Print 19 comment(s) - last by clovell.. on Nov 21 at 2:16 PM

The International Energy Agency has called for a global energy revolution, while announcing various energy projections in their recently published annual report.

The International Energy Agency (IEA) has announced the need for a global energy revolution in order to ensure future supplies and to stem the rise of greenhouse gas emissions

According to the IEA’s annual report, 2008 World Energy Outlook (WEO), published last week, the world's energy system is "at a crossroads" with needs of refurbishment regarding  traditional supply and consumption methods.  

IEA’s Executive Director, Nobuo Tanaka, explained, "Current trends in energy supply and consumption are patently unsustainable -- environmentally, economically and socially -- they can and must be altered."

The WEO report does not assume new government policies, but it does suggest all governments take action quickly, in order to "steer the world towards a cleaner, cleverer and more competitive energy system."    

While the WEO is without government policy suggestions, it does offer a variety of projections. Among these exists the forecast of an increase in energy demand occurring at the rate of 1.6 percent year on year until 2030.  This overall increase of 45 percent would result in an estimated cost of $26.3 trillion. Also regarding costs, the WEO sees the "credit squeeze" as a threat, with the power of undermining investment and in turn, causing energy supply troubles in time to come.

The WEO also sees the demand for coal rising so high that it will become greater than that of any other fuel.  

As for oil, it "will remain the world's main source of energy for many years to come, even under the most optimistic of assumptions about the development of alternative technology," with a demand rising from 85 million barrels per day to 106 mb/d by the year 2030. This predicted increase in demand does not come as surprising due to the decline of production rates at oil fields and "dwindling opportunities to increase reserves and production" occurring within oil companies.

China and India will help in creating over half of the increased energy demand, according to the WEO, and the Middle East will grow to be a key new demand center. Share of energy demand will rise in cities around the world from two thirds to three quarters by 2030, with nearly all of the fossil-energy production’s rise taking place in non-OECD countries.

Tanaka explained, "Rising imports of oil and gas into OECD regions and developing Asia, together with the growing concentration of production in a small number of countries, would increase our susceptibility to supply disruptions and sharp price hikes…At the same time, greenhouse-gas emissions would be driven up inexorably, putting the world on track for an eventual global temperature increase of up to six degrees Celsius."

These forecasted rates project the increase of energy-related CO2 emissions from their current mark at 28 gigatons to an increased number of 41 gigatons by 2030, resulting in an overall rise of 45 percent.

The stabilization of greenhouse gas concentrations at 550 ppm would invoke a temperature increase of approximately three degrees Celsius. It would also require energy emissions to increase to the point of that no higher than 33 gigatons, and  this would need to drop over time.

Both renewable and carbon-efficient fossil-fuel energies are forecasted to contain shares of the energy mix which will need to be increased from 19 to 26 percent by 2030 and will also need to fulfill the requirement of an extra $4.1 trillion of investment, on top of a projected $26.3 trillion figure, in order to accomplish this.  

Hitting a 450 ppm target, an accomplishment which, according to NASA scientists, could set off dangerous warming, presents a significantly more difficult situation. Emissions would need to arrive at a level of no more than 26 gigatons, and low-carbon energy would need to supply 36 percent, costing $9.3 trillion (0.6 percent of annual world GDP).

Tanaka further explained the challenges of hitting this 450 ppm achievement: "We would need concerted action from all major emitters. Our analysis shows that OECD countries alone cannot put the world onto a 450 ppm trajectory, even if they were to reduce their emissions to zero."

While these projections only, in fact, serve as such, "one thing is certain,” according to Tanaka. "While market imbalances will feed volatility, the era of cheap oil is over."

Comments     Threshold

This article is over a month old, voting and posting comments is disabled

People respond
By FITCamaro on 11/20/2008 9:00:05 AM , Rating: 2
"Shut up you lying idiots."

All signs are more pointing to a global cooling trend. Not warming.

Regardless of which it is, we don't control it. To believe we do is pure ego. The Earth's climate has fluctuated for billions of years. Long before we were ever around and burning fossil fuels.

I almost pray for another ice age to quickly enter so we can once and for all shut these people up.

RE: People respond
By martinrichards23 on 11/20/2008 10:46:52 AM , Rating: 2
That argument is now a pointless sideshow.

The real reason to reduce carbon output is to secure energy supplies and reduce localised air pollution.

I for one am not entirely happy about relying on the Middle East for my petrol and Russia for my gas.

RE: People respond
By FITCamaro on 11/20/2008 12:51:34 PM , Rating: 2
Both Canada and Mexico give us more oil than Saudi Arabia. Nigeria isn't far behind. There's Venezuela too but I wish we didn't buy from them either.

And all the more reason to push for drilling right here at home. We have the potential to out produce every country in the world.

RE: People respond
By tjr508 on 11/21/2008 8:34:01 AM , Rating: 2
Being as he said his gas comes from the Ruskies, I believe his comments come from somewhere in Europe.

RE: People respond
By SublimeSimplicity on 11/20/2008 3:48:07 PM , Rating: 2
I think trees and plants would argue with you about classifying CO2 as a pollutant.

RE: People respond
By bdot on 11/20/2008 10:53:41 AM , Rating: 3
That is exactly what i was thinking. Predicting temperature in 2030, how about tomorrow or next week?

I have a prediction, by 2030 government bodies and agencies will be instituting even more misguided knee jerk policies based on some impossible scientific consensus.

RE: People respond
By mdogs444 on 11/20/2008 11:10:24 AM , Rating: 2
That is exactly what i was thinking. Predicting temperature in 2030, how about tomorrow or next week?

No kidding...last I checked the local weather stations can't even pridict next weeks temperatures that accurately besides saying its cold or warm.

RE: People respond
By AnnihilatorX on 11/20/2008 11:52:29 AM , Rating: 2
Your argument is flawed
In statistics, predicting random fluctuations in near future to an accurate degree is impossible, but predicting a average future value is usually possible.

How much do you really know about science to be disrespecting the scientific consensus? How much research have you done for you to say the scientific consensus is impossible? Anyone can choose not to believe but saying something is impossible require much more than belief.

RE: People respond
By bdot on 11/20/2008 12:29:19 PM , Rating: 3
A consensus is founded on opinion. Science is not.

How much do you really know about science to be disrespecting it with consensus? How much science have you done where your asked to present an opinion and not observation?

RE: People respond
By Ringold on 11/20/2008 4:34:09 PM , Rating: 2
How much do you really know about science to be disrespecting it with consensus?

I know the same consensus was that we'd have an ice age back in the 70s. Woops. I know econometricians have a hundred years of detailed data and supercomputers upon which to work their models, but almost nobody saw the breadth and depth of this current global malaise coming. I know that the Japanese in the 80s thought stocks could only go up, and they've fallen huge and not advanced for a quarter century, and economic issues like this are probably much easier to forecast than complex global climate conditions. We've been studying economics for thousands of years versus global warming for a couple decades and still don't know and understand everything about econ, and yet I'm expected to blindly accept the great wisdom of climate scientists working on a far more complex, and new, field? I find the certainty with which some people speak of their models to be somewhat arrogant. I know enough about econometric forecasting to know that models almost never deserve so much faith, regardless of confidence intervals, etc. Relevant variables can change, variables once thought irrelevant can become key, relationships can be poorly understood, etc. Models produce a rough guide for the future, they're not fact-generators.

RE: People respond
By MatthiasF on 11/20/2008 5:24:30 PM , Rating: 3
No future value, average or otherwise, can be accurately produced if all the dependent variables are not accurate and no solid model for prediction is established.

Who determines the accuracy of long-term data (ice cap metrics, tree ring data)? Is the short-term data any more accurate (filtered satellite maps, skewed temperature sources)? Which climate model is right (out of the hundreds theorized)?

Keep in mind, all of this is being derived from humans and a great amount of the pro-Global Warming research was made using moneys spent specifically to find it. It creates a conflict of interest and a system that did not predict the coldest year in four decades.

RE: People respond
By arazok on 11/20/2008 3:40:31 PM , Rating: 2
I almost pray for another ice age to quickly enter so we can once and for all shut these people up.

Why? So some twit can adjust the models to show that global cooling is caused by CO2 as well?

When data came to light showing NO global warming since 1998, and even a slight cooling trend in recent years, some pinhead adjusted the models to show that global warming would take occasional breaks, only to make up for it later. I would have believed it if someone had said it BEFORE the break occurred.

RE: People respond
By Ringold on 11/20/2008 4:49:10 PM , Rating: 2
All signs are more pointing to a global cooling trend.

Yes yes, I know it's anecdotal evidence, but this year has seen one of the most mild summers in Florida I can remember. We also had a freeze before Halloween and have set fresh historic daily low temperatures several times. We're not even out of hurricane season and already seeing freezes? If it keeps getting colder, I feel bad for our citrus farmers. The amount of time citrus can survive freezing is measured in mere hours if I'm not mistaken.

There is only one potential upside. Like probably the majority of Floridians, I don't have the wardrobe for a cold winter. Florida retailers, therefore, may have a decent Christmas as Floridians discover what long johns are. :P

To go back to last year, we had snow last year. Snow. I know a lot of born-and-raised Floridians who had never seen snow in person until they woke up, went out to the car to go to work, and saw the snow hadn't melted off the top of their cars yet. It also snowed in Baghdad (cold day in hell?), and we've all probably heard of China's horrible winter last year.

If this is global warming, I'd hate to see global cooling.

RE: People respond
By FITCamaro on 11/20/2008 10:39:31 PM , Rating: 2
Where in Florida do you live? I didn't hear about any snow. I'm in SC and it didn't snow here. Had plenty of really cold mornings, but no snow here in Charleston. It did "snow" though in November of 2006 the day after I moved into town.

RE: People respond
By Ringold on 11/21/2008 1:30:24 AM , Rating: 2
The snow was last year, none of that so far this year. I live in Sanford, just north of Orlando, but the snow last year was mostly if I recall in Daytona and over that way. We didn't have the moisture here necessary for that, it was just plain cold. I know it's not uncommon to get snow flurries along the coast over there, but to wake up and for snow to have survived the morning was pretty unusual, the news made a big deal out of it at the time.

RE: People respond
By AlexWade on 11/20/2008 10:11:25 PM , Rating: 1
No no no. You see, it is called "climate change" now. So, when it does indeed get cold, it is still our fault, now pay up.

"DailyTech is the best kept secret on the Internet." -- Larry Barber

Latest Headlines

Most Popular ArticlesAre you ready for this ? HyperDrive Aircraft
September 24, 2016, 9:29 AM
Leaked – Samsung S8 is a Dream and a Dream 2
September 25, 2016, 8:00 AM
Yahoo Hacked - Change Your Passwords and Security Info ASAP!
September 23, 2016, 5:45 AM
A is for Apples
September 23, 2016, 5:32 AM
Walmart may get "Robot Shopping Carts?"
September 17, 2016, 6:01 AM

Copyright 2016 DailyTech LLC. - RSS Feed | Advertise | About Us | Ethics | FAQ | Terms, Conditions & Privacy Information | Kristopher Kubicki