World Energy 2014-2050 (Part 3)

84 thoughts to “World Energy 2014-2050 (Part 3)”

1. Could you please explain the rationale behind the assumption of the tapering off in growth of solar energy production so soon. Is it because fossil fuel prices will become too high to justify the production costs of PV?
   Surely, we will not have come close to saturating the prime available locations for PV installation, and surely the cost of competing sources of electricity will have risen by 2025-2030.
   I don’t get it. I would have guessed we would still be at the beginning phases (near the end of the second inning- so to speak) of the PV rollout by 2025.
   Thanks much.

   1. Hi Hickory, it is a projection based on the exiting trend (2002-2013). See the discussions under part 2. It’s very tentative at this stage of course.

      Again, the assumption is not the end of growth of PV. On the contrary, it’s equivalent to an assumption that PV growth can continue indefinitely. Whether the PACE OF GROWTH will eventually peak at 150 GW or smaller or bigger, we can only tell as more data are accumulated. I’m only reporting the existing trend here.

      On why the pace of growth will plateau, first, nothing can grow exponentially forever.

      Secondly, there is the land constraint. I mentioned Carlos De Castro’s study under Part 2.

      Thirdly, there are materials constraint, such as steel and silver. Please refer to the discussion I had with Dennis.

      Fourthly, the world install less than 300 GW of all types of new power plants a year. 150 GW would be a half of it. Even if the world installation doubles by 2050, it would still be a quarter of it. And you want to leave some room for wind, hydro, other renewables, and nuclear. Fossil fuels will still be significant.

      Finally, if we double the maximum limit of solar pv growth from 150 GW to 300 GW, most of the results will not be materially changed, though the per capita GDP growth rate towards 2050 may become positive rather than negative. I should also note that I assume a capacity utlization rate of 15 percent for new solar capacity. But the observed capacity utlization rate is only 10%. So I may prove to be too optimistic.

      1. ” I should also note that I assume a capacity utlization rate of 15 percent for new solar capacity. But the observed capacity utlization rate is only 10%. So I may prove to be too optimistic.”

         I really appreciate the way you frequently point out that your projections are based on assumptions rather than unquestioned facts.

         Now there is in my estimation no way to be sure what the utilization rate of solar power would be if there were no subsidies and incentives involved.

         It is dead certain in my opinion at least that the solar manufacturing industry would be only a small fraction of its current size if not for past subsidies and incentives.

         Consequently the cost of pv panels and associated equipment would be substantially greater – perhaps several times greater than at present. There might not even be a solar industry except for a few very small manufacturers producing extremely expensive panels for a few customers with a dire need for fuel free electricity such as researchers or soldiers in remote locations.

         So- it seems safe to assume the industry exists in its current form and size BECAUSE it has been generously subsidized.

         But being an old conservative curmudgeon it is a favorite saying of mine that if you want plenty of something – something undesirable- subsidize it.It may not be pc to say so but at least a few young women (for instance) might be a little more careful about getting pregnant if they knew that there would be no food stamps or WIC or free prenatal care or a free delivery not to mention free school lunches and rent subsidies.

         Subsidies mean that solar power and wind power infrastructure is often going to be built in less than optimal locations and installed in less than workmanlike fashion in the case of small scale systems.

         BUT- and this is a very big but indeed- solar and wind power may soon be built on a commercial scale without the subsidies that irritate neocons so badly.

         If the playing field were really level – if a solar farm could be built as easily as coal fired plants were built in the past- and as quickly without extensive environmental review and so forth. Such a scenario is not out of the question at least here in the US. The tea party may be in control of the purse strings in another decade.

         Given this possibility—–

         Perhaps in a few more years with an end to across the board subsidies we will see the end of pv panels being mounted on tree shaded north facing roofs as Euan Mears has documented at his blog recently.

         I may be all wrong but I think a big solar farm built in an ideal location with tracking equipment can achieve pretty close to twenty five percent of theoretical output.

         My guess is that there are going to be one hell of a lot of BIG solar farms built in nice sunny locations over the next few decades.

         Fifteen percent average long term seems very reasonable to me.

         But naked apes are unpredictable as the weather and we do strange things. I would not be at all surprised to hear about a big solar farm being built in rainy Washington state.

         There should be a way at the federal level at least to subsidize the construction of wind and solar power that makes sense to the entire country.

         A solar farm in Nevada makes far more sense than one in Virginia and a wind farm in Nebraska makes far more sense than one in New Jersey.

         Perhaps what we should do- now and for a few more years- is subsidize new construction in the GOOD spots with federal money and then tax the output adequately to return the subsidy to the treasury .

         This would be fair to everybody while accomplishing the goals of conserving fossil fuels and reducing emissions.

         But figuring out the subsidy and the energy tax sure would be a thankless task in the smoke filled rooms where such deals are cut.

         ( HEY wait a minute- The deals are still getting cut as usual but the people cutting them mostly have to go outside to smoke these days. Things do change sometimes.)

         1. OFM – I must point out that when it comes to subsidies and a level playing field, FF & nuclear have gotten far more help than have wind & solar. Through 2009, in 2010 dollars, Oil & Gas had received $4.86B/yr over 90 years, for a nice fat $437B. Nuclear had received $3.5B/yr over 52 years for $182B. Biofuels received $1.08B/yr over 30 years for $32.4B, and the ‘heavily subsidized’ renewables, $.37B/yr over 15 years for a total of $5.55B, just a little more than the annual subsidy of O & G has received for nearly a century. No doubt these numbers are imperfect, but every place I’ve ever looked has shown the same relative relationship.

            http://i.bnet.com/blogs/subsidies.bmp

      2. PV capacity factor is predominately related to the local climate (got clouds? high temps?) and latitude (e.g. actual sun per year), as well as mounting (and tracking if used). There are some minor technical factors (inverter efficiency, inverter maintenance) and political factors (is the PV ever curtailed, for instance: was it overbuilt as encouraged by the poorly implemented Spanish FIT?).

         I haven’t been able to find a good number for worldwide average, but NREL says US varies from 14% (Seattle) to 24% (Phoenix), so your 15% seems reasonable for ballpark.
         See Figure 3.5, page 56 of:
         http://www.nrel.gov/docs/fy12osti/51847.pdf

         But US != world, as seen in Figure 3.2, page 53 of the above.
         Spain’s PV resource seems most comparable to Idaho!
         And pales besides California, Nevada, Arizona, etc.

         De Castro’s land constraints seem dubious.
         US rooftops, after excluding shaded and suboptimal orientations can supply more than 20% of US electricity.
         All end use electricity in the US can be supplied with 0.6% of the land.
         pg 53-54 in above.

         De Castro seems to have a grudge against PV. In his section 4 he says Trieb says 10-15% transmission line loss “This extra loss alone will break all the future technological improvements of PR parks.” (sic).
         Trieb actually says:
         “As a conclusion, High Voltage Direct Current (HVDC) technology is the best choice for long distance solar electricity transfer from MENA to Europe, bridging several thousand kilometres with electricity losses of only 10 – 15 % and providing stable, high capacity transfer at reasonable cost and with low environmental impact.”
         pg 26 of:
         http://www.dlr.de/tt/Portaldata/41/Resources/dokumente/institut/system/projects/TRANS-CSP_Full_Report_Final.pdf

         BTW – sometime in 2014, there will be 150 GW of PV installed worldwide.
         (35-40 something GW added to the 138 GW as of end of 2013).
         pg 38 ff of:
         http://www.epia.org/fileadmin/user_upload/Publications/EPIA_Global_Market_Outlook_for_Photovoltaics_2014-2018_-_Medium_Res.pdf

      3. Political Economist wrote: “Again, the assumption is not the end of growth of PV. On the contrary, it’s equivalent to an assumption that PV growth can continue indefinitely. Whether the PACE OF GROWTH will eventually peak at 150 GW or smaller or bigger, we can only tell as more data are accumulated. I’m only reporting the existing trend here.”

         Sorry, here you make some errors in reasoning:

         1) It does not matter, whether the growth is linear or exponential, you reach a certain staedy state that is only affected by the life span of your generator and assumed maximum GROSS installation.

         E.g. If we assume a 30 year lifespan of a PV installation and a maximum installation of 150GW per year we would reach after 30 years an accumulated 4.5 TW PV, which would be constant afterwards as 150 GW go off-line due to age per year, i.e. net installation becomes zero.

         2) An alternative approach would be to take the projected maximum demand for electricity in 2050, assume a percentage that could be covered with REs and than think about the maximum gross installation.

         As we can integrate 40% REs into a conventional system withhout problems/excessive storage, my save bet is, that the maximum gross installation is much higher in case of PV and wind than your values. 🙂

         1. Ulenspiegel, your reasoning about installation and maximum capacity is correct. But please read carefully and also refer to Part 2. I am explicitly assuming that no solar power plants will retire between now and 2050 and treat all annual installations as net installations. In other words, I may err on the optimistic side for wind and solar. (But for nuclear, again see part 2, I did take into into account retirement)

            Please also note that this is NOT a demand-driven model. Unlike many of the mainstream models that assume infinite econmic growth but fancy that energy efficiency alone can limit the growth of energy. I am taking a supply-constrained approach. I take available energy (even with possibly optimistic assumption of solar) as the starting point, then calculate reasonable improvement in energy efficiency, and then find out where the GDP will be.

   2. Hickory, US electricity consumption per capita is at the levels of the early 2000s to early to mid-1990s, with little or no acceleration of growth of economic activity occurring as US real GDP per capita trends around 0% since 2007-08.

      The explosion in the growth of solar and wind electricity-generating capacity is occurring with little growth of demand, resulting in growing electricity capacity, i.e., a glut.

      Without the large tax credits/subsidies, and with no growth of electricity demand, I suspect that growth of “renewables” and EVs (especially $100,000 vehicles) will peak sooner than most expect.

      1. If and when domestic subsidies for wind and solar are stopped it is most likely that in the US we will rely on coal and natural gas for another decade or so because we have plenty of both and they will probably be cheaper than renewables for the most part for a decade or longer.

         But I believe that WELL LOCATED wind and solar farms are going to be producing electricity cheap enough to make it economical to curtail gas and coal fired generation on the basis of fuel costs alone in a decade at most.Let’s not forget that the oil and gas industry is dead set on exporting and getting world prices for natural gas.

         A utility that can get itself a big wind or solar farm at with a fixed rate low interest loan today can probably make out like a bandit when gas prices triple in a few years- ten to twenty at the most- by backing off on buying gas. The anti renewables crowd seems to believe that coal plants cannot load follow and it may be true that most existing US domestic coal plants are not well suited to load following but in some parts of the world coal is the primary fuel and they must either be load following or wasting one hell of a lot of damned expensive DELIVERED coal to keep the plants up and at max around the clock.THAT seems very unlikely.

         I conclude that new coal plants can be designed to work reasonably well in conjunction with wind and solar power. I am not an engineer but even a tradesman can see how this could be done- using a bunch of smaller boilers instead of a handful of bigger ones.Small boilers can be fired up or shut down one at a time as needed thus wasting very little coal on hot spinning reserve otherwise provided by one or two large boilers.

         Resource nationalism may result in coal prices soaring beyond any level anticipated due to demand for coal as determined in economic models.

         Another trend that economists seem to miss noticing is that the world in general is headed in the direction of socialism.People expect and get more from government every year and will continue do so unless I am badly fooled.

         One way they will get more is to insist on hefty taxes on exported natural gas and coal.Cynics tend to believe that people such as the Koch brothers in natural resources and rich farmers in California will always get their way but this isn’t always true. The tobacco companies once got their way and they were literally swimming in cash.

         High voltage direct current transmission has been around for a while but the impression I get is that this technology is still in short pants in terms of the industry’s capacity. It will almost certainly grow substantially over the next few decades and as a result the cost of moving renewable power hundreds or even a thousand miles will fall off quite a bit.California cities are not going to vanish. The people there are going to use the ballot box to take the water away from the farmers and they will get a substantial amount of solar power from the Nevada and New Mexico desert east of them if the deserts within the state prove to be inadequate.

         There will be hefty taxes levied eventually on electricity and gasoline as the general living standard declines – which seems inevitable to me given depleting resources and humanity’s ways.

         Electricity prices will probably be set on a sliding scale for personal use. The more you use beyond a certain basic amount the higher the price will go.

         We will not always be a nation owned and operated by the auto oil and highway industries.Every year now we are driving less and a smaller percentage of us drive at all.

         There is a substantial possibility in my opinion that it twenty years we will be paying Euro level taxes on liquid motor fuels with perhaps a tax credit available to get part of the money back for people who use their vehicles for business purposes. The have nots will see to it that this comes to pass.They are going to outnumber the haves before too much longer.

   3. Hickory Man Wrote:
      “Could you please explain the rationale behind the assumption of the tapering off in growth of solar energy production so soon.”

      Another issue to consider is that PV and Wind are intermittent power sources as they can’t provide steady state output as wind and PV systems are dependent on the amount of energy they can harvest at any given time. As more PV and Wind is added to the grid it because unstable as the grid operators have to locate alternative sources which output suddenly drops. The grid can probably handle between 15% and 30% intermittent power sources before it begins to cause grid failures.

      Growth in Installations is correlated to subsidies:
      http://www.rtcc.org/2014/05/22/why-is-the-us-wind-industry-in-the-doldrums/

      I think PE’s PV growth chart is way too optimistic because its unlikely there will be sufficient subsidies and the grid will run into instablity issues as NatGas becomes expensive again making it difficult to operate grid stability NatGas Turbines. Third its hard to believe that the economy will be able to support large PV/wind projects, PE has GDP growth at below 2% for the foreseeable future which is a reasonable forecast. Demographics is a huge problem for the Industrialized world as as aging populations force more resources to pay for entitlements and social services to retirees. We may have already passed peak growth.

      1. TechGuy, I agree. You make the case well.

      2. I doubt grid instability will be much of a brake on the development of solar, because you can put a lot of solar on rooftops, and private homeowners won’t care about instability issues. They won’t feel it is their fault any more than they see their long commutes in SUVs as the cause of traffic congestion.

         All that really matters is the price of PVs, and it is bound to fall. If the “soft” costs get too high, the panel manufacturers will compensate will better efficiency, giving you more bang for your soft cost buck.

         The reason I think solar will grow is what I call the “renewable ratchet”. Gas prices are likely to be volatile in coming decades. when they are high people will buy solar. When the prices fall, people will keep using solar anyway, even if the total cost (including installation costs) is higher than gas, because the marginal cost is zero. They will sit it out. New installation will stop, but solar output won’t. Pretty soon gas prices will go up again, and the ratchet will move up another notch as people start installing solar again.

         1. And if you doubt there is enough room on the rooftops of America to make a difference, consider this: Germany has about 35 GW of solar capacity. Maximum electricity output for the country is <80GW.

            And just look around — easily 90% of the rooftops have no solar. Check Google Earth if you have doubts. It would be easy to triple capacity just with rooftop solar.

2. I know I’m a bore on the topic (hey, Watcher has trucks and proppant–hmm, but Watcher isn’t boring…), but note on the chart of world CO2 emissions 2000-2100 that coal is increasingly the biggie as time goes by.

   We do our part, being number 4 exporter and all while being the good guys about coal use at home. The world uses coal and will continue to do so. The IEA predicted that 70% of the increase would be in Asia, and concern about that should not be concentrated on China. India plus SE Asia have 1.8 billion people, and growing, and much of that part of the world prefers coal for the very good reasons that there’s a lot of it and it’s relatively easy to get hold of.

3. Thanks a lot for a most useful review of future projections.

   Coming from other data sets, I conjecture a Peak CO2 soon after 2100, and an eventual equilibrium global temperature rise of 3 deg C above pre 1900 levels.

   I did a back of envelope calculation recently comparing Aleklett (“Peeking at Peak Oil”, 2012) and Gillett, 2011; http://sos.noaa.gov/Docs/ngeo1047-aop.pdf
   Aleklett uses historical mining data and Gillett relies on IPCC et al emission scenarios. Coal has a large relevance to the following projections. The resulting CO2 in the atmosphere because of different emission assumptions by the authors differs markedly both in peak and long term conjectured concentration. (See concluding comparison below)

   At the present time carbon emission continues to rise and thereby to cause the atmosphere’s accumulated CO2 (as parts per million; presently 400ppm) also to rise – albeit at a slower yearly rate than the carbon emission: See Gillett’s Fig.1.

   I have attempted to translate into the units used by Gillett, the projection by Aleklett of total fossil carbon-burn this century, and thereby to calculate the effect of Aleklett future emissions on atmospheric CO2 levels. Aleklett supposes a further 5740Gboe (barrels oil equivalent all fuels) by year 2100 producing 2330 billion tons of CO2. Taking Gillett’s assumption of 500Pg of carbon emitted to date, I calculate a further 874PgC, making accumulative emissions of 1374Pg carbon by year 2100 (Aleklett), compared with Gillett’s assumed emission of 2200PgC.

   Using Gillett’s ratios of net carbon remaining in the atmosphere (after absorption of C by both ocean and terrestrial surfaces), I see a peak level of CO2 in the atmosphere circa year 2100 of about 550ppm.

   I then re-calibrated assumptions according to Jean Laherrere May 4th 2014.

   Aleklett supposes fewer Gboe (4200) from oil + NG than Laherrere (5200). Aleklett (coal) + J Laherrere total oil + NG = 6750 Gboe by year 2100; or 1010 Gboe or 17-18% increase in C emission, which translates as 175PgC additional = 1549PgC c.f. Gillett 2200PCg. This approximates, using Gillett’s formulation, as circa 580ppm Peak CO2. Of course, CO2 emissions will continue after that date and elevated CO2 will persist for centuries, albeit at lower than the peak value.

   The roughly doubling of CO2 atmospheric concentrations above pre-industrial levels is reasonably calculated to equate eventually to mean global temperature rise of circa 3 deg C (medium climate sensitivity – Rahmstorf: “5 most important data sets of climate science”; http://www.pik-potsdam.de/~stefan/)

   Of course my sketch calculations do not compare with your thorough approach, but it might be interesting that + 3 deg C agrees with your conclusion.
   best
   Phil H

   1. I hope you are right Phil.
      I would not bet on it.

   2. Worrying about carbon emissions and whether or not it is contributing to warming, and by how much, is not good use of our time and effort given Peak Oil, population overshoot, and resource depletion per capita, as we can do next to nothing to make a difference in the intermediate to long term.

      Rather, growth of population and resource consumption/depletion per capita is the proximate cause of most every major challenge we face as a civilization and species.

      Besides, the convergence of the Gleissberg and Suess cycles (every 210-220 years) suggests a possible interplanetary gravitational affect from Jupiter that potentially increases equatorial forcing on the Sun, affecting its angular velocity and average sunspots. The same conditions might increase geophysical forcing on the Earth’s crust, increasing volcanic activity, including underwater volcanoes, in such a way that changes the chemical composition of the oceans, which in turn affects temperature, salinity, ocean currents, and precipitation.

      Therefore, we are more likely to experience mid-latitude cooling over at least the next 20-30 years rather than an increasing trend of atmospheric warming.

      This potential cooling trend lasting at least 2-3 solar cycles will occur coincident with Peak Oil, population overshoot, and depletion of water, arable land, forests, and fisheries.

      Finally, the US Southwest appears to be in the early years of a multi-century mega-drought, which corresponds in the climate record to the Gleissberg-Suess convergence. The mega-drought is similar in timing and potential duration as the one that occurred coincident with the collapse of the Anasazi and Mayan civilizations. As a consequence, Las Vegas, Phoenix, Tucson, and the Palm Desert and Central Valley of CA could experience mass population out-migration in the next 20-30 years. Be forewarned. (BTW, the Army Corps, Interior, and BLM have known about the carry capacity limits and risk of acute water shortages for Las Vegas, Phoenix, Tucson, and CA’s Central Valley as long ago as the 1950s-60s. The reports were censored or shelved by the builders, hotel/resort, lenders, NAR, and local politicos for obvious reasons.)

   3. Hi Phil,

      Nice to see some estimates, I assume you are not including any additional CO2 from melting permafrost or methane hydrates? There is a huge amount of methane that could be released as the temperatures increase. That could get us to 700ppm or so according to some estimates. BTW, 1000-1200ppm starts to effect people directly – more aggressive, head aches, sick building symdrome…

      It’s the double wammy that could do us in – the collapse of civilization and loss of technology due to energy peaking followed by a CO2 triggered planetary mass extinction.

      1. The graphs show almost two thirds of world energy will be fossil fuel burning in 2050. Assuming things keep going as they are (BAU) of course. Preston is quite correct about the methane hydrate and captured CO2 being released in the arctic. Not just from permafrost but from warming seas releasing methane hydrates in the shallower areas of the Arctic Ocean.
         The other problem is the albedo change which swings about 5% of the reflectivity of the planet. That’s around a maximum delta of 12 watts/m2, concentrated in a critical area. As the ice retreats permanetly, the Arctic ocean will rapidly heat causing massive ocean circulation changes and global weather changes. Predictions for this to occur within 10 to 20 years puts the side-effect of fossil fuel burning right up there with peak oil. Desertification across large portions of the northern temperate zone could happen in just a few years after the process reaches peak. Climate changes for certain regions could be severe and storms will become excessively strong on a regular basis.
         At least that is the no change in course scenario.

         There is only one thing to say about all these interlinked pending disasters.
         “Stan, that’s another fine kettle of fish you’ve gotten us into.”

   4. Hi Phil, if CO2 will not peak before 2100, It will mean cumulative emissions many times what are projected in the main post. I suspect it will take us to more than 6C global warming.

      1. I’m afraid your are right.
         Of course, the ecosystems we have lived with in the past will be in the rear view mirror.

      2. Thanks everybody for comments. Well, yes, but there may be a misunderstanding here (including my own).

         I should have added btw that I was putting a ‘lower bound case’.

         The rate at which emissions have increased is not the same as the rate at which atmospheric CO2 concentration has increased by accumulation. (About 43% of the total emission has not remained in the air but has been (is) taken up by the terrestrial and ocean systems. The rate of increase of atmospheric CO2 concentration per annum is a product of the balance of the two processes, emission and sequestration. I refer to Gillet, Fig.1; http://sos.noaa.gov/Docs/ngeo1047-aop.pdf)
         To quote the old saying – ‘we are filling a bath with a hole in it’.

         Aleklett has made the case that individually and collectively oil, NG and coal emissions will reach peak rate well before the end of the century: oil by 2020, NG and coal before mid-century. At the moment, the rise of atmospheric carbon concentration (p.p.m.) per year is climbing with a slight recent acceleration, as net-CO2 emission rate has increased. When the moment comes that the rate at which fossil fuel is burned annually declines, (arguably this is a matter of ‘when’ not ‘if’) then the rate of increase of atmospheric CO2 (currently 2.1% per annum) will begin to decline. At some point as the decline continues, atmospheric Peak CO2 concentration should happen.

         I say ‘should’. I have to add that there are caveats. Perhaps the most significant seems to be if the stratified ocean surface layers reach a point they can take in much less CO2 than they do now: a kind of saturation because for instance photosynthesis rates collapse. This would be very deep doo-doo time indeed if the ocean could no longer ‘sink’ as much of our carbon emissions. This is my personal guess, but there are some better-informed assessments out there.

         Methane I am less concerned with. To raise the rate of emission sufficiently to overwhelm the rapid chemical destruction of CH4 in the atmosphere would require the most enormous belch, and a feedback process that caused further enormous belches. Can’t say this is ruled out, but it does not seem likely at +3 deg C. But ‘deep doo-doo times’ might combine unfavourably?
         Industrial BAU runs some almighty risks: +3 deg C is going to do the most dreadful damage, even if nothing worse befalls over the following centuries of elevated temperatures.
         best
         Phil

         1. Not taking into account that natural feedback systems will make the anthropomorphic CO2 addition look small.
            As far as methane goes, it is a big factor. Even though it eventually breaks down, it’s byproducts, CO2 and H20, are both greenhouse gases.
            The EPA states ‘Pound for pound, the comparative impact of CH4 on climate change is over 20 times greater than CO2 over a 100-year period.”

            From TheEcologist.org ” Methane makes up a small (1.77 parts per million/ppm) portion of the atmosphere compared to carbon dioxide (380 ppm), but is a significant component of the greenhouse effect.

            Methane molecules absorb 20-30 times more infrared energy than carbon dioxide molecules in their respective lifetimes in the atmosphere, and their overall contribution to the greenhouse effect is estimated at 18 per cent compared to 63 per cent for CO2.”

            So methane is a very significant contributor to global warming even at very low levels. When those levels increase from the several trillion tons of methane stored in methane hydrates, it will have a huge impact.

            1. Allan,

               Your comments are spot on. You might add that besides sources such as the arctic permafrost an additional new methane source is leakage from natural gas facilities being exploited on an ever increasing scale. This is non-trivial.

               Doug

      3. Global Warming Wacko Et al,

         I have this strange feeling that numbers, projections, forecasts, models or whatever will not be able to quantify what we are going to face as it pertains to a RAPID NON-LINEAR WARMING EVENT.

         As I stated before, the world knocked down like 12 shots of whiskey, and only felt the impact of the first 2-3 shots. The damage has been done, all we have to do is wait around for the DRUNKEN WORLD to fall off the cliff.

         Looks like 2014 may beat 2012’s record for the lowest Arctic Ice extent in recorded history.

         steve

         

         1. Liberal Lies!

   5. I just have to laugh at this because this has been the first year in 8 years of farming here in Michigan that the soil temperature failed to reach 60 degrees until early June. Normally it reaches that temperature by the middle of May. We had frost here at that time this year. ROTFL…let’s all get real here, global warming is fake, plain and simple. Please…there was still ice on Lake Superior at the beginning of June this year, and the Lake will be lucky to reach 60 degree water temps this summer! In the early 80’s I can remember the water temperature being well into the 70’s along the shore. Global Warming is a massive taxpayer-funded grant generator and little more. What was the CO2 level during the Jurassic period? What was it 1000 years ago…why was the climate warmer then now? Where were all of the SUV’s and Coal plants then? Your messiah al gore didn’t have any carbon spewing mansions back then I don’t think…LOL! So what happened that the world got colder in the 13th and 14th Century AD? What happened to the Greenland Colony, Iceland and to a lesser extent Northern Europe. I am not ignorant…I know what happened, but I bet you climate God worshipers don’t…LOL!

      1. Elaine,

         Thanks for the good laugh. I gather you have no idea that rising temps on the Arctic causes a collapse of the Jet Stream, which forces Arctic cold air to move south.

         Some nitwits actually believe this is a new ICE AGE…LOL

         How can you have a new ice age when Arctic temps are warmer than southern latitudes?

         GOD HATH A SENSE OF HUMOR.

         steve

         1. Elaine,

            What the weather is in May in Michigan has pissants to do with what global temperatures are doing. Actually, 2014 is well on the way to being the warmest year ever recorded on planet earth. As always, we do everyone a disservice for general comprehension when we refer to our predicament as “global warming” rather than something like “global climate disruption” or “climate chaos” because whenever it snows or is cooler than normal for a season, the chorus of “it’s all lies!” will invariably be sung. What you are experiencing is the equivalent of ducking your head in a bucket of ice on a scorching day. As has been pointed out above, however, the ice eventually melts.

            http://www.weather.com/news/science/environment/could-2014-become-warmest-year-record-20140624

            1. My neighbor who worships the global warming God just like the rest of the obedient obama lovin communists just stated a few weeks ago that northern Michigan will be like Tennessee in 5 years. Now next year I am ordering a magnolia and palm tree and photographing them so the visuals will refute the Global Warming fallacy…Both are certain to be dead in a year here. Nice try though.

               1. Hi Elaine,

                  We had a pretty rough winter down here in the mountains of southwest Virginia too. Maybe the worst one locally in twenty five or thirty years. I wonder where the snows and frozen streams of my childhood have gone – we just don’t have solidly frozen streams anymore or really heavy snow that sticks around.My grandfather used to drive his Model T on the New River quite often when he went to visit relatives who lived near it.I haven’t heard of anybody taking a car out on the river in many years now except for a couple that fell through in a hurry and nearly resulted in drownings.

                  The problem is that just about all the other winters – other than this last one -over that time span have been milder than usual compared to the previous half century we have farmed here.

                  These are my own personal experiences and family experiences just as your experiences are yours.It is the averages that count.

                  If you happen to have a tough winter next year google RUSSIAN weather.You will find that it was as much warmer there this past winter as it was colder here in North America.Russia is a larger country than the US when you count Siberia.Incidentally it was uncommonly warm in Alaska too.

                  Google the problems they have had in recent years running the sled dog races.

                  Nobody had figs or pecans here a few decades back but figs are common here now although not a commercial crop.Ditto pecans.

                  And over the last few decades when we have traveled south we have played a ” first” game and documented it with postcards and pics sometimes.

                  The northern most palm trees we see now are thirty or forty miles north of the first ones we used to see. So are the first road killed armadillos.

                  I wonder why.

                  Regardless of what you think of climate change you may want to stick around and maybe you will see some things here concerning peak oil that are useful and interesting to you.

               2. “worships the global warming God just like the rest of the obedient obama lovin communists”

                  Lol, I do hope you are trolling. Seriously!

               3. Rat, who lives in California, which having its hottest year ever recorded, as well as the driest in 500 years, knows that Michigan is the greatest hoax ever put over on mankind.

         2. Moe lies, I guess:

            

            1. Biblical floods happen every year and in many parts of the world. Seattle and California have always been going through dry and wet cycles. The CO2 levels today are some of the lowest ever recorded in geology’s history…go google it for yourself if you don’t believe me.

               Sea level is also way lower now than in the past. I have a sister who lives along the shore in the northeastern part of Maine. This spring at the equinox, the high tides there were 2″ lower than 8 years ago. There’s much more marsh around her house now than ever before because the sea level has been FALLING so much…for example the high tide line is 3 feet further from the shore than the last 4 years…now how are you going to explain that? BTW, how is Vanuatu faring…I thought they were supposed to be under the sea by now…LOL! You people are complete and utter fools to believe the global warming hysteria.

               1. Come now Elaine, what did the graphic say?

         3. Steve,

            “Your messiah al gore…” You really have a knack for attracting some interesting comments. Perhaps “interesting” is the wrong word. Anyway, I agree with your non-linear remark above. When have systems with so many variables behaved in a linear way?

            Doug

            1. Doug & Dan,

               I said it once, and I will say it again, these BORN-AGAIN UNLIMITED GROWTH FER-EVER CAPITALISTS are going to take their assumptions to the grave…. EVEN IF THEY KNOW THEY’s WRONG.

               You know debate is useless when ya hear or see the terms “Liberal Communists” or “Conservative Fascists” regurgitate off them lips.

               Anyone who thinks the ONE SIDE is better than the other… is as good as DONE when it comes to logical reasoning.

               So it’s best to present the data, drink a beer and have a good laugh. Cause these folks CHAIN’T gonna change one IOTA.

               Some say that Jesus died for our sins… but I’d imagine the 100 species going extinct a day has nut’n to do with our sins, but rather out STOOPIDITY.

               Steve

      2. What happens one summer in Michigan really doesn’t matter from a global systems perspective.

         From the Conclusion:

         “World carbon dioxide emissions from fossil fuels burning are projected to peak in 2027. However, the cumulative carbon dioxide emissions from 2012 to 2100 are within the range of RCP 4.5 projected in the IPCC Fifth Assessment report, which may lead to long-term global warming of 3 degrees Celsius relative to the pre-industrial time.”

         If that is true then it pretty much seals the fate of all coral reef ecosystems on the planet.

         So far we are at 0.8 degrees celsius of warming and it is possible that we will have another super El nino event this year similar to the one in 1998-99.

         http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2014/05/el-nino-or-bust/

         The corals can’t handle three degrees of warming let alone the acidification of the oceans.

         http://www.coris.noaa.gov/about/hazards/

         There are a lot of humans who still depend on coral reef ecosystems remaining healthy.

         1. Believe me, collapsing coral will be way down the list of problems in a 3C world.

            1. Dave,

               Who cares about coral. I don’t know any successful businesses that need coral to survive. And if we run out of CORAL, I gather we can just fabricate all the numbers we need off our new 3-D home printers.

               Whord,

               steve

               1. And we can create it on iPhone 8

               2. And if climate change doesn’t exist, then maybe the elites can tap those Siberian methane clathrates for us.
                  And let’s face it, who’s not getting impatient for the Arctic sea ice to completely melt? Certainly not Canada and it’s vast archipelago of future subtropical resorts.
                  In the mean time, ya gotta luv the US governpimp-cum-military-industrial-complex’s geopolitical destabilization racket…
                  When getting there is half the fun.

4. Wow, such long term projections. I thought many in the peak oil blogosphere predicted 2015-2020 as a timeframe for collapse. Now the view is out to the year 2100. So at 58 why am I collecting seeds?

   1. Pretty much all projections either do some sort of least squares fit on linearity or they wave their hands in the air, throw in all sorts of variables about which they make an assumption and draw a line, and then the *sophisticated* ones will have a magical database that will do another least squares fit to whatever polynomial in the database matches it and cross arms across chest.

      Then when an assumption proves wrong, they consult that database again and draw another line with a “Take That!” and recross arms across chest.

      Then a war starts and the database doesn’t hold an equation anymore that will let a LSF line get drawn, at which point new requests for grant money are generated.

      Ya want an analogy? I got one. Starvation. People die long before there are too few actual kilocalories to pump a heart and lungs.

   2. Earl, at the trend rates of US extraction of oil and gas, reserves, consumption, and exports since 2008, by no later than 2017-19, the US will have extracted 50% or more of proved profitably recoverable reserves, setting us up for permanent depletion per capita, falling net exergetic flows per capita, and the risk of outsized contraction of real GDP per capita, including local shortages of gasoline and eventually consumer goods.

      Forced conservation and rationing of gasoline is an increasingly likely probability by the end of the decade or early 2020s. A growing majority share of the bottom 90% of the population will eventually not be able to afford the cost of operating an auto, gasoline or EV variety. However, the suburban/exurban oil- and auto-based economic model depends upon the vast majority of households owning a vehicle to get back and forth to paid employment and to retail stores.

      Growth ended in 2005-08, only $6 trillion in fiscal deficits, $3.5 trillion in bank reserves, and the stock market adding back $15 trillion in fiat digital debt-money credits (thanks to offshore shadow banks levering Treasuries and MBS 100:1 to jam equity index futures) has temporarily allowed us to believe that BAU is the norm and growth will continue and again reach 3% real GDP trend; it won’t.

      1. “Never has a society entered an epochal transition with such unpreparedness.

         Never has a society appeared so childishly decadent.”
         -JHK

         1. Dave,

            I’d buy that for a DOLLAR.

            steve

            1. I’m open source, copyleft.

      2. I personally believe that peak natural resources means a hard crash sometime in the not too distant future that MIGHT mean the end of life as we know it.

         But I do not anticipate peak oil destroying the suburbs in this country as so many other people in forums such as this one do.

         I am not a techno cornucopian by any means but on the other hand I do believe in existing technology which I have seen with my own eyes and I have seen three five technological things that have convinced me that we are going to be able to live in the ‘ burbs for the indefinite future and I have observed one human trait that convinces me the technology will be adopted.

         The five things are wind turbines, photovoltaic panels, a Nissan Leaf a Chevy Volt, and a Tesla S. I could reasonably add one more that I have not seen but is certainly possible without any new tech- a super subcompact hybrid or pure electric car.

         When we are finally faced with the choice driving hybrids or pure electrics and super compact cars due to unaffordable or strictly rationed gasoline or giving up the suburban castle with its bit of greenery and outside space and privacy and moving into a ( mostly non existent ) high rent apartment downtown we will drive the electric cars.

         The vast majority of commuters can make their daily trip in Leaf right now. They may have to give up the side trip on the way home but that is a small price to pay for giving up home.

         Unless the idiots who are obsessed with safety prevent them from being sold we will be able to buy a two seat fore and aft hybrid sub sub compact within a decade that will get well over fifty miles on the battery and as many as can be wanted in one day on a fill up of gasoline or diesel. I am predicting a five hundred mile range on no more than six gallons of diesel at 50 mph at an even sixty.Reducing the frontal area and weight of a vehicle works wonders for fuel economy and these coming cars are going to be very light and very slick aerodynamically as well as having a very small frontal area compared to todays cars.

         Speed limits will be lowered of course to conserve fuel but perhaps there will be high speed lanes reserved for pure electrics charged with renewable power just as there are high speed lanes reserved today for multiple passenger vehicles.

         Remember the choice is not going to be between or about the super compact and the ordinary car of today.

         It is going to be about the house and yard and garage and swimming pool and flower bed and cooking out as opposed to living in a (nonexistent? ) apartment.

         Of course if I were a young man I would also consider the savings possible by giving up a car altogether and spending that saved money on a nice place in town. I might be able to find something decent for an extra five hundred or more a month which is hardly more than enough( probably not enough for most people) to own a car and commute in it.

5. Note that the average trend rate of real GDP per capita since 2007-08 is effectively 0% for the US, EZ, and Japan, and not much faster than 0.5% for the world vs. the long-term average rate of ~2.1%.

   Also, China’s growth of real GDP per capita has contributed to a large majority share of the slow world real GDP per capita growth since 2007-08.

   Therefore, on a 6- to 7-year trend basis, the average rate of world real GDP per capita is well below 1%, placing the date for “depression” much closer to today than 2040.

   Moreover, Richard Duncan of Olduvai Theory fame/infamy projected a date of 2030 for the end of oil-based civilization, owing to the cumulative decline of energy per capita. I suspect that this date is a reasonably good estimate, which implies that the growth of extraction of costlier crude oil substitutes is likely peaking and will eventually decline at an accelerating rate per capita.

   Moreover, the lack of growth, or decline, of affordable liquid fossil fuels per capita to maintain real GDP per capita growth will also prevent further growth of build out of so-called “renewables”, including solar and wind.

   Peak Oil, population overshoot, and now accelerating depletion of aquifers, arable land, forests, and fisheries ensures the end of growth of real GDP per capita and of population growth by the 2030s.

   1. BC Wrote:
      “Therefore, on a 6- to 7-year trend basis, the average rate of world real GDP per capita is well below 1%, placing the date for “depression” much closer to today than 2040.”

      Nice assessment BC.

      FWIW: we already appear to be in a global depression, but gov’t spending and borrowing is delaying it. Consider that real global GDP growth is 2% or less, but the global debt is growing by about 5% or more than twice as fast as GDP. I find it difficult to believe that the borrowing binge will last much longer.

      “Global Debt Exceeds $100 Trillion as Governments Binge”
      http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2014-03-09/global-debt-exceeds-100-trillion-as-governments-binge-bis-says.html
      “The amount of debt globally has soared more than 40 percent to $100 trillion since the first signs of the financial crisis as governments borrowed to pull their economies out of recession and companies took advantage of record low interest rates, according to the Bank for International Settlements.”

      “Adjusting budgets to ignore interest payments, the International Monetary Fund said late last year that the so-called primary deficit in the Group of Seven countries reached an average 5.1 percent in 2010 when also smoothed to ignore large economic swings. The measure will fall to 1.2 percent this year, the IMF predicted.”

      1. Yes, and note that gov’t spending to GDP in the Eurozone (EZ) is 52%.

         However, in the US, if one combines local, state, and federal gov’t spending, including public health care, debt service (“rentier taxes”), and private health care, the total is an equivalent of 50% of US GDP. We’re in the same situation as the EZ and Japan, only what the Europeans directly tax to pay for, e.g., public health care, we pay twice or more as a share of GDP for in the form of OUTRAGEOUS insurance premia, deductibles, co-payments, and coinsurance to for-profit insurers and medical services providers.

         And we pay more as a share of wages and GDP for debt service costs than most European countries do (with some notable exceptions).

         But in both cases, if spending for gov’t, private debt, illness, and aging and dying does not increase, the economy does not grow. However, if the economy cannot grow, then incomes and tax receipts cannot support growth of spending on gov’t, debt, illness, and aging and dying: catch-22.

         What a “sick” (and dying) system we have.

         1. Very interesting. Modern GDP is mostly about government, debt, illness, aging, and dying. This is well said.

6. When Richard Duncan was first touting the importance of per capita energy I had some reservations, at least in the short term. Circa 1979 I and my family were driving a large Ford station wagon and a used Cadillac. The Ford got about 10 mpg overall and the 8 liter Cadillac was little better. Subsequently there were progressive improvements in milage related to downsizing, adoption of front wheel drive, and improved engine technology. The US automobile industry had also encountered technical problems related to the mandatory removal of tetraethyl lead from gasoline. Adaptation required several years. The energy crisis of the 70’s thus started the tendency to decline of oil or energy per capita, negated somewhat by increasing popularity of trucks and urban assault vehicles. Do most drivers of today’s vastly improved sedans feel deprived?. Energy use related to architecture may have been a smaller factor?? Long term issues are a different matter.

   1. robert, look at the debt to wages and GDP added to the economy since the 1970s, as well as the ensuing deindustrialization, financialization, and feminization (fastest-growing spending and employment sectors have been “education”, “health care”, financial services, and gov’t, the proportion of female employees being 60% to 80-85%) of the economy.

      Now we will see over the next 10-20 years the hyper-financialized and feminized sectors of the economy undergo a similar disruption from technological innovation and automation and elimination of paid employment and purchasing power for women without net replacement as men experienced since the 1970s-80s.

      1. BC, I tend to agree with you regarding debt to wages and feminization of the economy. I respect Richard Duncan, especially considering that he worked with Walter Youngquist.
         But I was skeptical of per capita energy production as a valuable short term indicator.

         1. Ooh, cool. Feminization of economic activity.

            Is oil consumption masculine or feminine?

            1. Watcher,

               “Is oil consumption masculine or feminine?”

               It seems to me obvious that men are the big fuel users. I discussed this while taking my wife to the airport on her way to Tokyo and she agreed; we continued discussing this when I picked her up returning via Norway (on her way from Japan it seemed sensible to visit a sick aunt in Bergen) and we can go into more detail soon, because there in a Quark-Gluon Plasma conference in Italy on that……….

               Doug

               1. Not many female truck drivers out there. Of course those trucks feed the female education administrators.

               2. All shipping oil consumption is female, because ships are referred to as “she”.

                  Except Russian ships. They are “he”. Not sure why.

               3. I had a friend who worked on a vessel called “The Heroin Merchant”. Is that male or female?
                  Being in Alaska, it may of been in Russian waters.

               4. Dave,

                  Are you sure it wasn’t heroine; which would of course be feminine. Heroin smacks of M.

               5. I agree, it does smack.

7. Robert Wilson Wrote:
   ” Do most drivers of today’s vastly improved sedans feel deprived?. Energy use related to architecture may have been a smaller factor??”

   Transportation is just the tip of the iceberg. I suspect that many are finding themselves wage or income challenged as good paying jobs disappear and being replaced with low wage jobs. Less Energy means less jobs as businesses cut costs and improve production efficiencies. Falling wages also means less money to spend on consumer goods. Our economy and living standard is dependent of the availably of cheap energy.

   1. Tech Guy,

      Everybody seems so concerned about the loss of good paying jobs. The oilfield is in a boom at the moment. I don’t hear of people racing off to fill the positions? They all seem to be waiting for the jobs to come to their front door, and the beauty of the oil field work is, you do time on time off. That is you are able to travel home if you want to on you break time.

      It seems in bad times past, people were willing to move to where the employment is, now people want to work where they want to live. Ok if you can afford the luxury. In the meantime the oil field will continue to pay over the odds to attract those willing to be mobile.

      I realized a long time ago, jobs that people want/like to do, don’t pay very well, where as jobs people don’t like to do, pay much better.

8. The arguments about energy production from FF’s neglect to consider the amount and quality of the water used by the mining, transport, refining, and burning of said fuels. The water ‘problem’ may indeed be a much more limiting factor on FF use/abuse than is projected in the several future scenarios that have been mentioned in the several commentaries offered here.

9. The collapse in the UK’s North Sea oil production is all down to the tax system (apparently):

   http://www.telegraph.co.uk/finance/newsbysector/energy/oilandgas/10952376/Washington-blames-UK-tax-rises-for-collapsing-North-Sea-oil-hopes.html

   The article does at least point out that the UK’s balance of payments is a disaster zone which is eventually going to have consequences.

10. http://online.wsj.com/articles/north-dakota-fracking-behind-the-oil-train-explosions-1404761720

    “When energy companies started extracting oil from shale formations in South Texas a few years ago, they invested hundreds of millions of dollars to make the volatile crude safer to handle.

    In North Dakota’s Bakken Shale oil field, nobody installed the necessary equipment. The result is that the second-fastest growing source of crude in the U.S. is producing oil that pipelines often would reject as too dangerous to transport.

    Now the decision not to build the equipment is coming back to haunt the oil industry as the federal government seeks to prevent fiery accidents of trains laden with North Dakota oil. Investigators probing crude-by-rail accidents, including one a year ago that killed 47 people in Quebec, are trying to determine why shale oil has proved so combustible—a question that has taken on growing urgency as rail shipments rise.

    Only one stabilizer, which can remove the most volatile gases before transport, has been built in North Dakota and it hasn’t begun operation, according to a review by The Wall Street Journal.

    Stabilizers use heat and pressure to force light hydrocarbon molecules—including ethane, butane and propane—to form into vapor and boil out of the liquid crude. The operation can lower the vapor pressure of crude oil, making it less volatile and therefore safer to transport by pipeline or rail tank car.”

    This may explain a few things.
    I can see US crude oil production going down and condensate production going up as companies finally realize they have been producing condensate after all. Silly them, sarc off.

    1. I realised I left a bit out, so it probably didn’t make sense.

       I have been harping on about vapour pressure for a while, never realized that ND didn’t stabilize their oil at all. But things will probably change quickly now that stabilized oil, sorry condensate, maybe allowed to be exported. I can see US crude oil production going down and condensate production going up as companies finally realize they have been producing condensate after all. Silly them, sarc off.

       1. Yup.

          Yup.

          All of that train car volume isn’t oil. But that’s what gets plotted on graphs.

          1. Watcher,

             It will be interesting to see with the new definition of “stabilized ” condensate, being able to be exported, it the C&C balance changes, and being stabilized that means the NGL, Propane and most likely butane, will most likely go up, with a corresponding decrease in those Crude numbers.

             We will wait and see, firstly ND seems to need to build some stabilizers, just to get into the game.

             1. I’ve been recently looking up articles on NGL production from the Bakken. They exist, but they are muted.

11. interesting piece on microgrids

    http://ensia.com/features/the-emerging-power-of-microgrids/

12. Anybody else get the impression from the media that things are settling down in Iraq?

    “A senior general of Iraqi Prime Minister Nuri al-Maliki’s army was killed in a mortar attack west of Baghdad on Monday even as Iraq’s newly elected parliament postponed its next session until Aug 12 amid political deadlock over formation of a new government.”

13. “Egypt was set to raise mainstream fuel prices by up to 78 percent from midnight on Friday, an Oil Ministry source told Reuters, in a long-awaited step to cut energy subsidies to ease the burden on its swelling budget deficit. Food and energy subsidies traditionally eat up a quarter of state spending. The government is cutting subsidies in hopes of reviving an economy battered by more than three years of political turmoil.”

    Ahh. There we have ECONOMICS.

    You make the populace pay more for gasoline — because this is stimulative.

    1. Note that both Indonesia and Egypt maintained petroleum consumption subsidies all the way down to the vicinity of zero net oil exports.

14. Some useful info on water and oil in California

    http://www.nytimes.com/2014/07/08/us/california-drought-chevron-oil-field-water-irrigation.html?_r=0

15. This is good news for solar PV. Assuming a 30 year lifespan, and 150 GW installed per year, this means at least 4500 GW of solar PV in the future, which means 700 W per person. Plenty enough for everyone to have a good lifestyle.

    1. canabuck wrote:
       “this means at least 4500 GW of solar PV in the future, which means 700 W per person”

       Unlikely because on average PV panels only collect about 5.5 hours at their rated capacity

       http://www.ext.colostate.edu/pubs/consumer/10624.html
       “Colorado averages 5.5 hours of electrical-generating sun each day, 300+ days per year.”

       Some areas get more. I believe Arizona has the most and northern states like Washington state get the least. Not only because of the number of daylight hours but because of weather (rain, snow, overcast, etc)

       For 700W continuous power (excluding storage/conversion losses) you need about 5 times the PV power to address the the intermittment output (ie Sun low on horizon, night, weather, etc) so for 700W you need about 3500W of PV panels. for 700W per person as you calculated you need at least 22,500 GW of PV panels.

       PV panels also degrade over time. losing some output over time:
       http://energyinformative.org/lifespan-solar-panels

       There is also a huge problem with storage, as there is no viable long term energy storage system available. Chemical Batteries are a dead end as they all degrade rapidly and need to be replaced every 5 years or less depending on how frequently they cycle (discharge/recharge). Fuel cell are too expensive and need frequent rebuilds. The only long term solution is pumped water storage where excess power is pumped into a reservoir and use a water turbine to extract stored energy. Unfortunately there is not a sufficient number of potential sites that have the appropriate gravity potential, in areas that have sufficient water available and that have been already been developed (ie People already are living there and making use of the land).

       Also PV manufacturing creates a lot of pollution. Lots of mining for heavy metals for CdTe panels, and lots of hazardous waste produced to refine Silicon.

16. PE – In the interest of helping you get your analysis to reach more eyes, I offer the following writing tip, wherein I have edited your description of Figure 25 for brevity:

    Figure 25 shows the world historical and projected primary energy consumption from 1950 to 2050. The Projected world energy consumption from 2014 to 2050 is based on the projected world production of oil, natural gas production[and] coal production, [and the] consumption of nuclear electricity hydroelectricity consumption, wind electricity consumption, solar electricity consumption, geothermal, biomass, and other renewable electricity consumption, and biofuels production explained in the above sections. I made minor adjustments to the projected natural gas production and coal production to account for the difference between production and consumption due to inventory change and transformation losses.

    (Hope you take this in the spirit of constructive criticism it is intended, and w/out an edit function on here, I hope it appears as I intend)

    Thanks for all your work posted here!

    1. Thank you for your tip

17. Why do project the leveling off to occur at ~2025? I assume that you are factoring in the continued (so far) price decreases of photovoltaics and the continued, slow increase of coal electricity prices. Given how quickly annual production has ramped up recently, leveling off at ~140 seems conservative.

18. It’s incredible that some people do still believe in old “peak oil” theories. As I explain in my book “The Peak Oil Myth Debunked” ALL the predictions announced by several doomsyers proved wrong, oil hasn’t “peak” in 1998, neither in 2001, niet in 2010. The reason is very simple: our planet is mostly unexplored. From Titusville to our days 50% of oil exploration drilling was confined within the US territory which makes less than 9% of the worlds’ continental area (excluding Antarctica). This clearly shows that world oil exploration is in its infancy. Many African and Asian countries only count one drillhole per thousand square miles. On top of this, oceanwise we are still at the very start of exploration activities. Even without fracking billions of barrels are still hidden in numerous sedimentary basins waiting for new entrepreneurs to take the chance.

Comments are closed.