US EIA Projects World Energy Use to Grow 57% Between 2004 and 2030; CO2 Emissions Up 59%
22 May 2007
 |
| Projected CO2 emissions by fuel. Coal’s share is 43% percent in 2030. The most carbon-intensive fossil fuel, coal is the fastest-growing energy source in the IEO2007 reference case projection. Click to enlarge. |
World marketed energy consumption is projected to grow by 57% between 2004 and 2030 to 702 quadrillion Btu, according to the reference case projection from the International Energy Outlook 2007 (IEO2007) released by the US Energy Information Administration (EIA). This is a 2.8% decrease from last year’s IEO2006 report.
The IEO2007 shows the most rapid growth in energy demand for nations outside the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD), especially in non-OECD Asia, where strong projected economic growth drives the increase in energy use.
In the IEO2007 reference case, which does not include specific policies to limit greenhouse gas emissions, energy-related carbon dioxide emissions are projected to rise from 26.9 billion metric tons in 2004 to 33.9 billion metric tons in 2015 and 42.9 billion metric tons in 2030. From 2003 to 2004, carbon dioxide emissions from the non-OECD countries grew by almost 10%, while emissions in the OECD countries grew by less than 2%.
The result of the large increase in non-OECD emissions was that 2004 marked the first time that emissions from the non-OECD exceeded those from the OECD countries. Further, because of the expectation that non-OECD countries will rely on fossil fuels to supply much of their future energy demand growth, carbon dioxide emissions from the non-OECD countries in 2030 are projected to exceed those from the OECD by 57%.
Global energy demand grows despite the relatively high world oil and natural gas prices in the reference case. However, rising oil prices dampen growth in demand for petroleum and other liquids fuels after 2015 and, as a result, reducing their share of overall energy use from 38% in 2004 to a projected 34% in 2030.
 |
| Projected world liquids consumption by sector. Click to enlarge. |
In contrast, the energy shares of natural gas, coal, and renewable energy sources are expected to grow over this period. Liquids consumption is still expected to grow strongly, however, reaching 118 million barrels per day in 2030. Two-thirds of the increment in world liquids consumption in the reference case is projected for use in the transportation sector. The United States, China, and India together account for nearly half of the projected growth in world liquids use.
To meet the increment in world liquids demand in the IEO2007 reference case, supply in 2030 is projected to be 35 million barrels oil equivalent per day higher than the 2004 level of 83 million barrels per day.
 |
| Projected world unconventional liquids production, reference case. Click to enlarge. |
Conventional resources account for about 27 million barrels per day of this increase, with a projected 21 million barrels per day increase in production by members of the Organization of Petroleum Exporting Countries (OPEC) and a 6 million barrels per day increase in non-OPEC countries. Production from unconventional resources (including biofuels, coal-to-liquids, and gas-to-liquids) increases by nearly 8 million barrels per day and accounts for 9% of total world liquids supply in 2030.
Coal consumption, which grows an average annual rate of 2.2 percent, is the fastest-growing energy source worldwide in the IEO2007 reference case projection, which assumes that existing laws and policies remain in effect through 2030 notwithstanding concerns related to the rising level of energy-related greenhouse gas emissions.
World coal consumption increased sharply from 2003 to 2004, largely because of a 17% increase—on a British thermal unit (Btu) basis—in non-OECD Asia (mainly China and India). With oil and natural gas prices expected to continue rising, coal is an attractive fuel for nations with access to ample coal resources, especially in coal-rich countries like China, India, and the United States. These three countries combined account for 86% of the increment in world coal demand by 2030 in the reference case projection.
Higher fossil fuel prices, energy security concerns, improved reactor designs, and environmental considerations are expected to improve prospects for nuclear power capacity in many parts of the world, and a number of countries are expected to build new nuclear power plants. World nuclear capacity is projected to rise from 368 gigawatts in 2004 to 481 gigawatts in 2030.
Declines in nuclear capacity are projected only in OECD Europe, where several countries (including Germany and Belgium) have either plans or mandates to phase out nuclear power, and where some old reactors are expected to be retired and not replaced.
Resources:
Sounds like human CO2 production is just getting started. Al Gore movies and UN science press releases are just background noise that the world as a whole will tune out completely for the next 100 years. That should be obvious to everybody.
Posted by: Rick | 22 May 2007 at 07:11 AM
Projected demand is not the same as actual supply capacity. Have these people not heard of Peak Oil?
Posted by: Ruaraidh | 22 May 2007 at 08:33 AM
Peak Oil is the Doomsday Cult of energy. Every time they predict an end, it never shows up. I agree that petroleum is a finite resource, but the fact that it is more difficult to obtain doesn't mean it is in short supply, just that it will cost more to recover. Besides - CTL. That should tack on a few hundred years to the supply.
Posted by: Joff Pentz | 22 May 2007 at 08:42 AM
Not if we keep buring coal to produce electricity in ever increasing amounts. It doesn't take many years of 4% growth to wipe out "250 years of coal". Throw in CTL with it's EROI and that coal will disappear even faster.
Posted by: tripp | 22 May 2007 at 08:52 AM
Yikes! Better sell that coastal property...
Posted by: Nick | 22 May 2007 at 09:07 AM
You don't have to be a doomsday cultist to understand that the limits of liquid fossil fuel abundance mean that this form of energy isn't likely to be critical for climate change. James Hanson (NASA) uses EIA reserve estimates (which are considered optimistic by many) to show that in fact coal is the critical variable. Check out this post at TOD (http://europe.theoildrum.com/node/2559#more).
Posted by: marcus | 22 May 2007 at 09:29 AM
The fact that countries have oil does not mean that they will sell it to us. Remember the oil embargo of the 1970s.
When countries like China and India want more oil, those counties will just sell to them in currency that is stable.
Posted by: SJC | 22 May 2007 at 09:58 AM
You don't have to be a doomsday cultist to understand that the limits of liquid fossil fuel abundance mean that this form of energy isn't likely to be critical for climate change.
No, you just have to be innumerate.
Posted by: Paul Dietz | 22 May 2007 at 10:20 AM
I'm actually a little more optimistic than most, despite my relative lack of scientific comprehension relative to some that post here.
When I look back at technological change over the past centuries, it is clear that it happens at an increasing rate, and that when the 'next big thing' hits, it changes the world faster than anyone had predicted.
As energy get more expensive, and the effects of global warming become more and more pronounced, more and more resources will be expended to research the implications. At some point, a sea-change renewable technology will become economically feasible on a large scale (probably in reaction to high energy prices). When it does, it will transform society far faster than we can possibly imagine. The reason it hasn't happened yet is simple: we haven't hit a point where people hurt enough.
This is just a philosophical argument, but look at the internet. 15 years ago it was a geeky tool used on college campuses. Obviously global warming isn't the internet, but the point is thaat once 'it' happens, you can't stop it.
...my only REAL concern is how badly we screw up the Earth before we fix the problem.
Posted by: tato | 22 May 2007 at 10:36 AM
Paul, you have read Hansen's paper? Can you tell me where you disagree?
Posted by: marcus | 22 May 2007 at 10:42 AM
It doesn't help your case Paul to call Hansen innumerate, which he obviously is not. Your usual posts are a little more intelligent than this.
Posted by: marcus | 22 May 2007 at 10:49 AM
Tato, While being optimistic about our abilities as a species is probably a virtue, assuming economic or climate signals will come in time to force change is probably more complacency than optimism.
Unfortunately, there are positive feedback mechanisms in geophysics that may mean the warming will be very difficult to slow or reverse once certain tipping points are reached. Melting of ice sheets, reduction of the oceans ability to absorb CO2, release of methane trapped in permafrost and the oceans, are all things that once started may lead to a rapid climate shift.
I realize you were not really advocating complacency, but I just wanted to throw my 2 cents in that being optimistic about our abilities should not diminish our vigilance in demanding quick action in the face of uncertain, though potentially dire consequences.
Posted by: rhapsodyinglue | 22 May 2007 at 11:02 AM
rhapso-
I completely concur. I guess my optimism springs from a belief that complacency will become increasingly difficult to justify, and more importantly, impossible to sustain. Already, the dial has moved significantly in the past 5 years. Fast enough? No way. ...but we haven't yet hit the 'it' that I anticipate, and the pace of change, while slow, is accelerating.
Positive feedback loops regarding climate change will increase the effects of GW, but positive feedback loops exist in technological advancement too. We are currently in the flat section of the exponential curve of climate mitigation tech, my point is that I expect that to change.
Posted by: tato | 22 May 2007 at 11:23 AM
rhapso-
I completely concur. I guess my optimism springs from a belief that complacency will become increasingly difficult to justify, and more importantly, impossible to sustain. Already, the dial has moved significantly in the past 5 years. Fast enough? No way. ...but we haven't yet hit the 'it' that I anticipate, and the pace of change, while slow, is accelerating.
Positive feedback loops regarding climate change will increase the effects of GW, but positive feedback loops exist in technological advancement too. We are currently in the flat section of the exponential curve of climate mitigation tech, my point is that I expect that to change.
Posted by: tato | 22 May 2007 at 11:27 AM
Paul, you have read Hansen's paper? Can you tell me where you disagree?
My mistake, I missed the word 'liquid'. So I agree with you. Sorry.
Posted by: Paul Dietz | 22 May 2007 at 01:19 PM
It's either time to invest tens of billions in alternative energy, or time to break out the magic bus.
Posted by: JC | 22 May 2007 at 01:38 PM
Read this line
"However, rising oil prices dampen growth in demand for petroleum and other liquids fuels after 2015 and, as a result, reducing their share of overall energy use from 38% in 2004 to a projected 34% in 2030."
Oil consumption increased
3.5 % in 2004
1.5 % in 2005
1.1 % in 2006
and also the share of Oil among top-5 sources (Oil, Coal, Gas, Nuclear & Hydro) has dropped to 36 % in 2006.
At this rate, especially if we take into a/c the share of renewables, the share of Oil in 2030 will be 20 % or less.
Currently the share of Wind stands at 0.35 % and Ethanol at 0.25 %. Both are growing at 25 % / year.
After all, neither EIA nor IEA predicted that the Oil prices will hit 60 $ / barrel.
Posted by: Max Reid | 22 May 2007 at 05:32 PM
Its amazing that these guys actually get paid to produce this drivel. Simply take the trendline and plot it without change into the future.
Then make a prediction without any deviation because of reality.
Why I could project Tulip futures ot grow to infinity in the Dutch markets of the 1700s with this application of technology. Some did. And lost their proverbial shirts. Somehow a tulip doesn't cost as much as all the gold in Fort Knox. Wonder where those knot heads and these modern day equivalents went wrong?
Garbage IN Garbage OUT...
Posted by: Stan Peterson | 24 May 2007 at 10:29 PM
rhapsodyinglue,
There are no irreversible phenomenon at work here.
If you REALY wanted to remove all the CO2 in the atmospere since the dawn of the Industrial Revolution, or some aother arbitrary level that you might like, it can be done.
It can be done cheaply and easily as well. Everyone agrees and all environmental organizations acknowledge oceanic sequestration. But they don't want it... You ask them why.
For a lot less than we spend annually just researching either a barely measureable phenomenon of global warming and then assigning some portion of that warming to anthropogenic sources, we could remove all the "excess" atmopheric CO2 and actually, SOLVE any such 'PROBLEM'.
Oeanographers at the Scripps Institute have shown how to 'fertilize' the mid-ocean deserts that have little oceanic plant, and consequently animal life dwelling there. The reason for the biological desert is a lack of a vital trace element necesasary to life that has been eaten out of that body the water. The lacking trace mineral stunting growth?
Why plain old Iron. Rust.
Simply sending a few supertanker loads of rust and blowing it into the wake of these ships as they traverse the mid-oceans would sponsor blooms of plant growth. This growth would be so prolific that the atmosphere would be drained of CO2.
Why haven't we done this except on small and larger scientific experimental scale?
Because its just TOO effective.
We might overshoot and start an Ice Age. The Scripps Oceanagraphic people wanted to do this to repopulate the Whale population, and renew fishery stocks. It would do exceptionally well at that as well. But the Greens apparently don't want to SAVE the Whales!
Posted by: Stan Peterson | 25 May 2007 at 11:43 AM