the tiny 32 nation front organization IEA, really think anyone believes what they say?

"IEA is a Paris-based *intergovernmental* organization founded by the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD) in 1974 in the wake of the oil crisis."